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.
I think Eric makes a valuable point -- that a man-month (as opposed to a
manmonth, which I also envision as something large with tusks and a trunk)
is "the effort of one person working for one standard month." And it is
used in calculations that can include putting multiple people on a one
man-month task, finishing it in 2 weeks.
The only way to have the same implication would be to change "man" to
"person," "individual," "worker" -- something that would imply a single
person doing the work. It sounds a little overly-PC, I think, to say
"person-month," but it's the only way I can find that has the same
implications and erradicates the gender issue.
A "labor month," as I suggested earlier, does sound more like a
chronological month, or at least could be interpreted in that way.
Perhaps a disclaimer is in order -- something in a "conventions and
standards" section that clearly equates the concepts. "Out of sensitivity
to the gender-specific nature of the term 'man-month,' this document uses
the gender-free term 'labor month.' A 'labor month' is defined as..."
...to make clear that this new term is not misconstrued?
Particularly since this is a term that is used primarily in contracting
information, "this contract is for 3 labor months of effort" could be
misunderstood to mean 3 months of however many people working, and could
create a legal nightmare for someone who signed the contract believing it
meant the effort of 3 people for the equivalent of one month of effort
each," and bid on the job accordingly, only to discover that when the
program manager put 6 people on the contract to finish it in half a month,
the client sued because he wanted is three months of effort....
In this case, as sensitive to the gender issues as I am, the legal clarity
of the term MUST take priority, and the gender-sensitive term would HAVE to
be clearly defined, because it is non-standard.
So in short, whoever it was who started all of this, I'd check with your
legal counsel to find out their take on the situation. Because it really
could have dire legal ramifications if handled wrong.
