atw: RANT: KB articles
- From: "Steve Hudson" <adslyy5g@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Word PC List'" <WORD-PC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:38:34 +1000
(I have clearly marked the summary below for those dear readers who desire
the abbreviated version)
ABSTRACT
________
MS have an abundance of information that is all but untranslatable to
knowledge due to their current business practices.
BACKGROUND
__________
Those readers who also subscribe to KBAlertz (www.kbalertz.com) may have
noted this serendiptiously; I can't claim such intuitive brilliance as I
have had access to some privileged inside info over the years. Just lately
it has been REALLY driven home (as demonstrated by my relative silence on
the KB updates over the last 12 months) and is driving me a tiny bit crazier
than I was before (if this is possible).
The first major problem with the MS KB is there is NO knowledge management
process in place to talk about. Most recent articles are merely restatements
of faults with older versions.
Let me explain.
Word 97 comes out. Some poor user notes the Page x of y problem exists.
Sweet, MS document it in the KB and move on. Word 2000 comes out. Some poor
user notes the Page x of y problem exists. MS document a whole new KB
article, essentially the same as the 97 one. Bi-bowwwwww.
This is the most important filter in my re-reporting KBAlertz to here. I am
not going to tell you that Page x of y exists in Word 2003 - we already know
about it as a std Word problem. At best, one would report "Hey, most of the
old problems and workarounds still exist as is in the new version."
MS are _aware_ that their users (eg, us!) would prefer a
platform-independent report. For a start, it reduces our search targets by
four fifths or more. Secondly, it most certainly implies their documentation
/ testing teams SHOULD be going through known problems and validating them
against the new version: almost certainly not in practice if one examines
the KB articles' publication dates.
Unfortunately, this drastically reduces the effectiveness of KB Alertz and
the KB itself. The flip side is, MS have to rewrite several major internal
processes, as well as the supporting technology. So the current status of
this problem is a big fat unknown, other than these interpolations.
To get back closer to my original argument, knowledge management (KM) has a
bit more to it than information management (IM). Arguably, MS are already
practicing IM (maybe poorly)in their KB. They most certainly are NOT
practicing KM. KM would demand IM deltas be presented in manner that people
could mostly adsorb the changes as a big picture. So really, it is an
INFORMATION BASE, not a knowledge base.
Practically speaking, this means that MS would have to admit, up front, the
problems that they HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IN THIS VERSION. The marketing arm
would NEVER allow this to happen; it is arguable both ways whether their
motivations is valid or not. The cons say "Folks won't buy if there is
little in it for them, but will buy if they THINK there MAY be something in
it for them". The pros say "If major customers were accurately informed on
WHAT THEIR DAMN GUARENTEED TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE actually CONTAINS, this would
build a MUCH larger confidence in MS".
Quite frankly, I think the whole thing needs a major reworking. For each KB
article:
* a multiple-select field for product (oh yes, there is common technology
between Office products). Eg This is a known problem for Outlook, Word and
Powerpoint.
* a multiple-select field for product version. Eg This is a known problem
for Word 2002, Word 2000, Word 97 - all service packs
* edition sensitive information. Eg All this STUFF is true for the scope.
This particular little bit of info is ONLY applicable to Word 2000 without
SP2.
* a field dedicated to WHAT FINALLY FIXES THE PROBLEM: Eg Word 2003 SP2
finally addresses this issue.
* a field dedicated to work-arounds, both MS internal AND customer provided.
Such work-arounds need a "Tested" checkbox. That way, I can choose to try
out an untested solution if desperate. MS then have to test user suggestions
for validity in order to increase the information on hand.
* a field to link to an overview topic that links that KB to other similar
ones.
* a multiple-select field to limit the technology area that it affects. For
example List Numbering, Tables, Documents. For more info see the Word MVP
FAQ structure, my book's TOCs etc.
* a field to indicate whether the info is relevant to the GUI, scripting (Eg
VBA, C#.Net) or both.
(NB: Multi-select is for the KB authors)
SUMMARY
________
So after all this, what does it all mean to you, the MS Office user?
For a start, there is very little official MS information that you can
consult with a high level of trust that informs you of the true differences
between technology bases. Eg, "Dear listies, where can I find a list of
differences between my current copy of Word 2000 and the latest Word 2003
SP1?" will never be replied to with a reliable MS source.
To compound this problem, third-party organisations (eg Word Heretic dot
com) have an enormous challenge to face to accurately document the
differences. Literally it is a case of having to test EVERYTHING. Practical
time and resource constraints all but forbid this.
Next, new KB articles (esp. applications vs OS) are of a lot less value than
would appear on the surface - as subscription to KBAlertz rapidly
demonstrates. S2N runs at about 1% - so low it ALL BUT OBVIATES THE PURPOSE!
So, this poor method of KM implementation is ALL BUT USELESS.
Last, there is the trust levels of the info. If we get used to poor info, we
don't take it on board. In formal KM terms, we don't take ownership of the
information - thereby converting it to KNOWLEDGE.
To wit, MS' knowledge base is a poorly managed information repository of
decreasing usability as time passes which needs a major internal project for
effective change.
Steve Hudson
Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
www.wordheretic.com
"Qualified Good Tech Writer Dude"
Fellowship of the Ring of Technical Writers, Yeah Baby!
**************************************************
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:
