RE: Hi-Tech Company Hasn't Used Tech Writers in Years (Long and V ERY Worth It)

[googlesnatcher -at- hotmail -dot- com]

Worth it for whose purposes?

This guy's philosophy of management is so PHB-esque that it is NOT funny. 
While some of the things he posted about the defense contract business may
be technically accurate, his take on management techniques is so
incredibly bad that I cannot believe it to be true. In defense of the
contractor?s way of doing things he stretches reason way beyond the
breaking point. You must make your own judgement on his motives.



>>I?m responding to your TECHWR-L post so as to share some of my
>>knowledge, insights, and wisdom...

When a man starts touting his own ?wisdom,? that translates in every known
language as, ?Duck your head; it's coming.?

This reads like he?s trying to project the kindly uncle image to warm you
and make you more receptive to his words, before he takes off the gloves
and gets down to business. From here on he writes in a VERY interesting
pattern. It is a three-step sequence: point, flak, menace. For a man who
is oh so kindly offering assistance, his post includes a very high number
of passages that can all too easily be construed as veiled threats.



>I am told that years ago an unnamed executive determined >that our
documents were "too good" and decided to remedy this situation by firing
the entire tech pubs department.

>>Response 1: With any commercial high-tech company, this would be
>>ludicrous indeed. However, we're talking about General Dynamics here...

>>Remember, technical writers have a unique access to the technical
>>information database being drawn upon to author the manuals. Getting a
>>technical writer working for a defense contractor to provide schematics
>>of a JDAM's guidance system would be a MAJOR technical information coup.

The idea that firing the tech pubs people is a security measure is utter
hogwash. How does one secure information by firing the people who wrote
about it?

I guess he figures the writers who are now pissed off at their previous
employer over being fired for an asinine reason have no cause to talk to
foreign intelligence services. The exact opposite is true - disaffecting
an employee by firing him for doing ?too good? a job makes him even MORE
likely to be receptive to offers by foreign agents. Dilbert?s boss is
Einstein compared to a boss who could think you increase security by
alienating and maltreating people.

In normal cases where people work with sensitive information, the
situation is handled by making them sign confidentiality agreements, by
warning them of possible criminal prosecutions if they violated
procedures, etc. It?s handled by taking measures to limit access and to
make the employees aware of penalities. I knew people who were handling
depleted uranium ammunition and learning about its true nature back in the
seventies. Those people were made to sign secrecy contracts ? they weren?t
told how lethal it was and then got fired to keep them from talking about
it.

Firing the tech pubs people as a way of increasing security ? what a load
of unbelievable rot.



>>Jerry Whitworth, currently imprisoned at the Federal penitentiary in
Lompoc, CA, will die an old man in prison. That's what happens when you
get a 365-year sentence for conducting espionage against the United
States, which is exactly what he got for his acts of high treason.

Very interesting. And totally irrelevant. Are we supposed to belive that
Jerry Whitworth could not have betrayed his country if General Dynamics
had fired more technical writers? Is the writer contending that this
betrayal happened because the tech pubs department was not done away with
soon enough? I see absolutely no logic in this unless it is the logic of
trying to instill a sense of dread in the reader.

I note with great interest the emotional loading in that last sentence.
Quite intriguing how he manages to weave thoughts about treason into a
message that is supposed to be about the management practices at General
Dynamics. I think everyone who reads his message should consider why he
thought it logical to respond to a message about waste and inefficiency in
the defense contracting industry with information about 365-year jail
sentences.

The pattern begins. It will be seen again.



>>* Tidbit B: The technical program managers and chief engineers take the
>>time that you think they waste because they are directly responsible for
>>the development of the avionics systems in question. It's important to
>>remember...

The same is true in any industry. Name one industry where program managers
and chief engineers are not held accountable for the progress of their
programs. His claim that this is a special case because it?s defense
related is spurious. And his following lines about the contract process
are totally irrelevant. It makes no difference if the first step in the
process is to build a working model or to drink beer.



>>Since US taxpayer money is being used to create a state-of-the-art
>>avionics system fornational security purposes, the Defense Department
>>has a very real vested interest in making sure it gets the most bang for
>>the taxpayer bucks being spent.

I can hear the pipes and drums in the background. Wave the flag some more,
please. This passage brought a tear to my eye ? because I laughed so hard
I dropped my coffee mug on my foot. This passage must have come straight
out of a CNN press conference handout. He tries so hard to paint a glowing
picture of the military/industrial complex it smacks of desperation.



>>* Tidbit C1: One example involved the use of electronic components
>>purchased at Radio Shack . . . This ultimately led DoD to properly
>>charge Rockwell with very valid charges of defrauding the Federal
>>government. Heads did roll for that -- but probably not enough heads.

Again, very interesting and totally irrelevant. This has nothing to do
with explaining why it makes sense for Ms. Miller to not be utilized more
fully. What is really relevant here is the pattern of ending a supposed
supporting argument with a mention of dire consequences. Announce a point,
provide a long and irrelevant example, and conclude with a statement rich
with menace ? am I the only one who sees the pattern here?



>Excerpt 3: The wasted man-hours here are absolutely staggering...Although
>I joined the company in 2001...

>>Response 3: The engineers are the people developing the product.
>>Unless you're an engineer, you have no business being involved in this
>>process at all.

Actually, this proves Ms. Miller's points. Now we know exactly why she is
frustrated - he indicates in his own words that General Dynamics managers
consider it normal to treat technical writers like peons. EVERY technical
writer I?ve ever listened to, read material from, or corresponded with,
wanted very deeply to be involved in the development process right from
day one, for exactly the same reasons that Ms. Miller mentioned. But this
guy thinks it makes sense to exclude from the process the one person who
is best qualified to spot flaws in the design documents - maybe this is
why General Dynamics is infamous for cost overruns.



>Excerpt 4: When I tried to explain how it (FrameMaker) is the industry
>standard for large docs, he told me he would fire me (he was mainly
>joking but the fact he mentioned it at all is shocking) if I pushed the
>issue. His reasons for hating FrameMaker were based in ignorance...

>>Response 4: SCHEDULES ARE REAL. So is a concept you are probably
>>unfamiliar with: MILESTONE MONEY.

This response has absolutely NO relevance to the complaint about the lack
of FrameMaker. And how does this refute Ms. Miller?s revelation of the
manager?s ignorance? Has he has entirely missed the point here, or he is
deliberately ignoring it and trying to wave a flag to draw attention away
from it?



>>When a defense contract is awarded, financial...That's the reality
>>behind the engineers, programmers, and program managers having political
>>and financial guns to their heads. That's also why these guys write
>>their own docs.

In every other industry, other people have ?guns to their heads? too. In
every other industry, people stand to lose their jobs if their projects
don?t go right. And in every other industry, technical writers are used
properly and allowed their proper place in the development process.

?Guns to their heads? ? interesting choice of words, considering his love
for ending every argument with words of menace.



>>* Tidbit A: FrameMaker is NOT the industry standard for large documents
>>  ...Defense contractors don't have unlimited budgets, contrary to what
>>some people may otherwise believe. Like many companies, they have to
>>make intelligent decisions on what they buy, how well "it" works, and
>>how much they want to pay for it.

?It? was already paid for. Ms. Miller indicated it was already in place
and in use in previous days. She wrote about it being taken off, not about
having a battle trying to get the funding to get it put on. Again, either
he has missed the point or he is trying to misdirect us away from the
point. The fact that he can spout reams of irrelevant info about ancient
software and the development of FrameMaker is not corroboration ? it is
either the inability to choose samples that are relevant to his point, or
it is an attempt to confuse and stun the audience by burying them under a
(insert_word_here)load of extraneous information.



>>Since the IADS software was developed with US taxpayer money, it's also
>>available as freeware for download from the US Army's Redstone Arsenal
>>in Anniston, Alabama at https://iads.redstone.army.mil/. It's our
>>software. Our tax dollars paid for it.

So what? Who paid for it is irrelevant. If the company bought FrameMaker
it would be our software too because our tax dollars paid for it, too.

More flag waving. ?Our tax dollars paid for it? - How does this statement
have any bearing on the relative merits of desktop publishing software?
Another attempt to paint a pretty word picture that gives the reader a
warm fuzzy feeling about how General Dynamics does things.



>Excerpt 5: My current manager is very much in this vein. He is a
>logistician with 21 years in the Marines...

>>Response 5: You're dealing with a lifer who probably held the rank of
>>lieutenant colonel at a minimum. . . you?d be facing Article 15 hearing
>>on insubordination to a superior officer and be sentenced to, at a
>>minimum, latrine cleaning for two weeks.

I have never before read anything so jaw-droppingly astounding as this.
Obviously the writer either does not realize or has chosen to ignore that
he is claiming the manager should not have to live in the real world. The
writer and the manager both need to get it through their heads that the
manager is not a lifer. He is an EX-lifer. He is NOT in the Marines, Ms.
Miller is NOT in the Marines, and she is NOT subject to the UCMJ. The
problem here is not that Ms. Miller isn?t working in the right way. She is
working in the right way. She?s working like what she is: a civilian tech
writer who is trying to be as useful as she can be. One problem is, the
manager is a civlian too and refuses to admit it. The manager is obviously
not competent or not willing to recognize that his employment has changed
and that he needs to change to fit it. The other problem is that the
writer wants the reader to believe is sensible for the manager to try to
live in the past. This response was a milestone in unreality.

And again, same pattern! Make what is supposed to be a point, ramble on,
end with a menacing tone. This record needle is skipping.



>>Best Advice: Be part of the solution. Being part of the problem,
especially to the type of manager you now have, WILL get you fired.

I find it very highly significant that he chose to end his message to Ms.
Miller with the threat of her being fired. This makes a lot sense if he
wishes to cow her, but very little sense if he has any other intentions.
If he really cared and was really writing out of concern for her, he
sahould have ended with more positive, supportive words. This is not the
post of a person who actually feels the comradely concern that he tries in
his first paragraphs to make us think he feels.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
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.