Prior to my employer becoming ISO-9000 certified most of our work was governed by unwritten rules and practices from wayback, hive mind, professional experience (which always differs among professionals), “common knowledge”, so-called common sense and special rules for special projects, special customers, organizational change, new boss or somebody’s new brainstorm, etc.
Eventually, after much kicking and screaming (some of that nearly literal) as a part of the ISO certification process we developed formal, written, revision-controlled, sign-offs-required Work Instructions, on which we are audited by an outside agency at least annually, and sometimes more frequently if required. The difference has been night and day.
It used to be that if we hired a new employee it would be a minimum of six months (in the office environment) before he could be considered “useful” and trusted to handle anything more than purely elementary busywork or “anyone can do it” mundane tasks. Now that our major processes are documented we simply turn him loose on the manual and have him read-and-acknowledge. (The manual is internally online, and contains Work Instructions to all departments, so when some of our output becomes another group’s input, or vice versa, the references are included in each department’s Work Instructions.) The Work Instructions also include form templates, sample reports of the type to be developed, scheduling requirements (since our projects are typically more than four years from contract signing to delivery, and then include warranties of various years after that). We have him read and sign off on the manual in a week or so, answer the inevitable questions that arise over the course of a few more weeks, and watch as the person confidently walks into the new job. And because our processes are standardized, we all know where to look for work product if he’s not around or if someone else has left the company.
Yeah, there are still holes, last-minute revisions and too many ad hoc changes that don’t get documented as they should or as fast as they should, but those things are also discovered at audit time and lead to a certain amount of embarrassment among managers when that occurs. So year by year we’re tightening our compliance, our need and intent to maintain revisions, to update templates, add instructions as products and requirements and the organization change, etc.
It’s a very good system, even as far from perfect as it is, and it is light years ahead of where we were. All it takes now is someone wanting to do the job correctly, as you obviously do, and we can point to a single source, available to all employees in the exact same form and level of revision, and tell him, “There are your instructions. Ask if you have any questions.” And managers never know not to blindly trust – no matter how diligent the employee seems to be – until competence has been fully demonstrated.
If you had questions and didn’t ask them, well, that’s on you, and that would be a type of failure that you need to address, because it’s a personal one. But if you were merely left to your own devices and it was assumed without management oversight or questions of their own that you knew what to do, then this is not a “failure” on your part – and I would never own it as such. Otherwise, for the organization, this is a perfect example of “teachable moment”. (Another result of our experience now is a “Return on Experience” database where we formally document exactly the kind of experience you and @Jeruba have described, in order that we not fall into the same traps tomorrow, next year or five years from now.)
I will leave it to you to guess who writes the Work Instructions for our group.