Why a content spec saves you time and money

A content specification will save you troubles, time, and money, especially when you’re not the lone writer on a documentation project. It will ensure that you offer your users consistent and holistic documentation across a team of writers.

A content specification is a list of all topics to be created which ideally maps planned topics to requirements and/or designs to ensure comprehensive and complete documentation. It usually comes in a table with one row per topic, listing:

  • Topic heading and/or file name
  • Topic type (concept, task, reference, or whatever else you may use)
  • Topic owner
  • Writer (in case writers may be different from topic owners)
  • Reviewers (for example, subject-matter experts)
  • Date ready for review or for post-review editing (depending on your workflow)
  • Mapped deliverables (where the topic appears, for example, a certain user manual, the online help, etc.)
  • Time estimate (how long will it take to write the topic, optionally, including review)
  • Documentation task type, to help you estimate time:
    • Create new topic
    • Major rewrite of existing topic
    • Minor fix or addition to existing topic

Without it, you risk delivering a bunch of topics with gaps in some places and overlaps in others. You can still string them together, but no overview topic can convey a coherent content experience, if you didn’t plan for it and bake it into the topics and their structure.

So a content spec is a blueprint of your documentation project, just as you would create one before you start building a house – or design any kind of experience.

Yet content specs often elicit negative reactions…

“Oh, but we’ve managed without one so far…”

Many tech writers I know are very competent, and a few are lucky to boot. Considering all their projects with more than, say, 50 topics which didn’t use a content spec, I’d bet half of them are incoherent (“organically grown” is an oft-used euphemism).

The cost doesn’t stop at poor user experience. Such examples are also more difficult and more expensive to maintain, especially if you have overlapping topics and don’t remember to update both of them…

“Bah, reality eats specs for lunch…”

To an extent, yes. But on the whole, reality is an orderly patron. In my experience, the final documentation reflect the approved content spec in up to 80% of the topics. An average 10% of the topics get added during the writing, where concepts or prerequisite and auxiliary procedures are found missing. Another 10% of the topics get reorganized because the initial content spec misunderstood something, or because content simply makes more sense somewhere else.

“Even if, we’ll fix it later…”

Yes, you can. But once again it’s very expensive. Remember that the list of topics is only one result of the content spec. Their structure is another. Finding that a structure by workflows is inferior to a structure by, say, instrument, requires not just re-ordering topics, but re-writing a lot of them.

You can avoid this by drawing up a complete content spec before you write a single topic and getting it signed off by the key stakeholders, so they know rather well what documentation they will get. The 20% deviations mentioned above are usually justifiable, if they conceivably improve the deliverables.

– Given that content specs are a big help in creating and maintaining efficient and effective user documentation, I strongly recommend using them. If you have any experience with or without content specs, I’d love to hear it.