If residual risks are identified in a risk assessment, these must be warned of in the operating instructions. This is required by the Machinery Directive, for example. However, the Machinery Directive and the associated harmonized standards as well as other standards do not state that operating instructions should be plastered with warnings - as the saying goes: "A lot helps a lot".

You may be familiar with the following situation: You read an article - online or offline -, find it interesting and are curious to find out what other information and insights the article may provide. You have read it and suddenly you are presented with an advertisement. "One time is not enough", you think to yourself and continue reading. But as soon as you have read in again and found the red thread, the next advertisement is thrust upon you.

You are probably asking yourself now: What does advertising have to do with warnings. And what does reading an article have to do with reading an instruction manual? Quite simply, what both have in common is that the flow of reading is abruptly interrupted and the reader's attention is drawn to something that is or may be important, but is not of particular interest to you at that moment.

In the case of the article, it is the advertisement, in the case of the operating instructions, it is the warnings, which are vying for the reader's full attention and distracting them from the information they need at the moment.

Figure 2: Not like this! Negative example of the structure of the 'Maintenance' section.

© Helpdesign

Have you noticed how annoying the warning in Figure 1 is? It is unmotivated, the signal word (NOTE) does not represent the severity of the injury, it only contains meaningless information, has no grammatical reference (note the number of exclamation marks) and the warning symbol is taken from the German road traffic regulations (sign 206). You have probably never seen a warning notice with such text, as it is fictitious. However, in reality there are many warnings that are structured in exactly the same way: There are warnings of hazards "come hell or high water" with the greatest possible 'alarmism' - and then there is nothing more. Especially not the important information on how the risk of hazards can be reduced or the potential damage avoided.

Apart from the fact that a single warning of this kind massively disrupts the flow of reading, the number of warnings also contributes to the fact that not only is the flow of reading disrupted, but also that additional relevant information is not noticed or is difficult to find.

What would you think, for example, of a 'Maintenance' chapter that - as shown in simplified form in Figure 2 - comprises two pages, with the first page containing only warnings of various types and the relevant maintenance information only being found on the second page? Against this background, the question ultimately arises: How can the number of warnings in operating instructions be reduced and the quality of the warning information improved?

Reduce the number of warnings

Carry out and document risk assessment

The necessary warnings are determined in the risk assessment based on the residual risks - not in the editorial office of technical editors, who may decide on gut feeling whether a warning is necessary or not. Ideally, the risk assessment should be carried out and documented prior to construction.

Classify notes correctly

One aspect that can reduce the number of warnings is the fact that some warnings are not warnings but safety instructions. According to EN 82079-1, safety instructions are "safety-related information collected or grouped in a document or section of a document according to a reasonably organized system in order to explain safety measures, raise safety awareness and provide a basis for safety-related training of users." Ideally, they should only appear once - for example in the 'Safety' chapter.

According to EN 82079-11, warnings, on the other hand, are "safety-related information that warns users of hazards and instructs them on how to avoid them. ... Warnings are usually given in the instructions for use where tasks are described in which hazards may occur."

With reference to the example of hazards that can arise from the electrical power supply of a machine, this means that electrical hazards are referred to with a safety note, for example in the 'Safety' chapter, and that attention is not drawn to electrical hazards in every chapter with a warning. This is particularly absurd if the risk of electric shock is pointed out when a machine that is ready for operation is switched on regularly. In this case, the question arises as to whether the manufacturer should have placed the machine on the market at all.

Analyze target groups

Another aspect of reducing the number of warnings is to define the target groups for which a product - for example a machine - is intended. Contrary to popular belief, the target group analysis should not be carried out before the operating instructions are drawn up. Instead, it must be carried out before the risk assessment (!) is carried out. Why is this the case?

Firstly, the risk assessment is the foundation for the operating instructions. In addition to the residual risks, the risk assessment contains a lot of other information that is included in the operating instructions. This includes the limits of the product, such as intended use, reasonably foreseeable misuse, temporal, spatial and environmental limits and so on. On the other hand, the risk assessment contains the result of the target group analysis, which also becomes part of the operating instructions. The target group analysis includes the designation of the persons involved (e.g. machine operator), the tasks assigned to this person (e.g. inserting the workpiece, starting the work process, removing the workpiece) and the qualifications required by these persons to carry out the task safely - for example, instruction.

The target group analysis can be used to drastically reduce the number of warning notices. For example, if the target group analysis has shown that work on electrical equipment may only be carried out by a qualified electrician with the appropriate training, the warning about electric shock is almost always unnecessary. Due to their training, qualified electricians know what hazards are posed by electricity and what measures they must take to avoid electric shock or other hazards due to the electrical power supply.

Realistically determine residual risks

Whether or not a warning must be issued depends on whether the risk assessment has revealed a residual risk. The following applies: No residual risk, no warning. This does not mean that the aim should be to 'optimize' the risk assessment in such a way that the result is as few or no warnings as possible. It simply means that you should ask yourself whether a residual risk actually exists or not.

Name prerequisites

A third aspect of reducing warnings is to state the conditions that must be met in order to carry out certain tasks safely. Example: Instead of pointing out hazards that can arise during the transportation of a machine, for example from parts that move unexpectedly, it makes more sense to state the conditions under which safe transportation can be carried out. One prerequisite is that moving parts are secured before transportation. This means that no warning is required.

Improve the quality of warnings

Embed warnings

If warnings have to be used, they should - whenever sensible and possible - be 'gently' embedded in the text flow. In addition, care should be taken to embed warnings in such a way that they are still perceived as such and do not disrupt the flow of the text any more than necessary. The American standard Z 535.6 uses numerous examples to explain how warnings can be embedded discreetly in the text flow.

Apply the SAFE method

SAFE is an acronym with the following meaning:

• S: Severity of injury or signal word. The severity of the injury and the resulting signal word correlate with the assessment of the risk of a hazard. The American standard Z 535.62 mentioned above contains a flow chart for determining signal words depending on the extent of damage.
• A: Type and source of the hazard
• F: Consequence of non-compliance
• E: Escape - measures to avoid damage or minimize the risk.

Author:
Jörg Ertelt is the founder and owner of Helpdesign.