Re: Being Resourceful

["Christensen, Kent" <lkchris -at- sandia -dot- gov>]

re:  http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/gettingalongindevelopmentgroups.html

To the article and the discussion might be added the notion of
"institutionalizing" or formalizing some portion of the relationship between
developers and writers.  It might initially sound bad, but it works for us,
and it isn't empire building by the writers or the developers.

What we've institutionalized is review of the document.  Two of them.  The
reviews are certainly two of many, but they are both final reviews in their
way.  

The first is a meeting of strictly people from our firm and the goal is to
include not just the writer(s) and developer(s) but others in management,
our equivalent of sales, and others.  We certainly have a style guide and
conformance with that is noted, but most importantly the session is a
walkthrough to verify the product works and that it can be made to work by
following the manual.  Someone at the meeting reads every word and someone
else performs the steps.  Usually the reader is not the writer and the
performer is not the developer (or vice versa, either).  Some of our
employees formerly worked for the customer, and the discussion can even
include the "politics" of customer relations.  Both the writer's and
developer's supervisors can be present, and this can obviously provide
performance review inputs.  Pretty much, then, the manual becomes a group
process and is the product of lots of little "votes" during this review.

When the first review is completed and the developers and writers have
updated their products accordingly and agree they're ready, the second
review is held.  The difference is that the reading and the performing is
now performed by our customer.  Readers, performers, and the audience get to
vote, and certainly attendees of the first meeting as well as more customer
representatives can be present.  It's the customer votes that count here,
however, and the whole thing obviously constitutes customer acceptance of
the product, with the user manual being an inherent part of the product.
Certainly there is follow-up to verify that agreed-to changes have actually
been incorporated, and the meeting could be repeated if agreed necessary.

I think being expected to face these formal, institutionalized, reviews has
its effect on all involved and it certainly affects the relationships
between writers and developers.  The process itself affects, I think,
positively how writers and developers get along because there is clearly
something "bigger than them" out there.  The process isn't directly
transferable to all firms, of course, but some form of "testing" could
certainly take the place of direct customer review and is highly recommended
as a good reality check.  

Yes, reality is real, and in the end it's not so much about relationships
within the firm but rather it's about relationships with the firm's
customers, is it not?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.