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: SMEs and me (long) + a question From:"Rock, Megan" <Megan -dot- Rock -at- fanucrobotics -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:23:02 -0400
> No you wouldn't. The more eyeballs that see it, more changes, more
> eyeballs need to see the changes, more changes, etc. EVERYONE thinks
> they have something to worthwhile to contribute...most don't.
Right. Which is why we don't let everybody have a shot at reviewing the
manual. We leave it up to the SME (usually a project manager, segment
manager, or tool manager) to determine who gets to review the manual.
> I let someone such as the Project Manager (PM) decide who sees the
> drafts and all changes to the drafts go through the PM or a
> designated rep. I get one set of changes from the PM. Besides the
> coordination issue, sometimes someone wants unjustified or inaccurate
> changes and the PM will filter them out. At some point, to meet a
> commitment schedule, the PM should end accepting changes and it is
> the PM's responsibility to know what should be disregarded.
This is also how we handle multiple reviewers. The SME is responsible for
reviewing everybody's comments. We typically try to get them to review a
single copy of the manual and pass it around among themselves, returning the
copy to the SME for his sign-off. Then he gives the copy back to the
> As far as someone being left out...if they were, they weren't too
> important to the process anyway, so while in a perfect world everyone
> should have their input heard, it's not perfect and they'll get over
> it. If they were important, than it is the PM's fault and let him/her
> explain why their boss was missed.
I agree. Generally it isn't a "boss" who was missed, but rather somebody
from one of the segments. Since the engineers in the segments are SMEs who
work closely with our customers, we usually end up having to accept their
changes, last-minute or not, since they are closest to the customer.