How well do we write?

["naomi (n.) bulka" <nbulka -at- BNR -dot- CA>]

The recent postings concerning bad manuscripts struck a chord with me.

Some months ago, upper management had decided that our editing
department should conduct random audits of documents or modules at some
stage in their writing development.  This was to be done on a weekly
basis and the writer and manager would receive a copy of the audited
module. There were to be two types of audit: publishing and technical.
Writers were less than pleased at the prospect, especially since these
documents were not necessarily going to be in a completed state when
checked.  Anyway, for various and sundry reasons, the idea was dropped.

My personal feeling was that an audit was a good idea but it was being
conducted in the wrong way.  Frankly, I would like to have my work
properly audited from time to time.  Our editors check for typos and
errors in style etc.  But the documents we produce seldom get judged on
the basis of their usefulness, clarity or how they measure up to other
similar stuff.  (We often wonder whether our customers ever use them!)

Anyway, my manager proposed that I come up with an audit process and
then  test it.  So I now ask you, fellow tech writers, do you have such
a process in place or do you have suggestions that I could try out here?

I should give you some idea what kind of documents we write here.  In
this Northern Telecom location, our documentation is primarily software
or feature driven.   Our audience is made up of telephone company
personnel who must datafill a switch properly, replace faulty circuit
packs, clear alarms. We get the info from design documents written by
the software designers.  Sometimes, they verify what we have written;
more often they do not.

Any ideas you can give me on setting up an audit process are most welcome.

Thanks,
Naomi
Northern Telecom
nbulka -at- bnr -dot- ca