RE: Structure vs. Substance?

Subject: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
From: "Jason A. Czekalski" <topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net>
To: TECHWR-L digest <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:56:28 -0700

"Giordano, Connie" <Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM> wrote

<< If you write end-user doc, and don't have a
spec, write one if it makes you feel better, or if you think it will
help in
future releases. But stop whining about how you can't do your job
one--it just ain't so. >>

None of the process oriented folks on this list has ever said you can't
do something without a process or procedure. The point we have all been
trying to make is that the job will be easier to do and is more likely
to be accurate and complete if there is a process or procedure. Yes,
process for process' sake is just as bad as no process. But I have found
that to be the extreme rarity. When you deal with large organizations (I
spent 10 years at GE), procedures are very important.

In a previous post, I stated that at some companies the process was as
important, and sometimes more so, than the product itself. I was not
defending that extreme, just stating that it exists. The strange thing
is that these companies usually produce a superior product by default.
If these processes fit the work being performed, then the end product
tends to come off the line exactly as planned. Yes, the same product can
be produced without a stricy procedure, but will it be as good, or will
the company make as much real profit from it. BTW, I define real profit
as what the company makes off of this sale, and how much followup
business is generated due to a satisfied customer.


Previous by Author: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
Next by Author: Re: Structure vs. Substance?
Previous by Thread: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
Next by Thread: Re: Structure vs. Substance?

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

Sponsored Ads