Re: Textbook fodder

[Nancy Hayes <nancyh -at- PMAFIRE -dot- INEL -dot- GOV>]

RE:  Teaching how to write procedures

I think Emily's suggestion is great; I'm a little concerned about
including details.  Many of the guidelines she uses for her company are
not how we do it where I work (and mine won't match a dozen other people's).

For example

>- Naming procedures (first word of the title should be a participle)

Many times we use the area the procedure belongs to.
"NWCF:  Normal Operation"

>- Never use future tense

Do that.

>- Each step includes only one action

Do that.  Steps also start with the verb unless they're conditional
(logic operators).

>- A step's consequences or results should be explained in that step

We never include consequences or results in the step.  This information
is covered in training.

>- Warnings & cautions go before the step (or before the text of the step)

Before the text of the step, warnings before cautions.  They're written
as a cause-effect statement.  Then the step following the warning/caution
is a step to prevent the occurrence.

>- Notes appear after a step

Always before w/ our new format.  Before or after w/ our old format.


>- Using a "trigger" (the condition or action that prompts a person to use a
>procedure)

We use logic operators as the conditional steps (IF, AND, THEN, WHEN, OR)

I'm really not trying to pick on Emily, but just show that "standard"
procedural formats aren't standard.  Now it's someone's turn to show how
the standard I use isn't standard.

-- one action per step
-- start with the verb
-- no extraneous theory or explanations
-- group similar activities as substeps under steps
-- use emphasis techniques sparingly

Nancy Hayes
nancyh -at- pmafire -dot- inel -dot- gov