What Makes A Good WI (Work Instruction)?

[TownDawg]

Passing along an email I got yesterday..

"The answer I'm looking for is in ISO 9000:2000 under work instructions where it probably, I can't remember the details, lists some of the information required to be in a document (WI, QP or form). We both know what the required headers are for work instruction but where are those listed? I'll check tonight. Do you have a document describing what is required, along with format(s), for the different document you're creating?"


I know this has been answered several times. Would anyone care to respond to that? I haven't even had my morning coffee yet, and I can't think.

Edited>> And I should say. I can most likely respond to this request from Mike right off the top of my head, but I think what my friend needs (the guy who sent me the email) -- is something better.. a little more official. Are there any online links?.. an "official report" -- some measure of document that some person of certain notoriety has laid claim to?.. * smiles *.. maybe I better just settle for our collective opinions..

From my point of view, a good WI has: 1) purpose, 2) scope, 3) responsibilities, 4) definitions, 5) work instruction steps, 6) safety & environmental information, 7) associated documents, 8) document revision history, etc etc... and ending with approvals.. but still.. how did we decide that? Is there some sort of knowledge concise agreement of opinion in any of the AIAG/ISO documents anywhere?.. I know there is, I just can't recall the best place to look at the moment.

 

[amjadrana]

work instruction

A work instruction describes a single activity within a larger process. The work instruction should be to the point and detail who is going to do what and in which sequence. It is advisable to first write down all possible steps in carrying out that activity and then describe it. Work instruction has normally the same headings as would other system documents like procedures.

 

[TownDawg]

Thank you amjadrana and good morning!

I think.. after distilling Mike's original email in my mind some more -- Athough we all recognize that there is no REQUIRED format, or content, or style for a "good work instruction" -- is there some sort of guidance document that exists in the ISO/TS/AIAG/IOAB etc library?

 

[Wes Bucey]

I used to think a Work Instruction had to follow a specific format and include all sorts of ancillary information which was really redundant. I guess the thought was (way back in the Dark Ages) that each employee was only half a step up from Complete Moron to "slightly retarded, needs to be retrained every Monday."

Lately, I have been seeing some Work Instructions that are so great they make me seek out the author to congratulate him/her.

Some of these WI are flow charts, cartoons, photographs, videos on computer/disk/tape. They acknowledge the intelligence of the worker.

The ultimate test, of course, is "Can the worker do the job correctly, based on the WI?"

The is NO STANDARD which says how to write a WI or what must be contained in a WI. Anyone who says so is just plain WRONG!

 

[Carl Keller]

The best work instruction is one that is written by the person performing and responsible for the activity.

The rest is formality.

Carl-

 

[Wes Bucey]

I agree worker should be involved, but not the sole writer.

The best work instruction is one that is written by the person performing and responsible for the activity.

The rest is formality.

Carl-

 

[Jim Wynne]

I agree worker should be involved, but not the sole writer.

As fate would have it, I was just having a conversation with one of our design engineers (we're an OEM vehicle manufacturer) regarding our in-house standard for zinc plating. It's very poorly written and full of ambiguity, which is the last thing you want in a standards document, or a work instruction. My personal experience is that the task of writing QMS documentation is too often left to people who are not good writers, irrespective of their other talents. If a work instruction is poorly written it doesn't make any difference what the intent was.

 

[KimLoree]

My personal experience is that the task of writing QMS documentation is too often left to people who are not good writers, irrespective of their other talents. If a work instruction is poorly written it doesn't make any difference what the intent was.

In a case where the worker is not necessarily a "good writer" what we do is interview the worker and write the work instruction accordingly.

As for recommended format, I required all authors to follow a precise format for Tier one and two docs (process and procedure levels).
But with a few exceptions (Title Page, Purpose, Related Documents Section, and Revision History) I left the work instruction format wide open to the author. The instruction for the author, was to use whatever means were needed to best get the instruction across. Examples would be; Process Flow Diagrams, pictures with circles and arrows, computer screen prints, detailed step by step text, matrices, etc.

 

[TownDawg]

aHhh.. All good stuff.. Keep those ideas flowing..

 

[Carl Keller]

The "Formality" part is proper grammar, reducing the ambiguity and keeping a uniform format.

The content is the part that should be written solely by the responsible party. I have seen it countless times. The more someone else has a hand in it, the more the work instruction is written the way the author "thinks" it should be done, as opposed to actually how it is done.

Regardless whether they actually put pen to paper or you interview them, the more you stray from their actual account the more you are fooling yourself.

Carl-