RE: Work harder, not smarter
--- Steve Hudson <steve -at- wright -dot- com -dot- au> wrote:
> Somebody wrote something to me today that I've heard thousands of
times,
but it really hit me today seeing as how we're debating doc plans.
I guess the flipside to your rant is that I can't stand people who are
arrogant enough to think that there is no room for improvement. Its hard
to
improve what you cannot (or refuse to) define. Let alone most of us are
employed by someone else who regularly wants some sort of report stating
what has been done, what is being done, and what will be done.
Plus the simplest way to improve Quality is to consistantly apply a
process.
Again - sounds great. Reality is often somewhere in the chaos. I don't
think any of us would support a "don't improve" work ethic. My point is
that by applying oneself to their work (working hard) you will get better
and you will figure out how to improve the process. When you can produce
quality work, you will by definition have a quality process - since it is
the outcome that ultimately matters.
<SNIP>
> Now, what we are doing can't be 'remembered' / 'documented' by our
instincts - as is the case in your analogy. Thus we need to write it
down.
Additionally, if its written down another set of impartial eyes can be
run over it.
Ahhh, transferrance. Sounds nice. You write it down and teach the next
generation...who screws it up and designs a new process.
Again - these things must be internalized. Writing them down to pass on
your brilliance to others might feel swell. But the people who come next
must be able, willing, and capable of adopting said processes and
internalizing them - not merely regurgitating what they have been ordered
to to. Following directions makes you a good drone, not a good employee.
Part of "improving the process" is to challenge its fundamental
assumptions.
Andrew Plato
Ah, Andrew,
I once had the misfortune to be working for a Major General at the Infantry Center at Ft. Benning. Our office was writing a "White Paper" for his signature. He apparently subscribed to your theories. He told us he didn't know what he wanted but he would recognize it when he saw it."
In the course of one day (about 18 hours long) we re-wrote that White Paper until he saw his butterfly. We worked "harder not smarter". Some of what you say has value. Other parts are diametrically opposed. On one hand you say its okay to analyze and then change the process, but you imply, in this and other comments in other replies, that one shouldn't waste time on this non-productive activity. That, of course is what I perceive from your comments.
Scott
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Previous by Author:
RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
Next by Author:
Re: Freelance rates in Dallas
Previous by Thread:
Re: Work harder, not smarter
Next by Thread:
Re: Work harder, not smarter
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads