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.
Although the current thread on measuring writing productivity has been
interesting (especially the new subthread about quality vs. quantity),
I think we may have strayed from the original request from
information. There was a good hint that the purpose was to determine
"how good the writer is and thus how worthy of a raise", there's also
the subtext of project management that has gone largely unaddressed.
From the standpoint of "quality" productivity, I'd love to see more
details on how other techwhirlers define quality (i.e., metrics,
customer responses, etc.) and its effect on productivity (sort of like
the "levels of edit" concept). But from the other standpoint, project
management, I'd also like to see a summary of our previous discussion
on the issue and some indications of how to tie this in to performance
appraisals and productivity evaluations. The most common response
seemed to be "this is what _I_ average per day in a certain type of
work and I use this to estimate future projects"; I've also seen this
in the literature. But are there any other approaches?
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.
