Documentation is one of the biggest headaches in the compliance world. Many organizations fall into the trap of “writing for the auditor” rather than writing for their own organization, resulting in a mountain of paperwork that nobody actually reads. Paperwork which is not useful or helpful to the organization in achieving the set objectives. Instead of the documentation being an asset for processes it is focused on what will satisfy an auditor. The consultants’ organizations use is often not those who will work from the base line of the organization’s “as-is”. They are in a hurry to collect their fee and fit you into some standard template they have. With forty plus years of experience we at QMII have developed a methodology for the process-based management system approach that starts with capturing the “as-is” of the organization. That way the documentation created remains relevant rather than a template pulled out of the air!
The other issue is wherein companies approach ISO certification with a “more is better” mindset. They believe that if a process isn’t documented in a lengthy clause by clause documentation, the auditor won’t believe it exists. This is most likely reason for a document bloat, a system so heavy it hinders the quality it’s supposed to manage. I have a quote I use nothing kills love, like an overdose of it and nothing kills a management system like overdocumentation. Don’t start with the premise that what your organization has developed over the years needs to be trashed to align your system to ISO 9001 or any of the standards. You want to build on your tried “as-is” system by continual improvement.
The Symptoms of an over-complicated over documentation should be noted. For example, the existence of a parallel shadow system where employees have their own cheat sheets because the official procedures are too hard to follow is an immediate indication of over documentation or useless paperwork. Any SME (subject matter expert) can see another sign where the same information is repeated across several forms. Duplication is an immediate symptom of over documentation. Look for the existence of passive Language. The use of shall and herein and similar legal language makes simple tasks feel like a threat to employees. The other common sign is documentation created for meeting auditor expectations in fear of getting a NC (non-conformity). Fear based writing does not better the management system it just covers all bases. Assists auditors to audit easy. However, the system is not designed for auditors. The management system should be designed for the employees.
The question then is why did it come to this, what is the root cause of complicated often unusable documentation? I think the main reason is the misinterpretation of ISO standards. Neither ISO 9001 nor any of the harmonized standards prescribe or suggest over documentation. The standard actually requires less documented information than previous versions. They focus on effectiveness, not page count. Then there is this tendency in some organizations to keep obsolete procedures as a just in case required syndrome instead of pruning them during updates. At QMII we recommend mapping the processes thus providing a visual representation. However, many organizations have lack of visual representations. These organizations prefer a thousand words long document to describe a process that a simple flowchart could explain in seconds.
Analyzing and knowing these root causes organizations can fix these by adopting a lean documentation strategy. The first step to this end would be to audit the organization’s documents. Before writing anything new, the organization should look at their current list and ask If this document disappeared tomorrow, would the process fail? If the answer is no or even probably not, it’s time to archive it.
Another good solution is to use the Parato 80/20 rule as applicable to documentation. Write for the 80% of daily tasks, not the 20% of rare exceptions. Use clear, active voice. Instead of it is required that the operator shall ensure the calibration is checked replace it with check calibration before starting the shift. Such simple clear active documentation is crisp and short and removes uncertainty from the system. Over documentation often ends in passing risk down the line.
Going visual is another solution. A picture is worth a thousand compliance hours. Replace dense paragraphs with flowcharts for decision-making paths. Design checklists for repetitive tasks where memory might fail. Simple clear photographs are an asset. For example, to show what a good one looks like put a photograph with what a bad one looks like. It will make things clear without overdocumentation.
Most consultant templates are aligned to clauses and often are numbered to the clauses. Sure, it makes it easy for the auditor, but for the user who works using processes, work instructions and check list a clause structured management system is not user friendly. Therefore, map to the user preferences and not to the clause. Don’t organize your folders by ISO clause numbers (e.g., clause 7.5, clause 8.1, clause 8.6 and so on). Employees don’t think in clauses. Organize your documentation by department or workstream so people can find what they need in three clicks or less. Please remember documentation should be a bridge to better performance, not a barrier to getting work done.
—
This article was written by IJ, Principal Consultant at QMII. With extensive experience in ISO standards, auditing, and organizational transformation, IJ has guided global organizations in strengthening their management systems. His approach focuses on aligning ISO implementation with strategic business objectives to drive long-term performance improvement.
