A schedule of events impossible to align correctly. A heading number that disappears without any reason? A cross reference that brings through additional, unwanted, text.

Does this sound familiar? Frustration with Microsoft Word seems to be par for the course for medical writers. We seem to have resigned to the prerequisite to troubleshoot our deliverables at some point before finalisation.

Why? Is there a solution to these frustrations that are so demanding of our time and distance us from what we are here to do, to write a quality document and maintain an excellent relationship with our team or client? Read on to find out.

Technical writers, including regulatory medical writers, rely heavily on MS Word for document creation, yet the tool often presents more challenges than solutions. Despite its ubiquity in professional settings, it’s clear that Word struggles to meet the specific needs of writers handling complex, data-rich documents. The assumption that Word is “good enough” often leads to frustration and inefficiencies. So, why do we remain so fixed to it?

Technical writers working on complex documents like software manuals, technical reports, or engineering documentation often find themselves battling Word’s quirks. Auto-formatting issues, inconsistent layouts, and limited support for code or equations make Word an imperfect tool for their needs. A simple image adjustment can throw off an entire layout, forcing writers to spend hours fixing formatting instead of focusing on content.

Collaboration is another significant pain point. While Word offers features like “Track Changes,” its collaborative tools fall short compared to cloud-based solutions. Multiple reviewers working on the same document often result in formatting chaos, making document management more cumbersome than necessary.

Medical writers face an even greater set of challenges. They deal with large volumes of regulatory documents, scientific data, and citations that need to be meticulously tracked and formatted. MS Word struggles with the sheer scale and complexity of these documents, especially when managing citations and references. Writers often have to rely on external tools like EndNote, which adds another layer of complexity and potential compatibility issues.

Word’s Track Changes feature can become so overloaded with comments and edits that it’s nearly impossible to navigate, increasing the risk of missed errors or overlooked suggestions.

Despite these issues, many organisations remain with Word. The reason? Familiarity and compatibility. It’s the default, and transitioning to other tools can be seen as too disruptive or expensive. Many industries, especially healthcare, are locked into workflows that revolve around MS Word, often due to regulatory or internal requirements.

The result is inertia—as everyone else is using Word, the hassle of adopting a better tool often feels too daunting. Tools like LaTeX or Markdown, which are better suited to technical writing, haven’t gained the same foothold because of this widespread dependency.

Another reason for the continued use of Word is the lack of tailored tools for technical and medical writing. MS Word is a generalist tool, but these fields require software designed to handle more complex documentation needs. While some specialised plug-ins exist, they are far from comprehensive, and rely on the Microsoft framework, leaving writers with a patchwork of solutions that still fail to fully address their needs.

While it’s unlikely that technical and medical writers will completely move away from MS Word in the near future, exploring alternatives could ease some of the frustration. Tools like LaTeX, Markdown, and cloud-based collaborative platforms offer more advanced solutions, but their adoption remains slow due to entrenched workflows. Until there’s a larger shift in how organisations approach documentation, writers will likely continue to battle with Word’s limitations.