How to Do This 1 2 How to Do That How to Do The Other 1 2 2 3 3 3 How to Use Our Product 1 manual writers to capture what is important to complete an operation or task, but not overburden the user with too much information. The last time I tried to assemble IKEA furniture, well, I needed more information. The other extreme of too little information is what I call the “Band-Aid syndrome.” Many of us have used general operation manuals or operator maintenance manuals that appeared to be on a healthy dose of growth hormones. Every time a problem or issue arises, address- ing it gets added to the manual. These overfed, oversized manuals grow from what likely started as a good set of operating procedures, but, as the operation grows, or as errors increase and events occur, the manual becomes a collection of reactionary “fix-its” or Band-Aids. What should take place after an error or event is a reasoned risk analysis of how and why it occurred that determines the shortcomings and identifies what should be revised in the manual, if anything, to complement a systemic corrective action. The revision may result in a “leaning” of the manual and reducing confusing or con- tradictory information. C lear When an operator or a manufacturer develops manuals and procedures, considerable attention is required to ensure the information and instructions are not mislead- ing or confusing. “Difficult to interpret” was also cited as a leading problem in the research by Kanki and her colleagues. Clarity for manual and technical documentation is both a major challenge and top priority. Further, manu- als should be designed and written through a process that considers the execution phase of the task or pro- cedure. The same goes for the workflow that makes up procedures—another target-rich environment for main- tenance errors. If a task card or an engineering order has a confusing workflow or step sequence that does not make sense to the AMT, the likelihood of an error in executing that task or procedure is greater. Of course, it is human nature to look for more efficient methods to do work. There are mistakes that happen all too often from the tendency to revise existing procedures to make them more efficient or flow more smoothly on the hangar floor. Also, there may be resistance to bringing in the quality department on the revision. These are not necessarily intentional, rather more of an insidious error, since AMTs may not realize they are actually revising a procedure. By repeatedly performing the same task or procedure over time, it is easy to incorporate shortcuts, combine tasks, or accomplish them out of order, because it makes the job easier or seemingly more efficient. When developing manuals and procedures, it requires a lot of attention to ensure that misleading or confus- ing information and instructions are not included. Developing and revising manuals requires coordinat- ing multiple sources within an organization. Engineers, technical writers, and technical and customer support all must integrate their respective information and data to provide the necessary information for a well-written manual. This also means establishing controls, such as document checklists and review boards consisting of the right technical disciplines. Once the manual is published and in use, a feedback program and methods to validate and track feedback are essential to keep the contents up- to-date, clear, and usable. Finally, just as important as accuracy, balance, and clarity, is execution, which means using the manual, the prescribed procedure, every time. And, if something is wrong, incomplete, or unclear, do not do your own fix or workaround, take it to the quality department or the person responsible for the process. In short, top quality operations have top quality manuals and professionals who follow them. Aviation Business Journal | Winter 2019/2020 31
