Technical Communication at a Crossroads

By Saul Carliner | STC Fellow

At the first STC conference I attended in 1983, I eavesdropped on a group of more experienced professionals. I couldn’t avoid it. They were talking loud and what they said concerned me: the only “real” technical writers were hardware writers.

I soon learned that they were hardware writers and, in those years immediately following the successful introduction of the IBM Personal Computer, found themselves surrounded by an influx of software technical writers and, I suspect, started to feel supplanted by them.

Just as those hardware technical writers found themselves in the midst of a transformation in 1983, so technical communicators find ourselves in the midst of a transformation today. In this article, I first describe the nature of the transformation we face, and then identify four challenges raised by that shift. How we collectively respond to those challenges will, in turn, define the state of our industry in the coming years.

A Bit of Perspective

Although technical communicators regularly deal with change (indeed, our work depends on changing technologies and their resulting impact on products, services, and operations), history provides the best perspective on what these changes really represent—evolutionary adjustments or revolutionary disruption.

Technical communication seems to have gone through four epochs. The first began during World War II, fueled by increasingly complex military equipment launched onto the battlefields of that war, and the subsequent growth of complex industrial equipment including the first mainframe computers. This epoch is characterized by the emergence of the profession, including the founding of the organizations that became the Society for Technical Communication and the IEEE Professional Communication Society, the first academic programs in technical communication, and the launching of the first peer-reviewed literature in our field: the profession’s body of knowledge. Toward the end of this epoch, some of the key research that continues to guide the design and development of technical content today was published, including the Guidelines for Document Designers by the American Institutes for Research and companion research about the writing process conducted by Carnegie Mellon University. During this epoch, technical communicators—most of whom started in technical roles like service representatives—communicated complex technical material from product developers to similarly “technical” users.

By the late 1970s to early 1980s, a new generation of consumer electronics burst onto the scene, especially the 1981 launch of the IBM Personal Computer—which popularized PCs—and the 1984 launch of the Apple Macintosh, which pioneered easy-to-use graphical—or visual—computer interfaces. Although some technical communicators continued to write for high-end technical users, the majority of technical communicators, including the burgeoning numbers of people joining the field, wrote for end users of PC software. These technical communicators not only had to explain how to use the software, but they also had to help PC novices feel comfortable with computers. This massive effort to move the working public online required a different type of communicator: one who either had one of the growing numbers of degrees in the discipline or a similar communications or humanities discipline. Personal computers played a second role during this epoch. Not only did technical communicators write about them, but with word processing, graphic production, and desktop publishing capabilities, they also served as the tools to perform our jobs. In response to these tools, technical communicators not only wrote, we increasingly produced our own work. The growth of the profession led to growth in our professional societies. STC membership typically grew 5 to 10% annually during this epoch.

Both of these epochs were characterized by general stability. That would end with the close of the second epoch in the early 1990s, when the end of the Cold War shifted economies from a military to a consumer focus. Many hardware technical writers, who continued to remain employed writing military specifications through the second epoch, found themselves out of work, and the ranks of technical communicators started to thin. Organizations designed better products that users found intuitive, thus requiring less documentation. By the early 2000s, most people who needed to move online had done so, reducing demand for technical communication that comforted computer novices. Of the content that remained, organizations began publishing it online and the communicators who wrote the content also produced it. Demand for desktop publishing professionals, many of whom identified as technical communicators, plummeted. This period was characterized by booms, like the dot-com boom, and busts, like the Great Recession. The recession not only affected technical communication, it devastated all branches of professional communication. In response, many communicators started publishing information on the Web for free as a means of attracting attention and clients.

The Internet not only disrupted professional communication, it also disrupted professional organizations. Traditionally, people joined professional organizations for their publications. With so much information available for free on the Internet now, professional organizations had to provide practicing professionals with new reasons to affiliate.

Now technical communication enters its fourth epoch, redefining itself for a time when computers and the Internet are ubiquitous. This means that the material for which organizations need technical communicators has changed, and in an epoch when people are adopting new professional identities and new ways to express them, sometimes these needs are outside the traditional framework of a professional association. These conditions, in turn, suggest the challenges our field faces.

Challenge 1. Whom do we include as technical communicators?

Several groups of people have self-identified as technical communicators in the past. The majority write materials for people who use products or service them and produce materials such as online help systems, user guides, reference manuals, service guides, documentation of Application Programming Interfaces and Software Development Kits, and the “inner workings” of complex products. These are the bread-and-butter assignments of our field. People who edit these materials and manage the projects also identify as technical communicators, as do some of the people who provide illustrations for these materials. A second group of people who identify as technical communicators design and develop documentation and training for proprietary software: that is, complex software that organizations either develop or tailor for use internally. A third group works in engineering and scientific firms, primarily compiling and editing proposals that land contracts for these firms and the reports resulting from the engagements. A fourth group works in government agencies, formulating policies and reports for the public.

The literature on technical communication has tried to expand the horizons of technical communication beyond these industries and roles. Some focuses on genres that require an understanding of technology and communication, but are not traditionally associated with technical communicators, such as training materials, marketing communications materials, and policies and procedures. Some of this literature focuses on roles other than writing, such as user interface design and quality control. Some of this literature focuses on industries that have little representation among our membership but need technical communication skills, such as health communication and citizen communication.

But over the past decade, some groups of people who had previously identified as technical communicators chose to identify as something else. In some instances, that’s because their job responsibilities substantially changed and they don’t create content anymore. More frequently, communicators continue to develop the same type of material but choose to identify by other less-specific terms like content developer and professional communicator, intended to position them for broader opportunities if technical communication assignments dry up, as they have in the past years. Content developers might develop user guides, but they do so for a game or self-assembled furniture in addition to software. Professional communicators might write about technology, but work on sales materials that are just as likely to address sales techniques as product information.

As the number of people self-identifying as full-time professional technical communicators has thinned, a new population of professionals who produce technical content but do not call themselves technical communicators has emerged. Some are full-time communicators, including journalists and authors of third-party materials about technology products. Some are part-time communicators: the subject matter experts (SMEs) and expert users whose primary job affiliation is in another role such as programmer or engineer, but generously contribute to SME- and user-generated documentation.

Given that some people who have self-identified in the past as technical communicators find that definition limiting and that others might be technical communicators without realizing it, the challenge of the next epoch is recalibrating our definition of what characterizes a technical communicator, shifting from those who produce the “bread and butter” assignments to the nature of the subject matter covered.

Challenge 2: What competencies does a technical communicator really need to succeed?

As part of the effort to recalibrate the definition of a technical communicator, we also need to recalibrate the competencies needed to succeed in this profession. Central to that recalibration effort is a re-envisioning of the concept “technical” from an emphasis on skills with the ability to manipulate production technology to expertise in the technical material of the content about which technical communicators write.

That the focus of “technical” in technical communication drifted toward the technology of publishing is understandable. Between the second and third epochs in the development of the field, the means of producing and publishing organizational content drastically changed as organizations adjusted first to desktop publishing, then to online help, then to Web publishing, and eventually to mobile, e-book, and component content management systems. The first of these developments shifted responsibility for production from desktop publishing specialists to content developers, adding illustration (or, at least, adaptation of existing images), graphic design, layout, and preparation of golden code and camera-ready copy to the job descriptions of technical communicators. The tools of production added to the complexity of publishing tasks, as technical communicators moved from typewriters to online tools and had to not only explain computers to people who never encountered them, but also had to become master users themselves. That some job ads requested experience with specific versions of authoring tools only reinforced the emphasis on publishing technology and the belief that mastering publishing technology was what made technical communication “technical.”

Two things have changed. One is that the transition to computers that consumed technical communication in the 1980s and 1990s is effectively complete. Furthermore, most software (mobile and desktop) now follows standard interface conventions and operate similarly. This rise of intuitive interfaces for computer-experienced end users has caused demand for end-user content for inexperienced computer novices to plummet.

The second thing that has changed is that functions and features of products are increasingly intuitive, minimizing or eliminating learning for new products. Rather, users need guidance in applying those functions and features within particular contexts. Consider documentation of smart boards—screens that not only let people display PowerPoint slides and Web pages, but also are touch sensitive and can be used for group activities. Users easily figure out how to use smart boards for projecting slides without consulting help or receiving any training. But most are stumped for ideas on how to take advantage of the touch screen and interactive capabilities in their specific contexts, such as business presentations, technical training classes, sixth-grade math classes, and undergraduate history seminars. Some organizations have turned to SMEs and users to provide this type of contextualized material.

Perhaps these organizations lack staff to prepare it; perhaps these organizations do not believe their staff communicators can do so. One way organizations show their lack of trust in the subject matter expertise of technical communicators is requiring approvals of materials by technical “owners” before publication. That type of approval is not necessarily standard in other communication disciplines. For example, many organizations do not require similar sign-offs on training; trainers themselves have responsibility for the accuracy of their materials.

In addition to subject matter expertise, technical communicators also need excellent communication skills. Or, as one leading technical writer once observed, “When did we stop making writing important?” Once again, trainers provide some insights into this challenge. They, too, require subject matter expertise and excellent communication skills. Studies that identified characteristics that make a trainer credible suggest that both skills are of nearly equally important—neither dominates.

Technical communicators need a third set of skills, ones that get limited attention in our field: how to be service providers. Whether we work as captive employees or as contractors or consultants, technical communicators provide a service. Those who work externally are well aware of the pressures of keeping clients happy. But even those who work internally must keep internal clients satisfied as organizations usually view technical communication as a support service. As a study of how technical communication managers report productivity and effectiveness that appeared in the third quarter 2014 issue of Technical Communication noted: upper management typically assesses technical communication groups on word-of-mouth about their service skills, rather than better covered—but almost never tracked—means like return on investment or results of customer satisfaction surveys.

Service skills are the competencies that affect word-of-mouth. One of those skills is consultative skills: collaboratively working with an internal or external sponsor to arrive at decisions about projects instead of approaching communication as a territory to be protected. In practical terms, although communication is our area of expertise, telling a client “I’m a communication expert and that’s my decision” doesn’t make them believe it. Applying interpersonal communication skills—which substantially differ from written communication skills—to arrive at a shared understanding of an approach makes a much stronger and more positive impression, and builds respect.

Another service skill is the ability to assess the quality, cost, and timeliness of the service and to recognize when adjustments are needed to assure competitiveness. Even technical communicators working internally need these skills because, as a support service, the option of outsourcing or relocating the group to a less expensive location always exists.

Challenge 3: How do we promote the value of our contributions to sponsors and prospective sponsors?

We should position technical communication as a valuable, central service that positively benefits organizations that invest in it. But we need to be pragmatic; after decades of telling ourselves our value, most of us continue to fight an uphill battle to demonstrate the centrality of technical communication to organizations.

Even when technical communicators find a senior manager to advocate for the function, too often the primary support is limited to that single advocate, and when that manager leaves the role, the replacement may or may not share the same opinion of technical communication.

The issue poses even greater challenges to technical communicators working as contractors or consultants, and for third-party service providers. Clients often call in technical communicators at the last minute and primarily seek production services—services that are cost-sensitive as an increasingly large number of providers offer them. In such situations, the contractors have tightly bound assignments that do not effectively showcase their skills. That the “technical” in technical communication has primarily referred to skills with publishing tools has only contributed to this situation.

Although no simple, quick program can permanently change minds, a number of measures exist that, if adopted in part or full, could begin to change perceptions of the field over time. The first was mentioned earlier: by necessity, technical communicators need to shift the focus of “technical” from publishing technology to expertise with subject matter and content. This expertise not only allows technical communicators to better showcase the full range of our expertise, it is also not as easily duplicated as publishing skills. Furthermore, determining how to communicate a subject requires earlier involvement in the document’s development than mere assistance with wordsmithing, layout, or production.

A second measure is education. Senior technical communication managers, senior strategists, and senior communicators who work internally need to institutionalize their functions. Rather than looking for a single champion in their organizations—a situation that, as noted earlier, only lasts as long as the champion remains in the position—technical communication managers, senior strategists, and senior communicators need resources to help them strategically insert themselves into development processes at appropriate junctures, and build that role into the processes and policies that govern their organizations, so when the champion leaves, the role remains.

When internal technical communicators institutionalize their work, external providers benefit, too, because those same organizations seek external help when their own staffs are not available. External providers, in turn, need to be able to provide these other services when demand arises.

The third measure is an external effort to market the value of technical communication to the people who purchase the service. Other professional associations provide models to consider. For example, the Society for Human Resource Management sponsors a popular U.S. National Public Radio show, and the sponsorship message provides an opportunity to “sell” the strategic value of Human Resources (which—like technical communication—many organizations view as a support service and frequently outsource it). Although technical communicators probably lack the financial resources to run a radio campaign, they can still promote the value of their services to sponsors through social media campaigns, client-focused sections of websites (the British Design Council provides an excellent, marketing-focused site), as well as through articles and opinion pieces aimed at sponsors of technical communication projects and that appear in news sources and blogs frequented by sponsors.

In other words, rather than merely telling other technical communicators that we provide value, we need to take the message to the people who can purchase technical communication services.

Challenge 4: What is the role of a professional association serving technical communicators?

The fourth challenge facing the profession is a reimagination of one of our most fundamental institutions—the professional association. People in our field originally founded associations to provide a forum for sharing common work-related interests, strengthening the practices of a then-emerging profession, and ultimately providing distinction to those who practice the field. The founders established publications and conferences to strengthen practice and, in the process of doing so, forged strong social bonds with one another. As a result, professional associations doubled as social clubs. Colleagues attended chapter meetings and annual conferences as much to catch up with old friends as to learn new tricks of the trade. Membership grew rapidly in the second epoch and part of the third epoch.

In the third epoch, however, several developments challenged professional associations. One was the shift from life-long careers with single employers to protean careers—careers in which workers move from position to position and focus on building their inventory of skills rather than acquiring seniority. With more technical communicators working independently and others regularly changing employers, many found themselves responsible for the annual dues that employers previously covered. Some people maintained their memberships, seeing it as a tangible demonstration of commitment to the field. Others dropped their memberships, spending their money on other things. That affected total membership numbers.

The second development was the rise of private, for-profit organizations. Through the early 1990s, nearly all conferences and events on technical communication were sponsored by professional associations. By the late-1990s, several private conferences became “must attend” events on the annual circuit.

But perhaps the most significant development was the rise of the Internet and, along with it, private blogs and websites dedicated to the discussion of technical communication. Although some of these blogs and sites are primarily intended to market a service to employers or recruit prospective contractors, some of the best known blogs and websites are merely a means of sharing their interest in technical communication, starting with the Tech Writer’s List (TECHWR-L), which started as an online discussion list. These blogs and sites provide information about the field and, for some, filled the same need as the publications that come with membership in a professional association. That is no small issue because surveys of members of professional associations repeatedly indicated that publications were the primary benefit members sought. If visitors to the site wanted to interact with one another, many arranged for local meet-ups, duplicating the services of local chapters of professional associations. Some technical communicators felt blogs and websites met their professional needs at no cost.

To remain relevant in this epoch, professional associations need to be reimagined. This challenge is not unique to associations serving technical communicators: professional associations serving most professions—especially those related to communication—face the same challenge.

Professional associations can still play a crucial role in building and promoting professions, even in areas where they now face competition. For example, although their publications compete with privately published blogs and websites, publication by a professional association still brings credibility to material. Some interesting models have emerged in partnership with universities, such as j-source.ca, a project of the Canadian Journalism Project, which explores the economic and financial dimensions of the field, as well as its changing practices and ethics. Associations can leverage that credibility by commissioning and publishing applied research in the field, such as a census of practitioners and state-of-the-industry reports. Professional associations might use similar thinking to reenvision conferences and meetings, and geographic and virtual communities.

If professional associations face competition for some of their core services, they are uniquely positioned to offer others. One is promoting the profession to the organizations that purchase the service and their leaders. Only when they change their view of our services can we deliver them in ways we believe are most effective. Too often, associations primarily focus their messages internally within the profession.

Another service that professional associations can provide is identifying and promoting the competencies underlying the field. The competencies exist for more than certification; they also provide a sound basis for job descriptions, performance plans, and performance appraisals. When promoting competencies, professional associations should focus on all of these applications.

In addition to identifying and promoting the competencies underlying the field, professional associations can also identify and promote the standards of competence. Certification does that. Effective certification is performance based, not seniority based. So it is possible that someone who has 30 years of service might not be certified, because that person cannot demonstrate that they perform at a minimum level of competence. After receiving certification, professionals must continue to perform satisfactorily and within a code of ethics, or they could face loss of their credential, even if they have been a long-time volunteer of the organization. Proponents like performance-based standards for certification as long as the possibility of failing affects other people. But some of those “other people” will be us and those enforcing the standards are their “friends.”

In Other Words

As technical communication moves into the next epoch, what makes a “real” technical communicator changes again, just as it did in each of the previous epochs. For success in the next epoch, the profession faces four key challenges as individual professionals and as a community. If we rise to these challenges, they could change the focus of our work, and provide a more meaningful role in organizations, including stronger professional standards: the same things we have sought since our first epoch.

SAUL CARLINER is an associate professor of educational technology and provost’s fellow for digital learning at Concordia University in Montreal. He has received the Ken Rainey Award for Excellence in Research, the Jay Gould Award for Excellence in Teaching, the STC President’s Award, two awards of Distinguished Chapter Service, and seven awards in the Frank R. Smith Competition for Best Article in Technical Communication. He is a fellow of the Institute for Performance and Learning (formerly Canadian Society for Training and Development) and a fellow and past president of STC.