Almost every business that has been operating for more than a few years has some form of process documentation. Almost every business that has been operating for more than a few years also has process documentation that nobody reads. This article is about why that happens and what to do about it.
The problem with documentation written in isolation ¶
Most process documentation is written by one person, usually a manager or a specialist, without input from the people who actually do the work. The result is a document that describes how the process is supposed to work, not how it actually works. The people doing the work know this, which is why they do not consult the document. They already know it is wrong. The document then sits in a shared drive, updated occasionally when something goes visibly wrong, and otherwise ignored.
What makes documentation actually useful ¶
Documentation that gets used has three characteristics. First, it was written with input from the people doing the work, so it reflects reality rather than intention. Second, it is short enough to be read in the time available. A forty-page process manual for a task that takes twenty minutes is not going to be consulted. Third, it has a named owner who is responsible for keeping it current. Without an owner, documentation drifts out of date and loses credibility. With an owner, it stays accurate and people trust it.
The review cycle ¶
Process documentation needs a review cycle. The frequency depends on how often the underlying process changes. For stable processes, an annual review is usually sufficient. For processes that change frequently. Onboarding, for example, or anything tied to a software system that gets updated. A quarterly review is more appropriate. The review does not need to be extensive. It is a check: does this document still describe what actually happens? If not, update it. If yes, note the date and move on.
When to start from scratch ¶
Sometimes the existing documentation is so far from reality that updating it is more work than starting again. The signal for this is when the people doing the work cannot recognise their own process in the document. In that case, the most efficient approach is to set the existing document aside, interview the people doing the work, and write a new document from what you hear. This is uncomfortable for organisations that have invested time in the original documentation, but it is faster and produces a more accurate result than trying to reconcile a document with a reality it no longer describes.
If your business has process documentation that nobody reads, the problem is almost certainly in how it was written, not in the people who are supposed to read it. Get in touch if you want to talk through a more useful approach.