Good morning, SF.

I'm working with my team this morning to develop instructions for a new product/process, and we've reached the point where we ask ourselves, "is our current instruction format really working for us? Can we put this information on paper (or on screen, eventually) in some better layout?"

Generally, our instruction pages are aimed at having "more pictures, fewer words" so we end up with a landscape-oriented page, pics on the left, descriptions on the right, parts list at the top of the first page. It works, mostly, but I'm the guy who often says, "we can't be the only people out there facing this. Someone out there has a better method."

I figure I'm not the only person here in manufacturing, so I thought I would ask. Could any of you share a page or two from your facility's operator instructions (appropriately redacted, or even blanked out)?

Thanks, all.

I'd hate to say it, but do the operators read it? I used to design HMI/SCADA applications and create detailed workflow instructions. Only one operator actually read the document. Several others skimmed it, and I'm fairly certain the guy who asked me "what does it say?" just couldn't read and was faking it.

Otherwise, I like your described format better than mine - I used a step by step instruction manual with one or more pictures per instruction. Portrait layout, text for step, then picture(s) for step, printed, spiral bound. PDF could be used on computer.

Oh, and Go Hokies!! class of 2k

I used to alternate between working as a Manufacturing Engineer and a Design Engineer in R&E as I thought it gave me a better perspective.

I used the OP's method almost to a "T". But as dbgeek said, mostly the assemblers didn't read it, just skimmed and looked at it if they felt they were stuck.

Maybe a youtube type video?

My business is in construction. Our vendors provide installation instructions in two languages, but more importantly there are illustrations at each step.

Now if you want to discuss safety guides, which have gotten longer than War and Peace, nobody reads that anymore. Safety is important, don't misunderstand. But, in practice, it's more about appearances than anything else.

Pretty close to the same as you. It seems to be the "defacto" standard.

Screen shots of the O/I and pictures of the machine in various states along with minimal text. Far too many of my customers either hire ex-cons or English illiterate foreigners...

my background is in regulated manufacturing as in pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

The state of the art these days is that the operator pulls up the procedure from the database to a workstation monitor to ensure the latest released procedure is being used. As part of the procedure, there are the usual sign-offs that the operator would enter at the critical points.

From what I've seen, pictures and words are what's in vogue now. When I was creating procedures, it was just words.

There's so many ways to skin a cat so I'm not sure what your goal is. You have the "best method" if a) your procedures are uniform, b) you have positive control that only the latest released version is used on the floor, c) you have positive control for revising or changing procedures, d) you have a positive control of training and qualifying operators to the latest procedures, e) you demonstrate you have positive control by having documented processes for these processes. Of course, your procedures should result in the desired product or service when followed.

What are you trying to improve? Changing documentation processes is a big undertaking. Companies have a whole department just to deal with documents.

I’m an assembler. If there’s such a thing at my job, I’ve never seen it. I have seen our ME come out and take pictures of processes once or twice, but what was done with that I couldn’t say. Mostly, we figure out our own methods for assembly beyond the exploded diagram and parts list. Probably depends heavily on the individual workplace.

25+ years in different manufacturing environments.

We have a traveler that contains one set of instructions and prints to build to. Every step is detailed on the instructions and each operator/work center logs start/stop times at each interval. The traveler is bar coded and so are the pallet/box where the parts are. The bill of materials is taken from the print and added to each operation as needed.

The operation times are recorded for capacity planning and location storage.

This is a fairly common practice in larger assembly facilities.

Hope this helps.

Cheers~

A) The more diagrams, the better - think about how it will look, from however that machine will be viewed.

B) Honestly, youtube videos seem to work the best, for documenting a process. Record it in 4K with a real video camera (I think they're about $200).

Something which can be played on a large screen. Something showing the video, with the diagram next to it, showing the part/tagging the video to the drawing and parts list, could be really handy.

I have done that from time to time, but for custom work. IMO images work best. Videos take too long, and the person may have to make notes from the videos.

I use Photoshop to make the images easiest to view. I add arrows and text as needed. Also a chronological and numbered or bulleted list. The person goes step by step. I am working on a 95 page instruction set right now for something custom/one off. Mostly tables and bulleted lists, plus about 200 images.

Our processes and procedures are done in Power Point. Most everyone is familiar with it so anyone can create the procedure they want.

I print them out 11x17 and add notes as needed.

Not process diagrams, but overall QA processes/procedures using Visio flow charting software......very simple but pictures can be pasted in, etc.

I am not in manufacturing but do write procedural documentation. In looking at new technologies for documentation to ensure always up to date content and use of interactivity, you may want to check these out:

1) Dozuki for process documentation that includes pictures and instructions in a digital format available on a tablet that is always up to date.

2) Microsoft Dynamics 365 with Hololens 2 for augmented reality training. This is also being used by Toyota to assist dealerships in repairing automobiles by overlaying the diagrams and manuals onto the physical object they are working on.

Every assembly guide I've ever written had CAD drawings of the material used in that step, exploded view if needed.

For procedures, it was similar but with photos of the machine, text of the process, photos of the operator at the machine, and operator view.

These were required for Military contact though.

Is this something that they are going to be trained to prior to doing the process as a qualification type thing, more of a work instruction to be followed while executing the process, or a technical resource of the process to be referred to as needed?

The best format will depend on how you intend the document to be used.

In my experience virtually no one reads the work instructions, process sheets, or any of the documentation. And most of their supervisors have never read any of it either. Anyone who ever said "this ain't in my job write up" had never read their job writeup.

Why? Because most of the people who make good production line workers learn by seeing and doing and not by reading! Engineers learn by reading. Some of the best most consistent high quality workers that worked for me long ago could could barely read and write. The smartest ones were always figuring out how to avoid work.

Skilled maintenance guys don't usually read the manuals either. That's a last resort. Just parts lists and drawings and they will figure out the rest.

As a maintenance manager, manufacturing engineer, production manager, or whatever role I've had, my job was to teach my people things they needed to know in the manner that they best learned. That's the key - teach them how they learn.

Now I teach manufacturing engineers and project managers how to design processes and equipment and manage really big projects, so it's different and written documentation is much more common. But most of them do not speak English natively, so that adds a different challenge.

All that said, make your WI visual with pictures and arrows showing how things are put together, numbers for sequences, etc. Exploded parts diagrams can be really helpful. Make it look nice enough to please the management and pass any audits.

But remember that the Japanese always wrote WI in pencil so it could be changed easily when a better way was found by the operators. Everyone follows the written instruction, no exceptions, and changes are agreed to by all operators doing that job. They find our obsession with pretty color pictures and endless layers of sign-offs to make simple changes very amusing.

We are playing with some systems that project WI directly on the workpiece showing colored symbols, arrows, numbers or what have you, and also have some vision feedback that the operator followed each step. Also systems that track hand or tool movements with IR cameras and IR tags to ensure they followed the correct sequences or picked the right parts - usually there is a screen they look at with a picture of the part showing them what to do step by step.

What are you building, and who is doing the work?

Thanks, all, for your responses. It's taken me a full day to get back to this (work is busy, and that's good).

I may have not described my question well enough, but a number of you have answered well along the lines of what I was thinking.

We have a standard format we've been using for years. I've handed one of my young engineers a product launch, and he's decided to rearrange our instruction format. I think I like it, and I'm working to "sanitize" an example page from each style and post them here as examples.

Dbgeek: howdy, fellow Hokie! I'll be curious about your HMI experience, and may ask to bug you more about that later on.

A couple of you have suggested videos, and we're working toward that. I've been advocating for years the idea of PCs and monitors in each work area (or at each bench) so we can put the instructions "online." We're finally getting to do some of that (thanks to new ownership, deeper pockets, management buy-in, FAR cheaper PCs these days, etc.) but we haven't gotten to the point of embedded videos yet. I want to, and this new project may be just the right place to try it.

Mjlennon: "I feel your pain" with respect to safety guides. They're amazingly complex these days, thanks to the effort to "cover all the bases" (or "cover all the butts"). I teach a couple machine-specific safety courses in-house, and I love trying to boil it down to the simple things. "If you're using an arbor press and holding the parts without a fixture, and you smash your thumb, then guess what? That's on you... YOU pulled the handle."

Rey: You're headed down the same path as us: moving our instructions to "online" instead of paper copies in 3-ring binders is a great step toward making sure what's available to the floor is the absolute latest-greatest. It's also a good way to NOT get pinched in an audit, by way of having two revisions of paper documents on the bench. [Or so I'm told...]

P220 Smudge: I know what you're saying, and I'm curious about your organization. We'd get clobbered (and probably not get any assemblies out the door) if we simply put exploded diagrams and parts lists on the benches. Certainly, it depends on the workplace and its attitude toward certifications (ISO, and such).

Slyguy: I might ask to bug you some more, too. The engineer I've assigned to this new project is looking to add times to the instructions, and we went down the rabbit hole yesterday trying to get PowerPoint to pull data from an Excel sheet without screwing up the format. (So far, not possible.)

Klstclair: thank you for the links. I'll check those out shortly.

Gibb: now that my entire department has Solidworks, it's far easier for us to put CAD images into the document, and we're doing that with this project. In some ways, it's better than taking photographs, because there's no hassling with "all the junk in the background" and such.

Spinzone: The instructions in mind are documents from which crew will be trained at job time, and followed through the entire process. Part of our procedure is that operators are to read their OMS (operational method sheets) every day. Putting PCs at each work area makes it easier to have the instructions "right in front of the faces" and not taking up space on the bench. Should reduce the opportunity for saying, "I couldn't find the instructions," or "oh, the book's over there somewhere." I can't expect crew to follow instructions that aren't easily available.

Lefty Sig: You're right; virtually no one reads the instructions. I liken it to the owner's manual we get with a new car. The gearheads among us might camp on the couch for a while and leaf through it, but beyond that it simply rides the glovebox until something goes wrong. I can't say that's the right thing to do, but it's what actually happens. In general, we've got good crew. We can show them what to do, have them follow along in the instructions, and turn them loose. They learn by doing, and we're relatively high volume, so there's plenty of "doing it" to learn from. For sure, maintenance techs don't get out the manuals until after they've pushed every button twice and found one of my team to come help. Then we get out the manuals.

I love your example of the Japanese writing WI in pencil. You know as well as I do, we'd get hammered for doing that these days. Got to have three department signatures on a change, formal change request / change order process, and so forth. Thank you for mentioning exploded diagrams -- I'd like to use more of those in the new setup.

I'd love to know more about your setup for projecting WI on the workpiece! That's danged fascinating. I'm way curious who you work for.

Apprentice: in short, we build DC motors and drives. Our operators are well-skilled, English-speaking, and from a variety of manufacturing backgrounds. (I hope I read your implied question correctly.)

- - - -

I'll plan to get sanitized versions of our current and proposed styles available in the next day or so, for visual representations of layout.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

Rey: You're headed down the same path as us: moving our instructions to "online" instead of paper copies in 3-ring binders is a great step toward making sure what's available to the floor is the absolute latest-greatest. It's also a good way to NOT get pinched in an audit, by way of having two revisions of paper documents on the bench. [Or so I'm told...]

My last company already had their procedures up on workstation computers. So here's the format used at one of my previous companies. These are like the Cadillac format as they're for FDA regulated manufacturing.

Header section on each page: Title, procedure number, Revision, Page x of y

Commentary: You need a Change Control Process that controls how a) only the latest revision is out on the floor at any time, b) how previous revisions still in-process are handled, c) previous inventory are handled including out in the field, d) raw material inventory, e) control of any procedures out for revision, f) capturing any related documents that may be affected by any procedures being revised, and g) sign-off and implementation plan for any revision.

Sections:
Process Owner: Who owns the process.

1.0 Purpose

2.0 Scope

3.0 Responsibilities
table of two columns with first is Department/Title/Role and second column is description of responsibilities with respect to the procedure. It's a combination of overarching responsibility and bullet points taken from the procedure as to what they do.

4.0 Procedure
4.1 Overview
the sections go as deep as 4.x.y.z

5.0 Quality Records

6.0 Reference Documents

7.0 Terms (definitions)

Last: Revision History.