One thing I've learned via working with them is that the vast majority of them are not model builders. They're not ship specialists - they're plastic molding specialists. I can't say "move that chock five feet forward" because they don't know what a ship's chock is.
I want to point out, however, that this applies to most model companies. Look at the assembly sequence for the just-released PV-1 Ventura by Revell and you will see that they are STILL designing kits where you have to put fragile landing gear pieces in place before major structural components (nacelles, fuselage halves) are glued together and sanded.
Our help has evolved into a lot of pictograms and sketches, which really is what you want anyway when you're dealing with a visual and spatial product. But it can put those who don't have a large library of photos or ability to sketch electronically at a disadvantage.
The CAD is done, THEN they have a group or person that figures out how to break it down so that they can get good parts out of it; these two processes may actually overlap as they work on both due to revisions and corrections. Then, when they have the parts layout mostly finalized, they start working on the instructions, but of course there are revisions to the kit that need to happen, etc. It is not a sedate process at all; the test shot is built to check for issues, but they do not create the kit, send out copies for people to build and report on, and THEN do the instructions. That would cost a lot of money, to sit on that production run and store it for months at a time.
@kettenkopf: why, do you want to phone them up?
No, just get through some builds without wondering what the instruction writer had in mind when he wrote them.