RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes

Subject: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
From: "Pete Sanborn" <psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:01:15 -0500

Steve Hudson wrote:
"ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large companies seeking to
improve their processes through consistant application of solid principles."

Sorry, Steve, I have to jump in on this one. ISO, if you carefully read
their standards, is not and never has been, nor will it ever be a guarantee
of quality products (or documentation). Boiled down to bare bones, ISO
simply states that IF you have a process, you must follow it. Too many
folks got on the bandwagon early and proclaimed that ISO 900X would save the
world from shoddy workmanship and crappy products. In my experience, ISO
doesn't even guarantee that you have to follow your process if you have an
escape clause for every process that allows a supervisor or SME to sign a
waiver for the process.

All I have seen from ISO standards is that they are labor-intensive and
increase the work load for everyone as opposed to assisting in streamlining
procedures and maintaining standards. ISO has done a great job of providing
work for auditors who might actually have to find something productive to do
if these standards had never come along. It also doubled the amount of work
I have to do in order to develop or modify a pub.

Granted, ISO made some people take certain steps to verify the content of
their pubs. Not to sound as though I am better than everyone else (because
I'm not) but, as a matter of pride and in an effort to ensure that my target
audience got the best possible pubs, I always insisted on multiple reviews
with a broadly mixed team of SMEs to ensure accurate content. In addition,
for procedural pubs, I sent the document down to our test lab for
independednt verification of the procedures. And, I was doing all this
before ISO came onto the scene.

Style guides are great when they are properly developed and used. All too
often, however, once a style guide is created, it tends to become stagnant
over time because it is rarely reviewed or updated. One of the most dynamic
challeneges we face is the ability to convey information to a broadly mixed
audience. Not everyone understands information the same way. While a style
guide is wonderful for providing document templates and guidelines that
maintain a consistent document appearance and usage, if the style guide is
not periodically reviewed for current applications and social trends, it
quickly becomes an unstylish style guide. What was true 20 years ago about
learning and documentation is not true today. But, how many style guides
have failed to keep up?

Finally, while it begs the question, for whose benefit is the style guide
developed, the writer or the publication user? However the style guide is
developed, it needs to provide a balance that aids the writer while ensuring
the quality standards on which our users rely. If it comes down more in
favor of one side or the other, someone loses and it may be our audience.
These are things that ISO doesn't address and could care less about because
the ISO took the easy way out by simply mandating that you follow your
documented processes.

Regards,
Pete Sanborn

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of Steve
Hudson
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:00 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Cc: cmetzger -at- dukane -dot- com
Subject: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes


Andrew - to take the complete obverse argument from you - do you HONESTLY
believe that employing ad hoc processes as the status quo is the better road
to take? I've bit my tongue on NUMEROUS occasions, as I believe you are a
great counterpoint to the "Lets spend all out time just documenting our
job", which is something I personally am perhaps too fond of.

HOWEVER, this attitude can be taken too far. At some point - given little /
no down-time, do you not agree that time needs to be allocated to
standardising and documenting the required business functions performed by
the technical publications department? I feel that the results (known
processes, with known results over pre-determined periods) far outway the
time spent.

ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large companies seeking to
improve their processes through consistant application of solid principles.
Obviously you have a much better system and all the standards bodies of the
world know jack-all compared to you.

So, how do you guarentee quality? Oh - Mr Plato works on it. Well the rest
of us need some sort of auditable proof.

Steve Hudson , HDK List MVP
Wright Technologies Pty Ltd (Aus)





-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Plato

...

The problem with documenting nuances is that those nuances change. Then
you end up documenting how to document the nuances. Before too long,
you're entire group is arguing over nuances in a book. Fighting over trees
while their forest burns to the ground.

And don't get me started on ISO9001. Why this turd has been piled upon the
world is a mystery to all sane, decent folk.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
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.


Follow-Ups:

References:
RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes: From: Steve Hudson

Previous by Author: RE: POLL: A question of rhetoric (not a rhetorical question)
Next by Author: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
Previous by Thread: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
Next by Thread: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes


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


Sponsored Ads