Re: Ethical Question - RESPONSE -

[Mike Stockman <stockman -at- JAGUNET -dot- COM>]

On 1/6/99 12:45 PM, Bill Burns (BillDB -at- ILE -dot- COM) wrote:

>If they are unwilling to hire additional resources, then do what you can
>within a realistic weekly schedule to do the job. If the schedule is the
>critical factor in the process, then quality will likely suffer. But quality
>is obviously NOT of utmost importance in the minds of the folks who
>scheduled (and if it is, they should have kicked the project off sooner).

I disagree. For contract tech. writers, your advice is the road to ruin.
Your reputation will never survive accepting a job with a low-quality
deliverable, no matter how convinced you are that the client's just fine
with that.

Early in my freelance career, I took a contract saying "There isn't
enough time in the schedule to do the job you want." I was assured that
they simply wanted the best that could be done in that time. When I was
satisfied that they understood that they'd get sub-par work, I started
the contract. I shouldn't have been surprised (but I was) when they
griped about the quality at the end and withheld payment until I forced
them to. We (clients and I) both left that contract with a bad taste and
have never worked together since. My policy since then has been to walk
away from any contract that provides insufficient time or resources to do
a minimally acceptable job. Period.

For full-time tech writers, who may be stuck with whatever jobs are
assigned, your advice might make sense. If that's the case, start looking
for a new job. The same problems with the end result and your reputation
apply.

Never take a job where the deliverable is below *your* standards, no
matter how much they're asking for it.

----->Mike

______________________________________________
Internet: stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com                           AOL: MStockman


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=