STC Relevancy in 2009

The "Society for Technical Communication" (STC) is currently undergoing a grave financial crisis from which it may not emerge. What, you might ask, is this STC organization? Is it as compelling as its scintillating name suggests? What exactly does it offer its members? And why is it experiencing financial duress? Well, "they" (the administration of the organization) say that the financial problems stem from simple accounting: the annual dues are not covering the actual expense of the various and myriad offerings to its members. Also, the annual conference - which is supposed to be the big breadwinner - is not bringing in projected revenue due to a reduced number of conference attendees. Hmmmm.... ok, let's explore this.

What Is STC?

A Brief History: Way back in the early 1950s (yes, the 1950s - how many of you were alive in the 1950s? Or even a glimmer in your daddy's eye?), two organizations were founded that pertained to "technical writing and editing": the "Society of Technical Writers" and the "Association of Technical Writers and Editors." These two organizations merged in 1957 to form the "Society of Technical Writers and Editors" (STWE). Then, in 1960, "STWE" merged with the "Technical Publishing Society, which was founded in 1954 on the West Coast. The merged organizations became known as the "Society of Technical Writers and Publishers." This name sufficed until someone decided to give it a make-over in 1971, at which point it became known as the "Society for Technical Communication." And this name, "STC," has stuck ever since.

Why People Founded This Organization: I don't know enough of the history, but if I were to guess about why people founded an organization of writers and editors, it was because of an inspired critical mass of people, across various industries, developing and delivering technical information (in printed manuals, of course). These inspired people wanted to leverage each other's experiences and share best practices. In essence, they wanted to hang out, grab a beer, and talk shop.

Where it's At Today: STC touts itself as "an individual membership organization dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences of technical communication." They claim to have 14,000 members, from all over the world. Each one of these members must pay annual dues (these vary, based on location and various categories and components). In North America, the dues range from $60 for students, to $175 for the "classic" membership. Despite these annual dues, the organization is deeply in the red.

So What Does a Member Get for His/Her Membership?: First let's take a look at STC's "Vision" and "Mission" statements. This might help us get a handle on the "value" that STC provides to its members.

"Vision: Technical Communication is recognized as an essential part of every organization's competitive strategy."

"Mission: STC advances the theory and practice of technical communication across all user abilities and media so that both businesses and customers benefit from safe, appropriate, and effective use of products, information, and services."

Now, these both seem remarkably Dilbertesque, don't they? I'm not sure, based on these two statements, how STC provides value to its members.

Let's parse these two statements. As for the "Vision," since it's crafted with a passive voice, I would ask, "by WHOM" is technical communication recognized as such? Oh, and just what is "technical communication" anyway? And what if my organization isn't "competitive"? What if it's a non-profit or an educational institution or a research house or a think tank - does that mean we don't care about "technical communication"? Suffice to say that I am underwhelmed by this "vision" statement; it does not make a compelling case for why anyone would care about "technical communication."

As for the "mission," yet again we haven't defined "technical communication" (though apparently it's part "theory" and part "practice"). It is going to address all "user abilities" and "media." Really? All "user abilities"? What about people with various disabilities? Learning or intellectual disabilities? Or, how about people who are intellectually gifted? Oh, and all "media"? Really? So it's going to encompass visual and auditory communication, in addition to online textual mediums? What about video? These are all ways to communicate "technically." Then it goes on to say that it targets "businesses" and their "customers." But again, don't other people use technical information? How about people who interface with the government? What about students and academia? What about scientific researchers? The last part of the mission statement is the most troubling. Who is to judge what is "safe," "appropriate," or "effective" in terms of product usage? How do we go about ascertaining "safety," "appropriateness" and "effectiveness"? And is it exclusively all about "product usage" when consuming technical content?

So, in my mind, both the Vision and Mission statements are diffuse and vague enough to be useless. Both statements fail because, ironically, neither of them "communicate" vision or a mission. When an organization cannot crisply define its vision nor its mission (especially one that touts its expertise in "communication"), it wallows in irrelevance. It finds itself in a crisis because the membership does not believe in its value.

OK, So, What Does My Membership Buy Me?

Based on the vague mission statement, how might one ascertain whether we're getting real value for our membership? Well, I have been a card-carrying member of STC since 1997, when I embarked on my first official job as a "technical writer" (though arguably I had been "technically communicating" since high school). (And yes, "card-carrying" is another anachronism that STC employs - though I'd heard recently that they're going to instead email a membership statement, instead of mailing a membership card.) In my experience, STC has been a "place" where I can go to network with other people in the trade. I've attended local chapter meetings and conferences, and read the STC publications, to learn about best practices and see what others in the industry are doing. It's been all about the networking and sharing tips and tricks about tools of the trade.

Eureka! That's why STC is fading into irrelevance. Because STC's "place" has slowly been supplanted by something called the Internet. More precisely, by something called "Web 2.0" and "social networking." Now of course, the Internet as we know it did not exist in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. Thus, STC thrived; it had no competition in terms of its "platform." The STC publications and its annual conference were among the only resources to tap for networking, sharing best practices, and learning about the latest tools of the trade.

In the 90s and the 21st century, we're now dealing with a whole new "platform" for exchanging ideas, best practices and "talking shop." STC now has fierce competition. The Internet works particularly well as a "level playing field" for the group to engage each other about a broad array of ideas and issues. I no longer need to peruse STC's monthly publications to keep up on industry trends; I can surf the web, post comments to my blog and others' blogs, hang out in "virtual" cafes, and pursue trends and issues that are of particular interest to me. (STC of course is not immune to the implosion of the publishing industry; one key to their survival will be to end distribution of printed copy, and figure out how to deliver content online, exclusively.) Perhaps most significantly, I no longer feel compelled to fork over my annual dues to support the salaries of STC's administration. (Here is a list of full-time STC employees.)

Now, does this mean that I will only "talk shop" online? That I will hide in my office or my home, huddled over my computer screen, interfacing with my peers only virtually? No, of course not. I will use online "social networking" sites such as meetup to "virtually" arrange actual physical meetings. This new world of social media does not rely on monthly meetings arranged months in advance, or annual conferences arranged a year in advance; this new world is dynamic and spontaneous, and perhaps chaotic, but it is the new world that STC must "adapt to" or "die" (see link to article below).

Now if I haven't already painted a picture that renders STC irrelevant, let's go through one more parsing exercise and look at STC's "Strategic Plan Goals":

• Define the profession of technical communication
• Communicate the value of technical communication and STC
• Establish and expand strategic partnerships
• Globally improve the practice of technical communication
• Ensure the long-term viability of the organization

Let's briefly analyze each one:

Define the profession of technical communication: Though it may sound defeatist to state such, I am completely in Bogo Vatovec's camp. This is a school of thought that basically says (and I'm paraphrasing here, so bear with me) that "technical communication" is NOT a profession in and of itself; that technical communication does NOT exist in a vacuum; that "technical communication" exists only to render meaning to a given subject area. So,"technical communication" is a relevant and critically important skill for people in every professional industry. We tend to think of software endeavors as being "high tech," and of course they are. But medicine is also technical; law is technical; government is technical; the insurance and financial industries are certainly technical. And of course many other industries have technical aspects as well. "Communication" is our lifeblood as humans. So, it becomes equally important for "technical communicators" to develop their skills WITHIN THEIR professional domain (software, law, government, finance, etc.).

So now this leads me to the March 2009 of the STC "Intercom" magazine, the "Adapt or Die" article. I have to agree with Bogo Vatovec when he says, "My belief is that the number of "technical writing" jobs will decline over time. Technical writing will be an entry-level position for a trainee to learn the subject matter. Instead, the industry will look for people with a broad range of skills who can also write. That is, technical writing and writing in general is becoming an “essential skill” and not an “added value” skill for the future. The universities offering master’s and similar degrees in technical communication are hitting in the wrong direction." He continues: "The skill set of “technical writers” is expanding continuously as technical writers are being confronted with new technologies and other related disciplines. Many technical writers transit to these other disciplines through job rotation, job change, larger added value, and never come back to technical writing. That positions technical writing as an entry-level discipline."

So, the reality that STC must embrace is that "technical communication" is paramount for every working professional and student; the role of "technical communicator" is morphing into the "entry level" position within a given domain of expertise. That is, it is the DOMAIN that matters; tech writing jobs and the like are the vehicle to enter the domain. Essentially, technical communication is like breathing; it becomes a necessary skill we develop as we master our domain. If we do not master it, we cannot master our domain.

Communicate the value of technical communication and STC: Umm, serious red flag here, folks. If we have to explicitly endeavor to "communicate the value," we've failed.

Establish and expand strategic partnerships: Yikes, this sounds Dilbertesque, doesn't it? Seriously, I have NO idea what these "strategic partnerships" might provide. (Can't you see the brain-storming session now? "yes, yes, that's it! we need 'strategic partnerships'!)

Globally improve the practice of technical communication: Hate to say it, but this reminds me of that cliched bumper sticker, "think globally, act locally." Frankly, if I were to endeavor to improve things "globally," it would be to install a well in every village in the world, to provide clean water to the people. Improving "technical communication" globally is not high on my priority list.

Ensure the long-term viability of the organization: This one, folks, is downright scary. As soon as an organization exists in and of itself, for itself; as soon as it loses focus on WHY IT WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE (for the sake of its members) and starts to think of MAINTAINING THE INSTITUTION FOR ITS OWN SAKE, we're in serious trouble.

So, at the end of the day, I believe that the reason why STC is undergoing financial hardship is that its members do not see the value of being a member, and are applying their "membership dues" to other causes. Period.

The Vision statement, Mission statement, and Strategic Plan Goals are posted on STC's web site.

"All's well that ends"

Another one of my favorite quotes comes from my beloved step-father, Gene Miller. Gene is a soft-hearted teddy bear, dressed in a cynic's clothing. When his cynical side emerges, you may hear him utter one of his oft-cited quotes, "All's well that ends." (This is of course a pun, if you will, on Shakespeare's "All's well that ends well.")

And indeed, if in fact, "All's well that ends" is true, then that other oft-cited cliche is also true, "It's all good." Because surely, everything ends.

Except for one thing:

And that is, God.

Yes, God.

God is constant.

God is unchanging.

God is eternally the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Redeemer.

And this, my friends, is what I believe with my whole heart and my whole soul.

So, dear Gene, "all's well that ends," but God does not end. So does that mean He is not "well"?

On the contrary, God is much more than merely "well." God is the answer to our salvation.

Look folks, we are all sinners. Yes, all of us. Even you. Especially me. We are all vulnerable. We all make mistakes. We are all fallible human beings. And the context for the entire World, the entire breadth and depth of the cosmos, is Yahweh. God. The context to give meaning to our lives and salvation for eternity, is our faith in Jesus Christ.

I have reached this state of faith after many years of introspection, Scripture reflection, and prayer. This has not been a casual discovery or flippant epiphany. This has been a "born again" experience that has led me towards "the way, the truth, the life."

We, my friends, are the light of the world. We are the salt of the earth. And we are only here because God is our Creator, our Sustainer, and our Redeemer.

And when it all ends, God will still be there.

A quote from my grandfather

God rest his soul, my maternal grandfather, William Downs (aka Bill), had a penchant for sayings that tell it like it is. One of his favorites was:

"Nothing is very good or very bad for very long."

Now, this may seem trite. But ponder it for a minute. I think it's fundamentally true. But if I were to quibble with it, here is my rationale:

* Truly ecstatic experiences are infrequent and short-lived. (Think of your latest orgasm. And the one before that. And the one before that. Notice a pattern? Or how about your honeymoon? Geez, that went by quick, right?) This, I believe, may explain our addictions; we're always trying to make it all better, for a longer period of time. We're frequently chasing that elusive state of feeling "very good." (What are the things that make us feel "very good"? Hmmm, the short list is, of course, sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Then as we get older, we realize this short-list no longer fulfills us - for very long.)

* Truly awful experiences are also equally infrequent, but perhaps not as short-lived. (Think of something awful that happened to you recently; what was it? A car wreck? Yes, that would definitely put a damper on your day, but as long as you're not terribly injured, you move on eventually. Or how about those things you learn about from the "dreaded phone call" - a loved one is sick, dying, or has died. The impact of these events are not at all short-lived, but fortunately, are relatively rare.)

So, I think when my grandfather said, "Nothing is very good or very bad for very long," he was speaking at a very granular level. That even during hard times (a dying loved one, facing unemployment and foreclosure, a sick child), there are glimmers of ecstasy. And even during periods of utter delight, there are twinges of sadness or at least ambivalence.

I think what he was saying is this: that life ebbs and flows, and that the majority of our daily routine is spent facing the mundane realities of life. And that's OK. The only sustainable model, in fact, is one in which "nothing is very good or very bad for very long."

When we are really sick or injured, and then recover, we realize how good we feel most of the time.

When a friendship expires and causes us sadness and remorse, we savor the fond memories and grow from it.

When we don't get that promotion we'd worked so hard for, we decide to consider other options that we may not have considered otherwise.

When we try to enter this door, but find it is locked, we notice that another one is open.