Managing Your Documentation Projects [Anglais] [Broché]

After 20 years as a technical writer and publications manager, I've come to believe that all publications lifecycle systems are doomed unless they map directly to the development methodology engineering management supports and uses.

(I've also come to believe that most development methodologies are more often than not honored in the breach.)

If, as a publications manager, you're not aware of the development methodology your engineering managers have adopted, you need to get over and talk to them now. Even if they haven't adopted a formal, academic model, they do have some idea about how they produce technical products. Tailor your publications lifecycle to their lifecycle -- don't seek to impose an alien "order" on their process.

(If your engineering managers can't articulate a methodology or say things like "We just code until we're done", you have bigger worries than your publications lifecycle, such as the near-term viability of your company.)

Too often I've seen tech pubs managers adopt the "Hackos model" and fail because it doesn't fit the organization's development style. A organization that adopts the Rapid Application Development (RAD) or "Extreme Programming" model, for example, isn't going to be too thrilled about endless sign-offs on planning documents that take nearly as long to write as the manual itself.

Instead, tailor your approach toward the high degree of interactivity inherent in such methods -- quick review cycles of small portions of text, for example, instead of waiting for a full draft of the book to be ready.

Too many erstwhile pubs managers skim this book, then adopt the project documents provided as models in the book as "fill-in-the-blank" busywork for their writers.

Tech pubs managers might be better served by learning the basics of project management (especially the interplay between resources, time, and scope) and reviewing the development model of the engineering organization than adopting the CMM-inspired approach Hackos describes in this book.

There is no one-size-fits-all method for producing documentation. And Joanne Hackos would be the first to tell you that.

However, my experience is that the process and information that Hackos offers in this book will give you some of the tools you need to land a senior-level position. As Hackos herself writes, the ideas and material she offers are there for you to use, to try out, to modify so that they fit the requirements of your particular environment.

Some readers may be a bit put off by Hackos' focus on planning and delivering print publications. I have found that the ideas are flexible enough to transfer to different media. The important thing is to use project management for technical communications projects.

There is considerable ongoing debate within the technical writing profession as to the value of process and planning for the work. One argument is that process and planning takes us away from our real work and provides a convenient excuse when projects do not progress as required. Proponents of this idea often say something like, "Shut up and write." Another side holds that careful analysis and planning are integral parts of our work and we cannot succeed without a defined process. I find that a lot of high-tech companies are looking for process. They know that they need structure to produce quality products in a predictable, reliable way.

One caution worth noting, as Hackos herself advises, is that the model would have to be modified extensively to work in a Rapid Application Development (RAD) environment. Another caution is always to remember that the method is not the goal. At times, it is more important to produce documentation than it is to revise the project management materials to keep up with the latest twist or turn in a project.

I recommend "Managing Your Documentation Projects" for technical writers looking to move ahead in their careers. It is a bit pricey, but I think that many people would find it money well spent.

Hackos is correct to suggest that writers must establish better rapport with developers. I think the way to do that, however, is to get closer to real development methodologies (rather than writing methodologies) that are gaining steam today. (Best example: Rational Software's Unified Process.) If the profession is ever to get the respect it deserves, technical writers will have to become more like programmers, and less like English teachers.