Tag: information management

Why People Resist Writing Technical Documents

People do not avoid technical documentation simply because they dislike writing. They often resist because documentation exposes knowledge, risk, gaps, ownership, and accountability. This article explores the psychology behind that resistance and explains how technical authors and information managers can make knowledge sharing safer, easier, and more useful.

Tweet
Pin
Share
0 Shares

The psychology behind writing technical documents is not about writing. It is about identity, control, risk, confidence, workload, and trust.

Resistance to operational documentation stems from people’s awkwardness. They resist it because documentation exposes what they know, what they do not know, and how well their work holds up in writing.

Why are people reluctant to share knowledge?

1. Knowledge is power

In many organisations, people become valuable because they are the only person who knows how something works.

      • They know the system’s history.
      • the workaround.
      • which server talks to which database
      • “don’t touch that on a Friday” rule.

Writing that can feel like giving away their leverage. Documentation makes some people fear they will become less important.

That is rarely true, but the fear is real.

2. They fear being judged

When knowledge stays in someone’s head, others cannot challenge it. Once it is written, others can question it.

People may worry:

      • “What if I explain it badly?”
      • “What if someone spots a gap?”
      • “What if I have been doing it wrong?”
      • “What if this becomes evidence against me later?”

Technical documentation makes hidden practice visible. That can feel threatening.

3. Experts often do not know how much they know

A subject matter expert may say, “It’s obvious.”

It is obvious to them because they have years of context in their head. They forget what it was like not to know.

This is called the curse of knowledge. Experts skip steps, assume background understanding, and leave out dependencies because those things have become automatic to them.

That is why asking an expert to “write the process” often fails. They know the process too well to see where a new user will fall over.

4. They think writing is not their job

Engineers, analysts, developers, support staff, and project teams often see writing as admin. They may think:

“My job is to fix the thing, not write about the thing.”

This is where organisations go wrong. Documentation is not clerical work. It is part of operational control, support, continuity, audit readiness, training, and risk reduction.

The problem is that many organisations only value documentation after something breaks.

5. They have been burned before

Some people have contributed to documents in the past and seen nothing happen.

      • They gave information.
      • No one reviewed it.
      • No one published it.
      • The document disappeared into SharePoint.
      • Six months later, someone asked them the same questions again.

After that, they stop engaging.

Reluctance is sometimes not laziness but disappointment.

6. They do not trust how the information will be used

People may worry that documentation will be used to:

      • blame them after an incident
      • prove non-compliance
      • expose shortcuts
      • remove their ownership
      • offshore or automate their role
      • support a restructure

If the culture is punitive, people will protect themselves. They will give partial answers, vague explanations, or just enough information to appear cooperative.

7. Writing creates cognitive load

People underestimate how hard it is to explain work clearly.

Doing the task and explaining the task are different skills. A person may be excellent at resolving a complex system issue but poor at turning that knowledge into a structured procedure, support guide, recovery plan, or knowledge article.

They may not be unwilling. They may simply not know where to start.

What information managers and technical authors can do

The answer is not to keep saying, “Can you send me the process?”

That rarely works.

The better approach is to extract, shape, validate, and govern knowledge.

1. Stop asking people to “write the document”

Ask them to explain the work instead.

A technical author or information manager should make the task easier by saying:

“You do not need to write this. Talk me through what happens, what can go wrong, and who needs to know. I will structure it.”

This removes the pressure. The SME becomes the source of truth, not the person responsible for producing polished documentation.

2. Use structured interviews

Do not ask broad questions such as:

“How does the system work?”

Ask controlled questions:

      • What triggers this process?
      • Who owns it?
      • Who performs it?
      • What systems are involved?
      • What access is required?
      • What are the dependencies?
      • What happens if this step fails?
      • What evidence proves the task is complete?
      • What must never be done?
      • Who needs to be notified?
      • What is the escalation route?
      • What documents or records are produced?

Good documentation comes from good questioning.

3. Make knowledge sharing safe

People share more when they know the purpose.

Explain that documentation is not there to catch them out. It is there to protect the organisation and reduce repeated interruptions.

A useful message is:

“The aim is not to audit your memory. The aim is to stop the business depending on memory.”

That distinction matters.

4. Turn experts into reviewers, not writers

Most SMEs are better at reviewing than drafting.

A practical model is:

      1. Technical author interviews the SME.
      2. Technical author drafts the document.
      3. SME reviews for accuracy.
      4. Information manager checks structure, metadata, ownership, and control.
      5. Document owner approves.
      6. Document enters the review cycle.

This respects the SME’s knowledge without forcing them to become a writer.

5. Show people what poor documentation costs

People respond better when documentation is linked to real pain.

For example:

      • repeated support calls
      • failed handovers
      • slow onboarding
      • avoidable incidents
      • audit findings
      • change failures
      • disaster recovery confusion
      • project delays
      • dependency on one person
      • duplicated or contradictory processes

The argument should not be “we need documents.”
The argument should be “this is the risk we carry without them.”

6. Make contribution easy

Do not give SMEs a blank Word document.

Give them prompts, templates, checklists, diagrams, or short forms.

For example:

Instead of asking Ask this
Write the procedure. Give me the trigger, steps, exceptions, and escalation route.
Document the system. List the components, owners, dependencies, interfaces, and support contacts.
Update the knowledge base. Tell me what has changed, who it affects, and what users need to do differently.

People will contribute when the task is specific.

7. Use workshops, not email chains

Email is often a poor way to gather knowledge.

A short workshop can achieve more than three weeks of chasing. Put the right people in a room and map the process live.

Use:

      • process maps
      • whiteboards
      • dependency diagrams
      • RACI tables
      • system flow diagrams
      • incident timelines
      • “what happens if…” scenarios

The technical author captures the conversation and turns it into controlled documentation afterward.

8. Recognise the contributor

Knowledge sharing should carry status.

A simple contributor section, review credit, or acknowledgement can help. People are more likely to share knowledge when they feel their expertise is being recognised, not harvested.

The message should be:

“Your knowledge is important enough to become the organisation’s standard.”

That is a very different message from:

“We need you to fill in this template.”

9. Link documentation to governance

Information managers should make documentation part of normal business control.

That means every critical document needs:

      • an owner
      • version control
      • review date
      • approval route
      • classification
      • metadata
      • retention rules
      • change history
      • access control
      • review evidence

Without governance, knowledge sharing becomes a one-off exercise. With governance, it becomes part of how the organisation operates.

10. Use AI carefully

AI can help turn rough notes, transcripts, and SME interviews into a first draft. But it must not become a substitute for validation.

A good model is:

      • record or summarise the SME discussion
      • use AI to create a structured draft
      • technical author edits for clarity and usability
      • SME validates accuracy
      • document owner approves
      • information manager controls publication and review

AI helps with speed. It does not replace ownership, accuracy, context, or accountability.

The real role of the technical author

The technical author is not merely “the person who writes it down.”

A good technical author acts as:

      • interviewer
      • translator
      • editor
      • sceptic
      • user advocate
      • information architect
      • risk spotter
      • governance partner

They turn messy, partial, expert knowledge into something usable, controlled, and repeatable.

The information manager then ensures that the document does not decay into another forgotten file.

The key point

People are reluctant to share knowledge because knowledge is personal, political, and protective.

The answer is not to shame them into writing. The answer is to create a process where sharing knowledge feels safe, useful, recognised, and structured.

Technical authors and information managers should not ask, “Why won’t people write?”

They should ask:

“What is stopping people from sharing what they know, and how do we remove that friction?”

That is where documentation begins.

The Quiet Expansion of the Technical Author Role

Many technical authors quietly move into project management and governance roles without the title ever changing. Experienced technical authors often coordinate work, manage risks, and design documentation strategies. Is the job title technical author holding the profession back?

Tweet
Pin
Share
0 Shares

Some months ago, I suggested that our job title does not support a technical author’s career progression as we take on additional tasks, such as project management.

It defines us as writers, even though many of us have quietly become something much broader.

My question:

How many technical authors have gradually taken on additional responsibilities without ever changing their job title?

And how many of us have done project management work simply because no one else understood how documentation actually works?

It happens more often than people realise.

Technical authors rarely stay confined to writing manuals.

Over time, most experienced technical authors develop deep knowledge of systems, processes, and operational environments. That knowledge naturally pulls them into wider roles.

Research shows that technical writing is often a springboard into roles such as project management, product management, quality assurance, and business analysis because writers accumulate extensive organisational and technical knowledge.

Many technical authors never formally move into new roles; we simply absorb extra responsibilities.

Documentation work is already project management

Much of what experienced technical authors do already overlaps with project management.

Senior documentation roles often include:

      • Prioritising work
      • Defining documentation strategy
      • Coordinating contributors
      • Managing review cycles
      • Reporting progress

These are recognised project-management responsibilities in documentation environments.

Many technical authors manage:

      • Documentation schedules
      • Review cycles
      • Deliverables
      • Risks
      • Dependencies
      • Stakeholders

Without ever being called project managers.

The skills overlap is not accidental

Project management research identifies core skills such as:

      • Communication
      • Organisation
      • Leadership
      • Technical understanding

These are the same skills technical authors use every day.

Technical authors succeed because they:

      • Interview subject matter experts
      • Coordinate contributors
      • Structure complex information
      • Track document progress
      • Identify gaps
      • Solve process problems

These are not purely writing activities.

They are delivery activities.

The reality on many projects

Project managers often understand delivery milestones but not documentation lifecycle requirements.

This creates a gap into which technical authors step.

Many of us have found ourselves responsible for:

      • Incident management documentation
      • Disaster recovery documentation
      • Operations manuals
      • ITIL-aligned processes
      • ISO 27001 documentation
      • ISO 9001 quality documentation
      • Data centre migration documentation
      • Knowledge repositories

Not because it was in the job description. Because someone had to do it.

The Unofficial Project Manager

It is not unusual for a technical author to become the unofficial project manager for documentation.

Technical writers may even move formally into project management or leadership roles, or manage documentation teams and projects as their careers progress.

But many never do.

The title stays the same.

The responsibilities expand.

When the project manager doesn’t understand the documentation

One common situation is where:

      • The project manager understands schedules and budgets
      • The technical author understands deliverables and structure

When documentation is poorly planned, the technical author often becomes the person who:

      • Defines what must be delivered
      • Structures the repository
      • Establishes review routes
      • Identifies missing inputs
      • Keeps documentation moving

Without that intervention, documentation often becomes chaotic.

The hidden expertise

Experienced technical authors often know far more than their job titles suggest.

Years of working across projects create knowledge in areas such as:

      • IT service management
      • Information governance
      • Document control
      • Audit preparation
      • Operational readiness
      • Knowledge management

This knowledge is rarely visible on an organisation chart.

But projects depend on it.

Know your Technical Author

Many organisations underestimate technical authors because of the title.

“Author” sounds narrow.

“Writer” sounds administrative.

The reality is usually very different.

Some technical authors have quietly been:

      • Documentation strategists
      • Information managers
      • Process designers
      • Governance specialists
      • Delivery coordinators

And sometimes project managers in everything but name.

The real question

So here is the real question:

How many technical authors have been doing project management work for years without being recognised for it?

And perhaps an even better question:

Is the title technical author no longer big enough to describe the role?

Document Strategy vs Document Plan: Why Most Organisations Get It Wrong

Introduction

In the world of technical authoring and information management, people often use two terms interchangeably, but understanding your document strategy is key to approaching both effectively.

      1. Document strategy
      2. Document plan

They are not the same.

Confusing them is one of the main reasons documentation becomes reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to managerial interference.

If management treats documentation as administrative output rather than a governed asset, it will always sit at the whim of whoever speaks loudest.

This article explains:

      1. What a document strategy actually is
      2. What a document plan does
      3. Why governance matters?
      4. What must senior technical authors implement to protect documentation assets?

What is a document strategy?

A document strategy defines how documentation supports organisational objectives. It is not:

      • a list of deliverables.
      • a collection of templates.
      • a SharePoint structure.

It answers fundamental questions:

      • Why does documentation exist in this organisation?
      • What risk does it mitigate?
      • What decisions must it support?
      • What compliance obligations must it satisfy?
      • Who owns it?

In regulated environments, document strategy connects directly to standards such as

      • ISO 9001 (Control of Documented Information)
      • ISO/IEC 27001 (information security controls)
      • ITIL (service documentation and knowledge control)

If documentation is required for audit, certification, or regulatory compliance, you must govern it strategically.

What a proper document strategy includes

A credible document strategy defines:

1. Governance Model

      • Clear document ownership
      • Defined author vs reviewer vs approver roles
      • RACI alignment
      • Escalation routes

2. Lifecycle Control

      • Create → Review → Approve → Publish → Maintain → Retire
      • Mandatory review cycles
      • Version control standards
      • Archiving criteria

3. Classification and Security

      • Controlled vs uncontrolled documents
      • Public vs restricted
      • Security classification tiers

4. Architecture and Structure

      • Taxonomy
      • Metadata standards
      • Naming conventions
      • Document numbering schemas

5. Decision Framework

      • What qualifies as controlled documentation?
      • What does not?
      • When documentation is proportionate
      • When a knowledge article is sufficient

Without these elements, documentation becomes personality-driven rather than policy-driven.

What is a document plan?

A document plan is operational.

It applies the strategy to a specific project, programme or service.

Where strategy defines governance, the plan defines delivery.

It answers:

      • What documents are required?
      • Who is writing them?
      • When are they due?
      • What reviews are mandatory?
      • What approvals are needed?
      • How do they align with stage gates?

In complex programmes — such as digital transformation, DMS rollout, or security accreditation — a document plan ensures traceability and sequencing.

Without a document plan, documentation is:

      • Rushed at the end
      • Inconsistent across work streams
      • Duplicated across teams
      • Politically rewritten

Why Documentation Falls “at the whim of managers”

Documentation becomes unstable when:

      • There is no documentation policy
      • Templates are uncontrolled
      • Metadata is optional
      • No audit mechanism exists
      • No one owns lifecycle enforcement

In that vacuum, managers step in.

They introduce:

      • New templates
      • Personal preferences
      • Structural changes
      • Ad hoc requirements

The result is entropy.

Governance prevents that.

What technical authors must do beyond writing

Senior technical authors must move beyond content production.

They must act as:

      • Information architects
      • Governance stewards
      • Lifecycle controllers
      • Risk mitigators

Below are the controls that protect documentation assets.

1. Establish documentation governance

Create:

      • Documentation Policy
      • Document Control Procedure
      • RACI matrix
      • Change management workflow for templates

Ensure:

      • Template changes require approval
      • New document types require justification
      • eliminate uncontrolled versions

2. Enforce metadata and taxonomy

Metadata is not optional in mature environments.

Define mandatory fields such as:

      • Document Owner
      • Service Area
      • Security Classification
      • Review Date
      • Version Number

Implement enforcement within:

      • SharePoint libraries
      • Asite or DMS platforms
      • Controlled repositories

If you do not enforce metadata, the structure collapses.

3. Institute review discipline

Set:

      • Annual review cycles (minimum)
      • Risk-based review frequency
      • Automated reminders
      • Expiry flags

Outdated documentation creates audit exposure.

4. Run documentation audits

Introduction:

      • Quarterly sampling
      • Annual full audit
      • Traceability verification
      • Redundancy elimination

Without an audit, decay is inevitable.

5. Design templates that enforce structure

Most engineers and technicians do not read style guides.

They follow structure.

Well-designed templates:

      • Force styles
      • Control numbering
      • Embed guidance
      • Reduce formatting drift
      • Prevent structural inconsistency

Templates are governance tools disguised as formatting aids.

6. Define what not to document

Over-documentation creates noise.

A strong document strategy specifies:

      • What must you control?
      • What belongs in a knowledge base?
      • What remains in the service tools?
      • What is transient and disposable?
      • Clarity reduces clutter.

Document strategy maturity model

Organisations typically sit at one of these levels:

Level Description
Level 1 Ad hoc and personality-driven
Level 2 Template-based but uncontrolled
Level 3 Defined lifecycle and metadata
Level 4 Audited and measured
Level 5 Strategically aligned to risk and performance

Most organisations sit between Level 1 and Level 2.

A mature technical author moves them to Level 3 and beyond.

The critical distinction

      • Document Strategy = Governance + Risk Alignment + Structure
      • Document Plan = Delivery + Scheduling + Accountability
      • Ongoing Stewardship = Control + Audit + Discipline

Writing is only part of technical writing.

Control is the real work.

Final Thought

If A.N. Other can alter documentation at will, it is neither governed nor strategic.

And if it is not strategic, the user will not treat it as a corporate asset.

Is Your Job Title Holding You Back as a Technical Author?

Technical authors often sit at the centre of multiple content and information disciplines. This visual shows how closely our work aligns with roles such as Content Designer, UX Writer, Information Manager, and Documentation Strategist. Many of these job titles describe work that experienced technical authors already perform daily—metadata design, information architecture, content strategy, documentation governance, and user-focused writing.
The overlap raises an important question for our profession: is the title “Technical Author” reflecting the full scope of what we do, or is it quietly holding us back?

Tweet
Pin
Share
0 Shares

Is the Technical Author Job Title Limiting Your Career?

tecnical cross over

Here’s a hard truth. Most experienced technical authors acknowledge that there is only so far you can go while keeping the technical author job title.

I contracted for a variety of reasons: exposure and opportunities that permanent roles rarely offer. But after 18 years, another realisation emerges:

The job title itself can become a barrier.

The work is not limited; rather, the perception of our title is.

When Your Title No Longer Matches Your Skills

After years in the field, you notice something interesting:

People with far more impressive job titles are performing tasks you’ve been doing for years:

      • Information Managers
      • Content Designers / Content Strategists
      • Documentation Project Manager
      • Knowledge Managers
      • UX Writers
      • Content Operations Leads
      • Information Architects

And you wonder:

What are they doing that I haven’t done?
What specialism do they possess that a seasoned technical author doesn’t?

More often than not, the answer is:
very little. Sometimes, nothing at all.

Technical authors often perform similar tasks, using diverse labels.

The Hidden Skill Set of an Experienced Technical Author

Most technical authors—especially those with 10, 15, or 20+ years’ experience—already operate far beyond “writing user guides.”

They work across.

      • Information Structure & Strategy
      • Information architecture
      • Metadata and taxonomy design
      • Naming conventions and file governance
      • Knowledge base design
      • Documentation life cycle models
      • SharePoint, Confluence, and DMS structuring

Process Writing & Compliance

      • ISO 27001 documentation
      • ITIL-aligned processes (incident, change, problem)
      • GDPR, PCI/DSS, risk and policy frameworks
      • Governance workflows

Digital Content & UX

      • Content design
      • User journey mapping
      • Plain English and accessibility
      • User research and SME interviews

Project & Stakeholder Management

      • Documentation strategy
      • Template development and automation
      • Editorial oversight
      • Managing SMEs, engineers, and senior stakeholders

These are not junior writing tasks—this is information management and content strategy in practice.

Yet the title “Technical Author” hides this complexity.

Why Other Job Titles Are Perceived Differently

The difference is rarely in capability.
It’s framing, branding, and expectation.

      • A Content Designer suggests UX alignment.
      • A Knowledge Manager suggests ownership of information ecosystems.
      • A Documentation Manager suggests governance, leadership, and structure.
      • An Information Architect suggests digital systems thinking.
      • A Documentation Strategist suggests planning, analysis, and long-term direction.

The work may be the same, but the title expands your perceived value.

Meanwhile, “Technical Author” still signals one thing to many people:

“The person who formats documents and writes instructions.”

Nothing could be further from the truth—but titles shape perception.

When Your Title Becomes a Career Constraint

After a long time in the role, many technical authors reach a point where:

      • They manage information, not just documents.
      • They build documentation ecosystems, not just templates.
      • They lead strategy, not just writing.
      • They’re treated as senior contributors, but their titles don’t reflect that.

This mismatch can stop progression into:

      • leadership roles
      • consulting opportunities
      • digital content positions
      • information governance roles
      • strategic documentation work
      • higher-pay permanent posts
      • In many organisations, everything hinges on the title.

So should you change your job title?

Yes — but do it strategically.

Choose a title that reflects the true scope of your knowledge:

      • Documentation Strategist
      • Information Manager
      • Knowledge Manager
      • Content Architect
      • Technical Content Lead
      • Documentation Programme Manager
      • Content Operations Lead
      • Information Architect

These titles communicate your role extends beyond writing into:

      • structure
      • governance
      • strategy
      • lifecycle management
      • digital ecosystems
      • content design
      • compliance
      • tooling
      • information flow
      • Exactly the things you already do.

A Final Question for Fellow Technical Authors

Before you update your CV, LinkedIn, or next job application, ask yourself:

      • Is your current job title helping you progress — or holding you back?
      • And if it’s the latter, what title reflects the work you already do?

When being Ignored teaches you everything

If your employer ignores you most of the time, then they turn their attention towards you, never in a way that helps. They expect you to mend years of neglect. They want you to perform miracles without context and then ask why you haven’t fixed it already. You explain — again — that you’ve asked for help, for guidance, for support, but were ignored because everyone else was “too busy.” That’s when you realise: they don’t want a technical author; they want a miracle worker. Demanding scenarios test the technical author’s resilience.

I’ve lived through that more times than I care to count. I’ve served under managers who were bullies. They took credit for my work and left me to take the blame when their own ideas fell apart. I’ve been sacked twice because I became the scapegoat for a junior manager eager to broaden his horizons without knowing how to do it the right way. Somehow, I managed to survive, demonstrating technical author resilience under pressure.

After the shock of those experiences, I tried to leave the profession altogether. But escape was impossible. Technical communication isn’t just a job you walk away from — it becomes part of how you think, how you analyse, how you explain. Still, the idea lingered: perhaps I could find a new path, somewhere I didn’t have to fight to be heard.

Being ignored forced me to grow and build my knowledge in

      • document control,
      • SharePoint,
      • metadata,
      • ISO standards, and
      • information management strategy.

Every new skill became a means of self-preservation and a step towards independence. My strength wasn’t just writing documents, but creating clarity in confusion. I turned chaos into structure. This growth marked a new level of resilience for me as a technical author.

Over the years, I’ve met many technical authors who perform communication miracles. Often introverted by nature, they bridge the gaps between.

      • development,
      • product management,
      • marketing, and
      • compliance.

They mediate conflicts, resolve ambiguities, and keep projects moving. They balance diplomacy and precision. Yet despite this, recognition remains elusive. Juggling all those pressures while being expected never to drop a ball is the unique burden of our profession. It truly tests our resilience.

When I look back, I can see how much those early challenges shaped me. The failures, the bullying, the long stretches of being overlooked — they all built resilience and empathy. They taught me how to read a room, how to listen, and how to pick my battles.

In later years, even as contracting became my refuge, the dream of escape began to fade.

Lone desk lamp symbolising resilience and focus in an overlooked workplace
Lone desk lamp symbolises resilience and focus in an overlooked workplace

Where would I go?

Who else would understand this strange blend of discipline, communication, and problem-solving?

This is where the resilience of a technical author comes in.

On more than one occasion, a recruitment agency shared something with me that has stuck in my mind:

“You’d make a great recruiter — you’re easy to talk to, confident, and you make even the most complex role sound exciting.”

Perhaps they were correct. During this time, I truly mastered translation—not just between systems and users, but also between individuals and possibilities.

My article appears after reading Dr Harald Schenda’s linked article. It resonated with me, and here is my response with his acknowledgement.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/harald-schenda_technicalwriting-technicalcommunication-technischekommunikation-activity-7389332802388848640-01t8?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADzAZwBkR4cshHQHZzdgski5orzlKnCer0

Beyond the Dash Debate: How AI Is Reshaping Writing and Technical Authoring Careers

Beyond the Dash Debate: How AI Is Reshaping Writing and Technical Authoring Careers

Writers and technical authors often debate AI’s punctuation quirks — from dash usage to tone. But while we’re arguing over commas, something larger is happening.
Artificial intelligence is not changing how we write; it’s changing why we write — and what value we bring when machines can generate text faster than we ever could.

The question isn’t whether GPT overuses em dashes.
It’s whether we’re ready to evolve beyond them.

1. From Author to Information Architect

AI can produce paragraphs in seconds, but it can’t design the logic behind them.
Tomorrow’s writers won’t just create content — they’ll become information architects who define structure, intent, and compliance.

In regulated environments such as the defence, nuclear, or financial sectors, AI still needs guidance on how to ensure documents comply with frameworks such as ISO 27001, ISO 9001, or PCI DSS.
Writers who understand these standards — and who can teach AI systems to follow them — will remain essential.

2. From Content Creation to Documentation Governance

The flood of AI-generated content means accuracy, version control, and authorship assurance have become critical.
This is where documentation governance takes centre stage.

Technical authors can pivot from writing to governing:

      1. Reviewing AI output for factual and procedural accuracy.
      2. Enforcing metadata and lifecycle rules within DMS tools like Asite or SharePoint.
      3. Building automated checklists and templates that ensure consistent document quality.

AI can draft — but humans must validate.

3. Human Interpretation Still Matters

AI can mimic tone and style, but it cannot sense how a message lands.
When a document must persuade, reassure, or instruct, context becomes everything.
Writers with empathy, domain understanding, and communication insight remain vital to bridging human and machine.

The technical author’s future lies in translation and interpretation: turning data into understanding, and ensuring meaning survives automation.

4. Ethics, Attribution, and AI Literacy

As organisations adopt AI-assisted documentation, they’ll face new ethical challenges:

      1. Who owns AI-generated content?
      2. How do we ensure traceability of information sources?
      3. How do we prevent bias and misinformation?

Writers and documentation specialists can lead the development of AI content policies, establishing governance frameworks and training programmes that uphold accuracy and transparency.

Becoming an AI-literate communicator is now as valuable as being a clear writer.

5. Adaptation, Not Extinction

AI doesn’t erase writing jobs — it redefines them.
Those who adapt will move from creators to curators, validators, and strategists.

Future-ready writers will:

      1. Design content architectures rather than just fill them.
      2. Develop governance systems that manage AI output.
      3. Train teams in writing assurance and ethical documentation.
      4. Blend communication, compliance, and creativity.

In short, they’ll stop being hands-on writers and start being writing strategists.

Conclusion: Evolving Beyond the Dash

So yes — debate GPT’s dash usage if you like.
But remember: punctuation debates won’t protect your profession.
Evolution will.

Writers who move toward governance, structure, and strategy will not just survive AI — they’ll define how it’s used.
The end of writing isn’t coming.
It’s simply the beginning of a new chapter.

Call to Action

If you’re a technical author or documentation manager looking to future-proof your role, start building skills in information architecture, AI literacy, and documentation governance.
Follow techwriting.co.uk for upcoming guides on adapting your documentation strategy in the AI era.

Why Isn’t Technical Authoring Taken as Seriously as Business Analysis?

Business analysis has established itself as a standard in structured career paths. Business analysts operate within a framework that includes certifications from BCS and IIBA, as well as a global knowledge base represented by the BABOK. They play a vital role in driving business success. However, why hasn’t technical authoring training kept pace with the discipline and received the same level of recognition?

Yes, there are training courses for technical authors—but for those of us with real-world experience, most courses offer little new. They often cover areas we’ve long since mastered: writing, using templates, and understanding basic tools. That leaves a pressing question:

Why hasn’t the technical writing profession grown to support mid- to senior-level authors with meaningful, strategic development?

The Perception Problem: Writers vs. Strategists

Part of the issue lies in perception. People often view technical writing as a “support function”—a downstream activity added after the “real” work is done. In contrast, business analysts work upstream, shaping project and product design.

Because of this, organisations rarely invest in upskilling technical writers beyond entry level. We receive tool-specific training, such as MadCap Flare, FrameMaker, and DITA, as well as refresher courses on grammar and plain English. Training in information strategy, content governance, and integrating documentation with Agile processes is essential, yet it is rare. These skills are vital for technical writers to excel in high-performing digital teams.

Why Experienced Technical Authors Avoid Most Training

As a senior technical author, I know training courses are available on the market, but I’ve yet to find any that add value to what I already know.

Here’s why most courses don’t appeal to experienced writers:

      • Too basic, they cover foundational topics like sentence clarity, structure, and Microsoft Word formatting.
      • Tool-led, not strategy-led: Courses focus on software, not how to use documentation to improve business outcomes.
      • One-size-fits-all: Most assume a junior audience, not someone managing document lifecycles or architecting knowledge bases.

This gap motivated me to independently pursue learning through peer networks, mentoring, and cross-disciplinary knowledge, often without formal recognition or support.

What Training for Technical Authors Should Look Like

If we’re to upskill and advance, we need training that goes beyond surface-level writing mechanics.

High-Value Topics for Mid-to-Senior Technical Authors:

Focus Area Why It Matters
Information Architecture & UX Writing Create usable, intuitive, and findable documentation across systems and platforms.
Agile/DevOps Documentation Integration Align with sprint cycles and release documentation iteratively.
Content Governance & Strategy Build scalable systems for content reuse, version control, and quality assurance.
Metadata and Taxonomy Design Essential for working in SharePoint, Asite, or any modern content repository.
API & Developer Docs More projects now require integration-level documentation and OpenAPI familiarity.
AI-Assisted Authoring learn  how to partner with, not be replaced by, content generation tools.
Accessibility and Inclusive Writing Meet compliance, usability, and ethical standards for broader audiences.

The Bigger Issue: Lack of a Unified Knowledge Base

Business analysts have the BABOK, project managers have PRINCE2 and PMBOK, and technical authors? We have fragmented resources, small communities, and ad hoc training.

There is currently no universally accepted body of knowledge that technical authors follow. No recognised framework exists that organisations can use to:

      • structure roles,
      • develop teams, or
      • plan career paths for technical writers.

Until we establish such a structure, we will continue to be seen as individual contributors rather than strategic enablers.

What Needs to Change

To elevate the profession of technical authoring, we need:

      • Advanced Masterclasses for experienced authors.
      • Courses that blend strategy, tech, and communication, not just software skills.
      • Advocacy from inside the profession—to influence HR, procurement, and leadership views.
      • Recognition of our roles in content strategy, product success, and compliance.

Final Word: It’s Time to Professionalise the Profession

Training for technical authors exists, but unless it reflects the real-world complexity of our roles, it won’t be worth our time or investment.

Technical authors are no longer just documenters—we’re architects of information. Our training, recognition, and role in organisations must reflect that.

Let’s continue the conversation

Have you taken a valuable course? Do you want to help shape better training for technical authors? Let’s talk.

Process, Procedure, Work Instruction, Plan, Strategy and Standards — Know the Difference

Clear documentation depends on understanding the difference between processes, procedures, work instructions, plans, strategies and standards. This article explains how each fits into a structured documentation framework.

Tweet
Pin1
Share
1 Shares

Many organisations use the terms process, procedure, work instruction, plan, and strategy interchangeably. They are not the same. This article explains the key points to help clarify these differences.

Confusion between these terms leads to poor documentation, unclear responsibilities, and inconsistent delivery.

If you work in technical authoring, information management, or governance, understanding the difference is essential.

A good documentation framework clearly separates these elements and ensures people know what they must do and why.

What is a process?

A process is a set of interrelated activities that turn inputs into outputs.

A process describes a complete business activity from beginning to end.

You must:

      • Learn the process
      • Understand why it exists
      • Perform it end-to-end

A process is:

      • A high-level description of work
      • Cross-functional
      • Ongoing and repeatable
      • Updated periodically
      • Supported by policies and standards

A process answers the question:

“How does the business operate?”

What is a procedure?

A procedure provides more detail than a process but less detail than a work instruction.

It explains how to perform sequential tasks to achieve a defined outcome.

A procedure usually:

      • Follows a logical sequence
      • Has an obvious start and finish
      • Can be completed in one working session
      • Describes responsibilities

A procedure answers:

“How do we complete this activity?”

What are work instructions?

Work Instructions (WI) describe exactly how to perform a specific task.

They provide step-by-step guidance with no ambiguity.

A work instruction:

      • Describes one task
      • Contains detailed steps
      • May include screenshots or diagrams
      • Removes interpretation

Work instructions answer:

“How do I do this task?”

What is a plan?

A plan is not a process.

Many organisations confuse the two.

A management plan describes what will be done, not how work is performed.

A plan typically includes:

    • Objectives
    • Resource allocation
    • Timescales
    • Responsibilities
    • Risk considerations
    • Contingencies

A plan shows how an organisation will move from Point A to Point B.

It supports the strategy by describing how resources will achieve the aim.

A plan answers:

“What are we going to do?”

What is a strategy?

A strategy explains how an organisation will move from Point A to Point B.

It defines direction rather than detailed actions.

A strategy typically includes:

      • Current position (Point A)
      • Desired position (Point B)
      • Problems and constraints
      • Opportunities
      • Tools and approaches
      • Decision principles

A strategy considers obstacles and risks that may slow progress.

Strategy answers:

“Where are we going and why?”

Your strategy defines what you want to achieve.

Understanding the difference between a strategy and a plan allows organisations to make better decisions.

What is a standard?

Standards define mandatory rules and behaviours.

They support policies and ensure consistency across the organisation.

Standards are:

      • Mandatory
      • Enforceable
      • Organisation-wide
      • Consistent
      • Long-term

Define expected behaviour, for example:

      • Email signatures
      • Naming conventions
      • Approved hardware and software
      • Document templates
      • Security controls

Must be enforced to be effective.

This applies equally to policies and standards.

Why does this matter?

When organisations confuse these terms, documentation becomes chaotic:

      • Plans get mistaken for processes
      • Procedures become incomplete
      • Work instructions disappear
      • Strategies become wishlists
      • Standards are ignored
      • Clear documentation separates these layers and ensures:
      • Consistent delivery
      • Clear responsibilities
      • Better governance
      • Easier audits
      • Stronger information management

This structure is the foundation of a well-run documentation system.

The Hidden Cost of Poor Project Management on Technical Documentation

Poor project management can derail even the best documentation. Learn how planning, collaboration, and respect for technical authors’ timelines help deliver successful projects and user-ready content.

Tweet
Pin
Share
0 Shares

If you don’t plan properly, you’ll drown in documentation while everyone else enjoys a beer.
That’s the reality when poor project management collides with technical documentation.

When planning is weak or missing, documentation quickly becomes chaotic. This article explores how effective project management safeguards documentation quality and keeps technical authors productive — not firefighting.

Put a Plan Around a Project — or a Project Around a Plan

Without a structured project plan, technical documentation is at high risk of failure.
Good project management defines objectives, sets expectations, and prevents unqualified team members from altering scope or priorities.

Documentation cannot replace a plan — but it can rescue a project in trouble. Analysing existing documentation early can highlight risks, reduce rework, and improve overall quality.

Frustration Builds When Planning Fails

Experienced technical authors become frustrated when timelines are unrealistic or when writing is treated as a “quick task.” Common problems include:

      • Non-writers assuming documentation is easy to produce.
      • Unrealistic deadlines that sacrifice quality and accuracy.
      • A lack of understanding of research, review, and editing cycles.

Key takeaway:

Rely on your technical author’s expertise to plan, schedule, and prioritise documentation deliverables.

If deadlines are genuinely tight, create a documentation priority list to ensure users can adopt the product effectively before expanding the scope.

Building Realistic Timelines for Technical Documentation

Every documentation project should include the following core stages:

      1. Research: Understand the technology, product, and user needs.
      2. Writing: Produce structured, clear, and user-focused content.
      3. Editing: Copyedit for consistency, readability, and accuracy.
      4. Review: Validate technical accuracy with subject matter experts (SMEs).
      5. Approval: Integrate revisions and finalise the deliverables.

Skipping these steps leads to poor quality and rework that costs time and money later.

(Internal link suggestion: Link to your blog post on “The Document Lifecycle and Knowledge Management” for context.)

Allow Sufficient Ramp-Up Time

Technical authors need ramp-up time to familiarise themselves with the system or product. Proper project management helps by ensuring:

      • Hardware and software access are granted early.
      • Usernames, passwords, and permissions are available on day one.
      • Time is allocated for learning product behaviour and dependencies.

Ramp-up time is not downtime — it’s a crucial investment in documentation accuracy and long-term efficiency.

(Internal link suggestion: Link to “Maximising Technical Authors’ Skills in the Workplace” for additional insight.)

Review the Reviewers

An organised review cycle ensures documentation is technically sound and consistent. Include these checkpoints in your schedule:

      • Review sessions: Technical staff and project managers validate draft content.
      • Revision cycles: Writers implement feedback before sign-off.
      • Final review: Confirm version control and publish-ready content.

This structured review approach prevents errors, missed updates, and last-minute crises.

Can Project Managers and Technical Writers Get Along?

Absolutely — when both sides understand each other’s contribution.
Project managers bring scheduling and coordination; technical authors bring clarity, structure, and content strategy.

When collaboration works, it results in high-quality documentation that empowers customers to resolve issues independently — reducing support calls, improving user satisfaction, and strengthening organisational trust.

(Internal link suggestion: Link to your upcoming article “Using Technical Authors as Strategic Planners.”)

Final Thought

Poor project management doesn’t just delay documentation — it damages credibility and product success.
When technical authors are integrated into project planning and treated as strategic partners, documentation becomes a competitive advantage instead of a last-minute burden.