Effective Written Guidance
Started by Elliot Wolf
10166 points
Elliot Wolf
In the past several months, I have learned so much about writing effective procedures as a result of taking the on-line course and researching various publications. As many know, there are readily available metrics to assess the readability or writing clarity (Flesch-Kincaid Score, Fog Index) but in Swain et al (Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications) there are specific metrics for procedures. I see the formulas as useful indicators to understand the important variables, beyond just the output you get from the calculations. Just sharing a resource I came across for other practitioners to supplement learnings in the module…
Two indices of the quality of written routine procedures from Brune and Weinstein (1982) are listed here; they provide a quick measure of the relative quality of a procedure. These are the Complexity Index (CI) and the Specificity Index (SI).
CI =No. of actions in sample of steps or paragraphs / No. of steps or paragraphs sampled
where:
(1) the number of actions is usually the number of verbs (or compound verbs) in a step or paragraph,
(2) the CI should be 1.5 or less, and
(3) the sample is 20% of all steps but no less than 10 steps.
SI = No. of steps in sample meeting all 3 specificity criteria / No. of steps sampled
where:
(1) the three criteria are
(a) the action to be taken is specifically identified (e.g., open, close, torque, etc.),
(b) the limits (if applicable) are expressed quantitatively (e.g., 2turns, 100 inch-pounds, etc.), and
(c) the equipment or parts are identified completely (e.g., HPCI-MO-17, etc.),
(2) The SI should be at least 0.9, and
(3) the sample is 20% of all steps but no less than 10 steps.
***If the CI and SI for routine procedures meet all of the above criteria, they are better-than-average procedures.
10166 points
Elliot Wolf
In the past several months, I have learned so much about writing effective procedures as a result of taking the on-line course and researching various publications. As many know, there are readily available metrics to assess the readability or writing clarity (Flesch-Kincaid Score, Fog Index) but in Swain et al (Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications) there are specific metrics for procedures. I see the formulas as useful indicators to understand the important variables, beyond just the output you get from the calculations. Just sharing a resource I came across for other practitioners to supplement learnings in the module…
Two indices of the quality of written routine procedures from Brune and Weinstein (1982) are listed here; they provide a quick measure of the relative quality of a procedure. These are the Complexity Index (CI) and the Specificity Index (SI).
CI =No. of actions in sample of steps or paragraphs / No. of steps or paragraphs sampled
where:
(1) the number of actions is usually the number of verbs (or compound verbs) in a step or paragraph,
(2) the CI should be 1.5 or less, and
(3) the sample is 20% of all steps but no less than 10 steps.
SI = No. of steps in sample meeting all 3 specificity criteria / No. of steps sampled
where:
(1) the three criteria are
(a) the action to be taken is specifically identified (e.g., open, close, torque, etc.),
(b) the limits (if applicable) are expressed quantitatively (e.g., 2turns, 100 inch-pounds, etc.), and
(c) the equipment or parts are identified completely (e.g., HPCI-MO-17, etc.),
(2) The SI should be at least 0.9, and
(3) the sample is 20% of all steps but no less than 10 steps.
***If the CI and SI for routine procedures meet all of the above criteria, they are better-than-average procedures.
8010 points
Rob Fisher
Great stuff Elliot - we try to simplify this in our process so that it meets these recommended criteria without having to do complex calculations and measures. Appreciate the input - Rob