Re: My terrible client... Technical Writer Horror Story Number 3056

Subject: Re: My terrible client... Technical Writer Horror Story Number 3056
From: John Kohl <sasjqk -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:42:36 GMT

In article <9610101530 -dot- AA07701 -at- plamondon -dot- com>, Robert Plamondon
<robert -at- plamondon -dot- com> writes:
|> One way to deal with clueless clients is to set one's "consultant" hat
|> firmly on one's head (tossing away the one marked "temporary help").
|> As a consultant, the most important task is to identify and suggest
|> corrections to problems. Your second most important task is to actually
|> correct the problems.
|> Periodically reporting on the project's status (and distributing the
|> report properly) helps quite a bit. Concise status reports that can
|> be read and understood quickly often spur people into something resembling
|> action.
|> One possible format goes like this:
|> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> (things that got done)
|> (I'd put this in a table)
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Review of First Draft
|> 1. Reviews not turned in One week and growing
|> (list of missing copies)
|> 2. Reviews performed by Unknown, est. at 2 weeks
|> non-experts instead of
|> the requested experts
|> (list of switcheroos)
|> 3. Reviews returned without Unknown, est. at 2 weeks
|> markup
|> (list of names)
|> [etc.]
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> COMMENTARY: The failure of the design team to perform the comprehensive
|> review, as agreed, is an extremely ominous sign at this early stage of
|> the documentation process. Unless the agreed-upon thorough review is
|> produced right away, it will be impossible to produce the kind of
|> accurate, thorough, timely documentation that I was engaged to create.
|> Perhaps you should consider abandoning this documentation project
|> entirely, as the necessary support seems to be lacking.
|> If you like, I can create a new proposal that assumes that the engineering
|> staff will be no more helpful than they have been so far. The necessary
|> reverse-engineering will make the project more expensive, less accurate,
|> and considerably later than it would have been under our original plan,
|> but it will put less of a burden on your technical staff.
|> Yours Truly,
|> John Q. Publications.
|> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|> Such a report takes your professional judgement and turns it into something
|> that management can use to make decisions. That's what consultants are
|> for. You've given them the bad news and shown them three of their four
|> basic choices (which are to drop the document, muster up some commitment,
|> switch to the working-in-a-vacuum mode, or -- not mentioned -- drop the
|> consultant and shop around for a second opinion).
|> Most importantly, it puts management in charge of making the business
|> decisions. They now have to explicitly face facts or dismiss them.
|> YOU are only shouldering the burden of holding up your end. THEY are
|> responsible for holding up their end, and you're making it easy for
|> them by pointing out all the things that are and are not working.
|> -- Robert

I think it's more likely that the Neanderthals that the original poster
was dealing with would respond to the above by accusing her of not being
a "team player" or of having a "negative attitude" and telling her that
if she couldn't do the job, they'd find someone to replace her!

John Kohl
(speaking my own opinion, not representing my employer)

Previous by Author: JOB OPPORTUNITY: Technical Communicator in Switzerland
Next by Author: Re: Definite articles in front of acronyms
Previous by Thread: Re: Typist First or Writer? (#605260)
Next by Thread: "ethnic" humor

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads