Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing"

Subject: Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing"
From: Debra Kahn <kahndebra -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 10:50:09 -0600

I hope you walked from that job, Keith! Ridiculous!

To Gene's point, I find myself reminding junior writers (and myself once in
a while) that they should take responsibility for the quality - and the
perception of the quality - of their own work. But, alas, I know that kind
of control is not always possible.

In my situation, my peers and I were charged with communicating information
out to OEMs (using PCNs and other types of communications), and the
assumption was the more communication the better. (High quantity of
communication = good communication, according to management.) The danger
there was, of course, not in our OEMs finding fault with our level of
support (we were very communicative) but in their perceiving that our
products were being changed too often (and thus maybe, just maybe, those
changes were due to quality issues). In my situation the danger really was
that the medium was the message.

Waxing philosophical on the Friday before Memorial Day.
Deb Kahn

*Debra Kahn**, MA, PMP, CA-AM*
debra -at- dk-consulting -dot- co *or *kahndebra -at- gmail -dot- com
Business: 970-541-0888
http://dk-consulting.co


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:

> The object of this story is, do not create false expectations by allowing
> your unfinished work to be viewed. Turn the links on only when there is
> something for them to link to.
>
> Gene Kim-Eng
>
>
> On 5/22/2014 1:00 PM, Keith Hood wrote:
>
>>
>> At the yearly evaluations, after months of working 70-hour weeks, I was
>> denied a bonus because I had too many bugs reported against my work.
>>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp enhancements, and more. Read all about it.

Learn more: http://bit.ly/NNcWqS

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

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
"Structured writing = commodified writing": From: Cardimon, Craig
Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing": From: Keith Hood
Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing": From: Debra Kahn
Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing": From: Keith Hood
Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing": From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing"
Next by Author: Does your organization mark PDF user guides as confidential?
Previous by Thread: Re: "Structured writing = commodified writing"
Next by Thread: Graphics Question


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads