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: Re: Documentation and Bug Reports From:"Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> To:JPosada -at- isogon -dot- com, techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:18 Feb 2004 18:46:58 GMT
Yes, right up until the last company I worked with. When
I first came aboard, management was screaming about
the high cost of customer support and wanted documentation
to do a better job of addressing the topics customers
most commonly called about. It was only when I asked to
see the logs of customer calls that they discovered that
their call center system wasn't capable of sorting logs
by subject even though it had a "Subject:" field the
support people were dutifully filling in for every call
and nobody had the slightest idea what the most common
call subjects were. Looking back, it should have been
an immediate red flag about the place...
As part of this, I asked what does the TechSupport/CustomerSupport
logging system show as problems that if the documentation had addressed
the situation in the first place, the call might not have happened in
the first place.
Within 2 days, the logging application was installed on my machine and
I'm able to analyze the reports for issues that could have been
addressed in the docs.
So, my question...anyone else doing this as a routine part of
documentation updating, review, or development?
