With all the discussion about commodity jobs migrating across the globe, and the need to expand our skill set and re-invent ourselves, you might think that, by extension, the emphasis on writing is diminishing. I certainly don’t believe this; I think that strong writing skills are a critical part of the skill set we bring to the workplace. Whether our jobs are called business analyst, usability professional, or technical writer, our ability to clearly communicate information to our audiences is a given.

I do, however, challenge writers to rethink how we think of our writing skills, to put them in a new perspective. When I am convincing an employer or client of my value, I don’t focus on the fact that I’m a writer. To use a bit of business jargon, that’s not my value proposition. The value that I bring is to solve a communication problem, and I do that through clear communication, which involves, as a matter of course, good writing skills.

To use a metaphor, a carpenter doesn’t impress me because he has a fancy drill. He impresses me because he can use it, as part of his tool set, to build the cabinet I want built. I don’t actually care what kind of drill he has, as long as the results work and are attractive. The carpenter certainly cares about the quality of his tools, as they allow him to create a better end product, but I don’t want him trying to convince me that his end product will be better because he owns a fancier drill. Likewise, I don’t try to convince a client that I can fix their problem because I have a better tool set. It’s how I wield those tools, the results I produce with my tools, that impresses my clients.

One of the reasons I’ve been thinking about how we perceive our skills is that I’ve been looking at resumes lately, and I must admit that I’m hard-pressed to find resumes that reflect the writing skills people claim they have. After all, what faith do I have that candidates can articulate the features of a product when their resumes don’t reflect the skill sets they claim to have?

Some of the give-aways are easy:

“Development of new user guides” — this distinguishes between the work from “development of old user guides”?

“Research of new and exiting [sic] software features, functionality, and troubleshooting issues for inclusion in new user guides” — why someone would troubleshoot the issues to be included in a user guide is beyond me, unless these were to accompany the “exiting” features. Semantics, perhaps, but shouldn’t our self-marketing pieces reflect how we use the tools of our trade?

Some of the give-aways aren’t as immediately apparent, for example in portfolio pieces that look fine at a glance, but once you start reading, there are obvious gaps in logic, or glaring style inconsistencies. One elaborate online portfolio I saw described the company as a “loosely knitted group of writers and editors” and discussed having worked in “a number of primary industries” (well … I suppose fishing and trapping could use technical communicators). At the risk of mixing my metaphors, the musician may own a great violin, but shouldn’t apply to the symphony just quite yet.

To come back to the importance of writing, we want our skills to be at symphony level. The employer or client won’t be as interested by the writing tools we bring, but what we can do with those tools to create value for the company.

We can demonstrate our worth to employers or clients by determining what results they consider to be of value—Reduced support calls through better instructions? More clarity on a brand new process? Decreased liability through accuracy of content? Better usability for a software product? Better task paths on a Web site?—and then illustrating how our services can create that value. Doing this makes the case for hiring us in two distinct ways. First, we’ve made the connection between the desired results and how we contribute toward those results. And second, we can use our writing tools to make our presentation, thereby showcasing our work as part of the process of making the sale.

A quick Internet search located the following resources about showing the value of technical communication. Remember however, putting good writing into practice isn’t something we can look up; it’s only something we can practice.

Saul Carliner’s article on demonstrating effectiveness and value of technical communication products: http://www.docntrain.com/libdnld/carliner04.html

The ROI of usability from the Usability Professionals’ Association:
http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/usability_in_the_real_world/roi_of_usability.html

Mikes Hughes’ article on identifying the value proposition of technical communication:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mikehughes/ files/Knowledge%20Creation.pdf