atw: Accreditation
- From: "Jill Nicholson" <jpnicho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:58:14 +1100
MessageThe Australian Medical Writers Association has an accreditation status
that has worked well for many years.
It is based on the US model - if that is off-putting to some then the US model
has also worked well for many years.
I have been involved with the Aus AMWA and a close friend with the US AMWA, so
I speak with a little knowledge.
I also belonged to a very large prestigious professional group (Association)
when I was a geo - their membership was work/time based, and you couldn't get a
professional job without an appropriate membership - which came in several
grades. That has also worked well for many years, but membership was very
expensive.
However, I still believe the issue of accreditation to be a difficult one with
such a diversified group as tech writers - so few of whom acknowledge they are
tech writers and many of whom we have never found.
Jill
Jill Nicholson
N&H Communications
2 Park Ave
ROSEVILLE, NSW 2069
61+2+94174302
jpnicho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.nhcommunications.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: Warren Lewington
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
Thanks Ted, Michele.
I would be happy to organise something somewhere. I think
Sydney/Melbourne/Can't-borough would get big turnouts for a nation-wide
teleconference. I can organise a meeting room in Epping Sydney with some
remarkable on-line facilities, close to trains and parking.
Is el-presidente for ASTC-NSW lurking on the list?
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ted Briggs
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 17:34
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
The members of the societies of editors in Australia voted in Dec 2004 in
favour of introducing an accreditiation scheme for editors. That vote was the
culmination of several years of work which is still continuing, and I think the
first accreditation is still at least a year off. It is indeed a long haul, for
all the reasons that have been identified on this list. However there is a
definite commitment to making it work.
For an update on where it is up to (or at least where it was up to at the
last National editors' conference in Oct 2005), have a read of this report:
http://www.iped-editors.org/files/Accred_Going_On.pdf
The Institute of Professional Editors (a sort of umbrella body for the
state-based societies) has lots of information about the history of
accreditaion and about the proposed scheme:
http://www.iped-editors.org/accreditation.html
Cheers
Ted Briggs
Business and Technical Writing and Editing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Irene Wong
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 3:51 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
I understand that the professional bodies (state based) for editors are
also looking at this issue of accreditation.
Irene Wong
Publishing Manager
Office of Corporate Affairs, Sydney
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
02 9911 2601 (internally dial 22601)
"Bruce Ashley" <bashley@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
16/01/2007 03:00 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Fax to
Subject
atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
IMNSHO, the Westies option floundered because it offered a model based on
popularity (or that was my perception) and not on ability.
Those like myself want to see the introduction of a skills/knowledge-based
accreditation system, NOT a guild model based simply on time in the job or
on a vote by those we potentially do not class as our peers.
I personally know several TWs that have been in the job for years and still
cannot produce a workable template and I would be disappointed if they
controlled the agenda, any part of the industry or my professional standing.
But apart from that, and the childish references to the PM, I agree with
much of what Warren has to say.
BTW, I argued against the formation of the STC chapter at the time but
clearly Jill et. aliae needed something not available from the ASTC.
Cheers,
Bruce Ashley
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hallett, Michelle
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 2:33 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish
contribution)
Who cares which professional association does it as long as someone
does.
As for the Westies effort, why did it fizzle? Why wasn't it promoted
further by the people who developed it.
I've certainly offered to help in the past, I came to a Westies meeting
once to do so, even though getting there is difficult for me (I live on
the Central Coast). I promoted the effort in the 'American organisation'
during the 5-6 years when I was a volunteer there. And my reason for
being involved there was to ensure that money paid in fees by Australian
members came back to this country to promote the profession here. It had
nothing whatsoever to do with George W and Little Johnnie.
So Warren, I think I've earned the right to make a little noise.
What about the rest of you? Do you want some respect and a little better
pay packet? Or do you want to keep whingeing?
Michelle Hallett
IT Trainer/Support Analyst
Leighton Contractors P/L
Tel: 02 8668 6047
Fax: 02 8668 6666
Mob: 0434 183 541
Email: michelle.hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Warren
Lewington
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 1:38 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another
longish contribution)
Well.
You know.
At the Westies we identified a number of possible solutions to many of
our
problems we face as technical writers. Professional promotion and
associations rise prominently in the conversations. Some members of ASTC
NSW
tried to promote a process of establishing a credible and logical system
of
accreditation/training, and together with the Westies came up with a
couple
of options. At the same time, various people have been trying to
amalgamate
the disparate technical communication associations into one. Reason?
This
country isn't big enough for two. And while I admire those who can
afford to
belong to an American association, they don't give a shit about the
minions
of George W's lap-dog Little Johnnie.
All we have received in response here in Australia is muted support or
criticism. Because we as a fraternity don't want to work together, we
aren't
going to get anywhere changing the problems.
It is always interesting to see the people who make the most noise very
often don't help the volunteers who run the industry associations. If we
want to change things in our industry we are all going to have to
contribute. United we stand. Otherwise: Divided we fall.
I know of several nobodies who changed an entire industry (at their
direct
financial benefit) simply because they were opportunistic (and
narcissistic)
enough to do it. We could do exactly the same thing if we so chose, and
it
would benefit us all directly. Again, look at accountants, project
managers,
actuaries (hell of a case study there), physiotherapists, doctors and so
the
list goes on.
Are we dedicated professionals, prepared to defend ourselves and benefit
our
fraternity or are we a bunch of wusses?
Warren Lewington.
Black-listed black-humoured black-sheep.
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:01
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Both Colin and Christine make a valid point in that it is our
responsibility
to educate people as to what we are and what we can do and we need to do
so
as a group. We need our professional associations to lead this
discussion
and to create forums in which these matters can be discussed. And the
results need to be promoted within the community.
We also need to stop being afraid of agents lurking on the list. They do
not
control (and, as Colin pointed out, often do not understand) what we do.
We
need to educate them and help them understand, and where exploitation
occurs
we need to act against it and refuse to work for agencies who undermine
our
skills or undersell them. Agencies need to be able to attract the best
staff
for their clients, no agent wants to be ignored by people with the best
skills.
It all starts with us valuing what we do and teaching employers and
agencies
to value it. Look at the respect within IT for project managers. Most of
them have less skills than technical writers and some of the ones I've
worked with have far less technical knowledge. They have professional
associations which promote them and the work they do.
Michelle Hallett
IT Trainer/Support Analyst
Leighton Contractors P/L
Tel: 02 8668 6047
Fax: 02 8668 6666
Mob: 0434 183 541
Email: michelle.hallett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Saturday, 13 January 2007 9:28 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Very well said, Colin
I had a contract with a team of Business Analysts where I realised the
same
thing. I was employed as a technical writer to document their
processes, by
a manager who could not get to grips with why their work was so bad. I
realised very quickly how seriously TWs are underselling themselves.
Where we "write procedures" a business analyst is a "process analyst".
Where
we "document systems" a BA is a "functional analyst". Where we perform
a
needs analysis, a BA is a "requirements analyst".
The perception of the manager was that only those from an IT background
could do any of the "analyst" jobs well. So the role of a TW was to
write
what analysts tell them to write, where the role of a BA is to think and
write as well. No matter what I did, I did not manage to change her
perceptions that the BA had to come from a techo background. She wanted
me
to invent systems to get them to write well, when the problem was that
they
could not think well.
In part she was right. I have worked with far too many TWs who do not
require that they make sense of what they write, or that any user is
ever
going to be able to use what they write. Unfortunately the industry is
at
least littered if not dominated by this passive type of TW who just
produces
wads of fabulously punctuated drivel. Even worse, this seems to be what
the
employer wants them to do. "There has to be documentation so produce it
- we
all know it is a waste of money and time and that it will sit on the
shelves
(metaphorically) collecting dust, so let's not take the whole process
too
seriously!"
On the other hand, the Business Analysts, on the whole, could only do
one of
those jobs (process, functional or requirements) and even then not do it
very well, where any competent and thinking TW can do all of them, and
do
them superbly.
I don't think our primary problem is providing a standard by which we
can be
measured. The problem comes before that, with identifying what we are
measuring. To my mind it comes back, all the time, to our use of
language -
the person who invents the language is in control, so we need to be
inventing the language that covers what we do. What is the name for the
"thinking tech writer" compared to the "transcription tech writer"? What
is
the name for the TW who is a good analyst, compared to the TW who will
structure and punctuate something superbly, compared to the TW who will
graphically present something that someone else writes, compared to the
TW
who can script a good website, compared to the TW who can write
documentation that trains the reader. These are all different skills.
The
employer knows which they want, so we should give them the language to
recruit that person.
At the next conference why not use a facilitation methodology with an
expert
facilitator, and a full day session, to brainstorm through the types of
skill sets, give them names, identify their customers, etc? After that,
this list could agree to use the new terminology, and send it around to
every single recruiter they know. What price a day in our lives? Is a
day
too much?
ck
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Info Action
Sent: Friday, 12 January 2007 8:29 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (long)
Hi,
I am between contracts right now, with some time up my sleeve for a
visit to
austechwriter. (Gratuitous plug: I am in the market if there's any
contracts
around with direct-to-client billing). I've just picked up on the thread
started by Gary Stevens - I'm a bit late to the party on this, but I'd
like
to comment.
I think the debate about recruitment agencies arising from Gary's post
is
tangential to the real issue: how is it that recruiters have become the
gatekeepers of technical writing in Australia? Sadly, the observation
that
'some of them might be reading this, so we better not say anything bad'
may
not be too far from the truth.
Here's what I see as the consequences of the current status quo:
1. The majority of agency placements are opportunistic. The agency has a
relationship with the client via 'mainstream' placements (programmers
etc)
but doesn't want to miss an opportunity when they uncover a tech writer
vacancy, even though they have minimal credentials in evaluating the
skills
of candidates. Naturally I exclude specialist agencies from this
observation.
2. For many agencies, the first pass of filtering is done by machine.
They
are just searching for a few magic words. This will obviously eliminate
well-qualified candidates who didn't use the right combination of magic
words.
Part of the reason that recruiters have resorted to such a low-skill
approach is that job descriptions are vague and don't mention critical
requirements. Perhaps they just don't understand the role? I realise in
many
cases the client does not provide a decent job description, but surely
this
is an opportunity for the recruiter to add some value to the process?
Tighter job descriptions would yield fewer and better qualified
applicants.
3. The reputation of technical writers as a whole is diminished. There
are
way too many defacto editors being placed as writers. The expectation
that a
writer can create original content (rather than rewrite dictation or
drafts)
has all but disappeared from Australian industry.
Further, technical skills are vestigial. Job descriptions are mostly
framed
to eliminate their need, which is really a pity because there is so much
more value that can be added when they are available. It's a serious
constraint on the scope of tech writing roles.
4. The role of technical writers has stagnated. It's the recruiters who
decide exactly what a tech writer can do (and cannot do), hence the role
does not evolve to take onboard relevant new technologies (how did
graphic
designers gazump tech writers in the first wave of web developers?). I
once
attended a Knowledge Management seminar, only to find that KM luminaries
were grappling with the concept of "identifying audiences"!
This is not a question of ability, it is a question of perception. It's
pretty much a case of "don't you worry about that, just keep pressing
Alt
Print Screen".
5. Extending points (1) and (2), the lack of ability in identifying
actual
skill means that many candidates are chosen on the basis of the
companies
that they have worked for and the job titles they held. How many times
have
you seen a role advertised with a 'prestige client?' The client name is
everything to recruiters - far more important than the actual job
skills.
Fact: it is far easier to hide incompetence in a big company than in a
one-person department.
6. Again on points (1) and (2) there is an inappropriate fixation with
software package. You must have seen it - 'two years recent experience
with
Framemaker' and so on. The fact is, expertise in any package is quickly
transferred to comparable packages. Anyway, I think the notion that
Framemaker is hard to learn has arisen through the lore of
inexperienced/incompetent practitioners who had only minimal
understanding
of Word to begin with.
7. Contractors exist in a no-man's land, deemed by the ATO to be
employees
when working through an agency, but treated by agencies as a business.
As
far as the ATO is concerned, agency contractors have no tax entitlements
beyond a normal employee, yet they are still obliged to carry the normal
risks and costs of running a business.
8. Agencies add a significant overhead but not much value. This is
generally
true of any agency placement, but a particular burden with technical
writing
due to the poor quality of selection, as per point (1).
Think about it: the agency offers no warranty to the client and no
guarantee
of continuity to the contractor. Only the agency benefits from this
arrangement. Obviously clients have only themselves to blame by
outsourcing
their HR function and not effectively supervising the process. But how
did
tech writers come to be such passive victims? (see next point).
9. We have only ourselves to blame. All professionals will be compared
when
it comes time to make a selection - it's a simple consequence of having
more
candidates than roles. We provide no standard by which we can be
measured,
so others step into the void. The process is in many cases superficial
and
the criteria inappropriate, but it's better than indicators that we
collectively give about ourselves (i.e. nothing).
OK then . that's about all I have to get off my shoulders on this
subject.
Oh yes . happy new year!
cheers
Colin Dawson
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date:
10/01/2007
2:52 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date:
12/01/2007
2:04 PM
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
************************************************************************
****
*
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
intended
for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the
information
contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived, lost or
destroyed if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or
dissemination of
the information contained in the email and/or file attachment, by a
recipient other than the addressee, may cause commercial damage to
both/either the sender and/or addressee. If you are not the addressee of
this email/file attachment contact the sender immediately and delete
this
email/file attachment.
All email communications to and from this company are filtered and
stored
for risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and Email
Policies. Please contact our Privacy Manager on (02) 8668 6947 if you
would
like further information about our Policies in regard to these issues.
************************************************************************
****
*
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended
for use by the addressee only. The confidential nature of the information
contained in the email and/or file attachment is not waived, lost or
destroyed if it is sent to other than the addressee. Use or dissemination of
the information contained in the email and/or file attachment, by a
recipient other than the addressee, may cause commercial damage to
both/either the sender and/or addressee. If you are not the addressee of
this email/file attachment contact the sender immediately and delete this
email/file attachment.
All email communications to and from this company are filtered and stored
for risk management purposes in accordance with our Computer and Email
Policies. Please contact our Privacy Manager on (02) 8668 6947 if you would
like further information about our Policies in regard to these issues.
****************************************************************************
*
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
**************************************************
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
**************************************************
NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and
may be confidential. They may contain legally privileged or copyright material.
You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without authorisation. If you
are not the intended recipient please contact the sender as soon as possible by
return e-mail and then please delete both messages. This notice should not be
removed.
- References:
- atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: Warren Lewington
Other related posts:
- » atw: Accreditation
- » atw: Accreditation
- » atw: Accreditation
- » atw: Accreditation
- atw: Re: Agencies, contractors and other gripes (another longish contribution)
- From: Warren Lewington