Technical Communicator as Strategic Contributor

by Victoria Maki with Anne Mehaffey

Introduction

Continuing high-tech layoffs and offshoring of technical writing jobs make the current economy challenging. It seems that the dot-com bust and the 9/11 tragedy were just two of many ongoing body blows to our industry over the last three years. In an effort to cope with this challenging business climate, both companies and technical communicators are contemplating the return on investment for documentation. As a result, many technical communicators are now striving to make the business case for documentation by proving what companies recoup as a result of their outlay. As Paula Berger wrote in "Zeroing In on the Bottom Line" (Intercom, January 2002):

We need to demonstrate that we are creating information that
directly adds to the value of the product.

This is all well and good, but how is a technical communicator to proceed? And isn't there a large part of what we do for customers that is just plain difficult to quantify? For example, few would deny that an adequately detailed and accurate table of contents is essential to a technical manual, but what is it worth in dollars and cents?

Nevertheless, the shift continues from providing quality technical documentation to the user to providing value to the company producing the product. In light of this, how can we prove our worth to employers and clients?
Many interesting models are being and have been proposed over the years. For example, JoAnn Hackos put forth a publications process maturity model (analogous to the software process maturity model) in her 1994 book, Managing Your Documentation Projects. More recently, Andrea Ames, First Vice President of STC, suggested a role-based model with four roles of increasing value to the company and leadership responsibilities on the part of the technical communicator:

• Commodity
• Communicator
• Profit Maker
• Strategic Contributor

Thoughts on the Role of Strategic Contributor

It's an intriguing model, and a compelling one. For those who are captured by the model, I think it's difficult to understand who wouldn't want to climb the ladder to strategic contributor. When I volunteered to write an article for the Willamette Valley newsletter, the original assignment was to interview a strategic contributor. However, I wanted to do a somewhat different interview.

When Anne Mehaffey, Regional Activities Manager of the Silicon Valley chapter, learned about this model, she expressed some opinions about whether it should be adopted by every technical communicator. I wanted to hear more and sat down on a warm California afternoon to discuss this with her.

Viki: Anne, tell me about your background as a technical communicator.

Anne: I have been a technical communicator for 17 years. My specialty is writing process instructions. Technical writing is my third career. Starting as a cartographer just out of college, and later as a PCB film technician, I wrote up the operational procedures I followed. I enjoyed that. When I trained other technicians to follow the procedures, I found that I also enjoyed watching how people learn.

By chance, I met a technical writer from Racal Vadic in 1983 who told me that I might be able to write procedures for both love and money. I got a Technical Writing Certificate from DeAnza College and a job as a junior writer at Tektronix/CAE Systems. When the CAE division moved to Oregon two years later, I started contracting, trading, as they say, the illusion of security for the illusion of freedom. I have written about every technology from CAE to Web based IT and I still find the process interesting.

Viki: What questions came up for you when you first heard about the model of the strategic contributor?

Anne: I first heard about the most advanced level of the model, that of the strategic contributor itself. I remembered myself as a fledgling writer all those years ago and how the very idea of being a contributor on a strategic level would have sent a shiver through me, as I was not personally assertive enough to see myself in that kind of role. I was happy to document my product and I was satisfied to see the tangible results of something I had personally created. When I am immersed in a project, it still feels that way.

Viki: What would have helped you to move to the role of strategic contributor?

Anne: As a staff writer with some experience under my belt, I could have been mentored to the next level up. Key elements in reaching a goal for me are understanding that I can get there and seeing myself at the goal. Another person paving the way with possibilities within an organization could have led me forward. I was mentored into technical writing itself by a manager two levels above me who saw that I was working too many hours of overtime as a film technician at Fairchild to go to night school for the writing program. He made it possible for me to take a different job within the company while I obtained the certificate. Without other people helping, it's hard to pave a path to advancement.

Viki: So writers who can see themselves in a strategic position can get there with help?

Anne: Yes, if the position is publicized and help is offered, you can go from here to there. I am sure I started out as a commodity writer, but my interest in technology was noticed and it gave me the lift to the communicator level. "Designing the solution to a communication problem," as the role's purpose is described, is possible when you understand the technology well enough to see how the product benefits from the documentation you write.
Viki: Offshoring has sent much of the commodity writing out of the country. How does offshoring fit into this process?

Anne: Those writers who do not have a good, strong interest in technology may see their jobs offshored sooner rather than later. That said, it's still important to stay positive. Those of us who have been around awhile know that things do generally work themselves out.

Viki: How can commodity writers evaluate their options?

To clearly see the path of possibilities, they need to look inside to find where their interests lie. So many of us never think of this, thinking only of following someone else's model. As you said, if you can see yourself at the top level clearly, you cannot understand how others do not. The reverse is also true: If you cannot see yourself there, it's hard to see how others do, and with this recognition comes the angst of feeling like you have somehow been left behind when it comes to understanding your career path.

Got the technical interest? Then you can become a communicator. Been asked to contribute to usability and liked doing it? Then you can see yourself as a profit maker. Interested in the direction of the company? Willing to take some business courses to learn the vocabulary spoken at the upper management level so you can join in the dialogue? Then you may be on the path to strategic contributor.

Viki: Do you see yourself as a strategic contributor?

Anne: Even at this stage of my career, the idea of being seen as a profit maker or strategic contributor gives me a bit of a fright. I'd rather have someone else manage that aspect of the business. The level of the strategic contributor is managerial, and I think only those with a keen interest in it and the gift for handling the maneuvering that goes on need apply.

Because the company ROI is made transparent all the way down to the "worker bee" level these days, we are offered the privilege of feeling that we are contributing to the ROI. On the other hand, our writing methodology exercises us daily in the practice of evaluating cause and effect, and so those of us who think about it can also see that this privilege carries with it a measure of responsibility for the ROI. Did I want this 17 years ago? No. Do I want it now? Well, maybe, if you are willing to sell me on it. And I'd want more personal ROI for the adventure than just money or power.

However, while I do not aspire to be a businessperson, I also do not want to feel like my career has a dead-end several levels below the top. The model we are considering is similar to the engineering ladder found at large companies. There is a place at higher levels for those with extensive experience in their technology. These people combine the depth of their technical knowledge with exposure to the company's considered directions, offering an enlightened viewpoint in the management arena.

Viki: And you do not see this as a preferred direction for yourself?

Anne: Not now. Why not just be really good at what you are good at? Writers who have both the interest and experience can add an understanding of the broader aspects of product design to their repertoire. Interaction design, information architecture, user experience—all of these technical studies contribute to good product development. There is plenty of satisfaction to be had with these paths if you'd like to take part in the bigger picture.

In the engineering ladder model, there is a place for journeyman contributors, those whose interest continues to lie in the development of technical understanding, without the management ascent. I think of myself as a journeyman contributor.

Viki: Where do you see your future path?

Anne: I'm looking into the new field of interaction design, having met some young interaction designers at the DUX conference this year. Interaction design sees product development combining mechanical design, architectural design, and information technology views, all areas of interest for me. I have also been looking into instructional design with an e-Learning specialty.

With the offshoring movement, I know I want to follow the path that keeps me "co-located," as they say, with the product developers, because without them, this work would be but a fraction of the fun. I look into different options all the time, trying them on like hats to see which one feels the best. Right now I write about design tools, electrical and mechanical. I like my current hat. When I find my next hat, I'll get back to you!

Victoria Maki has been a technical trainer for 17 years and a technical writer for 13 years. Along with her husband and business partner, James Bisso, she owns Bitzone LLC, www.bitzone.com. Bitzone provides API documentation and training to such companies as Oracle, Inprise, and Cisco. Jim and Viki are currently writing a book on developer documentation.

Viki is a senior member of the Berkeley STC chapter and a former president of the chapter. She was a 2003 Distinguished Chapter Service Award winner for the Berkeley chapter.

Anne Mehaffey has been a technical communicator for 17 years and currently serves the Silicon Valley STC as their Regional Activities Manager.

As a contractor with Superior Technical Documentation, Anne writes short-and-sweet process instructions for all technologies. Her business card says it best: "You invent it -- I'll explain it."