Choosing Your Tools Re: M$ @ it again!!!

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

> > Everything that happens after that is based on misreading
> >  or misinterpreting the meaning of
> >  "corporate standard office suite."
{snip}
> Part of it is because they figure as long as
> everything is done in MS apps, they can work with the
> files themselves if they need or want to. Another part
> is, they're afraid that if someone installs software
> they're not familiar with, they may lose some control.
> And their ignorance of non-MS software is a bother. In
> most cases, a manager who doesn't know anything about
> Frame or Open Office doesn't want to have to learn
> different software so he can make rational decisions
> about it,

While there are kernels of truth to both positions put forward in this
discussion, neither is entirely fair. While PHB ineptitude and M$ plots to
overtake the world may play some role in workers being saddled with
inappropriate tools, it's unfair to ignore valid reasons for such
decisions.

In a corporate context, management and IS have to think long-term and
globally. They have to foresee the day that you are no longer with the
company and how current workflows inter-operate. Therefore what you
determine to be the 'best tool' for your job may not be the best tool for
the company's purpose.

Sure, NOW there's a techwriter, NOW there's no need for engineering (with
MSWord) to play with source files, and FrameMaker or OO might be the best
tool for the techwriter. But what if the techwriter leaves and engineering
has to take over the job? What if the company adopts a knowledge base and
the writer's choice of programs isn't a supported format? How do you ensure
all information is archived in the same manner?

What happens if you die and the documents are critical to a million dollar
milestone?

Sorry, but in many cases it's easier and more cost effective for YOU to
change than for the company to accommodate you and take the risk of
non-conforming data. YOU have to prove to the company that your choice of
tool is both beneficial to the writing process AND beneficial to the
company. YOU have to justify any and all risks involved. YOU have to give
the business case that money saved will outweigh money invested and risk
accrued.

While it's easy to blame IT, the PHB, or 'the MAN', it's not the whole
picture. While those other elements might play some role in your being
saddled with an inadequate or less-desirable tool, ultimately it is YOUR
failure to adequately defend the need for a better tool.

If you extend the argument that any tool should be allowable to other
software and applications, consider databases. If everyone is allowed to
use whatever database they want, what happens when a database becomes
critical and needs to be linked to another and the applications are
incompatible? What happens when the person maintaining an important
database leaves and nobody in the company knows how to use the custom
application they were using?

The same is true of any business tool. It may be that a specific machine
tool would perform a specific job cheaper and more accurately. But
compatibility with other shop tools may lower overall maintenance and parts
budget requirements.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer