Quality Assurance • Regulatory Affairs

Quality & Regulatory Documentation Cleanup

Published • • 3 min read

Updating the New Product Template showed that a work instruction only prevents rework if it's written from how the task is actually done, not from how it's assumed to be done. That gap is usually where the next person doing the task gets stuck.

A New Product Template that was written from assumptions rather than observed practice puts the next person who follows it in a familiar position: stuck at exactly the step the assumption got wrong.

Written from assumption versus written from practice

A template drafted from how a task is supposed to work reads fine until someone actually follows it step by step. The gap between assumed process and real process is where that person gets stuck, and where the template needs to be rewritten.

Cleaning up the template required:
  • Comparing the existing checklist/instruction against the current regulation or process in practice
  • Correcting discrepancies between the assumed process and the actual one
  • Confirming the update against the source document or QMS procedure

What an assumption-based template costs

An outdated checklist or work instruction being followed after the underlying regulation or process has changed is one failure mode. A template that was never accurate to begin with is a related, quieter one.

What the rewrite delivered

Delivering a new work instruction gave the team a repeatable, documented method for the task, one written from how the New Product process is actually carried out.

The Real Takeaway

A work instruction only prevents rework if it's written from how the task is actually done, not from how it's assumed to be done.

That gap is usually where the next person doing the task gets stuck.

Done reading this sample?

Go back to my Articles page to find topics that might be of interest to you. Let me know if you want me to write about something specific.

Back to article archive