Here is an interesting twist in the creation of procedures:

After reviewing many examples of procedures and work instructions (including some from the Cove) I've found it curious that the writers of them have two specifically different targets, or audiences, in mind. The two different styles may be illustrated by way of example:

Procedure Style #1) Floor Inspector: Takes one part from the line to the check fixture and checks all key dimensions, and, if problems are found, writes up a corrective action request.

Procedure Style #2) Floor Inspector: Take one part from the line to the check fixture and check all key dimensions. If problems are found, write up a corrective action request.

The difference seems to be with whom the procedure writer assumes the reader is. Could it be that when one writes in style #1, (s)he is writing it with an auditor in mind - to prove this activity is controlled, whereas the writer of style #2 is thinking practically - as instructing the responsible personnel on their duties, irrespective of external readers? In other words, does the writing style reveal the motive of the procedure writer?

I personally try to write them with the user in mind (style #2). This may be picayunish, but it might stir the coals. :rolleyes:

I write work instructions in your style #2.

I write procedures in your style #1.

Neither is for the benefit of an auditor though.

The difference seems to be with whom the procedure writer assumes the reader is. Could it be that when one writes in style #1, (s)he is writing it with an auditor in mind - to prove this activity is controlled, whereas the writer of style #2 is thinking practically - as instructing the responsible personnel on their duties, irrespective of external readers? In other words, does the writing style reveal the motive of the procedure writer?

I personally try to write them with the user in mind (style #2). This may be picayunish, but it might stir the coals. :rolleyes:

This is a good topic. I have tried hard to ensure that I write procedures and work instructions for the employees, but sometimes it is hard to do. I also find that there are other key words that you can tell this with. For example using "will do this" instead of "this is done". The first implies that you hope it gets done, whereas the second implies you expect it to be done. :( I hope that makes sense.

Here is an interesting twist in the creation of procedures:

After reviewing many examples of procedures and work instructions (including some from the Cove) I've found it curious that the writers of them have two specifically different targets, or audiences, in mind. The two different styles may be illustrated by way of example:

Procedure Style #1) Floor Inspector: Takes one part from the line to the check fixture and checks all key dimensions, and, if problems are found, writes up a corrective action request.

Procedure Style #2) Floor Inspector: Take one part from the line to the check fixture and check all key dimensions. If problems are found, write up a corrective action request.

The difference seems to be with whom the procedure writer assumes the reader is. Could it be that when one writes in style #1, (s)he is writing it with an auditor in mind - to prove this activity is controlled, whereas the writer of style #2 is thinking practically - as instructing the responsible personnel on their duties, irrespective of external readers? In other words, does the writing style reveal the motive of the procedure writer?

I personally try to write them with the user in mind (style #2). This may be picayunish, but it might stir the coals. :rolleyes:


I agreee that style #2 is better. When I was writing procedures for existing processes several years ago, I found that the best way was to start with the people doing the work - the experts. That way you get their prospective from the start.

For jobs with multiple shifts/operators, they all would claim to be doing things the same way. Want to guess if they really were? (Nope).

One of the side benefits (maybe even the main, but unintended benefit) was to standardize the way they were actually doing things.

Anyhow, I agree with your intuition here - style 1 just smells like it might have been written to satisfy an auditor. If that is the case, why bother (unless its one of the "shalls)?

Craig

Really fine topic. I think that in a lot of organizations documents are written to impress either auditors, customers or perhaps a regulatory body. Not good IMHO. I feel that the documents, especially work Instructions should be developed with the worker in mind, of an appropriate length and of the readibility index suitable to the operator. Years ago, our inbound inspector had ten 5 inch binders that contained the inspection plans. Currently, they have been combined into a single 3 inch binder, which also inculdes copies of the reporting forms used. Most of our information is kept in electronic files and folders, however, there still exists a need for this binder, since this person has a rather large area to cover if some one on the production floor needs to verify some unique aspect of a purchased component. The hard copy specifies the types of tools, gauges, etc needed. One thing for sure, we do not have any monster sets of documents. In almost every case, the documents are concise, yet complete enough to cover the functional area or work to be done. Any longer than needed, and the documents will not be read, understood, or used. No one I know of wants to have to carry around a ten pound document all day. :thedeal:

Here is an interesting twist in the creation of procedures:


Procedure Style #1) Floor Inspector: Takes one part from the line to the check fixture and checks all key dimensions, and, if problems are found, writes up a corrective action request.

Procedure Style #2) Floor Inspector: Take one part from the line to the check fixture and check all key dimensions. If problems are found, write up a corrective action request.



Procedure Style #1) Procedure
Procedure Style #2) Work Instruction

;)

I write work instructions in your style #2.

I write procedures in your style #1.

Neither is for the benefit of an auditor though.

energy - I was wondering if I was the only one of this opinion. The reason I write this way is because the audience for a procedure is generally more than one person or function, where work instructions are generally for one specific operation, person or function. No motive - just my choice. For example, my Purchasing Procedure would then need to be written in the first person, since I wrote it, and I'm the PA. ;)

Then, for Cari and Energy, I have to ask, why? What is the difference in the intent of a procedure and a work instruction?

I always viewed the difference as simply this: procedures are likely for multiple users (and, yes, they say What To Do), and work instructions for a single user (and, yes, they say How To Do It). But both are directed at the user, not some external interested person, are they not?

:vfunny: Then, for Cari and Energy, I have to ask, why? What is the difference in the intent of a procedure and a work instruction?

I always viewed the difference as simply this: procedures are likely for multiple users (and, yes, they say What To Do), and work instructions for a single user (and, yes, they say How To Do It). But both are directed at the user, not some external interested person, are they not?

For me, it's a carry over from that Tier 2 & 3 document. But, if you say the "operator does this".....to me, you are talking to an interested party. External and internal. If you say "Do this....", to me it's an instruction. Personally, I have used Procedures as work instructions. The only time I wrote instructions was there wasn't sufficient detail in the Procedure. :bonk:
There were very few of those. We relied on "training". Oops, with that it means even less Procedures and Instructions. ;)