Re: SMEs

Subject: Re: SMEs
From: Katav <katav -at- YAHOO -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 05:17:50 -0700

2 cents

Cent one: SMEs reviewing the doc for technical
accuracy may reduce tech support costs (usually a
MAJOR expense) because readers will have the correct
information. (BTW, don't discount users and trainers
as SMEs.)

Cent two: The SME's charge should be something like:

Dear [SME's name/title - for tracking]
Please review the attached material for technical
accuracy and completeness. If technical deficiencies
are found, please either provide information or a
source that will provide information to correct the
Return the reviewed material on/before [reasonable
date]. If you are unable to complete the review and
return the material on/before [same date] please
contact [person/phone number/email]. If the material
is *not* [emphasize] returned by [same date] it will
be considered to have been reviewed and approved by
Your careful review of the material is critical to the
success of the company and is most appreciated.

[signed documentation manager]

Cent 3 (a bonus for reading this far): _ALL_ tech pubs
must be reviewed on a scheduled basis as long as the
product is in revision (that is, until the product is
discontinued). Pubs may NOT be aware of a vendor
change that can impact parts lists, etc. - Engineering
considered the change 'of no importance.' That should
(must) by a Pub's decision (to include/not to
include). Pubs cannot depend solely on SMEs (alas).

Katav ( katav -at- yahoo -dot- com )
''Despise not any person and do not deem anything unworthy
of consideration, for there is no person without his hour,
and no thing without its place'' {Ben Azzai [Avot 4:2]}

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

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

Previous by Author: COTS SLA storage
Next by Author: Re: The Interview from Hell!
Previous by Thread: Re: SMEs
Next by Thread: Re: Zerk

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads