*Bad* manuals

["Virginia J. Link" <LINKVI -at- MAIL -dot- STATE -dot- WI -dot- US>]

Bob Jones wrote:
>>
Hi all,

I am in the middle of rewriting a numbing set of very bad manuals, and I
feel like the bad manuals are winning.  I feel like I have mono whenever I
sit down to work on them.  They have broken my spirit.

What do you do to when I project gets you down?
<<

I'm in the middle of a similar project, and have a question and a suggestion
for you:

Q. Is there any way to not *rewrite* them but to put the info into a new set
of manuals, put some of the info online, and/or incorporate it into an
existing, *not so bad* (or even *good*) manual(s)?

The reason I ask this is because when the marching orders came to rewrite a
(really) "bad manual," my team member and I counter-proposed that we a)
incorporate as much as possible of the bad manual's processes into one of
our other manuals, and b) move a lot of the "missing in action" information
(info that *should* have been in the "bad manual" in the first place but
never even got close) to on-line documentation, and c) revise and re-issue
only what really couldn't be incorporated into a and b.

This way we control the end product(s) more than we would trying to overhaul
a really dead beast; we're challenged by learning something new (on-line
doc); and the revised, re-issued "bad manual" won't look a thing like the
original "bad manual" (probably have a different title(s) as well) and,
hopefully, won't have to overcome all the bad PR generated by the original.

Suggestions:
1. Take breaks to clean out your file drawers, PC directories, etc.,
2.  Look fondly at the good work you've done in the past (and present),
3.  Ask for a big raise because bringing the dead to life ain't easy, and
4.  Put up a "Rumplestiltskin at Work" sign outside your office.

Good luck!
Rumplestiltskin