RE: Structure and substance: stability and flexibility

Subject: RE: Structure and substance: stability and flexibility
From: "Carnall, Jane" <Jane -dot- Carnall -at- compaq -dot- com>
To: "'intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com'" <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>, Techwrl-l <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:07:55 +0100

I wrote ...
>> Now, if we could all just agree to ignore AP when he starts shouting that

>> we DON'T NEED PROCESSES, we might actually have a good
>> about how we can achieve that.

and Andrew Plato responded:

<You clearly have not read my posts completely.>

Oh, yes, I did.

<I never said I don't use processes and do everything in chaos. You're
type-casting my argument just to make your own point. >

Yes. Irritating, isn't it, when someone else does it to you? <g> I notice
you're not saying you don't shout.

< Extensive process and procedure and the expense of knowledgeable writers
is wasteful.>

I don't think that the expense of knowledgeable writers is wasteful. Do you?

Nor do I think that extensive process and procedure is wasteful. It would be
wasteful if you created a one-off process for each task and never re-used
it, but the point is to develop a process that will work for as many
different types of task as possible.

<My argument is: Content is more important than process.>

Content and structure are each as important as the other. Without structure,
you have no useful content. And you cannot have structure without a process
to develop it: therefore, developing useful, flexible processes is, yes, as
important as finding out all the facts - particularly as you will find it
far easier to research the information if you have a process to do it with,
rather than going at it in a haphazard way.

>YES! I use processes, systems, and structure - but NEVER at the expense of
the topic. <

But without processes, systems, and structures, you have no topic: you have
only a formless mass of data acquired by blundering about in the dark.

Effectively, you're shouting that the egg is VITALLY IMPORTANT and it's much
more important to have eggs than to have chickens. No one disagrees with you
on the importance of the egg. It's just that you won't have an egg unless
you also have a chicken. So stop shouting about it, and get back to work,
before we tell your manager what you were doing with that bucket of soapy

Jane Carnall
Technical Writer, Compaq, UK
Unless stated otherwise, these opinions are mine, and mine alone.

Previous by Author: Structure and substance: stability and flexibility
Next by Author: RE: Finder's fee
Previous by Thread: Re: Structure and substance: stability and flexibility
Next by Thread: RE: Structure and substance: stability and flexibility

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads