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.
>Businesses are looking to cut down on costs. If they think they can find
>someone to do the job cheaper, they will. Don't get mad at them, for Pete's
>sake. You do the same thing in your own life with your own money. If two
>plumbing contractors offer to redo your bathroom, you take the bids and balance
>the cost against the performance and go with what you consider the best
And this works if you know enough about construction to discern the
difference between quality work and just-get-by work. But if you
don't...you're likely to pay more in the long run. To paraphrase that
old saw, "Never enough money to do it right; always enough money to do
>The problem occurs when businesses see your function as mainly cost, with
>little benefit. Yours apparently saw things that way. Their behavior is not a
>threat to our profession.
Oh, I disagree most heartily with this statement. Their behavior is indeed a
threat to our profession. We're not alone, though, if that's any
consolation. I have friends who are software programmers, and they're seeing
the same thing. One of my brothers is an auto mechanic--certified, factory-
trained, all that stuff--and he sees the same thing. There are a lot of
people out there who don't know the difference between quality work and
patch work. Or don't care, because the short-term bottom line is more
important to them at that moment than the long-term health of the company.
>You could argue their perception of our profession is the problem, but more
>likely it's the fact that they can't connect bottom-line cost savings to
>good documentation. That's where the improvement has to be; not in some
>mighty union who will sweep down upon our employers and demand our "rights"
>(whatever they may be).
And I most heartily agree with this statement. I believe this is the
essential point. We have to keep educating those for whom we work. And
with whom we work.
>You know, it's so ironic I could laugh (or cry) myself silly. Here we are,
>the collective personification of information, and the problem many of us
>complain of the most stems from our not having provided enough good
>information about what we do and the benefits it brings to the bottom line!
So true. I've found this to be the case over the years--here we are,
professional communicators, and we haven't been able to communicate
our value to so many of those people who employ us. There are some who
understand our value, but there are so many more who do not.
Gotta do that, Arlen, gotta do that, or I'd lose it for sure!