President's Column
Sufficient, and Reusable, Communication
By Luke Maki
As I have mentioned in a past column, one reason I became involved with the Professional Communication Society was the nature of at least one of my responsibilities: Chairing and documenting the proceedings of a periodic meeting of Information Technology (IT) experts, with the output including standards declarations for network products and systems. I prepare agendas, document the minutes, and oversee the process that yields published standards. In terms of minutes, I strive to communicate complex technical topics so that a broader audience can comprehend them. This was the first, obvious, reason for my interest in the PCS, and its fields of interest: how can I do a better job of communicating technical information?
Another aspect of my continued need to be involved with the PCS has become clearer as my exposure to, and training in, lean manufacturing principles has increased. The same principles for lean manufacturing can be applied to the office environment, and to the production of documentation. I know there are some, or perhaps even many, of you who are involved with content and document management.
My challenge, particularly in the development and publication of standards, is to determine what documentation is really ‘sufficient' to fulfill the need to communicate essential information (both to meet internal needs, such as operational support, as well as for possible regulatory needs). The answer can vary, depending on the complexity of the standard discussed. Then, how can the documentation be simplified, yet still contain the ‘necessary' (a subjective term) information? Also, how can the documentation be produced in a simplified (more lean) manner? Is there a way to reduce the ‘burden' of document creation by ‘reusing' information considered important to acknowledge, but common to most documentation required?
For example, one type of document could be a production support plan. While some of the information in such a plan is specific to the new product or system being deployed, there are aspects of the plan that would be common to most, if not all, products/systems deployed within an existing environment (whether it be a manufacturing facility, or a a corporate Information Technology infrastructure). One such ‘aspect' might be the service level agreement (SLA) for the system. The SLA may be something that is in place, and all such systems are expected to operate to it. Thus, there is no need to replicate it in each production support plan. To what extent can these elements of a document be captured for reuse?
I am confident that the efforts in the standards community, and in the public and private sectors, will progress in addressing these issues. This is an area of interest in which the PCS is positioned to serve. I look forward to the contributions of PCS members to further this field of professional communication, and for engineers such as myself to be beneficiaries of their work!
************************
Luke Maki is the current president of IEEE-PCS and works for The Boeing Company.