Re: STC chapter question -- what should an employer expect?

[Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>]

> You took the easy way out <g>.

I hadn't meant to... I was just trying to think like a Director... ;-)

> So, what could the STC do to get you there, such that you, as boss of
> the pubs manager, would be happy to let each member of the pubs dept.
> sign up for the STC on the company dime?

To be honest, the STC needs to focus on tech pubs ROI... how to help
writers become more productive, become more technically tuned into
their work, and feed them the info they need to be on the bleeding
edge (not the dull middle or back) of technical writing technology and
methodology developments.

One thing that I think hurts the STC is the amount of job hunting info
they roll into general events and publications. I never understood why
an employer would pay to send someone to a conference with sessions
that help writers hunt for better jobs. Make job hunting a SIG.

I do like the SIG approach, though. I like the opportunity to focus in
on a few core disciplines that either interest me or I know I'm weaker
in. This focused approach can sit well with employers, because for a
minimal cost over the already low enrollment fee they know their
employees are receiving targeted info for building specific skills.

On the conferences again, and I know I've beaten this to death in
previous threads, but I honestly and truly believe the STC needs to
compensate their speakers and look outside the STC for talent that
would be willing to come in and hold a session or two. The benefit of
a paid, certified expert at the helm of a session is that you know the
content will be good, the speaker will be prepared, and the cost will
be worthwhile. By allowing members to speak for a reduced entry fee,
session attendees don't necessarily have confidence in whether the
content will be good or not, whether the speaker will be adequately
prepared to address a potentially full audience, and you risk throwing
away your time and money on a bad session. Not to say that
minimally-compensated speakers are bad, but the risk for a poor
session is higher because those who know their stuff are looking for
good compensation to share what they know (TANSTAAFL).

Same thing with their Intercom and Technical Communication
publications. Spend the money to solicit solid content from industry
experts, or at least have a expert panel of reviewers for each content
type to deem whether the articles are accurate before publishing them.
I've written the Intercom editor on several occasions in reference to
some extremely inaccurate articles about single-sourcing and online
Help development. The articles in question were just plain wrong on
many levels, both conceptually and technically.

This is probably way more info than you're looking for, but if I could
try to reel this all back to a closing statement... I'll try... ;-)

The STC needs to offer solid, targeted info that help writers become
more knowledgeable, more productive, and more agile in what tasks they
can perform (and thus add more value back to the organization for
which they work).

'Zat good?

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

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 7.5 Professional: New version with new features, improved performance and reliability, plus much more!  Download your free trial today at www.componentone.com/techwrlfeb.

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