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.
I've told my supervisor a few times that the junk we get from engineering
would never be allowed in the aircraft industry. Many of them would last
until they delivered their first item - drawing, spec, whatever.
Unfortunately, many industries are just getting more and more sloppy in how
they run things. I remember in the aircraft world I started in, every
drawing number could be translated into a wealth of information - aircraft,
model, year, system, subsystem, and so on. Look at the number and know where
and on what it was located.
At my current job, the numbers are sequential. The only identifier is the
prefix of two letters usually references the plant location for the
engineering group who made the drawing, only because someone gave them a set
of numbers to use so they didn't double up on the same number. But ECRs,
ECNs, spreading the news on parts changes, and such are often ignored or if
followed, woefully late. And they tunnel vision into only the model they are
working on, often changing a part and keeping the same number, oblivious to
what that does to other models that use that part.
Friday, I got a message that the pressures in a machine that was designed
three years ago, has been in the field over a year, and has had documents
for 2-1/2 years, are probably wrong and need to be changed.
Most of the reason is management, and management having sprung from lower
management or management schools have no concept like when managers came up
the ladder from the production line into the office and finally into
management.
Who would tolerate this in the aircraft industry?
Well, six years ago, I was on a contract at Boeing. the level of quality in
manuals was far below what was delivered 30 years ago, unfortunately.
Review, engineering input, time on equipment to verify, and all were like an
after thought, if at all. But we can sure make them look pretty!
Distributing clearly defective documentation like this should be
actionable IMHO. Who would tolerate this in the aircraft industry?
Sent from Outlook Mobile
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
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
