Re: dynamic review model

["Peter Neilson" <neilson -at- windstream -dot- net>]

The problem of "no architect responsible overall" has been around a long  
time. I have seen solutions appear when some really good dev person grabs  
hold of it, but all too often I have seen where the writers are pushing on  
a string, and the best overall review they can get is, "We don't need to  
look at that section. It would be a waste of effort. We saw it before."  
Nobody wants to make sure that the forthcoming version of the code or the  
specifications actually match the content of the "already reviewed"  
portion.

It's actually an issue of quality engineering, and the quality is not  
generally created by the QA department or by the tech writers. Instead it  
comes directly from top management, because they are the ones who are in a  
position to scuttle quality--or quality documentation--by failing to  
supply the required resources. "No, you may NOT talk to the programmers,"  
said one software manager. "Any questions you have, have to come through  
ME." Fortunately he was overruled by the management above him.

Some management have hands-on experience and superb people skills that  
allow them to get everything right without needing to micro-manage. Others  
have major blind spots but muddle along regardless. We tech writers can  
occasionally help solve the problems without official support, or even in  
the face of active resistance. But from what I've seen it's often more  
worthwhile to go elsewhere, and let the toxic environment die of its own  
poison.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 10:57:04 -0500, Robert Lauriston  
<robert -at- lauriston -dot- com> wrote: