We build on previous scholarship calling for sustainable growth in technical and professional communication programs through maintenance and reflection. Inspired by continuous improvement models used in industry, we offer GRAM—Gather–Read–Analyze–Make—a continuous improvement model designed to identify and align often overlooked practices and processes necessary to build and sustain programs.
AllenJ. (2010) Mapping institutional values and the technical communication curriculum: A strategy for grounding assessment. In: HundlebyM.AllenJ. (eds) Assessment in technical and professional communication, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 39–56.
2.
AndersonP. (2010) The benefits and challenges of adopting a new standpoint while assessing technical communication programs: A response to Jo Allen. In: HundlebyM.AllenJ. (eds) Assessment in technical and professional communication, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 57–62.
3.
BoettgerR. K. (2010) Rubric use in technical communication: Exploring the process of creating valid and reliable assessment tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication53(1): 4–17.
4.
Bridgeford, T., Kitalong, K. S. & Williamson, B. (Eds.), (2014). Sharing our intellectual traces: Narrative reflections from administrators of professional, technical, and scientific communication programs. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
5.
CarnegieT. A. (2007) Integrating context into assessing US technical communication programs. Technical Communication54(4): 447–458.
6.
CoppolaN. W.ElliotN.NewshamF.KlobucarA. (2016) Programmatic research in technical communication: An interpretive framework for writing program assessment. Programmatic Perspectives8(2): 5–45.
7.
DraggaS. (2010) Positioning programs in professional and technical communication: guest editor's introduction. Technical Communication Quarterly19(3): 221–224.
8.
EckesG. (2001) The six sigma revolution: How general electric and others turned process into profits, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
GeorgeM. O. (2010) The lean six sigma guide to doing more with less: Cut costs, reduce waste, and lower your overhead, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
HenschelS.MelonconL. (2014) Of horsemen and layered literacies: Assessment instruments for aligning technical and professional communication undergraduate curricula with professional expectations. Programmatic Perspectives6(1): 3–26.
11.
Hundleby, M. N. & Allen, J. (Eds.), (2010). Assessment in technical and professional communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
12.
JohnsonR. (2004) (Deeply) sustainable programs, sustainable cultures, sustainable selves: Essaying growth in technical communication. In: Kynell-HuntT.SavageG. J. (eds) Power and legitimacy in technical communication Volume II: Strategies for professional status, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 101–119.
13.
Lewis, P. (1979). Axioms for reading the landscape: Some guies to the american scene. In D. Meinig & J. B. Jackson (Eds.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes (pp. 11–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
LikerJ. K.ConvisG. L. (2012) The Toyota Way to lean leadership: Achieving and sustaining excellence through leadership development, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15.
LongoB. (2000) Spurious coin: A history of science, management, and technical writing, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
16.
MartinK.OsterlingM. (2014) Value stream mapping: how to visualize work and align leadership for organizational transformation, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17.
MelonconL. (2007) Exploring electronic landscapes: Technical communication, online learning, and instructor preparedness. Technical Communication Quarterly16(1): 31–53.
18.
MelonconL. (2017a) Contingent faculty, online writing instruction, and professional development in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly26(3): 256–272.
19.
Meloncon, L. (2017b). Putting technical and professional communication in its place: A Curricular history of the field. Unpublished manuscript.
20.
Meloncon, L. (2018). Critical postscript: Where do we go from here with the service course. Programmatic Perspectives, 9(1–2), n.p.
21.
Meloncon, L. & Schreiber, J. (2018). Advocating for sustainability: A report on and critique of the undergraduate capstone course. Technical Communication Quarterly. 27(4), 322–335.
22.
RiesE. (2011) The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses, Danvers, MA: Crown Business.
23.
SchreiberJ. (2017) Toward a critical alignment with efficiency philosophies. Technical Communication64(1): 27–37.
24.
ScottJ. B.LongoB.WillsK. V. (2006) Introduction: Why cultural studies?: Expanding technical communication's critical toolbox. In: ScottJ. B.LongoB.WillsK. V. (eds) Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 1–19.
25.
SöderlundL.SpartzJ.WeberR. (2017) Taken under advisement: Perspectives on advisory boards from across technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication60(1): 76–96.
26.
SwartsJ. (2008) Together with technology: Writing review, enculturation and technological mediation, Amityville, NY: Baywood.
27.
TaylorS. S. (2006) Assessment in client-based technical writing classes: Evolution of teacher and client standards. Technical Communication Quarterly15(2): 111–139.
28.
ThomasS.McShaneB. J. (2007) Skills and literacies for the 21st century: Assessing an undergraduate professional and technical writing program. Technical Communication54(4): 412–423.
29.
Tillery, D. & Nagelhout, E. (Eds.), (2015). The new normal: Pressures on technical communication programs in the age of austerity. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
30.
YuH. (2012) Intercultural competence in technical communication: A working definition and review of assessment methods. Technical Communication Quarterly21(2): 168–186.
