English is the main language in technical documentation around the world. However, English can be difficult to understand due to its many forms and complexity. This is especially a concern given the global nature of high tech equipment use in factories around the world. The result of misunderstanding or not comprehending English can be frustrating, time-consuming, costly and even dangerous.
The approach used in the Aerospace and Defense industry is Simplified Technical English (STE). More generally it can be called controlled English. The key features are:
(1) Restricted number of words: Although there are 700,000 actual English words, controlled English uses a generic list of about 900 words (in addition to industry, company, and product specific words). Further, in controlled English, each word has but one meaning.
(2) There is a set of simplified grammar rules. NOTE- some of these rules are similar to those of information mapping.
At one point, some within the semiconductor community attempted to make controlled English a SEMI standard for manuals. That is no longer a current effort.
One vendor that provides both a service and a software product to implement controlled English is Tedores.
Whether or not your company chooses to follow the restricted number of words approach, at the minimum, it could follow the "Global English" concept... a kind of half way between severely controlled English and a good effort to make manuals more readable.
The Global English concept is best demonstrated by the book by John Kohl below. Kohl, on page 14 of his book listed below, compares the two:
"First, controlled English is not a single entity. The term describes any of several attempts to define a subset of the English language that is simpler and clearer than unrestricted English. Most versions of controlled English specify which grammatical structures are allowed and which terms are allowed, as well as how those terms may be used. In early forms of controlled English, terminology was often restricted to a core vocabulary (in some cases as few as 800-1000 terms), supplemented by technical terms that are necessary for a particular subject area or product.
"Global English could be regarded as a loosely controlled language, yet it was developed using almost the opposite approach. In the development of Global English, the emphasis has been on identifying grammatical structures and terms that should be avoided, rather than on cataloging all of the grammatical structures and terms that are allowed. In other words, anything that is not specifically prohibited or cautioned against is allowed.
"When texts conform to the guidelines and terminology restrictions of the more restrictive forms of controlled English, the style and rhythm of those texts differs noticeably from the style and rhythm of of unrestricted technical English. By contrast, most readers don't notice anything different about the style and rhythm of texts that conform to the Global English guidelines.
"Early versions of controlled English, such as the Kodak International Service Language (KISL), were developed as alternatives to translation. By severely limiting the range of grammatical structures and vocabulary that are allowed, KISL makes technical documents understandable even to readers who have very limited proficiency in English. Kodak found that it is much less expensive to teach service technicians all over the world a limited amount of English than to translate service manuals into 40 or more languages.
"Global English is an alternative to translation only if the non-native speakers in your audience are reasonably proficient in English. Global English can make the difference between documents that those non-native speakers can read easily and documents that are too difficult for that audience to comprehend.
"If you are writing for readers who have limited proficiency in English, then consider using a form of controlled English. However, keep in mind that the amount of effort and knowledge that is required for developing and implementing controlled English is considerable. Consult the Bibliography section of this book for sources of more information about controlled English."
I highly recommend Kohl's book.
Resources:
Summary Observations
Documentation in the semiconductor industry has definitely improved over the last 25 years, but it remains inconsistent and in many cases inadequate, especially in smaller equipment supplier companies.
(1) It is imperative that all English manuals be reviewed by native-English speakers. The introduction of poor construction and incorrectly chosen English words by non-native English translators and writers makes understanding for ALL users very difficult. In turn, this creates misunderstanding and unsafe work practices.
(2) It is imperative that those who create technical manuals follow the PBET process, that is: analyze first.
(3) The goal is to have a CCC manual - one that is Correct, Complete, and Clear:
- Correct: Information in the manuals needs to be correct. Money spent to preventively eliminate errors in supplier manuals will save a great deal of money later. Preventive actions include, in part, --
- Include trainers and field service engineers in the process of creating the procedures that go into the manual. Why? They (and their peers) are the largest customer base. Field service engineers and trainers will need this documentation to do their jobs with customers. Learn More.
- Ensure that equipment is available to those working on the procedures and other aspects of a manual. Ensure that the task is performed while the initial draft is written (not just written from the memory of having done it in the past.
- Ensure that the subject matter expert (SME) and the person writing the procedure (or other task) are not the same person.
- Ensure that every written task is verified by having someone actually perform the task as written; even better, that this verification be performed by two different people while being observed by the SME and/or the writer. NOTE: having an engineer simply review and sign off on a procedure is NOT a form of verification.
- Ensure that every written task is verified at more than one stage in the development of the final written version. For example, the original written draft can be verified by having it performed, both before and after the addition of photographs (or before and after it is converted to a flow-chart).
Some companies give no thought to what is required for a manual. The worst case I encountered was that of a Japanese equipment supplier that hired a non-native English speaking person with no technical experience in the company, to write the manuals and translate them into English. At the same time, the company allowed her access to expert engineers and the equipment just one day a month.
Ways that expense for preventive actions can save money includes, among other things:
- Sending out fewer correction pages or "service bulletins."
- Reducing liability law suits
- Eliminating the need to answer the same question at the customer support desk over and over, in some cases for years. Sometimes, the support desk answers mainly questions that arise from manuals that are inaccurate or incomplete.
- Eliminating the need to send a specialized engineer onsite to determine the problem.
- Shortening the length of training and increasing technician competency during training.
- Complete: All tasks that the specified user will perform are included in the manual. Most tasks are procedural; this means that a step-by-step procedure should be included for every such task. Some tasks are non-linear, like troubleshooting or writing a program for the equipment to work on the customer's proprietary products; this means that all of the information needed for such a problem-solving task should be supplied in one place (schematics, flow-chart, textual explanation, etc.).
In all of the PBET Workshops, I have brought up the subject of equipment manuals, asking whether their company's manual included all of the tasks that needed to be taught to their customers. Always the answer is no, although the degree of incompleteness varies. This serious problem needs to be remedied because when trainer does not have a written procedure available, the training will have poor results and the time to teach that lesson will be unnecessarily lengthened.
Using both field engineers and trainers to help plan the list of tasks to be included in the manual will greatly increase the likelihood of a "complete" result. Again, learn about having a customer support product development team for every new product being developed. Use the resources at this link, under SPS Bulletins. Look for the "Rethinking the Development of New Product Training" (16 page Bulletin), and the coordinated PowerPoint Slides to help you communicate with colleagues.
- Clear: It can be easily understood by the target audience. Clarity is the goal and that includes all end-users of the document. This means taking into consideration whether the document will be used by non-native English speaking people. Among other things, consider:
- Naming a procedure as a "task." In other words, "Align the elevator" is better than "Elevator alignment procedure."
- If it is a procedure, literally number the steps.
- If it is a procedure, use a table. Put a well-produced visual with each step of the procedure, preferably on the horizontal, beside the text of the step, rather than underneath the text of the step. Obviously a larger image may not allow for that preference.
- Use short sentences wherever possible.
- Always refer to the same assembly or part by using the same term. The usage of multiple names for the same part is a very common way that companies confuse their users. Attention to part names should be given early in product development with input from trainers, field service engineers, as well as the other stakeholders like marketing.
- Use the Information Mapping® chunking tactic. As applied to a procedure, that would mean that know task should show more than 7 steps - if it does, consider breaking it into subsections (sub-tasks).
- Apply the guidelines in The Global English Style Guide by John Kohl.
EXCEPTION: The only reason for NOT applying The Global English Style Guide would be that you are instead implementing a version of controlled English with a restricted vocabulary.
