The Importance of Documentation
In a laboratory, refinery or processing plant, it is inevitable that problems requiring a scientific or engineering solution will occur. The most frustrating of these problems are rarely the never-before-seen issues; the more challenging tend to be the problems that occur over and over again.
This may be a series of pumps that continually clog, a calibrated instrument that will randomly stop detecting analytes above a certain concentration, a filter cloth that keeps tearing within three days when it should last two weeks. It doesn’t matter what the particular problem is; the difficulty in solving the problem is almost always increased when someone immediately says, “Didn’t this same thing happen two years ago? I’m sure one of the engineers looked into it”.
If the problem has already been investigated and rectified, you’d imagine that it would be easier to address a second (or third) time. However, if all of the previous work and its outcomes was never documented, it may be impossible for the original problem, investigation and solution to be determined, and some work may be repeated, simply because there is no record of what was done previously.
In the context of an operational plant or laboratory, most scientists and engineers have a significant amount of day-to-day work to complete. While solving process and laboratory problems will always form a part of their work, this is generally on top of their regular daily workload. The time required to investigate and solve any specific issue will invariably draw them away from their routine work, which will still need to be done. A solution to the problem will be found, but it may be reported verbally to a supervisor (“You need to spray those filters down with water before you install them – it decreases the rate of tears”), or reported via a quick email (“We looked into the problem with the calcium analyses. Procurement had ordered a cheaper brand of one of the standards, but it wasn’t sufficiently pure for our calibration needs. We need to order only from Company X to ensure that the purity of the standard is appropriate”). In more complex cases, there may be a presentation given, or some type of document shared with those impacted by the issue, but these types of documents are not always added to any central document storage system, and may not be easily available outside of that small group of original workers.
Writing up a formal technical note or report takes significantly more time than a quick verbal report or email. Some companies may have strict rules around when a certain type of document (memo versus technical note versus report) should be used, or how well reviewed or edited the document is. There also may be limited people able to add technical reports to the document storage system. All of these aspects increase the time it takes to document and store a record of the work done and solutions found, and may also require the input of others (another engineer to review the written work, an editor to check the language, a technical librarian or administrator to store the document appropriately). In many cases, the scientist or engineer doing the problem solving simply doesn’t have the time to do this, and so the findings are shared verbally or by email . . . and when the problem comes up again someone will say, “Didn’t this same thing happen three years ago?”
To compound the lack of a formal document, the people involved in that work (the engineer who raised the issue, the scientist who did the lab work, the site manager and the shift supervisor who received the results via email) may no longer work in the same area, or even for the same company, and it is impossible to ask them directly or have someone forward an email that was sent regarding the problem.
In previous times, results may have been documented in a laboratory notebook, so even if there was no formal report, it would be possible to go back to the original work plan, print outs of instrumental results or raw calibration data in the lab notebook to guide a new investigation. Nowadays, lab notebooks are far less likely to be used, and if they are in use, they are electronic, not handwritten. Depending on who did the work, or who it was reported to, the results or project outline may be stored in different electronic locations (or even on the hard drive of the computer used by the technical specialist who did the original work). Although the work is stored somewhere, without some idea of where it may be stored and what the document may be called, it might be impossible to find original data.
There are a number of ways to rectify these problems.
Have a shared drive with clear, defined areas for work to be saved. This may be according to the different areas in a plant (digestion, filtration, mud processing) or based upon project areas (analytical method development, solid-liquid separation, corrosion). Use the same conventions (numbering system, rules around folder names) in each area.
Use a standard format for naming documents. Including the year of the work and the surname or initials of the author can make it easier to search for work (for example “Peters – Filter Cloth Failures in West Plant – Jan 2020”).
Create a standard memo format so that data can be sent as an attached document, not embedded in an email. An appropriately named and stored memo will be significantly easier to find than the same data written in a direct email to someone else.
Use a document storage system where all reports, technical notes and memos are stored. Include copies of emails and presentations that report findings as well.
When reporting findings via email or in a presentation, include a reference to the location and names of the documents that the work is based on. Save a copy of the email to the same folder location on the shared drive as the data/other documents.
Use appropriate keywords when saving documents to your document storage system. Include the names of all authors/people who contributed to increase the effectiveness of a search.
When work is properly documented and appropriately stored, it provides written evidence of the work done, allowing credit to be given to its initial author. It also allows for this previous work to inform future efforts in the same area, giving investigators a good starting place to begin their work, and limiting the need to repeat work already done.