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: Schedule, Cost, & Quality: Pick Two From:melonie -dot- mcmichael -at- amd -dot- com To:SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com, techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:13:21 -0600
Doing it right the first time will still take an experienced, quality writer
which equals cost. Also, it takes longer to do it right the first time
which also equals cost and time.
So, now we are back to "good, quick or cheap: pick any two."
By the way, did anyone else have "Revise, Revise and Revise Again"
pounded into their brains in high school and college English? The
idea of not revising two or three times seems sacrilegious to me,
besides the fact that I will agonize over a sentence when I am trying
to "do it right the first time". If I just get in and write the darn thing,
get done much quicker even with a couple of revisions (and with much
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com [SMTP:SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 11:42 AM
> To: TECHWR-L
> Subject: Re: Schedule, Cost, & Quality: Pick Two
> I'm glad you asked that, Jeanne 8^) Re-checking and correction costs
> both for the person(s) doing the checking, and for the writer to make the
> corrections. Then there's the cost of original work done and subsequently
> scrapped. The later in any process an error is found, the more expensive
> is to correct. (The best example is the Pentium chip math error; it would
> have cost Intel maybe $50 for an ECO in the design stage, but recalling
> from the field and replacing them cost the company a reported
> $1,000,000,000.) Watts Humphrey, the software process guru, said that he
> found that the programmer who makes the most mistakes is the most
> to the organization, regardless of salary or productivity.
> and info.