The Process of Writing

The introduction and strategies for writing shows that there are various ways to go about technical writing. I think the first issue to address is the audience. If technical writing is bad, if it is unclear, then the basis for all writing should be to establish the level or understanding of the audience. How deep is their knowledge? For what are they going to use this information? How old, what gender and what social background are they? You would most likely present your information differently for a group of 5th graders and a group of college graduates. The level of understanding and ability to comprehend should guide the writer in technical writing.



I think organization is another initial issue. It's always good to see where you are and where you're trying to go. It's also very helpful to the audience to know where you're headed. Once you establish the audience type and their needs it's good to plan how to get there. I love to get into a rhythm when I'm writing but I understand that the organization is key to my effectiveness. The clues I give in writing can help the audience follow along and help aid in comprehension.



Revision is another area for focus. Sometimes I think we skip right to proof reading and assume we'll revise in the process. I thought it was interesting that Michael E. Adelstein separated revision and proofreading. The other authors tended to combine the two into one step. Writing should be complete before effective proofreading can be done. If you're rewriting sections or rearranging sentences, it's hard to ensure that everything is grammatically correct. Separating the two, aids in effective technical writing.

Brainstorming for topics

1. Procedures manual for Wholesale Mortgage Division at First National Bank of the South

2. Contact churches

3. Or nonprofits

- Proposals, manuals, reports, etc

My biggest challenge is finding a client and finding one who needs some aspect of technical writing. I could go with my my last boss but would like some exposure to other areas and businesses. I think a nonprofit or church would be an excellent client.

Challenger Disaster and Communication

D.A. Windsor's article on the failure of communication in regards to the Challenger disaster examines how the engineers and managers did not communicate effectively. In one of the beginning paragraphs Windsor defines communication as the ability to reach a common interpretation. Both engineers and managers read the same the data and reached entirely different conclusions. In the caucus before the launch all the engineers were against the launch and all the managers were for it. But R.K. Lund was against it and then when asked to "take off his 'engineering hat'" he changed his position and agreed to go ahead with the launch. I wonder how he could be against it and then for it? If he interpreted the data one way to agreed with the engineers, how could he make a 180 and then interpret the data to contradict his original conclusion?

Bad news is part of life. In science, I would think that bad news would be better accepted than in other fields. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The engineers didn't get the message across strong enough but the managers didn't believe what they were told. Was the contract with NASA so much more important than the lives of the Challenger crew? When lives are at stake, I think there should be even more conservatism in continuing on with the launch than ever.

Finally, there seemed not to be a consensus among the engineers that something needed to be said until the very end--right before the launch. The memos varied in degree of severity and information. Some were confusing and others used emotional appeals to get the message across. If the engineers would have formed a unified front they may have been more successful in obtaining effective communication by convincing the managers that there was a big problem with the O-rings.