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.
Subject:Re: Sometimes you get what you need.. From:Michele Marques <mmarques -at- CMS400 -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:11:05 -0500
Linda Sherman writes:
> suggestions. I pointed out that there was only one terminal for every
> two mainframe programmers, and because of that, the programmars could
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> really only work half a day.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One way to interpret your comment/suggestion is:our programmers are only
working half days (and the other half the time are idle, because they can't use a
terminal). If management thinks enough work is being done, then you don't
need more terminals to get the programmers working at full productivity; you
can reduce the programmers by half and have the remaining programmers
working at full productivity, and *save* money, instead of spending it on
terminals.
If you're wondering about a different way to express the same problem, how
about this:
Our department is having difficult meeting deadlines (or, if this isn't true, you
could say, "Our department could develop software even faster"). We already
have enough programmers, but they can't achieve full productivity when they
often can't access a terminal. Instead of hiring additional programmers, we
should maximize the productivity of our current staff by making sure all
programmers have their own terminals.
This might work better, because (1) the problem is now "productivity" and
"meeting deadlines" instead of "terminals" (clearly, they didn't care about
terminals before, or there would be more!) and "not working", (2) you are
focussing on the solution to the problem (if we get more terminals, our
programmers will be more productive), and (3) you are implying that the choice
is between an expensive solution (hiring more programmers) and a relatively
cheap solution (purchasing more terminals). Also, because you are implying
than an alternative is to hire more programmers, he is less likely to think that a
solution involves firing programmers.
