Primarily because it's a far, far more complicated job than that and you can't really hire someone off the street to do it effectively. Typically in a tech company a tech writer is going to know almost as much or more (after years of experience diving into every detail) about a given technology or application or API, and so that begs the question why not make twice as much working as a software developer and not have to sort out these types of messes?
Also job security. Anyone doing this work full-time is the first on the chopping block, and developers who are working on documentation tend to be perceived as lower status since they aren't delivering features.
But a different question is, why is no company trying to do this differently? Like, hiring one good tech writer to maintain the company documentation, and paying them as much as they pay the developers.
I once worked at a company - in a different domain - that made a conscious decision to make this kind of hire. It worked incredibly well, and I never understood why more companies didn't do it.
The context in my case was the Australian offices of a management consulting firm (BCG). The Melbourne and Sydney offices hired what were called "editors", brought on at the same grade as the consultants. Not editing as in correcting grammar. But helping the consultants improve the logic of the arguments in their slide decks: so they were logically consistent, easy to understand, and actually addressed the clients' issues. I was a junior consultant back then, and we were constantly pushed by our managers "have you seen Yvonne?" [the Melbourne editor] when preparing for major presentations.
I do like the sibling comment calling for a librarian. I imagine that would pay a ton of dividends if the librarian was motivated and got support.
There are three things that I think are preventing technical writing from being more widely valued:
1. Software companies tend not to distinguish between technical writers who are good at English vs. technical writers who are good at engineering, understand their audience, and can articulate complex ideas to that audience effectively.
2. Technical writers who are good at English make about half as much as technical writers with engineering skills, but they also muddy the hiring waters and drag salaries down for everyone else.
3. Most corporate-people think because they can type up a decent email they can write technical documentation themselves. They're usually wrong on both counts.
He assumes that "full understanding (into every detail) of what is being documented is needed" (as I put it). So, the new hire will never get it right 100%. he will both struggle and annoy others (to forever enlighten him), which is a fair point.
But it is not black or white. Others here have more positive experiences
This comment is absolutely true and many, of not most, companies fail to understand it. I think the problem stems from corporate-people thinking, "Why should I pay a writer when we all speak English (or whatever language) and can write it ourselves." And that's why so many companies have shitty documentation.
> ...so that begs the question why not make twice as much working as a software developer and not have to sort out these types of messes?
I was a software engineer for 30+ years and got completely burned out on it, so I left engineering to do technical writing. So far, I like it much better because I have far more control over my time. In my experience so far, the sorting-out-messes work is about the same in either field. Both jobs are pretty complex. I also make exactly the same as I did while working as an engineer.
I think the secret to not being first on the chopping block is to show you're delivering value to customers and internal teams. At least I attribute that to my survival through multiple layoffs so far.
How did you make this transition? Any credentials/certifications you needed? Did you transition within the same company?
So, to solve the first staleness part, there is only two ways: raise the documenter status, or make it somewhat possible (easier?) for someone else to do at least a part of it. are they both really that hopeless?
PS: to solve the second loss/discovery part, I think we are heading for that AI powered simple "unified search" experience.
Yes, there's a very good reason not to use metadata: it's extra work, and it's not very fun, just like writing docs for software. So people don't want to do it because it isn't "sexy" (and there aren't very good incentives to overcome people's reluctance to do that work).
Because of this, just like any job that people don't really want to do, you have to "bully and cajole" them into doing it.
If you don't include the right metadata, google won't rank you highly. If you include the right metadata, your content will get higher rankings and the snazzy preview cards on different social media platforms.
Metadata is good! There are structural incentives to be mediocre though.
Second, the whole point of AI NLP search (i.e., 2nd part = loss) is that it does not need metadata (which was the basis of the now mostly abandoned semantic web approach to KM).
1) Link to the documentation in your tools
2) Ensure everyone has edit access to the linked documents
Another idea might be, whenever a new feature is closed out, auto-allocate some percentage of its implementation time to documentation, and schedule an interview with a tech writer.
Library science is a popular area of study but the job market isn’t great and neither is the pay. Lots of people to choose from here even without poaching from existing libraries.
I disagree, I've been apart of a few companies that have done exactly this. I would suggest not presenting this argument as an absolutism.
You partly answered your own question: perhaps you pay the librarian/documentation writer too little? ;-)
Seriously: letting the documentation to be written by such a person won't be as much a cost-reducing measure, but instead mostly an approach to improve the documentation quality.
