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.
> > Plus, of course, the disgruntled or dismissed in-house
> > writer takes away her/his headful of years of experience
> > and history with your products.
> Still not sure where the disgruntlement or dismissal comes into play,
> unless you're making a very specific, targeted argument to support a
> previously overarching point.
Well, the original scenario was a cadre of relatively inexperienced
writers already in place, and a new tool is needed, and it's
more economical - less lost productivity - to hire someone
experienced with the tool than to attempt to train the people
who already work for you.
Then, that shifted slightly to an emphasis where the hero was
not necessarily experienced with the required tools, but
did have years of overall TW experience and would therefore
still be able to pick up full-bore productive use of the tool
(and the company subject matter) before the inexperienced
people on staff could be trained.
It wasn't a case of a /h/e/r/o/ contractor being hired to
get the existing staff up to speed on the new tools, while
they continue being somewhat productive. It was the hero
swooping in and being productive - as somebody posted later -
within hours. So, the existing staff is either pushed
aside - they can't be productive with the new tool they've
never met, and no training - or is dismissed.
Else, how can you justify the larger outlay for the new body?
If a few days of training and ramp-up with a tool are too
costly in lost productivity, what are the chances that the
company thinks they can still afford to keep those drones around?
Those drones have been there a year and have the only
TW and user knowledge-base (as opposed to developer/SME
knowledge base which is different). If they aren't
immediately let go, they can see which way the wind
blows. Just when they thought their year of product
relevant experience and increasing productivity was
going to pay off in a raise, they get either the
boot or the dunce corner.
You see, if they actually had been non-productive drones,
then there would effectively be no loss of productivity
in training them (probably no benefit either...) however
it was stipulated that the days they would take to
learn the new tool and get back to full productivity
would be too expensive a productivity loss. Ipso-facto,
they were productive. Just not with the new tool.
Clear as mud, right? :-)
--->The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish information
through multiple channels. Your choice of authoring (and import)
formats with virtually any output. Try Doc-To-Help free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com/
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-