Work instructions somebody will actually use at the machine

Reference at the machine is not training material

A reference document answers a specific question quickly: which way round does this component go, what is the correct torque sequence, what does an acceptable weld look like, what do I do when the alarm shows this condition. It should be short, visual and positioned where the work happens. Training material is longer, explains why, includes background and is read away from the line. Merging them produces a document too long to consult and too shallow to teach. Deciding which one you are writing, before starting, is the single most useful decision in the exercise.

Detail set by who is going to read it

An experienced setter needs the parameters and the differences from the last variant. A new starter needs the sequence broken down further and told what a correct result looks like. Writing at a level that covers everybody produces something the experienced ignore and the inexperienced cannot follow. A workable compromise is a short main sequence with the small number of genuinely critical steps marked and expanded, each showing what good and bad look like side by side. Photographs taken at the machine, at the angle the operator actually sees, are worth more than a paragraph of careful description.

Language, literacy and the conditions on the floor

Instructions are read under poor light, wearing gloves, with oily hands, by people who may not read the plant's main language fluently and who may have joined through an agency last week. That argues for pictures, symbols and sequence numbers over prose, and for physical durability. Where translation is needed, somebody who knows the process must check it, because a translated instruction that reverses a sense is a genuine hazard. Ask a few operators to read a draft back to you and describe what they would do; the misunderstandings that emerge are rarely the ones the author anticipated.

Revision control that survives contact with production

The recurring failure is a superseded copy still hanging at the machine while the controlled version has moved on. That happens because updating is centralised and slow, and because nobody is responsible for removing old copies. Make issue and withdrawal one action performed by a named person, mark the revision clearly on the visible sheet, and check during routine floor walks that what is displayed matches the current issue. Screens solve the withdrawal problem and introduce a new one, so decide in advance what the operation does when the display or the network is unavailable.

Who drafts them and who is accountable for their accuracy

Documents written by somebody who has never performed the task are recognisable within a paragraph and lose credibility permanently. The reliable arrangement is that an engineer or technical author drafts, the operators who do the job correct it, and the area supervisor accepts and issues it. Validate by having somebody follow the instruction literally, doing nothing that is not written, while the author watches. Accountability should sit with one named role rather than with a document control system, so that when a method changes there is a person who is expected to notice and act. Every gap becomes obvious in a single run, and the exercise usually exposes assumed knowledge that a new starter would have no way of possessing.

Frequently asked questions

Should work instructions be displayed on screens or kept on paper?

Screens make revision control much easier, allow short video of a difficult step, and remove the problem of obsolete copies circulating. Paper survives a network outage, costs nothing, tolerates a dirty environment and can be marked up by the person using it. Many plants run both, with the controlled version electronic and a printed copy issued and withdrawn under a clear rule. Whichever is chosen, decide beforehand what happens when the primary route is unavailable mid-shift.

How detailed do instructions need to be for a skilled trade?

Less detailed on technique and more detailed on what is specific to this product, this customer and this machine. A qualified welder or machinist does not need to be told how to perform their craft, and an instruction that does so is resented and ignored. What they do need is the parameters, the sequence peculiar to the part, the acceptance criteria, the recorded settings and the points where a check is required. Focus the document there.

Nobody reads our instructions. What should we change first?

Find out what people use instead, because there is almost always an informal card, a note taped to the machine or a knowledgeable colleague. That workaround shows exactly what content is genuinely needed and in what form. Rebuild the official document around it, cut everything nobody consults, and put it where the informal version was. Instructions get ignored because they are too long, badly located or known to be out of date, and all three are fixable.