|
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
CIDM Director
www.infomanagementcenter.com
Recently, the STC Management SIG has been engaged in a
thread about the "visibility" in the organization of
information-development processes. The question focuses on
how obtrusive these processes should be in the organization.
One view, expressed by Donn LeVie, argues that other
managers, especially engineering managers, may find our
processes to be annoying. They don't want to be told that
publications needs to write information plans and content
specifications or needs three weeks to make publications
print-ready.
My concern with the focus of the discussion is this. Why
should information-development managers go along with the
assumption by others that our work is second class? Do we
need to hide our processes or make them unobtrusive because
they might annoy others in the organization?
I contend, and have always done so, that the development of
information to support effective use of a product is
essential to its success, whatever form that information may
take. The information may be text and explanations directly
in the interface as a form of performance support. It may be
help text tied closely to activities being performed by the
user. It may be supplementary reference texts, FAQs,
knowledge bases, training information, and more. Without
information (text and graphics) of some sort, we would have
command-based interfaces in which expert users would have
already memorized the commands. Not many products start at
that point these days, if they ever did so.
On the other hand, I know of at least one instance in which
an engineering manager called the publications director to
get a senior writer fired because that writer had created a
detailed content specification for a project and asked
members of the engineering team to review it. The
engineering manager argued that producing such a
specification was a complete waste of time, and he never
wanted to see or pay for another one. The publications
director told him that they would continue to plan, they
just wouldn't ask him to review the documents anymore. A
partial capitulation, but it stopped the screaming.
We all know of examples of writers who have to resort to
bribes to get engineers and programmers to give them
information or review documents. They keep up a steady
supply of candy, cookies, or fruitcake (oops, probably not
fruitcake) to get "professional" colleagues to act
professionally.
Why do some people in organizations regard it as their right
to treat others badly? Do they also abuse janitors, delivery
people, and secretaries? What is the publications manager
supposed to do in response? Why are your team members
treated badly?
You won't succeed, I would argue, by becoming unobtrusive.
We have to have well-developed, thorough processes in place,
setting a good example in terms of project management. We
need to collect and report measurements that show the
relationship between good planning and a reduction in
development time and errors. We need to act professionally
at all times and avoid whining about a lack of respect. We
need to be effective managers who strongly support the
activities of our team members and teach them how to act
appropriately in difficult situations.
In short, we always need to stand up for what we do. I know
many, many excellent managers who take this stance. They are
assertive about the responsibilities and needs of their team
members but not unpleasantly aggressive in pursuing their
own agendas. They also spend a lot of time and effort
educating team members in professional behavior.
|
