Re: A Test to Select Competen...

[Robert Plamondon <robert -at- PLAMONDON -dot- COM>]

Ron Miller writes:
>I really bristle when I read about "compentency" tests. I can't think of
>anything more insulting. If you want to know about my work, read my writing
>samples; that should show you how I write. If you don't like my writing,
>don't hire me, but don't try make jump through some technical writing hoop
>either.

You're laboring under the misapprehension that I can tell what
you've done from your samples.  In fact, though, most of the
"technical writers" I've interviewed have never actually WRITTEN
anything.  They have done light copy-editing, word processing,
managed review processes, and badgered the engineers and marketers
who did the actual writing -- but they didn't write anything at all.
I've interviewed such non-writers with fifteen years' experience as
technical writers, who came highly recommended, and were
well-respected in their companies.

But they'd never written an actual document from scratch.  They had
never even CONSIDERED doing such a thing.  Some of them were STUNNED
at the suggestion that technical writers might, on occasion, write
documents, rather than mess about with words written by someone else.

In many cases, these people had wonderful samples, which they had
lightly copy-edited and then formatted with loving care.  But a person
who does formatting, light copy-editing, and review management is
a SECRETARY.  Nothing wrong with secretaries, but I was hiring
writers.

Since the applicants generally couldn't tell the difference between
a secretary and a writer, I instituted the "toaster test."  Through
this, I could differentiate between "writers" with secretarial
potential, secretaries with writing potential, and writers with
writing potential.  The latter two categories are of interest to me.
(Your mileage may vary.  The writing environment at Weitek is
harsh, technically, since most of our products have no end-users,
but are soldered down as part of a larger subassembly by our OEMs.
Thus, user documentation is largely absent; nor is there much in the
way of technician-level stuff.  It's all aimed at design engineers,
so it's all on an extremely technical and theoretical level.)

>I'm sure most companies wouldn't consider having an engineer do a "test"
>design of a toaster before they hire him/her.

We most definitely test engineering applicants.  Yes, indeed.
Admittedly, I don't think any toasters are involved, but even such
lofty, majestic personages as IC engineers are tested here --
not just lowly Tech Pubs worms.

        -- Robert