What Makes A Good WI (Work Instruction)?

[Ragnar]

Yes! I agree with Mike S. (mirabile dictu) - Writing long, detailed Work Instructions for every task is not only wasted energy and paper, it is insulting to most workers, as is the concept of "posting it prominently at every work station."

I would seriously question the capability of a manager who hired and/or trained personnel to do tasks he couldn't trust them to do time after time without following the WI step by step as it lay in front of them. Either that or the WI is too complicated to remember - time to think about mistake proofing the process.

Bravo Wes! Very good. Manufacturing in the future will (Should) consist of the dog and the man. The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the man if he tries to touch anything.(Tamper With Error Proofing)

If we make easier to do it right, they won't work harder to do it wrong. (Water takes the path of least resistance). What are we made of????
Regards:

 

[db]

Each of us deal with work instructions on a daily basis. Not all work instructions will be written the same way. For example a "stop" sign is a work instruction that tells us he had better stop (or else someone like me or Randy might give you a ticket). The white lines at a crosswalk instruct where to walk.

Consider the user. I typically discuss two types of instructions. Process instructions and training instructions.


A process instruction gives basic information, so a trained and competent operator can properly perform. A fabricating shop I know uses only prints for work instructions.

A training instruction assumes the operator is in neither trained, nor competent. It give information that is much more detailed. When I bought my new pressboard computer desk, it had work instructions that led me through the assembly. I probably could have assembled it without them (after all I am a guy), but it would have taken me much longer, and there would have undoubtedly been some re-work.

 

[The Fast One]

Far too many bits of paper, then I guess that's why most of us have "Quality" jobs.

Surely the awareness and skills of the human being doing the job are important, if they can't do the job they shouldn't be in it.

If they are new get them trained by people who do the job.

If it's a new job get the Designer of the process, system etc to train the human beings in how to do the job.

I guess at the end of the day though if you pay peanuts you get monkeys...

 

[Joe Cruse]

Personally, I disagree with this philosophy in most cases. Experience and education of the process operator, and the level of training they get, and the degree of difficulty/complexity of the task are all considerations for how much detail I put into a WI. Very rarely would I see the need to write such a detailed WI. JMHO.

I used to think that I needed to write WI's so that anyone off the street could come in and do the task. After running my department for over 7 years now (and 4 in Quality), I have come to your way of thinking, Mike and Wes. Why make a WI/Level 3 manual that would kill an elephant to pack? It may be that one would possibly NOT want just anyone off the street to be able to come in and run a task.

 

[db]

I used to think that I needed to write WI's so that anyone off the street could come in and do the task.

I am told that a lot. My response always the same. A hospital can become registered to ISO 9001. Now, think about the work instructions a surgeon needs to perform by-pass surgery. Do you want a work written instruction so the hospital can bring anyone in off the street to perform your by-pass? So, then what type of work instruction does the surgeon need? Something that relates where the blockages are? Something that identifies the patient? The surgeon will have work instructions, but not “By-Pass for Dummies”

 

[Carl Keller]

Let me ask you guys and gals something.

When is the last time YOU performed a task that required you to go get the work instruction before you performed it?

C'mon, A WI is just a loose guide for documentation purposes so an auditor can check that the operator is performing the task in the proper manner/sequence. Hence the need for the operator to have the Lions's share of the input. Some companies also use them as part of training, but other than that, they are an accountability measure.

I am sure there are rare exceptions, but 90% of the tasks performed are done so with no regular reference to a WI.

Keep them simple and from the operators point of view.

BTW, I had a dog bite me once, but it only bit me that one time.

Carl-

 

[amjadrana]

Work Instruction

A work instruction should preferably be written by the team doing the actual activity. It should be understandable. That is the main thing. It may be in picture format. But in case of complex activity, a proper work instruction would certainly be required.

The person responsible for the documentation or quality system can write it properly, if the person performing the activity can not do so.

 

[Jim Wynne]

So, then what type of work instruction does the surgeon need? Something that relates where the blockages are? Something that identifies the patient? The surgeon will have work instructions, but not “By-Pass for Dummies”

I think what's being missed here is the idea that no matter how skilled one might be in a given job, task or profession, there's still a lot to learn when you go to work in a different company. In the hospital/surgeon analogy, (and in jobs in general) there'll be some expectation that a surgeon (machinist-assembler-inspector-accountant) will have a defined level of expertise in the work, thus there probably won't be any how-to-find-the-blockage requirements unless certain methods are proscribed. What the surgeon will need to know is how operating rooms get assigned, what resources are available, how to do the hospital's paperwork, etc. Those instructions should be written so that an average person in the job in question will understand them, no matter what the job is. There's no need for a how-to-read-a-micrometer work instruction for journeyman machinists.

 

[Michaelar]

the goal?!

Those instructions should be written so that an average person in the job in question will understand them, no matter what the job is.



I believe there are no wrong or right way of delivering work instructions.
You use what is required to achieve the goal.

 

[Mike S.]

I believe there are no wrong or right way of delivering work instructions.
You use what is required to achieve the goal.

I hate to sound disagreeable, but again I respectfully disagree. Some WI's are way, way overdone or done poorly and IMO this makes them "wrong" for the situation.

IMO that's kinda like saying there is no right or wrong way to deliver a small package of routine documents to your boss' office -- which happens to be 3 doors down from yours. Would you use Fed Ex overnight? Would you have a local courier service deliver them? Would you drive around town for a few hours and then drop them by his office by yourself? Would you carry them down the hall and deliver them yourself, maybe giving them to his secretary if he was busy at the time? Each of these methods will get the task done, but wouldn't you say only one of the methods makes sense?