Single Sourcing and Content Management - Technical ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Applied ResearchSingle Sourcing and Content Managementdid not ask non-users of SS/CM a similar question aboutperceived downsides of their methods and tools.What Else in the Results Deserves to Be Highlighted?Microsoft Word and FrameMaker were by far the mostusedprimary authoring tools of the survey respondents,and more than three times as many respondents producedPDF files as produced content using XML or SGML.We also think that the data on the Likert-typeagreement-disagreement items are intriguing: SS-onlyrespondents were significantly more in agreement thattheir system had speeded up their work while reducingtheir work-related stress. SSwCM respondents, however,were significantly more in agreement that their systemhad made work groups more focused on informationusability issues. These results tempt us to speculate thatthe added complexity of implementing single sourcingthrough a content management system adversely impactsperceptions of overall efficiency and stressfulness whilebolstering perceptions that the work group is giving moreattention to the usability of its information products.Perhaps implementing SSwCM is more likely to compelwork groups to re-invent their information developmentprocesses, leading to more user-centered analysis andtesting of their information products.Is It Likely That This Survey Underestimates Useof SS/CM by STC Members?For surveys of the general public, textbooks aboutsocial science research instruct that a low responserate, commonly specified as below 50% (Babbie, 2007,p. 262), warrants caution in assuming that data fromthe survey accurately represent the results that would beproduced if data could be gathered from all membersof the represented group. Our survey’s response rateof 28% must be viewed as a limitation of the study:Because we lack information about the nonrespondentsto the survey, we cannot know whether they, as a group,differ significantly from respondents in regard to thetopics covered by the survey. The discussion about howlikely it is that the survey’s results accurately representthe experiences and attitudes of STC members in 2008must be grounded in logical imputation.We do not think the results underestimateSTC members’ use of single sourcing and contentmanagement in the spring of 2008. Indeed, we think thatit seems just as likely that the survey overestimates SS andCM use by STC members. We make that argument inAppendix B, for those who may be interested in a reviewand discussion of research supporting the propositionthat low survey response rates do not automaticallymean questionable data quality. Our examination of theliterature on that topic has bolstered our confidence thatour survey presents a reasonably accurate snapshot ofSTC members’ experiences and opinions related to singlesourcing and content management.From the Survey Results, What Dare We Predict Aboutthe Future of SS/CM?The survey results make for a rather cloudy crystal ball.Nevertheless, adding them to what we know from halfa decade of following the information about SS/CMdisseminated in the publications and at the conferencesof technical communication practitioners and academics,we feel confident in making these general predictions: Single sourcing will slowly but steadily gain wideracceptance among technical communicationworkgroups. Single sourcing seems destined to reacha significantly larger proportion of adopters thansingle sourcing with content management—barringa technological breakthrough that makes SSwCMsystems significantly cheaper and easier to install, use,and maintain. Perhaps, though, one or more popularSS tools such as Adobe FrameMaker and MadCapFlare will evolve into true SSwCM solutions, alteringthe SS/CM marketplace quite dramatically. Pushing XML-enabled single sourcing to the tippingpoint may take the arrival, or the more effectivemarketing, of user-friendly and affordable plug-intools for Microsoft Word, which was by far the mostusedauthoring tool of STC members in May 2008. The number of eventual SS/CM adopters in technicalcommunication may be somewhat lower than SS/CMvendors and consultants anticipate. Already, Web 2.0and social media/networking methods and tools arestealing the spotlight from SS/CM topics at the leadingconferences attended by technical communicators.That last conjecture seems a suitably provocativenote to end on. Standardized structure and control are atthe heart of the SS/CM paradigm, but those qualities areanathema to the Web 2.0/social networking paradigm.390 Technical Communication ● Volume 57, Number 4, November 2010
Applied ResearchDayton and HopperWhat’s going on here? Could it be that many companiesfind today that they need technical communicators toproduce a continuous stream of just-in-time, variouslystructured, often transient, multimedia content—asmuch or more than they need them to producehighly regulated and uniform topics in a databasewhose information, as well as its meta-information, iscomposed almost entirely of words?This question, in simpler forms, will becomethe focus of much discussion among technicalcommunicators. It represents only one of several obviousdirections for further research related to the incessantsearch for better, cheaper, and faster ways of creatinguseful and usable technical information products.ReferencesAment, K. (2003). Single sourcing: Building modulardocumentation. Norwich, NY: William AndrewPublishing.Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research, 11thed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Clark, D. (2008). Content management and theseparation of presentation and content. TechnicalCommunication Quarterly, 17, 35–60.Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: Thetailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Doyle, B. (2007). Selecting a content managementsystem. Intercom, 54(3): 9–13.Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little thingscan make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.Hall, W. P. (2001). Maintenance procedures for a classof warships: Structured authoring and contentmanagement. Technical Communication, 48,235–247.Happonen, T., & Purho, V. (2003). A single sourcingcase study. Presentation (slides) at STC 50th annualconference (Dallas, TX, May 18–21). Retrievedfrom http://www.stc.org/edu/50thConf/dataShow.asp?ID=110McCarthy, J. E., & Hart-Davidson, W. (2009). Findingusability in workplace culture. Intercom, 56(6), 10–12.National Bureau of Economic Research. (2008,December 11). Determination of the December2007 peak in economic activity. Retrieved fromhttp://wwwdev.nber.org/dec2008.pdf.Petrie, G. (2007). Industrial-strength single-sourcing:Using topics to slay the monster project. Presentation(slides) at 54th annual conference of the Societyfor Technical Communication (Minneapolis, MN,May 13–16). Retrieved from http://www.stc.org/edu/54thConf/dataShow.asp?ID=27.Pettit Jones, C., Mitchko, J., & Overcash, M. (2004).Case study: Implementing a content managementsystem. In G. Hayhoe (ed.), Proceedings of the51st annual conference of the Society for TechnicalCommunication (Baltimore, Maryland, May 9–12).Arlington, VA: STC. Retrieved from http://www.stc.org/ConfProceed/2004/PDFs/0048.pdf.Pierce, K., & Martin, E. (2004). Content managementfrom the trenches. In G. Hayhoe (ed.), Proceedings ofthe 51st annual conference of the Society for TechnicalCommunication (Baltimore, MD, May 9–12).Arlington, VA: STC. Retrieved from http://www.stc.org/ConfProceed/2004/PDFs/0049.pdf.Rockley, A. (2001). Content management for singlesourcing. In Proceedings of the 48th annual conferenceof the Society for Technical Communication (Chicago,IL, May 13–16). Arlington, VA: STC. Retrievedfrom http://www.stc.org/ConfProceed/2001/PDFs/STC48-000171.pdf.Rockley, A., Kostur, P., & Manning, S. (2002).Managing enterprise content: A unified contentstrategy. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed.New York: Free Press.Volume 57, Number 4, November 2010 ● Technical Communication 391
Page 4: Applied ResearchSingle Sourcing and
Page 7 and 8: Applied ResearchDayton and HopperAb
Page 9: Applied ResearchDayton and Hopper*
Page 15: Applied ResearchDayton and HopperIf
Page 19 and 20: Applied ResearchDayton and Hopperof
Page 21 and 22: Applied ResearchDayton and HopperGr
Page 23: Applied ResearchDayton and Hopperco

Single Sourcing and Content Management - Technical ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?