Assessing quality documents

ABSTRACT

In recent years, an emphasis on quality has emerged in a variety of organizations and in several fields, including technical documentation. Producing Quality Technical Information (PQTI) was one of the first comprehensive discussions of the quality of documentation. An important contribution of the book is in identifying quality as multiple, measurable dimensions that can be defined and measured (previous views of quality identified it more as some elusive thing that could be identified if present but was difficult to articulate and describe). Despite its contributions to the quality discussion, PQTI runs the risk of simplifying the quality process, reducing quality to a simple checklist that information developers can use to develop effective documentation. PQTI fails to address the fluid nature of some aspects of quality: some dimensions that are important in assessing one document may be less important or irrelevant with other documents. Additionally, PQTI falls short of accounting for the larger contextual framing of documents--that the importance of individual dimensions of quality changes depending upon the audience, context, and purpose of the document.This commentary suggests that all quality efforts should be grounded in customer data and user-centered design processes, and that we should learn to better differentiate among quality dimensions, determining those dimensions that are essential to customer satisfaction and those that are merely attractive. Through increased attention to developing the quality of information, organizations can better differentiate their products and services, facilitate greater productivity, and increase customer satisfactions, all significant activities in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction and retention. Marketing Letters, 5: 19-30.
• 2: Bench, T. (1993). Quality: If at first you don't succeed. Industry Week (July 5): 48-59.
• 3: Bibus, C. J. (1996). Quality as "fitness for use." Intercom, 43 (October): 38-39.
• 4: Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without Tears: The Art of Hassle-free Management. New York: McGraw Hill.
• 5: Dodds, W. B., and K. B. Monroe (1985). "The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations." In Advances in Consumer Research, 12. Eds. Hirschwood, E. C., and M. B. Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 85-90.
• 6: Garvin, D. A. (1984). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review (Nov-Dec): 101-109.
• 7: Getty, J. M., and K. N. Thompson. (1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging quality. Hospitality Research Journal, 18: 75-96.
• 8: JoAnn T. Hackos, Managing your documentation projects, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994
• 9: Gretchen Hargis , Michelle Carey , Ann Kilty Hernandez , Polly Hughes , Deirdre Longo , Shannon Rouiller , Elizabeth Wilde, Developing Quality Technical Information: A Handbook for Writers and Editors (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004
• 10: IBM Corporation. (1983). Producing Quality Technical Information. Santa Teresa, CA.
• 11: Kano, N., et al. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu, 14: 39-48.
• 12: Kopalle, P. K., and D. L. Hoffman. (1992). Generalizing the sensitivity conditions in an overall index of product quality. Journal of Consumer Research, 18: 530-535.
• 13: Oliver, R. L. (1993). "Cognitive, affective, and attribute base of the satisfaction response." Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 418-430.
• 14: Olshavsky, R. W., and R. A. Spreng (1989). "A 'desires as standard' model of consumer satisfaction." Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaint, 2: 49-54.
• 15: Olson, J. C., and P. A. Dover (1979). "Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial." Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (2): 179-189.
• 16: Ortiz, E. A. (1993). On the application of logistic regression measure to software quality. Proceedings of the Section of Quality and Productivity, American Statistical Association, 89-94.
• 17: Parasuraman, A., et al. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3): 201-230.
• 18: Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.
• 19: Redish, J. C. (1998). Minimalism in technical communication: Some issues to consider." Minimalism beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. Ed. John M. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 219-46.
• 20: Reilly, A. D. (1993). Professional recognition and respect through quality. Technical Communication, 40: 231-233.
• 21: Schriver, K. A. 1993. Quality in document design: Issues and controversies. Technical Communication, 40: 239-254.
• 22: Smart, K. L., et al. (1995). Defining quality in technical communication: A holistic approach. Technical Communication, 42(3): 474-481.
• 23: Spreng, R. A., et al. (1993). "The impact of perceived value on consumer satisfaction." Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaint, 6: 50-55.
• 24: Teather, J., and C. Taylor. 1992. Quality management and BS5750--A dissenting view. IdeAs, issue 5, p. 4.
• 25: Wright, P. (1994). Quality or usability? Quality writing provokes quality reading. Quality of Technical Documentation. Eds. M. Steehouder et al. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 7-38.
• 26: Zeithmal, V. A. (1988). "Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence." Journal of Marketing, 52: 2-22.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.7 DOCUMENT AND TEXT PROCESSING
      I.7.5 Document Capture

Keywords:
document design, documentation, quality, quality dimensions, quality metrics