Tag: technical communication

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 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.