atw: ASTC(NSW) Unofficial minutes 26/8/4 Acceditation
- From: "Steve Hudson" <adslyy5g@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:01:03 +1000
G'day, I won't bother with intro's etc, I am sure more than enough of you
are familiar with me that the ones who aren't have someone to ask if
necessary. I think the popular opinion is close to "I'm the grumpy bastard
in the corner, who crawls up everyone's nostril and plucks the contents".
Anyway...
I try and stay offlist as much as possible as my mission is aided by not
participating in popular chat. In this particular case, as was another
recent one on another list, our craft is in mention.
Tonight we had a strange thingo. Me, I saw "Next Sydney City meeting" on the
ASTC newsletter and went "YAY! Another meeting at last!". Then, at the 12th
hour, I get filled in on what is where and why, and get shown replications
of the on-here's <non genitive please>.
First, if we get 5 people to a meeting (inc the president who had to open),
it's time to say "What are we bothering for?" I know we have more members
than that and was terribly disappointed to see such a dismal turn-up. If it
turns out that it was mainly because, unlike me, they knew what was to go
down, I can understand that. I really don't think this is the case, and if
you don't put in, you get nothing out.
Second, if the agenda for the meeting had been set, as was quite clear, why
was this not published? Normally we have "Guest Speaker: John McGhie
explains exactly why Word sucks chronically". This time, Meeting On! Hmmm.
Now, the meeting. First, as usual, I am just hopeless at convention. Mr Bean
caught me brown-paper-bagging outside whilst we both bushfired. Then pre
meet I chatted to Janet (mostly re my wife), then chatted to Brian and
didn't pay much attention to the politics. Then, the other three sorta
decided that it twas time to get into it. The first thing that struck me was
Brian really knows his stuff about educational frameworks. I mean I actually
knew what he was talking about, having had recent experience in exactly the
areas he discussed. He framed it beautifully in our context and it was quite
impressive, as his missives here have shown. The second thing that struck me
was that all Brian was interested in and could see was an educational
framework...
I was under instructions to keep my cool and let Alan do the talking. It
didn't quite work that way, but Al and I were literally seeing eye to eye on
this one. So, before I present my incredibly biased view, we can say that
the nitrous hand being played was:
Janet was trying hard to be neutral which meant backing Brian's floor
majority to have the argument heard.
Beany is an intellectual dude who aint been through the westies grill and so
was offering support for the concept of quantification and qualification
(non educational sense) from his Q bkground.
Al was a last minute drag in when he discovered, as the recently denigrated
presenter of a group effort inadvertently triggering this flow of events,
that the presence of those that mattered couldn't be assured. He most firmly
stands against quals and quants as part of the MONTHS of work that MANY
Westies whacked into this and was expecting a far worse situation that we
had (only 5 of us).
Brian is extremely experienced in quals and quants.
Steve used to be on the side of quals and quants until numerous discussions
with the Westies thrashed it to death! He found much personal amusement in
seeing Beany and Brian necrophically assaulting the same old corpulsecent
quadrepedal mount.
Glossing over debating styles and personal differences, there were some
major problems with the proposed agenda, which was never passed for
approval, and input into it was neither sought nor gained. At best, one
could say it was biased towards a result that saw our skills evaluated in a
Q&Q manner for approval.
Step 1 - find a scribe. Well, we pulled out a tape recorder.
Step 2 - Agree what we are talking about
First, as I had already discovered with my chat with Brian, there are a
number of extremely precise terms that cover the gamut of meaning we loosely
ascribe to accreditation. By the meetings end we had loosely determined, as
an unofficial poll, that what we NEED now is something inbetween licensing
and membership.
To give the two extreme examples...
I am a member of ASTC. I am better than than the Non-ASTC member. I passed
no exam, just payed (sic) my money.
I am a licensed Technical Writer. By hiring a non-licensed technical writer
to do the job exposes the client to legal challenges. (Think car mechanics,
medicos etc)
As has been previously thrashed many times, tech writers cover any extremely
broad spectrum of capabilities. Trying to Q&Q this will cost. It will cost
regularly. This means that members have to pay good money for... What
exactly.
Like any good tech writer, examine the audience first yeah? There are two
major stakeholders in this. The employer and the technical writer. Whilst
the value chain contains many more players, it is only those players
influence upon these two stakeholders that matter.
Extreme example: Does Joe Blow purchase My Unique Word Processor over
Another Word Processor purely because it has on the cover "Documentation
prepared by a Qualified Good Tech Writer Dude!"
Whilst Q&Q would be an ideal end for TW cert, it is by no means of any value
today. What we need is some sort of mark on our foreheads to show the Cain't
do's from the Ables. From the Westies, we more or less have these criteria:
* Is every person you know as at least a reasonable tech writer able to pass
the litmus test and does the test allow for all the other sorts of technical
writers you know about?
* Is it simple, repeatable and addressable?
* Does it provide real value for the employer?
If, over time, we build this brand, then yes, licensing and the attendant
fees start to become a real possibility. Licensed members should enjoy more
frequent work and or higher rates. At that point, the fees don't matter,
right?
This is what was penned as outcomes on the final, despite us never really
being allowed to address it.
Point 4 was how will we measure this outcomes and the simple answer is "a,
we don't care right now and b, greater membership and employment thereof"
Point 5 was the methods we use to setup and run the system. Despite recent
allegations, the Westies have offered a means of moving from now to then.
Implementation some would say. Peer recognition based upon a period of
acquaintance and surface examination of some sample output materials
accompanied by an oral examination about the materials. This requires no
set-up cost. Additionally, if we add the final level of journeymen, we can
start to discuss standardisation which will lead to qualifications and
certifications, which then allow us to discuss accreditation proper.
When we propose models, there are some key characteristics that immediately
identify the model as unsuitable for current practice. The most obvious one
goes "Employers arent allowed to". We simply don't have the pull. Another
one goes "We have to pay lots of money to ...". Shaboom.
However, what we don't want is a system where Jane the Greengrocer is able
to become Jane The Technical Writer because Her Friend said so. That is, we
must also be able to strike people off the list of "able to certify".
This system costs very little to implement and maintain, and initial
friction can be avoided by saying stuff like any ABN of a body that supports
technical writers able to raise an initial quorum of 30 to vote in 5 initial
Masters of their can claim Fellowship of the Ring of Technical Writers Yeah
Baby. Essentially, as part of my Westies assignment into the history and
future of technical writing, not even dreamt about tonight of course, I had
already suggested a guild based model. To be fair, I have far too much
fantasy RPG experience to ever think of much else. It's a good system.
Apprentices, Fellows, Senior Fellows, Masters, Journeymen. We covered it
several times tonight and everyone seemed more or less happy with it.
Besides, I think our core competencies will be drastically altering in 10
years and so assessing such now is all but pointless. Its peer recognition:
has someone else seen your stuff, familiar with you and the way you work,
and say its kinda cool. It's a basis to start. Over years, we can get
employers to recognise that when they hire a FRTWYB dude, he is always a
competent TW, and the FRTWYB acro gets good brand value. Then you can charge
and provide Value Added Services like accreditation.
All that takes if for ASTC(NSW) to agree to keep a registrar of names and
those people to maintain a current contact with the ASTC(NSW) through its
prescribed communication channels. Peering is also possible with comms
channels. We could start it tomorrow. All we need is 30 tech writers in one
room...
Q&Q was positively shown to be impossible (cost, time, resources,
diversity). This negates accreditation and instead, a peer-based low-cost
'licensing' system would still appear to be the best model, as per initial
guild models.
Steve Hudson
Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
www.wordheretic.com
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
- » atw: ASTC(NSW) Unofficial minutes 26/8/4 Acceditation
