Capture plan
- 0 sources, 0 minutes or pages.
- 2 restricted sources kept out.
SOP Intelligence
Capture how work is really done
The most valuable knowledge in an organisation sits in the heads of a few people, in old recordings, in scattered documents.
Demonstration: Harlow Precision Components (fictional) · Manufacturing. Fictional data and a scripted answer.
The situation
- Organisation
- Harlow Precision Components (fictional)
- Who is asking
- Continuous improvement lead
- Industry
- Manufacturing
- What happened
- A senior setter retires in three months and the lead wants to capture how the changeovers are really done, without recording what should not be recorded.
The question asked
Which sources may we capture from to document the changeovers, and which must stay out?
What it reads, and who can see the result
- Capture source list registerVideos, voice notes, screens and scans the team could use.
- Recording policy documentWhat may be recorded and under what consent.
- Reads
- Only the sources the improvement lead puts in scope, and only after consent is recorded for each.
- Does not read
- Restricted material, or anything outside the sources chosen.
- Permission
- The lead selects sources; each owner or participant consents.
- Who sees it
- The improvement lead and the supervisors whose work is captured.
Try it
Choose what the platform may read. Restricted material cannot be put in scope here, and a classification the analysis is unsure of must be verified by a person.
| Read it? | Source | Holds | Sensitivity | What the analysis thinks it is |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Setter's changeover videos, line 3 Shop-floor phone, shared folder | 210 minutes or pages | internal | Die changeover procedure clear | |
| Spoken walkthrough, setter's commentary Voice notes | 95 minutes or pages | internal | Tacit tips and checks check | |
| Screen recording of the production system Workstation | 40 minutes or pages | restricted | Booking steps (shows customer orders) clear | |
| Scanned paper job cards Document scanner | 380 minutes or pages | internal | Setup parameters by product check | |
| CCTV of the line Security system | 600 minutes or pages | restricted | General activity (identifies people) clear |
- Sources in scope
- 0 of 5
- minutes or pages in scope
- 0
- Restricted, kept out
- 2 sources
- To verify
- 0
The answer
Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.
0 of 5 sources are in the capture, 0 minutes or pages.
Two sources are restricted and cannot be brought into scope here: the production-system recording shows customer orders and the CCTV identifies people [S1][S2]. If the booking steps matter they can be re-recorded on a training system.
Two classifications are uncertain (the spoken walkthrough and the scanned job cards) and a person must verify them first. 0 included source(s) still need that check.
Relies on: S1 · Capture source inventoryS2 · Recording policy v2
Review and approval
The continuous improvement lead, with the supervisors captured decides. Approving starts the capture from the sources in scope. It does not record anything outside them and does not publish any procedure.
Not ready to approve. Choose at least one source to read first.
In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.
What it produces
Consent record
- Each source in scope records who consented and when.
Limits of this example
- Capture is only the start: a draft still needs review and approval.
- Consent in the product is recorded per participant; here it is represented by the approval.
- This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.
More in SOP Intelligence
- Create a procedure from the sourceWriting a clear, complete procedure from scratch is slow, and the written version often differs from what people actually do.
- Review and approve, as peopleA procedure that nobody accountable has approved is a liability, however well it reads.
- Publish a versioned, official releasePeople work from whichever copy they happen to find, and nobody can say which version was in force on a given day.
- Put the procedure where the work happensA procedure in a folder nobody opens does not change how work is done.
- Work in the language people think inA procedure that is only in one language is not read by everyone who needs it, and a careless translation can change its meaning.
- Ask questions of the approved proceduresPeople ask colleagues instead of reading, because finding the answer in a procedure is slow, and the colleague may be wrong.
The SOP Intelligence story · This capability in the full register