From prsturgeon at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  9 06:14:19 2005
From: prsturgeon at yahoo.com (Peter Sturgeon)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:14:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure
Message-ID: <20051209131419.55468.qmail@web53002.mail.yahoo.com>

Trying to create consistency in some several hundred SOPs.

In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are authoring:

"It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y."

(by far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help)

And

"Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc.

Role Y will perform : Rask f, Task G, etc."

As I'm going for consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the
winner; I prefer the second one.

Comments? Suggestions? Or do I let my political masters pick?

Peter Sturgeon



From brimful at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec  9 06:55:19 2005
From: brimful at bellsouth.net (Elizabeth Henry Zenker)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:55:19 -0500
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-221303-2753204-2005.12.09-06.15.03--brimful#bellsouth.net@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <20051209134809.KGWD1346.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@BlueGirl>

Peter,

The second form is more concise.   "It is the responsibility of" is
unnecessary wordage that would probably slow comprehension of the vital
facts if it were used repeatedly.  

Although the less commonly used form "Role X will perform: Task A, Task B,
etc." is not as formal, I prefer it because it communicates the essential
data more clearly.

Elizabeth Zenker



---Original Message-----
From: bounce-stcscsig-l-221303 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-221303 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sturgeon
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:14 AM
To: STC Science SIG discussions
Subject: [stcscsig-l] Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard
Operating Procedure

Trying to create consistency in some several hundred SOPs.

In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are authoring:

"It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y."

(by far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help)

And

"Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc.

Role Y will perform : Rask f, Task G, etc."

As I'm going for consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the
winner; I prefer the second one.

Comments? Suggestions? Or do I let my political masters pick?

Peter Sturgeon

---
You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: brimful at bellsouth.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stcscsig-l-221303W at lists.stc.org





From ghart at videotron.ca  Fri Dec  9 07:15:08 2005
From: ghart at videotron.ca (Geoff Hart)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:15:08 -0500
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
In-Reply-To: 
 <LYRIS-101040-2753204-2005.12.09-06.15.03--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
References: 
 <LYRIS-101040-2753204-2005.12.09-06.15.03--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <09b1976f6c11e39e06a89a0731fcb664@videotron.ca>

Peter Sturgeon wondered: <<Trying to create consistency in some several 
hundred SOPs.>>

And Hercules thought the Augean stables were a tough job! <g>

<<In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are 
authoring: "It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y." (by 
far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help) And 
"Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc. ... As I'm going for 
consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the winner; I prefer 
the second one.>>

The first option is wordy, but retains the concept of responsibility; 
the second is more concise, but loses the concept of responsibility. If 
you are using "responsibility" only to name who does what, rather than 
reminding that doer that they're responsible for the consequences, it's 
a good choice. A hybrid alternative might be something like the 
following: "X is responsible for doing Y".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
(try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)
www.geoff-hart.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




From brimful at bellsouth.net  Fri Dec  9 07:33:53 2005
From: brimful at bellsouth.net (Elizabeth Henry Zenker)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:33:53 -0500
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-221303-2753236-2005.12.09-07.15.30--brimful#bellsouth.net@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <20051209142643.KOBE1346.ibm64aec.bellsouth.net@BlueGirl>

That is a good point - The concept of responsibility may be an important
idea that should not be eliminated.  Geoff, your hybrid form is an
improvement!  Another possibility, in a list format, would be simply:

Responsibilities:
Role X: Task A
Role T: Task B, Task G

And, of course, classical illusions could be added throughout to make for
more fun reading . . . :)

Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stcscsig-l-221303 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-221303 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Hart
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:15 AM
To: STC Science SIG discussions
Subject: [stcscsig-l] Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard
Operating Procedure?

Peter Sturgeon wondered: <<Trying to create consistency in some several 
hundred SOPs.>>

And Hercules thought the Augean stables were a tough job! <g>

<<In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are 
authoring: "It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y." (by 
far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help) And 
"Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc. ... As I'm going for 
consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the winner; I prefer 
the second one.>>

The first option is wordy, but retains the concept of responsibility; 
the second is more concise, but loses the concept of responsibility. If 
you are using "responsibility" only to name who does what, rather than 
reminding that doer that they're responsible for the consequences, it's 
a good choice. A hybrid alternative might be something like the 
following: "X is responsible for doing Y".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
(try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)
www.geoff-hart.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


---
You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: brimful at bellsouth.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stcscsig-l-221303W at lists.stc.org





From prsturgeon at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  9 07:34:05 2005
From: prsturgeon at yahoo.com (Peter Sturgeon)
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:34:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-255313-2753236-2005.12.09-07.15.30--prsturgeon#yahoo.com@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <20051209143405.96596.qmail@web53001.mail.yahoo.com>

In my case, the horses are still in the stable, and still producing.

The section is going to be labeled Responsibilities: and the online
help and training will push for the Who does What style.

Thanks

--- Geoff Hart <ghart at videotron.ca> wrote:

> Peter Sturgeon wondered: <<Trying to create consistency in some
> several 
> hundred SOPs.>>
> 
> And Hercules thought the Augean stables were a tough job! <g>
> 
> <<In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are 
> authoring: "It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y."
> (by 
> far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help)
> And 
> "Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc. ... As I'm going for 
> consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the winner; I prefer
> 
> the second one.>>
> 
> The first option is wordy, but retains the concept of responsibility;
> 
> the second is more concise, but loses the concept of responsibility.
> If 
> you are using "responsibility" only to name who does what, rather
> than 
> reminding that doer that they're responsible for the consequences,
> it's 
> a good choice. A hybrid alternative might be something like the 
> following: "X is responsible for doing Y".
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
> Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
> (try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)
> www.geoff-hart.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: prsturgeon at yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-stcscsig-l-255313U at lists.stc.org
> 




From wisewords at charter.net  Sun Dec 11 19:47:39 2005
From: wisewords at charter.net (Daniel Wise)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:47:39 -0600
Subject: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-119420-2753260-2005.12.09-07.34.25--wisewords#charter.net@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <000001c5fec6$6c8d5ab0$6bb90c47@GGWise>

Can you use Playscript format for the Responsibilities section? In this
format, the "actor" or role is in a narrow left-hand column and the "action"
or responsibility is in the wider right column. This does two things. First,
it keeps the chronological flow of steps in order. Second, it assigns
responsibility to an actor for every chronological step. You leave the left
column blank when the same actor performs sequential steps, and insert a new
actor when responsibilities are handed off to another actor.
I like this better than Role X performs A, B, F, G and R; Role Y performs C,
H, J, and K; Role C performs....

Using the latter method, in my experience, you need a flowchart with actors
and actions labeled to know where you are in the process.

Dan Wise

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sturgeon
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:34 AM
To: STC Science SIG discussions
Subject: [stcscsig-l] Re: Wording of the responsibilities section in a
Standard Operating Procedure?

In my case, the horses are still in the stable, and still producing.

The section is going to be labeled Responsibilities: and the online
help and training will push for the Who does What style.

Thanks

--- Geoff Hart <ghart at videotron.ca> wrote:

> Peter Sturgeon wondered: <<Trying to create consistency in some
> several 
> hundred SOPs.>>
> 
> And Hercules thought the Augean stables were a tough job! <g>
> 
> <<In the responsibility section, there are two ways people are 
> authoring: "It is the responsibility of role X to perform task Y."
> (by 
> far the most common, but I think it's driven by the template help)
> And 
> "Role X will perform: Task A, Task B, etc. ... As I'm going for 
> consistency, one of these approaches meeds to be the winner; I prefer
> 
> the second one.>>
> 
> The first option is wordy, but retains the concept of responsibility;
> 
> the second is more concise, but loses the concept of responsibility.
> If 
> you are using "responsibility" only to name who does what, rather
> than 
> reminding that doer that they're responsible for the consequences,
> it's 
> a good choice. A hybrid alternative might be something like the 
> following: "X is responsible for doing Y".
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
> Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
> (try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)
> www.geoff-hart.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: prsturgeon at yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-stcscsig-l-119420O at lists.stc.org
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: wisewords at charter.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stcscsig-l-119420O at lists.stc.org



From prsturgeon at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 12 08:07:44 2005
From: prsturgeon at yahoo.com (Peter Sturgeon)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:07:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fwd: Re: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
Message-ID: <20051212150744.28981.qmail@web53012.mail.yahoo.com>

> Thanks, Dan.
> 
> I've seen the playscript method, and used it successfully in the
> past.
> 
> There's nothing in our process guideleines to prevent its use--may
> require a bit of education.
> 
> Would you have any links for novice writers trying to use playscript
> for the first time?
> 
> Again, thanks
> 
> Peter
> 




From wisewords at charter.net  Mon Dec 12 20:26:23 2005
From: wisewords at charter.net (Daniel Wise)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:26:23 -0600
Subject: Fwd: Re: Wording of the responsibilities section in a Standard Operating Procedure?
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-119420-2755247-2005.12.12-08.08.33--wisewords#charter.net@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <00de01c5ff94$ffbfa6c0$6bb90c47@GGWise>

No, sorry. No links. I learned to use it OJT 20 years ago and have not
written a procedure in over 10 years.

It is not difficult at all. You place the name of the first responsible
party in the left column and in the right column you write your first
numbered step. As long as that party remains responsible for steps 2, 3,
etc. you leave the left column blank. When responsibility shifts to a second
party, you put the name of that party in the left column, signifying a
change of responsibility, and key the step(s) in the right column. Steps are
numbered sequentially in chronological order.

Personally I do not consider this simple process worthy of spending time
searching for URLs to visit.

If you have an extremely complicated process to document, you might want to
think about flowcharting it before writing. And you might want to think
about breaking up the process into a series of simpler procedures,
especially if activities requiring numerous steps are occurring
simultaneously.

BTW, write the steps in the imperative.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sturgeon
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:08 AM
To: STC Science SIG discussions
Subject: [stcscsig-l] Fwd: Re: Wording of the responsibilities section in a
Standard Operating Procedure?

> Thanks, Dan.
> 
> I've seen the playscript method, and used it successfully in the
> past.
> 
> There's nothing in our process guideleines to prevent its use--may
> require a bit of education.
> 
> Would you have any links for novice writers trying to use playscript
> for the first time?
> 
> Again, thanks
> 
> Peter
> 


---
You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: wisewords at charter.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stcscsig-l-119420O at lists.stc.org



From prsturgeon at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 13 05:36:00 2005
From: prsturgeon at yahoo.com (Peter Sturgeon)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:36:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Playscript link found
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-255313-2755799-2005.12.12-20.26.03--prsturgeon#yahoo.com@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <20051213123600.87568.qmail@web53006.mail.yahoo.com>

Was able to locate a slightly longer discussion of playscript writing
for policies and procedures.

http://www.stc.org/confproceed/1999/PDFs/stc-37.pdf



From wisewords at charter.net  Tue Dec 13 22:17:29 2005
From: wisewords at charter.net (Daniel Wise)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:17:29 -0600
Subject: Playscript link found
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-119420-2756220-2005.12.13-05.36.56--wisewords#charter.net@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <012a01c6006d$aef5d6e0$6bb90c47@GGWise>

Great. Sounds as though you are on your way--if you can sell it to the Great
White Father.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sturgeon
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:36 AM
To: STC Science SIG discussions
Subject: [stcscsig-l] RE: Playscript link found

Was able to locate a slightly longer discussion of playscript writing
for policies and procedures.

http://www.stc.org/confproceed/1999/PDFs/stc-37.pdf

---
You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: wisewords at charter.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stcscsig-l-119420O at lists.stc.org



From prsturgeon at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 14 05:56:24 2005
From: prsturgeon at yahoo.com (Peter Sturgeon)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:56:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Playscript link found
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-255313-2756857-2005.12.13-22.17.24--prsturgeon#yahoo.com@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <20051214125624.27940.qmail@web53014.mail.yahoo.com>

If I were good at selling, I'd be a marketing writer, not a technical
writer:)

Peter

--- Daniel Wise <wisewords at charter.net> wrote:

> Great. Sounds as though you are on your way--if you can sell it to
> the Great
> White Father.
> 
> Dan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org
> [mailto:bounce-stcscsig-l-119420 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Sturgeon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: STC Science SIG discussions
> Subject: [stcscsig-l] RE: Playscript link found
> 
> Was able to locate a slightly longer discussion of playscript writing
> for policies and procedures.
> 
> http://www.stc.org/confproceed/1999/PDFs/stc-37.pdf
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: wisewords at charter.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-stcscsig-l-255313U at lists.stc.org
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: prsturgeon at yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-stcscsig-l-255313U at lists.stc.org
>