Re: Software development: they must let us in!

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM>]

Peggy Thompson wrote...

>  I'm real concerned about this picture we're all painting of
>  communication lapses between software developers and
>  documenters. It is a widespread problem, one I struggle with
>  daily.

>  The only real solutions are

>  (1) for the developers to put solid work methodologies in place,
>  like those espoused by the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering
>  Institute

Solid work methodologies are a great idea and I'm totally
in favor of them... But then, most of the developers I
know pay them great lip-service too. ;-) I've worked in
companies where the "development process" was well defined
and well documented and in companies that maintained a
...shall we say "more free-form" outlook... on developemnt.
Surprise, they both did things the same way and in each
position I still had to play "guess what the software
does today".


>  (2) for the documentation team to be *formally and fully
>  integrated* into the development picture--with standard means of
>  communicating between developers and writers; feature freeze
>  dates to keep the manual drafts and developing system in sync
>  (we are TERRIBLE at this); and a development methodology for
>  writers that parallels the software dev process

Again, I've worked for doc departments and I've worked for
development groups. And, honestly, the only thing that working
for a development accomplishes is that I'm permanently low-"guy"-
on-the-totem-pole! I don't mean to start any flame wars ;-) --
but joining an organization that wanted to make me a full part
of the development organization was the worst move I ever made --
both for my self image, my career, and my sanity.

When you put yourself in this position, you lose control of
the writing process. You put someone who has no clue as to
the writing process and what a writer needs in charge and give
"them" final say. And they *still* exclude you. Design meetings
are now "for developers only" and the in-crowd meets behind
closed doors. It's actually worse than being on the outside
looking in.

I realize that there may be situations in which this is not
the case, but I'll wager that they're few and far between.

>  We can't keep eavesdropping and providing "fidget toys" (cute)
>  for programmers as our means of gleaning information (though
>  these activities certainly have their place.) The developers
>  have got to get their acts together, and the documenters, too,
>  and both have to be operating as a fully integrated team
>  following DOCUMENTED, REPEATABLE PROCESSES.

In a perfect world, development would happen "by-the-book" and
information would flow like diet coke (nobody around here drinks
water anymore) and we'd all get along and the product would go
out the door on time with no bugs and the docs would be complete
and match the product and we'd all live happily ever after.

But, we can't insist that development get their acts together --
we don't  have that power. We can try to find management that
stands behind us, but we can't all work for that same one
person, now, can we? ;-)  Peggy, I agree with you that the
situation you describe would be ideal -- but this is the
real world and this is our problem and we have to handle it
as best we can. Until the powers-that-be legalize brainwashing,
toys, evesdropping, and other covert methods of information
gathering will just have to do.

So, what am I up to now, $1.50?????

-Sue
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com