TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: The Lake From:bbatorsk -at- nj -dot- devry -dot- edu To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:56:40 -0400
Andrew and Gwen,
Excuse my flagrant disregard of the rules of quotation ("bullocks" to the
at MLA, and maybe even STC), but I'm busy and because I believe the greater
good is served by moving the conversation along, I have mauled your posts
by removing some "colorful" language and what seemed tangential arguments
not pertaining to the issue of "orchestrating" information flow. I got the
following. Did I miss something? I did assume,from the first quoted
sentences, that Andrew's systems analysis was anent "orchestrating the flow
At 09:58 AM 6/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
Gwen Thomas wrote..
>How have the rest of you thought about orchestrating the
> flow of information you need?
Andrew Plato responded, in parts:
>[Information Flow] is a complex system composed of very simple elements.
The problems with most information systems are:
Structure over substance
Tyrants and control freaks
Lack of vision
Most companies try to build info systems by first defining a lot of rules,
policies, and structures. Structure with no substance is [wrong]. It is
impossible to design something effectively if you don't know how it will be
used or what should go inside.
Try this: Just collect information. Don't worry about it being in a perfect,
logical order. Just keep collecting until the body of data becomes more
than [(sic) you can?] handle. Then start pruning. Break it down and
digest it into simpler
What many writers try to do is break things into smaller components
immediately. Then when one component doesn't fit with another - they have to
redigest the whole thing and start over. Rather than seeing information as a
dynamic pool where all things can interact - they see data as a huge,
senselessly complex hierarchy. And when something doesn't fit into the mold,
they go berserk and shut down. How many times have you watched another writer
cross their arms and bitch about how "they" keep changing things at the last
Also people lose sight of the ultimate intention of information systems -
effective delivery of information. If you cannot deliver information
than all your processes are worthless and should be immediately scrapped.
Mostly, you need writers who can be creative and realistic.