During the STC 2010 conference, tech comm blogger Tom Johnson interviewed attendees and presenters between sessions, and he’s been uploading those videos to his site.
I picked two to watch consecutively: his interview with usability consultant Whitney Hess; then his discussion with Char James-Tanny and Bill Swallow about the pay-for-content model for online content. Although the two talks were not strictly on the same topic, I think they each provided insight on where STC can improve and why it’s not irrelevant, yet (in my humble estimation).
Johnson’s questions to Hess were about the “old guard,” the generation who established and defined our field, vs. the “new guard,” the emerging generation that is perhaps more comfortable with social media and other new methods. Hess suggested that the old guard will make themselves irrelevant, and that the new folk should go around unnecessary barriers set up by them. She raised the question of whether we need such formal associations as STC.
In the Tanny/ Swallow interview, Johnson asked for their thoughts on the pay-for-content model: can it work and does it have value online, where so much can be obtained for free? Both suggested that exclusive, vetted content can be worth paying for online.
I think that the reasons why paid online content makes sense in some cases are the some of the same reasons that STC and its conference make sense: the exclusivity, the curation, and the vetting add value to the association, as well.
- The formality of the association adds to employer perceptions of us, and having STC associated with a webinar or class I want to get paid for makes it much more likely to get approved. I’ll venture a guess that this is more valuable to some of us than others. There are many consultants in STC, but meanwhile, I’m still finagling invitations to the right meetings at my job.
- I think our publications are excellent. For a long time, they were one of the biggest benefits of my membership.
- Speaking of quality products like our publications, there is something to be said for the level of planning that goes into our activities. The TCBoK has a 15-page charter. I don’t think that’s too much for a project of that magnitude, and it’s a good precedent for our work projects. Not everything is a complex project that needs that level of planning, but it’s a skill to know the difference.
- Chapter meetings have been enormously beneficial, and the same goes for the conferences: the programs get a 90ish % from me, overall, and the people I’ve met have given me an education in tech comm. I think I wouldn’t get that depth of knowledge if all of tech comm was an un-conference with people my age.
- The organization is sandbox for the work world and a place to prove ourselves. We get to practice audience analysis, and UX, and web development, and everything else by serving this community. Not to mention selling books to it, in some cases. But . . .
I absolutely think we need to cut the unnecessary trappings fast. Bylaws: why are they pages upon pages? It’s intimidating and unusable, and it dates us. No wifi? Unacceptable—cut something else, period. A new, monolithic social platform for all members? Where was my survey? And maybe it’s time to start thinking about funding more regional conferences with lighter footprints rather than one, large conference. If the TCBoK will be paid content, why are we holding our hands out for content like we’re taking charity?
We’ve got to have more of these discussions at the Suncoast chapter level, so don’t think I’m leaving myself out of this. For example, I got some (gentle) criticism about having a fancy catered dinner at the Doubletree for our competition awards banquet, and then handing out paper certificates (with professional graphics, thanks very much) to the winners. In past years we had fancier plaques. I’m still figuring out where to hang mine, but it sure is pretty.
Meanwhile, we have sizable minority of unemployed members, and you’ll find nary a developer at our meetings, even the ones about XML and content strategy. Nor do we venture out to represent STC at the dozens of dev-focused meetups in our area.
Hess’s point about our siloed professions was a good one. Our industry relies on tech, and it intermingles with the UX community, among others. For example, during the STC Usability and User Experience SIG meeting, I learned that it was a couple of STC folk who founded UPA (can’t find a link for this, unfortunately). I think we can take cues from some of the more tech-y conferences: partly to save money on things that are less important to the “new guard” (sorry, can’t type that without air quotes), like centerpieces and centralized, mega-conferences, and partly to facilitate cross-over, which can get everybody more jobs.
At the UUX business meeting, we identified some goals for this year that I think could be good for the Society, in general: finding our synergy with other communities: with the larger UX community, with other SIGs, with the TCBoK. Why do people join the STC and the SIGs and not other groups, or in addition to other groups? Are we a gateway into those other communities, a supplement to them, or do people need our particular focus on docs? Where do we fit in?
I really like this post, Kristi. Thanks for kicking off this discussion. Off the top of my head comments are – I didn’t like the old/new guard phrases. I don’t normally think about my age (I’m 52), and the people I hang out with in Denmark who really are movers and shakers probably span 30 years. I’d rather use something like those reluctant to change vs pioneers. It’s not as catchy, of course.
The newspaper business is having heated discussions along these lines so it’s worthwhile exploring what those discussions are – how will newspapers earn money when subscription rates drop and are people willing to pay for it online? If no one pays, will we have the in-depth, critical journalism we need to teach and inform us so we don’t get marshmallow brains from superfluous fluff?
I’m beginning to think that yes, there are models, but no one-size fits all. Like Jared Spool said about everyone wanting the Amazon model for their website. What works for Amazon won’t necessarily work for you. We can explore possibilities, but we cannot get away from proper analysis of our particular needs and evaluation of what will work for us.
I would really, really like to stop these mega-conferences within STC. I know we are tied up in contracts for several years, but encouraging regional conferences would be the way to go. All the #stc10 attendees are raving excitedly about the conference, but that is only the approx. 750 who attended. The backchannel was quite good, but how can we have other great conversations and discussions in other parts of the world. (I use the words conversations and discussions because that is what makes a good conference.)
Critical thinking plays a big role here. There are many sources of free information on the internet. Some of it is wrong or not applicable to your situation. How do you evaluate it properly? There are many who offer services at low rates. How can I argue that I am worth a higher rate (the lower rate not being adequate to pay my rent and buy me cheap oatmeal)? Credibility and integrity take time to build up. I see organizations as something that helps to provide those things. Organizations can range from, say, the American Bar Association and medical societies to the communities for WordPress and Drupal. I think your item 5 addresses a very good reason for having a group/org/association/society/whatever you want to call it.
This is the brain dump I had time to share. I hope more stop by and comment. This is a valuable discussion. I really really really miss having ONE place to discuss STC! (Kudos to Bill Swallow for starting STC Ideas, but I fear its Ning death and it is also a small group of people in a silo within the larger silo.
) (It’s also hard to review what I have written in this tiny comment box. 
)
You have some good information here…hopefully I can address some things.
- Bylaws are currently 10 pages long, shorter than the BoK charter. STC is a 501(c)(3) as determined by the US IRS, and the bylaws document is required.
- With 30 years of experience, I’m “old guard”. I have to say that it’s really getting irritating (in a general sense, not from you specifically) to hear that I’m irrelevant. Or that my experience doesn’t matter. (The last is especially funny when “new guard” people stumble upon things I’ve known…and shared…for years, but to them it’s a huge surprise. Or when, as you say above, that you probably get more from a conference that includes us “old guard” folks than from an unconference with only “new guard” attendees. Y’all can’t really have it both ways, folks.)
- Everyone was disappointed that there was limited wifi. The figure I heard was $17K…yes, $17K charged by the hotel for 3 days of wifi for a conference of 750 people. Everyone could have paid an extra $30 for registration to cover it…I’m sure that no one would have complained. Right?
- New York State law requires that all membership associations incorporated in that state hold an annual face-to-face meeting of members. STC wraps a conference around the annual meeting. (Seriously…how many people would show up if it was only the Annual Business Meeting?)
- I wasn’t aware that the new social media platform for members was “monolithic”. But I haven’t really seen it yet…I’ve only seen others developed by the same company.
I haven’t been a member of STC for about 4 years now. I’ve not found any value in being a member. None of my employers in recent years consider membership a “stamp of approval” and I’ve never had a problem getting seminars or conferences approved that were not STC events. The local chapter’s monthly meetings and programs are sorely lacking. I’ve not found that my salary would change if I was an STC member. Maybe all of this would be important if I was just starting out in the field. But I’m not.
I’m probably considered old guard, although I find that offensive in some respects. I may have been doing this for a long time, but I’m using current technologies and I stay on top of trends in the industry. Oh yeah, and I know what social media is all about.
Kristi, you’ve raised some interesting questions. I’m another long-time member (I don’t like “old guard ,” either) who belonged to the Chicago chapter when I started working after college, dropped out when I was a stay-at-home-mom, then joined the Atlanta chapter after we moved to the Atlanta area. Members’ experiences with their local chapters do color their opinions of the society overall. I’ve been lucky to belong to active, lively, interesting chapters.
The Atlanta chapter recently had a one-day Saturday regional conference that was a success, but in the past we have included Friday workshops to create 2-day events, but wanted to keep the costs down this year, because many members are still looking for jobs.
I loved attending the last two Summits, but didn’t go this year. I’d love to see more robust regional conferences. I consider them an excellent compromise when a Summit is not in the budget.
I agree with those who have talked about regional conferences because I think that they’d extend conference benefits to more members. I’ve posted about that before on my blog, including the idea of having great people like Lloyd Tucker assist chapters in putting together a few regional conferences around the world every year. Though he probably wouldn’t have the time to do that unless the Summit were discontinued.
I’ve also pointed out that while the younger generations may come in with some fresh ideas and strategies, we need the more experienced folks because of their experience. Life’s like that in general—benefiting from the experience of those who have walked the path ahead of you.
Great post, Kristi. I didn’t take the old guard / new guard terminology to refer to age but to a way of thinking. I’ve been in the field for 15 years, but I consider myself new guard. It’s all about a willingness to change with the times.
One big benefit of STC for me is the competitions. The STC name gives the award value. It gives my boss’s boss bragging rights. It says I am a professional technical communicator, not a glorified typist. Would an award from a local meetup group carry the same weight?
With the conferences, we don’t have to choose between an international conference or regional ones. We can do both. We DO do both. They both have value for me, and I’ll continue to attend both.
I’m of the mind that the various guards aren’t a delineation of age, but of mindset. Char, you aren’t of the old guard and I know some new members who aren’t of the new guard. It is all in where you fit on the scale between Tech Comm is about Tech Writing and Help Authoring only and Tech Comm is anything at all to do with communicating technical concepts.
As for getting things out of your membership, a lot of what you get out of STC is what you put into it. For the first few years of my membership, I got zip from being a member. Once I got involved in my local chapter, attended the Summit, and got into the conversation, I basically made my career out of the things I learned from STC events and STC members.
I do think STC has a problem with embracing all that is Technical Communication, because there have been too many that have been trying to define it with a very narrow focus. This is a mistake and what will ultimately lead to is folding. At least, that’s what I thought until the Summit this year. I heard from many people who feel the way I do, and I think we can right this ship before it completely runs aground.
And yes, I do think professional societies are important, as they allow disparate job roles to find and enrich their roots. Strong roots make strong professionals.
I think that the more we talk about this, the more I’m able to put it into perspective. I’m not there, yet, though. Was the #stc10 backchannel overheated in regards to STC’s communication issues? Do we really look so different from other tech groups? How much benefit is all of our infrastructure providing?
Regarding a couple of overheated assertions of my own in this post, by “monolithic” I’m referring to all chapters using the member profiles and social platform handed down from the Society. Overstated? Quite possibly. But it feels like a big implementation, taken on without much member input, when I’m getting spotty info on how to cover our legal requirements.
I don’t think 10 pages is unreasonable length for the Society bylaws. It’s pushing it for a chapter, though. Suncoast bylaws say we have 6 officers and 11 committees. We’ve got 49 members. When we were in survival mode last year (we’re blessed with a full admin council this year) those bylaws were a long list of things we didn’t have, and it was intimidating. But I’ll address that here in the Suncoast chapter, and not muddy the debate on how the Society should run.
In a nutshell, I might like to see more money made available for member projects and communities and less on the polish. I’m not sure, though. I’m still learning about the benefits of what we currently have.
Regarding regional conferences, what I’m asking is: would it be better to take some of the money that is spent on our single conference and spend it on several smaller conferences? We could call one of them the national conference and have the business meeting, couldn’t we?
Well, perhaps STC as a whole is “old guard”?
Today was the 2nd day of UxLx (http://ux-lx.com), a first-time usability conference in Lisbon that somehow attracted 400 people from 24 countries.
In the morning I attended a workshop by Luke Wroblewski, a graphical designer. At eBay, he started by adding a check box to a license agreement. 3 years later, he was part of the team making strategic decisions. Then, he moved to Yahoo where he basically repeated the process.
In the afternoon, I watched Silvia Calvet describe a typical technical writing issue (communication between experts and front desk) as part of a larger project. She solved the issue using a social approach and never mentioned “technical writing” at all.
And what is the response from STC? “Certification” of the old methods, by recognizing your past accomplishments?
STC has a role, but it will not be filled by focusing on the needs of USA members alone nor, worse, by burying our collective heads in the sand.
Joaquim – I’m pleased that you found value in the UxLx event. I would expect you to do so, just as I expect attendees to find similar value in the STC Summit.
For what it’s worth, Luke Wroblewski presented to the STC Summit in 2007, and we would always consider inviting him back. Likewise, the Summit program committee may choose to reach out to Silvia Calvet if she has something fresh and distinctive to offer.
It’s a big planet, with room for lots of different types and flavors of events. And it’s a small world, in which we each have something to contribute.
- Technically, I’m a member of “old guard” as long it continues to mean “senior members” and “those who defined the field”. (Although I guess I really wasn’t part of defining the field as much as figuring out where some of the edges were so that I could extend them.) “Old guard” also seems to mean “people more than 10 years older” than whoever the speaker is
- No chapters are using the new social media platform set up by the Society. Yet. (It’s still in development.)
- I don’t know exactly what the rules are for chapter bylaws, but I do know that including the description of 11 committees is probably too much. IIRC, the only committees that have to be defined in the bylaws are Board-related (that is, a Board member is required to sit on the committee). All others can be defined in a Policy and Procedures document.
- Luke Wroblewski is awesome. I met him when we both spoke in Lillehammer several years ago, and I’ve seen him at STC and WritersUA since then. (He also speaks frequently for Jared Spool’s events and at An Event Apart.)
- If you want to find out what people really think, ask them to define “technical writing” and “technical communication”; ask them if they are a “technical writer” or a “technical communicator” (or something else entirely); ask them their opinions of “certification” (especially as compared to “certificates”).
- Groups of chapters have submitted business cases to the Board over the years for support in running a regional conference (as opposed to a Regional conference). Smaller conferences cannot replace the annual conference, but I believe that several chapters ran very successful regional conferences this year…Atlanta and Philadelphia come to mind. Note that the current financial situation will have an impact on what the Board can and cannot approve; however, there’s no harm in asking.
- The Board only approved a work-based certification plan two weeks ago. While, yes, the plan is that it is based on past accomplishments, nothing was ever said about the methods that had to be used in creating that project/portfolio. Maybe we could wait for more information before we slam the (as of now unknown) description.
- I’m pretty sure STC’s announcement of certification two weeks ago wasn’t in response to a usability conference that hadn’t yet taken place. Steve Jong spent the better part of three years researching certification and creating a business plan, and STC has been discussing certification in some form or other for over 30 years now.
I look at it this way: STC can only continue to get better because the people who are still members really care about improving it and making it better. There will probably be some stumbles along the way, but that’s OK…stumbles are where you re-assess what’s going on and make sure you still like the path you’re on or decide if you need a new path or, sometimes, several new paths.
Picking up on several comments that people have made….
As several of you have said, “old guard” and “new guard” aren’t a matter of one’s chronological age. Nevertheless, in 10 to 20 years we Baby Boomers will be out of the workforce, and professional associations like STC will be looking to serve people who today are in their 20s and 30s. So it behooves us to find out what that age cohort believes about the role of an association and what products and services they’ll value in the years to come. A big part of STC’s strategic planning work this year will be devoted to just that. (Anyone who’s interested in helping out, feel free to contact me.)
Incidentally….Many, many associations — not just STC — are grappling with these same kinds of questions. It’s a sea change in the role of professional associations.
Joaquim Baptista wonders whether “STC as a whole is ‘old guard.’” I don’t think it is, although I can see why it might look that way. STC has established a body of knowledge for the profession, and rather than being a shelf of dusty books it’s a web portal with dynamic content. It’s designed to accommodate new theories, new trends, and new technologies. I think that’s significant: It shows that STC understands the dynamic nature of technical communication.
Robert Armstrong said, “A lot of what you get out of STC is what you put into it.” He’s right. I’ve gotten a great deal out of STC, including some great friendships and some professional skills that I never would’ve gotten in my regular job.
Finally, Char said “STC can only continue to get better because the people who are still members really care about improving it and making it better.” Amen.
I’d like to respond to Joaquim Baptista’s comment “And what is the response from STC? ‘Certification’ of the old methods, by recognizing your past accomplishments?”
According to the proposal the board recently approved, the “old methods” it certifies are:
1. User Analysis. Define the users of the documentation and analyze the tasks that the documentation must support.
2. Document Design. Plan documentation deliverables to support those tasks. Design the organization, presentation, and technical architecture (where appropriate) for each deliverable.
3. Project Management. Plan the documentation schedule and monitor project process against that schedule.
4. Authoring. Create new content or modify existing content.
5. Delivery. Build appropriate outputs, such as Help, Web pages, manuals, illustrations, and training, and promote those builds to the appropriate distribution channels.
6. Quality Assurance. Assess documentation for accuracy, adequacy, correctness, accessibility, and usability.
The applicant must demonstrate proficiency in all of these activities.
Joaquim, are these no longer relevant? And the certification is based on demonstrated achievements, I don’t know how to do that other than look at past performance.
Interesting post. My comments got to be too long, so I posted them here:
http://www.scriptorium.com/blog/2010/05/a-mercenary-view-of-conferences.html
Pingback: The OG Word. Also: Kill Your Darlings? « Release Notes
I get the sensitivity to the “new guard”/”old guard” language—I agree that it’s not the most productive and needs to be retired—, but can I ask those who object to turn it around and see the other side of it?
I overheard people grumbling about the youth of presenters at the Summit this year. I witnessed someone use the Q&A after a session to point-blank ask one presenter’s age. And I was told that someone else rudely asked a presenter why she was even at the Summit since she doesn’t work as a technical writer (though, admittedly, I didn’t see this myself).
The issue isn’t about age. It’s not even about social media. The issue is the complacency and arrogance that leads some to believe they have nothing to learn from anyone else, especially those who are younger than them.
Larry, I don’t mean to single you out, but you said something that I think is endemic (an unrecognized) in the thinking of many leaders of STC. You said:
“As several of you have said, ‘old guard’ and ‘new guard’ aren’t a matter of one’s chronological age. Nevertheless, in 10 to 20 years we Baby Boomers will be out of the workforce, and professional associations like STC will be looking to serve people who today are in their 20s and 30s. So it behooves us to find out what that age cohort believes about the role of an association and what products and services they’ll value in the years to come.”
I am 31 years old. This year, I paid my own dues to maintain my membership in the Society—I even opted for gold membership.
If STC does not look to serve those of us in our 20s and 30s now, then it simply won’t exist in 10 or 20 years when the Boomers retire.
There are far too many who look at people in their 20s and 30s and see the “future” of the profession. But we’re not the future; we’re a vibrant, active part of the present. I know people in their 30s who are effectively managing entire tech comm departments!
But our organization is not structured to honor its younger members. Our by-laws require someone to be a senior member before they can be nominated for elected leadership positions in the Society. Student members cannot even serve on most (or is it all?) committees without a resolution from the board of directors. Student members are completely disenfranchised, despite student membership being predicated on active preparation for a career in tech comm.
All of this adds up to our organization being skewed heavily towards the benefit and control of its older members, leaving many of us in the younger age brackets feeling like we have no voice. The organization structure makes us feel like we’re supposed to politely wait our turn to have our say.
I want to be clear here: I’m not saying this is the fault or the doing of the older STC members. The culprit is a system that was established during an era when five years in a profession made you still a newbie, and you were very unlikely to be considered an industry leader without fifteen years of experience.
We need to change our bylaws.
I propose we:
- Do away with senior membership entirely; it implies greater knowledge but requires only time. I believe the respect senior membership is attempting to bestow will be worth much more when it is earned through certification, not time served.
- Allow anyone who has been a member for over a year to serve in an elected capacity.
- Reduce the time limits required to be honored as an associate fellow. I recognize that a certain tenure in the profession is required, but fifteen years is, in my opinion, far too long.
- End the disenfranchisement of student members. Student members should be afforded all the rights and responsibilities of full membership. The only argument I’ve ever heard against this is that it’s not fair for students who pay reduced dues to get the same benefit as members who pay regular dues. I have no tolerance for this: get over it, recognize your responsibility to lead and mentor those entering the field, and choose to see hospitality instead of disparity.
- Require student representation on the nominating committee.
These steps would go a long way toward recognizing that there are valuable voices and capable leaders who care about the mission of STC at all age levels.
Wow. So that was a diatribe that I didn’t intend to write, but I think it needs to be said. I apologize for completely hijacking your comments, Kristil, but I thank you for starting the discussion and providing a forum for it to continue.
(Woops… Didn’t tick the follow-up comments via email box.)
I have a couple of quick responses, but note that I’ve been almost completely inactive. Paying dues, going to conferences, but until this year (when I presented in Dallas), basically out of the flow of STC.
I think that the waters are getting muddy between mindset and age because there are really TWO issues.
CONSERVATIVE VS. INNOVATIVE MINDSET FOR TECH COMM
This has nothing to do with age, or the structure of STC.
The conservative mindset wants to know why a young person is presenting, and also why a non tech comma person is presenting. (Of course, it was the same presenter.)
Considering the fact that STC leadership is the one who invited her to attend in the first place, I think I understand why it rankles them to be lumped in with the conservative mindset just because they’ve been around awhile.
STC leadership, as far as I can see, is NOT of the conservative mindset as far as where Tech Comm is heading as a field. They know about social media, for example, and obviously tried their best to make Twitter a part of the Summit.
STRUCTURE OF STC
This one is more age-related, because it’s hard to be in leadership when you’re young.
If the younger members feel disenfranchised, and that feeling is a threat to STC, then obviously leadership would do well to pay attention.
[On a side note, I personally don't think that 5 years of paying dues is really a lot to ask to become a senior member. We should remember that 5 years of paying dues means 5 years of PAYING DUES. Not a small consideration, considering the economy, and maybe worthy of some recognition.]
I’d be all for more regional events. I have to say that when I attend a conference, or join an organization, I’m not looking for validation (as mentioned in the interview). I do it in order to share information.
There are more and more ways to share information now, so that does speak to the declining value of STC. But then, Twitter and other ways of meeting up don’t get the department of labor to distinguish our profession, or make it really easy for new people to find webcasts, seminars, classes, etc.
So I’ll renew again next year.
I agree that we need to change the STC bylaws to give student members more of a voice. We need more participation from student members at all levels of the organization. There seems to be a lot of support right now for this idea, so I’m hopeful that something will come of it.
Based on what’s been posted recently on the president’s listserv, senior member status is required for those running for office as a demonstration that they are committed to STC as an organization. In that sense–and only in that sense–I think the designation is meaningful. It has nothing to do with a person’s talent or abilities as a technical communicator.
Will, thanks for posting your comments and for alerting me to the need to clarify something. When I said that people in their 20s and 30s represent the future of STC, I didn’t mean to imply that they’re not the present as well.
A lot of your ideas, particularly those relating to student members and to the length of time needed to be considered for Associate Fellow, deserve to be considered seriously.
When I was 31 I was an STC chapter president, so I think I have an idea of where you’re coming from. The fact that the organization made me feel involved and appreciated, is a big part of why I’m still active today. We need to make sure that all members — regardless of age — feel as involved and appreciated as I did.
More bullet points
- Whoever asked a presenter about age and qualifications should go hide somewhere (or at least not attend conferences). That’s rude and disrespectful, and personally, I expect better behavior from people.
- Personally, I don’t have any issues with how long it takes to become a senior member, how much experience is required to become an Associate Fellow, and the fact that student members can’t vote. As a senior member with enough experience (and then some) to become an AF, I think I’m qualified to speak to those. But I’d rather hear from students as to how they feel about voting. Given that only 1 in 10 members vote annually anyway, I’m not sure it really matters one way or the other.
- Speaking of, does anyone know how many students feel disenfranchised because they get the same benefits as full-paying members EXCEPT they can’t vote in annual STC elections? Does anyone know how student memberships are handled in other professional organizations?
- Thank you, weeklyrob
- I’ve never had a problem with anyone’s age. My issues are always with how people are treated. (I do find, though, that I tend to group younger rude people into the “once you learn more…” category, while I tend to group older rude people into the “oh, go away now” category
)
- Note that the bylaws (http://www.stc.org/PDF_Files/bylaws.pdf) include a section on amendments. See Article XIII Amendments, Section 3, Amendment by Voting Members. (Basically, 50 voting members can propose an amendment to the bylaws, which then goes before the Board, who can choose to make a statement before the amendment is voted on by the membership.)
(Warning: This message was written very late in the evening. It probably makes less sense than it should.)
People that didn’t care enough for STC already left STC.
Whether old guard, new guard, or unguarded, people in this thread care about the future of STC. Thanks for the ability to have this great conversation.
Replying to Michael Hughes:
Although the “old methods” being certified are still relevant, they are no longer enough for me.
Although my boss still asks me to “do the docs”, I actually create significant parts of what ends up being documented by connecting information from different sources, using agile practices developed mostly by myself. And a significant documentation problem was solved in 2004 by creating a content/information/organization/people architecture that facilitated the sharing of different kinds of information between Altitude Software employees.
For me, STC advocates one specific solution (creating documentation), while it should be focusing on the overall problem (where creating documentation is one of the possible solutions). In that sense, STC is “old guard” by focusing on the time-tested service of creating documents while ignoring the new possibilities.
Luke Wroblewski’s story contrasts with the nearly universal “lack of respect” complaint from technical writers, including myself.
By focusing on skills and problems instead of tasks and deliverables, Luke applied his designer skills to company problems in ways that demonstrated business value.
Silvia Calvet stumbled on a typical technical writing problem but solved the problem by creating a community of practice instead of creating documents.
The overall solution required a varying mix of usability, learning, and knowledge management skills.
These two presentations come from people describing problems that include technical writing issues, yet these people seem unaware of technical writing and solve the problems using different tools. That makes me worry!
About the STC conference:
The conference is set up as an event where “experts talk to newbies”. If you are no longer a newbie, you don’t get much out of the conference sessions themselves; you should just network or make presentations. But the selection process strongly favors active consultants that do “serial presentations”. If you are not a consultant, presenting is an uphill battle.
People that disregard unconferences should really look at the “open space technology” process. I watched it work at WikiSym 2008. The process really excels in connecting people around common interests, whether they are newbies or experts. I would love to attend an unconference with some experts.
In any organization composed of more than one person, the group will take actions with which all members of the group don’t agree, or perhaps aren’t of value to all members. Perhaps certification is in this category for you. It is, however, potentially of very high value for many STC members and prospective members. And certification is only one of STC’s many activities.
The STC that focuses on ‘creating documentation’ over solving problems is not the STC I know. Nor do I agree with your assertion that the Summit provides little value for advanced technical communicators (full disclosure: I served as program manager for 2009/Atlanta and conference chair for 2010/Dallas). To share a data point, recent Summits have featured advanced ‘Institutes’ – groups of sessions specifically designed for advanced technical communicators.
The programming committee pays close attention to speaker and overall conference evaluations. I think we’re achieving the right mix of introductory and advanced sessions. For the two Summits before Dallas, about 1/3 of attendees wanted more basic sessions, 1/3 wanted more advanced sessions, and 1/3 said we had about the right mix. Given the constraints of space (e.g, we can’t increase the number of sessions), I think this means the Summit programming is pretty much on target for our attendees.
For the Dallas Summit, we added new topics to the program. We actively recruited proposals from leaders within and outside the field of technical communication. The call for proposals was unusually competitive, and some Summit ‘regulars’ were not on the Dallas program.
The Society’s educational offerings (including publications, webinars, certificate courses, and the Summit) currently reflect ‘high-value’ activities. Information architecture. Multi-channel publishing and content reuse. Content strategy (which has gotten excellent recognition outside the tech comm space). Knowledge management. Usability testing. To name a few.
I’ve long been frustrated by the “lack of respect” complaint that sometimes appears to be endemic within our profession. However, I rarely experience this feeling myself – because (in my opinion) I earn and expect the respect of my colleagues. The STC provides educational opportunities to support our members in improving their skills, increasing their value, and increasing their level of earned respect, both individually and as a profession. This effort will not take effect overnight, but I see very encouraging signs that it is working, both from individual anecdotes and from increased media awareness of the role, importance, and value of quality technical communication.
Wow, what a great, intense exchange of thoughts and perspectives. I love Char’s groupings. I live by, “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” Anyone who thinks they can’t learn something from another person or event, just doesn’t know enough to know better.
I’ve found that as long as I get at least one idea a year that helps a client more effectively achieve a goal, my STC membership and conference attendance is worth it. We’ve been talking about ways to help users get more value by reading less for many years now. Embedded user assistance, embedded knowledge, intuitive design, etc. have long been topics at the STC Summit/annual conference, as well as other conferences in our industry. We definitely do need to continue our discussions around ways to solve problems without just saying, “let’s write another document…” But, I think many of us have been doing that!
I really appreciate all I’ve learned from many others in the industry…and the patience of those who put up with me when I thought I “knew more than I really did”. If you aren’t getting what you need from STC and the Summit…get involved and help us improve these activities to meet the needs you feel we are missing.
Do we need STC?
It seems inevitable that people of similar interests form groups of some sort. With growth in numbers and ambition comes the need to formalize. As to silos, this also appears to be an inevitable part of group formation. I think a sociologist could explain why these things happen; I myself can only say that they appear to be regular human patterns. Such being the case “do we need STC” looks like the wrong question; something like STC would have happened anyway; if all traces of it were to disappear now, I’m pretty sure something would arise in its place, and over time it would grow, become more formal, etc (keep an eye on today’s newer professional associations, and see what happens over time to the ones that survive).
Does STC need to be the way it is?
We can’t change the past, so wherever we are now is where we are. We don’t have to like it, but if we want to change things then understanding them as they are — as objectively as possible — seems to be a good starting point. Of particular importance, I think, is to pay attention to what other people think and not get too wrapped up in our own vision of a better future.
What’s the way forward?
Whatever it is, someone will be dissatisfied with it. Perhaps the only thing we can do is to keep re-articulating our common interests and then evaluating our efforts against them. Keeping as much discussion around what we share gives us a better chance, I feel, of keeping us together.
With my limited experience, I think there is a definite need for STC.
I believe there is a need, and room, for both “old guard” and “new guard”, the experienced and newbies, the traditionalists and forward thinkers. As someone new to technical communication, the Society has helped me to reach out to other members for support and fresh ideas. I am a tech writer, but after attending the 2010 Summit, I am excited about the range of opportunities I can take advantage of in my daily work and improvements I can implement in the future.
At this year’s conference, sessions focused on much more than documentation. Some sessions focused on where we can apply our skills to expand our profession. These sessions included strategic planning, instructional design, and proposal writing. There were also several sessions involving usability, content management, and social media. I expect next year’s Summit to continue the exploration of additional new areas into which technical communicators can move.
I believe the greatest challenge for STC is to offer valuable resources through local chapters. While I am new to the organization, it seems that these groups are lacking members who want to step up and offer leadership. We need individuals on a local level to help stimulate and challenge ideas throughout the year between conferences with formal and casual meetings.
I do like the idea of regional conferences with the annual meeting/big conference being held within a different region each year, but I am not sure if it is practical, as Sarah O’Keefe pointed out in her blog. http://www.scriptorium.com/blog/2010/05/a-mercenary-view-of-conferences.html
The announcement of certification is a huge step in the right direction. It will not include every possible area of technical communication, but will ensure that a professional has the basic skills to work within the field. Most, if not all, projects in technical communications require an analysis of audience, creation of quality information, and distribution of materials in appropriate method. These skills are what the certification aims to ensure is consistent among technical communicators.
I look forward to the future of STC and find the mix of professionals with various backgrounds and experience levels to be appropriate for such a dynamic association.
Thanks to Alan Houser for making available the following data:
“For the two Summits before Dallas, about 1/3 of attendees wanted more basic sessions, 1/3 wanted more advanced sessions, and 1/3 said we had about the right mix.”
Alan concludes that, on average, the Summit programming is very much on target.
But statistics can be read in different ways.
I can also conclude that 2/3 of the attendees said that the programming was not on target for them.
Also note that this is a self-selected sample; we are missing the answers of the people that decided not to go to the Summit.
This is not to say that the programming committees have done anything less than their very best over the years, or even that there is any magical solution to all the issues raised at this thread.
For the record, I am thinking about concrete ways to enhance the Summit with an open space unconference.
If only more than 53 people could hear this..
Pingback: State of the Chapter: May 2010 - Suncoast STC
Lots of good food for thought here; thanks to all who contributed.
I see value in both local/regional and international conferences.
– While local/regional conferences can, and often do, serve as a place where less experienced technical communicators can “cut their teeth,” I have attended enough of these conferences to know that they frequently include experienced speakers who are fine presenters and well-regarded in the industry.
– Local and regional conferences provide an educational and networking alternative for those who cannot attend the STC Annual Conference because of financial or geographical restraints. They also provide chapter members a chance to be involved in conference planning that might not be possible on an international level.
– On the other hand, there’s nothing like an international conference to get the “big picture” of our profession. The STC annual conference provides an opportunity to network and reconnect with colleagues from all over the world, hear presentations over several days on a wide variety of topics, and learn more about the latest tools and technology available to us. I have attended about five STC annual conferences over the years and have found them informative and energizing, as well as just plain fun. I’m saddened that the economic downturn has made it so much harder for more of us to attend the annual conference. STC, for its part, must work harder than ever to be sure that each annual conference enables its attendees to take away something of value for their careers and professional development.
Some quick history: When STC had official regions, many of those regions held their own conferences. I had the good fortune to attend and present at many of them. Now that STC official regions are no more, there are fewer of these conferences, unfortunately. However, some chapters have hosted, and still do host, conferences. The Philadelphia Metro chapter had what looked like an interesting conference not too long ago, and the East Tennessee chapter is holding a conference (Practical Conference on Communication) in Nashville this fall (http://bit.ly/c8x1UB).
One final note… The chapter I’ve belonged to for more than 20 years — Rochester, NY (http://www.stc-rochester.org) — has held an annual conference called spectrum every year since 1958. Last year’s conference focused on social networking. Over the years, we’ve had excellent speakers of all experience levels sharing interesting information that is pertinent to the times. In addition, we’ve had some outstanding keynote speakers, including Saul Carliner and Dr. Ginny Redish. Spectrum is typically held in March or April each year.