Tips and Insights

Doug made a 3D animated training aid from this 2D work instruction. Check out the differences and let us know what you think.

2D Visual Work Instruction Sample

3D Visual Work Instruction Sample

Labels: 2D, 3D, animation, training aid, work instructions

In case you missed it, Lake Superior State University (LSSU) just published their 2008 List of Banished Words. Included this year are some terms I'm embarrassed to say I've used, like authored and wordsmith (you can read it in my blog about last year's LSSU list!).

Funny how different words can grate on ears and how impassioned people become when they hear a word they believe has been used incorrectly. I just learned from a colleague that my choice of the word reinstall to cover the action of installing a part that was removed for a manufacturing changeover and returned to the same position irritated her "like nails on a blackboard." She believes you can only install something once; after that, you're doing something else. Unfortunately, neither of us could figure out what word would work better. Reassemble and reinsert share the same problem. Install, assemble and insert don't emphasize the fact that you're working with the same piece of machinery or hardware. Reposition or replace can have other meanings, creating confusion for a user instead of clarification. That's why I chose reinstall—succinct and clear . . . until my colleague gave me reason to pause. We still haven't found a good solution. What do you think would be a good way to say reinstall, without actually saying it?

Labels: clarity, plain language

We've been creating visual work instructions for several years, but obtaining metrics regarding the impact they have on a company's bottom line has proven difficult. Typically, we're called in to help at the same time a company is implementing several Lean/quality initiatives. That makes it hard to figure out what percentage of the resulting improvement is due to effective work instructions alone.

The notion of giving an operator what she needs, when she needs it, in a way she can use it (visually), seems like a commonsense approach, but it's surprising how many text-heavy, confusing, unfriendly documents we see. I have to assume that's because companies haven't seen or can't imagine the impact effective work instructions can have on their metrics; therefore, I want to share statistics from two companies we worked with where we definitively captured the results.

We created visual work instructions for an international company that develops medical devices—a highly regulated environment. The procedures were complex and the workers inexperienced. The devices were intricate and expensive, allowing for only minute deviations and making quality imperative. Though we were part of an overall Lean initiative, the company was able to determine the impact our instructions had on three metrics:

• Yields increased 8%
• Deviations per lot decreased 83%
• Training development time decreased 50%

Another company, an automotive parts manufacturing plant, asked us to help define standard best practice and create work instructions for all their operations. We created documents—laminated, easy-to-see posters—that they displayed on the shop floor. These were used to reinforce the training that had been done with the same work instructions. Our documents impacted the company's results in two ways:

• Reduced secondary inspections and eliminated tertiary inspections
• Reduced scrap by 50%

It may be hard to determine what share of the credit visual work instructions can claim, but it is worth measuring. We do know, based on the numbers above as well as shared anecdotes from clients, that the potential savings far exceed the cost of developing these instructions.

For many clients, the affirmation comes immediately. After speaking to a room of engineers and supervisors during a recent sales presentation where we showed before and after examples of work instructions, one of the engineers voiced what many thought: "Holy cow, if you can't see the benefits of visual by just looking at the differences . . ."

I'll let you finish the sentence.

Labels: Lean, metrics, quality, standard best practice, user's needs, visual work instructions

I recently watched a movie I haven't seen in a long time—The Birds—impressed yet again with Alfred Hitchcock's ability to captivate with his camera manipulation, his focus on audience involvement, and his story's simplicity.

I'm not even going to suggest that creating multimedia training materials and job aids is anything like creating a movie, especially a Hitchcock masterpiece. I do, however, see some parallels with his techniques. For one, developers (or directors) are limited only by their imagination. Computers and technology have made creating videos, animated documents, and simulations available to the average Joe, and if you have techno-geeks in your organization (like we do), anything's possible.

A second similarity is that audience matters. Hitchcock counted on—and courted—the audience's interaction with the suspense on the screen. Though suspense isn't typical in interactive computer-based training (CBT) programs, there still needs to be a focus on gaining the viewers' attention and giving them what they need to understand and learn the material.

Finally, Hitchcock realized a simple story could be more effective than a convoluted, confusing script. Simplicity in work instructions, job aids and training materials is equally important. A multimedia document should include only the information the user or learner needs, employing illustrations in place of text wherever possible.

Knowing these attributes, when would multimedia—which allows viewers to explore the information through a variety of formats including text, graphics, video, images, narration, music, sounds and animation—be effective as a format for your work instructions or technical communications?

• When you need to describe a process that can't be explained with text or static images, animation or video allows you to show fluidity.
• When orientation is cumbersome or dangerous, 3D animation can move the viewer through parts or areas without physically entering them (think of a nuclear reactor).
• When black and white images aren't enough, high-end color graphics can add clarity.
• When you need to see concepts or intangibles, 3D allows you to visualize those spaces.
• When training is involved and retention is imperative, simulations and interactive testing can target a learner through multiple senses—seeing, hearing, and touching—a more effective way to learn than reading alone.

Animations, CBTs, PDFs or web-delivered content can deliver a punch, even if you're not Hitchcock. Just remember to let the end user’s needs dictate the media you develop.

Labels: 3D, animation, multimedia, technical communications, technology, user's needs, visual work instructions

Even though what something is called doesn't change what something is (you remember Shakespeare's "a rose by any other name . . ."), when semantics creep into an industry, it can cause problems. I generated this list of possible terms for identifying work instructions in just a couple of minutes (and missed how many more?):

• work instructions
  
• standard operating procedures
• job aids
• standardized work instructions
• job planning
• product design documents
• technical manuals
• user instructions
• procedure manuals
• policy manuals
• job skills
• training tools
• detailed process sheets

Isn't communication hard enough, without having different words mean the same thing? I'm laughing, of course, because we are talking about the English language here, where multiple meanings, multiple pronunciations, multiple spellings is the bane of meaningful conversation.

I don't think using different terms for an object or a process is necessarily a Lean or quality issue when it happens between different companies, but it could be an issue if it's happening within the company and hindering communication between departments. Take, for instance, the engineering department and the shop floor. If engineering is in charge of writing instructions—and they often are—they may use terms for parts that don't match what the shop floor technicians and mechanics call them. And if the engineer and the user don't agree (or confer ahead of time) before naming the parts, the potential for confusion when reading the instruction rises; i.e., if a worker wants to find out how to fix the thingamajig on the hoosit, she's in trouble if the engineer has named it the wallabaloo on the cratshis. She won't find what she needs unless she looks through the entire manual.

We were exposed to this issue when we worked with the United States Postal Services maintenance department. Barcode label printers at bulk mail centers are high-speed, high-volume machines that can disrupt an entire station if they go down. USPS maintenance, which handles dozens of machines and infrequently works on these printers, needed to diagnose and fix them quickly. Not only did they have to read through the columns of text in the table of contents to figure out what procedure they might need, they also had to figure out which term matched the part they needed to repair.

We solved this problem with a visual table of contents that allowed maintenance to identify the part based on what it looked like and/or where it was located on the machine. The user could then turn to the page of the operation that applied to it.

It was always our plan to have other Explainers pitch in and participate in the blog once Renee got us off the starting line. It’s all about teamwork, right? So here I am, lending a hand, and hopefully adding some value to what Renee has so carefully developed over the previous year.

My name is Parker, and I’ve been working at Explainers for about 8 years, although my association with this company can be traced back to the earliest days of my career. I started out as a technical illustrator, and along the way I’ve worked as a graphic designer, technical writer and project manager. My current position—Explainer—allows me to use all of my skills at once.

I’m writing to tell you about VizThink ’08, an interesting conference that’s being held in San Francisco in January. This would be a great opportunity for you to learn more about visual communication. Our schedule may prevent us from making the trip this year, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go! Sign up, and let us know what you think. We’d like to hear from you.

Parker

Labels: conferences, visual thinker

I've read lots of Lean blogs and most keep their focus on Lean issues, rarely straying from the topic. Mark Graban from Lean Blog writes a strong one; Mike Wroblewski at Got Boondoggle chimes in regularly; and Jon Miller with Gemba Panta Rei keeps kaizen, 5S and standardized work at the forefront.

On the other hand, I write about lots of things: PowerPoint, word nerdiness, our idiosyncratic illustrators . . . Boggle for goodness sakes. Oh sure, most postings have something to do with words, several address quality and standards, and some touch on aliteracy. But these entries don't focus exclusively on work instructions or explaining or training—the things we do in the office every day, which, in all honesty, is totally Lean. (Lean people, by the way, love what we do because our ideologies match and we fill a niche. No one understands and explains exactly the way we do it, and oftentimes, people charged with quality initiatives don't even know they're looking for us until they find us.)

Some people in the office believe that the postings in News and Views should focus solely on our work and what we can do for our clients. But others think that for the blog to sound like me, the postings have to stray a bit.

My question to you is, should they? Should I talk about work instructions and shut up about Scrabble? Or should I include the bits about e-mail or organization or my own peaceable kingdom along with the effectiveness of illustrations?

Do you have a preference? What would you say to my colleagues who think in absolutes? Or to me, who clearly does not?

Labels: Lean blogs, topics