A tier-1 aerospace supplier was drowning in legacy procedures. Some dated back to 1997. Here's the step-by-step process they used to cut document length by 83% without losing a single compliance requirement.
The supplier quality engineer sat across from the aerospace OEM's auditor and heard the finding read aloud for the third time: "Documented information is present but not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to ensure consistent process execution."
The finding was not about a missing procedure. The facility had documented procedures for every process in scope. The auditor had reviewed twelve of them during the two-day on-site assessment and had flagged the same issue in each: the procedures were technically complete and essentially unreadable at the point of production.
The longest was 47 pages. It covered a composite lay-up process that an experienced operator could perform in 90 minutes. A new operator following that procedure would spend more time navigating the document than performing the work.
The corrective action requirement was clear: demonstrate that documented work instructions are in a format suitable for use at the point of production.
What followed was an 18-month project that cut average procedure length from 31 pages to 6 — and produced measurable improvements in first-pass yield, training time, and audit performance that far exceeded the original compliance objective.
Before starting the simplification project, the quality team conducted a thorough analysis of the existing procedure library. What they found is consistent with what most manufacturing organizations discover when they do this kind of audit honestly.
The procedures had been authored or reviewed by process engineers whose primary concern was technical completeness. Every engineering note, every background context paragraph, every design intent rationale had been preserved. Operators did not need any of it. They needed the next step.
An operator performing step 12 of a lay-up procedure does not need to know why the fiber orientation was specified or what the tradeoff analysis was during the design phase. They need to know the specific orientation, the tool to use, the sequence, and what a good result looks like. Everything else creates noise.
Many procedures had informal change history woven through the body text — notes about what had changed in previous revisions, what used to be required and no longer was, what was planned for future revisions. This layering of historical context made current requirements difficult to identify, particularly for operators who had not read the original version.
In eight of the first twenty procedures reviewed, there were conflicting specifications between the procedure text and referenced drawings. The procedure said one thing. The drawing it referenced said something slightly different. Operators had developed informal habits for resolving these conflicts. None of those habits were documented.
Fifteen procedures referenced external documents for critical parameters without including those values in the work instruction itself. Under normal production conditions, operators had no way to verify these values at the workstation without leaving the production area.
The project team — two quality engineers and a manufacturing supervisor — developed a four-phase approach for each procedure.
The first pass removed everything that was not a direct process requirement: background context, design intent, revision history, administrative notes, and any information that described why a step existed rather than what to do.
On average, this pass reduced procedure length by 35 percent. This number surprised the team. More than a third of each procedure, on average, was content that operators did not need and would not use.
For each procedure, the team cross-referenced every reference to an external document, drawing, or specification and incorporated the critical values directly into the instruction. Where conflicts existed between the procedure and referenced documents, they were resolved with the responsible process engineer before the revision was finalized.
This phase was the most time-consuming. It required genuine engineering involvement to resolve ambiguities that had been accumulating for years. Several of the oldest procedures had been authored by engineers who had since retired. Some conflicts required design authority review before they could be resolved with confidence.
The final restructuring converted each procedure into numbered action steps using active verbs. Specifications were preserved exactly — character for character, including all tolerance notation, units, and range designations. Warning and caution elements were formatted distinctly from action steps.
The target was a document where an operator could read one line, perform one action, and return to the document for the next step without losing their place.
Before release, each simplified procedure was walked through by two operators: one experienced with the process, one newly hired. Each operator read the procedure and flagged any step they would need to interpret, any value they could not find, or any instruction they found ambiguous.
The validation pass took 30 to 45 minutes per procedure and surfaced an average of two to four items per document requiring further clarification before release. This step was non-negotiable. Releasing procedures that operators had not verified did not match the project's stated goal.
Eighteen months after the project began, the facility had completed 214 of its 287 active work instructions.
Average procedure length reduced from 31 pages to 6 pages per document — an 83 percent reduction.
First-pass yield on processes covered by simplified procedures improved by 11 percent in the first six months following release.
New employee time to production-ready reduced from an average of 14 days to 9 days across assembly operations with simplified procedures. Operators could follow the procedure without supplemental coaching for most process steps.
Internal audit findings related to documented information dropped from an average of 8 findings per audit cycle to 1 in the first post-project audit.
Customer audit outcome: The OEM returned for the follow-up audit required by the original corrective action. No further findings related to documented information clarity.
One consistent concern throughout the project: ensuring simplification did not inadvertently remove compliance-required content.
The approach was to maintain a traceability matrix for each procedure, tracking every requirement from the original version to the simplified one. Nothing was removed without verification that it was either redundant with other documented requirements, administrative in nature, or captured in a separate controlled document.
The procedures are shorter. They are clearer. They contain everything they need to contain and nothing they do not.
That is the point of simplification: not removing rigor, but removing noise.
Coplain automates the most labor-intensive part of this process — classifying, structuring, and formatting work instructions for operator readability. What took this team 18 months takes Coplain minutes. Free trial at coplain.com.
Coplain turns any work instruction into a print-ready, audit-proof job aid in minutes.
Try Coplain free →