Docs as Code vs Structured Authoring

In today’s fast-paced technological landscape, the effective integration of documentation approaches is crucial for both software development and user support. Two prominent approaches to documentation are Structured Authoring and Docs as Code. Each of these offers distinct methodologies tailored to specific needs and workflows.

Structured Authoring emphasizes the creation of content using predefined structures and standards, facilitating content reuse and consistency across multiple formats. In contrast, Docs as Code treats documentation as an integral part of the software development process, leveraging version control systems and collaborative practices to ensure documentation evolves alongside code. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each approach allows organizations to choose the best strategy for their documentation needs, fostering improved collaboration, efficiency, and user experience.

This comparison highlights how each approach can be leveraged effectively:

Feature	Structured Authoring	Docs as Code
Definition	Content is created in a structured format using predefined standards.	Documentation treated as code, versioned and integrated with software development.
Content Structure	Highly organized, modular content.	Flexible, often less structured.
Tools	Specialized authoring tools (for example, DITA editors, XML authoring tools).	Code editors, version control systems (for example, Git).
Collaboration	May involve separate teams (technical writers, editors).	Encourages collaboration between developers and technical writers.
Versioning	Limited to content management systems.	Full version control via Git, allowing for collaborative editing.
Continuous Integration	Rarely includes CI/CD processes.	Integrates CI/CD for automated documentation builds and deployments.
Output Formats	Multiple formats (HTML, PDF, etc.) through content transformation.	Typically HTML or Markdown, often rendered directly from source.
Focus	Content reuse, standardization, and consistency.	Agile practices, rapid iteration, and integration with code.
Use Cases	Complex documentation needs (for example, manuals, safety docs).	Software projects requiring frequent updates alongside code changes.

Some organizations even incorporate both approaches. For instance, development teams may use Docs as Code for internal or develop-focused documentation, taking advantage of continuous integration, while external documentation can follow a structured approach that allows for more complex organization. This enables other tools to be utilized like end-user manuals, regulatory documents, and knowledge bases. I have personally used internal documentation created this way to provide expanded details for external documentation. In other words, these approaches can complement each other effectively.

Challenges of Each Approach

Each has their drawback though, and these are important to know:

Approach	Challenges
Structured Authoring	– Complex setup and maintenance – Expensive tools and training requirements – Rigid content format, limiting flexibility – High implementation cost (tools, training, CMS) – Difficult collaboration across teams (siloed workflows)
Docs as Code	– Technical barriers for non-developers (Git, CLI, CI/CD) – Lack of structure and consistency (risk of fragmentation) – Limited support for advanced document features (for example, cross-referencing) – Difficulty scaling for large projects – Managing CI/CD pipelines for documentation deployment requires technical expertise

By recognizing these strengths and challenges, organizations can make informed decisions about the best documentation approach to meet their needs. In some cases, a hybrid model can provide the most balanced solution, combining the agility and collaboration benefits of Docs as Code with the structure and consistency of Structured Authoring.