Managing Writers

10 June 2009

Performance Evaluation Checklist

Filed under: STC2009 — Tags: , — @ 5:20 pm

At the STC 2009 Summit, I participated in the Management Progression. For those who aren’t familiar with a progression, it’s a bit like speed-dating, with a somewhat smaller chance of rejection. You have a large room with several big round tables. At each table is a presenter with a sign for his or her topic (My topic was Employee Performance Evaluation, a real barn-burner!). Attendees choose a table and join a conversation. After about 20 minutes, the moderator blows a virtual whistle and everyone except the presenters chooses a new table. You continue until you run out of time (our session was 90 minutes, so we got several rounds in).

That’s about it; it’s simple, but seems to work pretty well. The presenters typically do a little preparation, but mostly go with whatever the people at their table are interested in discussing. For my topic, I prepared a checklist for the performance evaluation process. I thought it turned out pretty well, so I’ve posted the checklist in PDF form. Feel free to use it as you wish for non-commercial purposes and please post any comments you have.
(more…)

16 April 2009

Headed to DocTrain/DITA and STC Summit

Filed under: DocBook, DocTrain, Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — @ 12:44 pm

I will be at both the Society for Technical Communication (STC) Summit in Atlanta next month (May 2-6) and DocTrain/DITA in Indianapolis (June 2-5).

At the former, I will be talking about employee performance evaluation as part of a “Progression,” which is the conference version of speed dating. There are tables set up in a large room, with a presenter at each table. Each presenter has a topic related to the progression; in this case, the broad topic of the progression is management and my sub-topic is employee performance evaluation.

Attendees join whichever table has a topic of interest, then every 20 minutes or so, the moderator blows a whistle (metaphorically) and attendees move to another table. The progressions I’ve been to in the past were informal events where you could talk with presenter about pretty much anything related to their sub-topic (or not).

Should be fun; I plan to prepare a “checklist” for performance evaluation that attendees can take away with them, and I’ll be prepared to discuss whatever they are interested in. If you’ve read my book, Managing Writers or the excerpts published in the Managing Writers blog, you know I have strong opinions about the topic, which I’ll be glad to share with anyone who stops by my table.

DocTrain/DITA is a whole different game. I will give two presentations, DocBook in the 21st Century: Yes, Virginia, There is a DocBook, and it is Alive and Well, which talks about the latest version of DocBook, and Getting Started with DocBook, which is aimed at getting attendees up and running with the DocBook schema and stylesheets.

More information about the DocTrain/DITA conference and my talks at my personal blog.

11 April 2009

Better Know a DITA

Filed under: XML Press — Tags: , , — @ 10:05 pm

As a long time DocBook user and advocate, it seemed to me that it was time to learn more about DITA. To that end, I have started two activities on the XML Press website. The first is an ongoing series of articles titled, A DITA Adventure, which follows my attempt to set up and use the DITA Open Toolkit. So far, I have downloaded, installed, and run a rudimentary test. Next up will be to try and generate some different types of output.

I’ve also posted a DITA Information Needs Survey, which is looking for input on what information people are looking for to help them use DITA. XML Press will use the results of that survey to help plan a series of DITA-related publications.

As a thank you to participants, XML Press will send the results of the survey to all participants who choose to leave their email address and will select one participant at random to receive his or her choice of a free copy of my book, Managing Writers: A Real World Guide to Managing Technical Documentation, or XML Press’s first DITA publication (which this survey will help determine).

The survey will be open until May 15.

1 April 2009

Practical DITA

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 6:25 pm

I just posted a review of Julio Vazquez’s new book, Practical DITA at XML Press.

The short review is that if you are brand new to DITA, but understand at least a little bit about markup languages (basic HTML is probably enough), this is a good place to start. It is a short excursion through the DITA philosophy and basic usage. For my full review, go here.

27 March 2009

Feeding on RSS

Filed under: Administrivia — Tags: — @ 6:59 pm

As part of moving the Managing Writers companion blog to its new URL (managingwriters.com), I have also moved the rss feeds, so that new information will go to anyone who was previously subscribed on either the old managingwriters.com site or the rlhamilton.wordpress.com blog. This should work transparently (knock on wood), but if you are reading the feeds and see any anomaly, please post a comment, and I’ll see what I can do to fix things.

The good news is that this should guarantee that no matter how you originally subscribed, you will get the latest information. And, if you haven’t subscribed, but want to get the latest information, go to the right hand side of the screen, scroll down a bit, and you will see links for rss directly or to add the feed to your Google or Yahoo pages.

24 March 2009

Podcast Interview about Managing Writers

Filed under: Book — Tags: , — rlhamilton @ 2:26 pm

Tom Johnson just posted a podcast of an interview with me at his website, http://idratherbewriting.com.

In the interview I talk about Managing Writers and answer Tom’s questions about the book.

Most of the discussion was about managing people, including questions about hiring, evaluating writing samples, motivation, planning, and lots more. If you are interested in the book, the interview is a good way to get more information about its content and about my approach to management.

Thanks, Tom, for taking the time to read the book (and it is clear from the interview that he did read the book in detail), and to speak with me about it.

4 March 2009

What Doc Managers Look for in a Résumé

Filed under: Book — Tags: , , , — rlhamilton @ 5:39 pm

Lately, a lot of technical communicators have found themselves updating their résumé for the first time in a long time. This prompted someone on the Techwr-l mailing list to ask hiring managers in the group what they look for in a résumé.

There are plenty of sources for information about how to write a résumé, but less on what doc managers are looking for. My book, Managing Writers: A Real World Guide to Managing Technical Documentation, contains a chapter that discusses hiring in detail. I have included an excerpt below that discusses how I evaluate a résumé.  I hope you find it useful.

(more…)

3 February 2009

Intelligent Content 2009: Day Two

Filed under: IntelligentContent2009 — Tags: , — rlhamilton @ 2:18 pm

My notes for the conference are sitting in Hertz’s lost and found (along with the very nice conference bag, which, unlike the bags given out at many conferences, was chosen by the organizers to be re-usable). So, rather than wait for Hertz to send them to me, I will wing it describing Day two.

In the life cycle of a technology, there is a moment when the discussion turns from technical nuts and bolts to useful applications. I think this conference was an early sign that for XML technology, as used for technical communication, that moment has come. You might say, “haven’t we been talking about applications for a long time?” and you would be right. However, too often the conversation has been dominated by technology and the cool stuff it can do, rather than opportunities to satisfy customer needs and contribute to an organization’s bottom line.

Day two’s talks focused on serving customer needs through information and moving technical communication from a “cost center” to a “profit center.” Bob Boiko got things started with a keynote that called on technical communicators to look at their content from a customer perspective, rather than an internal perspective. His point was most strongly made in his response to a question from the audience about how to deal with mandates from management to reduce costs. He turned the question around, pointing out that as long as technical communicators see themselves as a cost center, they put themselves in the position of having to continually shrink their budget. Instead, we should take the perspective of a profit center and look for ways to contribute to the bottom line. He conceded that this is hard to do, but that we need to move in that direction to remain viable.

Joe Gollner gave the featured presentation, which took a more historical perspective, starting from the earliest written information (on tablets). He carried that through to a view of the world with documents as the central “connector” that remains constant as the “device for communicating and retaining content as part of business transactions.” In his view, Intelligent Content is discoverable, processable, and informative, which makes it possible to create personalized documents and tailor content to customer needs.

Among the session tracks, I found the most interesting to be a session from James Michelson, who I also had the opportunity to speak with a couple of times during the day. His point, simple, but often ignored, is that everything a technical communicator does should be measured by how it contributes to a company’s bottom line.

His business is marketing, and his talk focused on how you can use even small amounts of information about customers or potential customers to create marketing that is much more likely to generate a response. At first, it seemed strange to have a marketer as a speaker at a conference for technical communicators, but in the end it made sense. Like it or not, technical information is part of your company’s marketing message, and therefore, it makes sense to tailor content for your customers, based on their interests and needs.

In his view, most companies focus way too much attention internally (85% in his view, which feels roughly accurate, though he did not back that number with hard data). He would reverse that number, paying 85% of your attention externally.

Overall, I took away several points from the conference:

  • Intelligent Content is more than just well-marked up content; it is really the combination of content, information about the potential consumers of that content, and processing that gives that user the greatest possible value from that content.
  • Technical communication as a discipline is too often relegated to being a cost center. To continue to be successful, the discipline needs to take charge of the value in its content and deliver that value in a way that contributes to the organization’s bottom line (that bottom line could be profit for a commercial entity, or some other value for a non-profit).
  • The prevailing current technology is XML, but the technology is less important than its application.
  • The application of technology needs to serve external needs; if it can’t be tied to an external need, then why should the organization spend money on it?

I found the conference to be valuable, and I hope The Rockley Group continues to sponsor it in coming years. I got a lot of interesting ideas, including the topic for my next book (more on that in future posts), from the conference, and I look forward to attending again in the future.

30 January 2009

Intelligent Content 2009: Day One

Filed under: Book — Tags: , — rlhamilton @ 12:12 am

I’m in Palm Springs attending Intelligent Content 2009, a very interesting conference hosted by The Rockley Group. The venue, Le Parker Meridien, is a very nice “boutique” hotel. The conference rooms are well set up and private, and the grounds are beautiful.

The conference started off with an introduction from Ann Rockley, whose company is the sponsor. Her objective is to provide a small, focused conference. To that end, her team worked with the speakers to make sure the talks were of high quality and focused on the objective. So far, most of what I have attended has done that. This entry will provide a few highlights from the first day of talks.

Salim Ismail gave the opening keynote. The question he addressed was “What makes content intelligent.” He defines intelligence as the ability to take patterns from one context and use them in another. In a sense, Intelligent Content boils down to the idea of using embedded information, along with information about the user (i.e., context), to deliver customized information. Although it wasn’t clear at that point, the rest of the day reinforced this as the central element of intelligent content.

Next up was Scott Abel, who provided examples, both good and bad, to illustrate the idea of intelligent content. His recent post on The Content Wrangler describes the “bad” in detail. Apple provided most of the “good” examples, with the central theme being that Apple uses all of the information available to the company about a customer to provide a personalized experience targeted at increasing sales. As always, Scott gave a spirited and informative talk.

This was followed by three parallel sessions. The first I attended described a system being developed for breastcancer.org, a site devoted to helping women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and their families. Derek Olson and Ron Daniel discovered some interesting, and not immediately intuitive, things about personalization. The central problem they faced was how to gather accurate information from each user so they could select the most applicable information for that particular person. The obstacle was that users often incorrectly characterize the state of their illness, which makes it difficult to give them the right information. They built a flexible taxonomy, which helped considerably, but in the end, the most useful help to users was input from other users, who independently devised a reasonably standard way of describing the critical factors about their situation in signature lines. This ad hoc metadata helped users help themselves. Overall, a nice example of user created design.

Rober Lee, of Symantec, gave an excellent talk about optimizing search results. Unlike standard SEO, which seems to be primarily aimed at drawing the maximum number of hits, his objective is to analyze search results to make sure users get good answers for their searches. Here are a couple of key points:

  • Look at search logs
  • Look for top search terms
  • Test those terms (and look for terms that yield no results)
  • Optimize content, then re-test

Optimizing content involves getting the right content for the right search terms. Suggestions for doing this include placing search terms in titles, in the first 100 words of content, and in the filename. One counter-intuitive point is that minimalist writing might not be the most effective way to get search engine hits. Repetitive text early in the content, what he called “stupid text,” helps with this, even though it offends the best instincts of tech writer. Overall, an excellent talk.

There were a couple of other talks, but I needed to duck out early, though I did leave a copy of Managing Writers to be used as a door prize during the evening festivities.

More to follow tomorrow.

14 January 2009

Rewards and Performance Evaluations

Filed under: Book — Tags: — rlhamilton @ 9:16 pm

I just read a great article by Joel Spolsky, Thanks, No Thanks, at Inc.com. Spolsky examines the question of rewarding an employee for exceptional performance and finds it to be much more difficult than you would think at first blush.

There is a real dilemma to rewarding employees. If you don’t reward exceptional performance, you risk losing the employee, but if you do, pretty much everyone will be unhappy. The employee is likely to think the reward is smaller than he or she considers fair, and peers are likely to think it is too large or undeserved compared to their own performance. (That’s one reason companies tend to keep salaries and bonuses confidential).

There is a similar problem when it comes to performance evaluation. Most companies (at least the large ones) like to assign every employee a rating (you know, categories like: exceeds objectives, meets objectives, meets some objectives, and the dreaded needs improvement). However, unlike salaries and bonuses, when you rate employees, by definition you give them enough information to know where they stand.

For those in the top category there’s no problem, they are almost always happy. Those in the bottom category get a strong message, though it should be a message that is no surprise (if you are doing your job as a manager).

The problem is for everyone in between; at best their rating is a no-op, at worst, it is a strong de-motivator. Quite possibly, they will come away with the idea that they should have been rated higher. It’s also likely they will have no clear idea of how to improve their rating (you can give them all sorts of suggestions, but they will know they’ve got to claw their way past at least some of the folks in the higher categories, so just doing better is not a guarantee of a higher rating).

To make things worse, most companies severely restrict the number of people you can put in that top category. Therefore, as many as 90% of your team may live in limbo between the top and bottom.

I discussed this problem in one of the most troublesome to write chapters in Managing Writers. This chapter was previewed in a four part posting (The full chapter begins here, but Part 4 is where I discuss the pathologies of rating and ranking; beware that this particular chapter was significantly re-written between the preview and the book, but the section on problems with rating and ranking is still pertinent).

However, don’t expect too much from the book or from Spolsky’s excellent article; the truth is that rewarding employees, whether through bonuses or the normal PE process, is one of those intractable problems that you really can’t fully solve. You will sometimes over-reward and sometimes under-reward (there is no “perfect” reward; read Spolsky’s article if you don’t believe that), and whichever you do, you will make someone unhappy. The best you can do is strive for fairness and avoid placing too much emphasis on external rewards; you will be much better off in the long run if your team is internally motivated.

Shameless plug: the Performance Evaluation chapter in Managing Writers goes into this topic in depth and is much improved over the previewed version.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress