I am new member in the cove. I want to know the difference between a FORM and a RECORD.

Welcome to The Cove! :big wave:

In my view, a form is a document used to record something. A record is the completed form.

A form might not need a strict approach to document copntrol, but the completed record should be protected against loss or tampering to the extent the data on it protects the oorganization from some kind of risk.

For example, a form might be used to record the safety training an employee receives. Once the form is filled out, it becomes a record. Keeping the record safe helps make sure there is evidence the employee was taught how to work safely.

Sabbara I welcome you to the post.
There are alot where you can share with the memebers.
keep using elsmar.
Also, since your are a new user. please select the proper forum for discssion.

Welcome from me as well
A form is a work instruction!
Each field has a question before it which tells you what to do
E.g name= Please write your name

A completed form as Jennifer Kirley said once the form is completed it is a RECORD

I am new member in the cove. I want to know the difference between a FORM and a RECORD.

Hi Sabbara,

Welcome to Cove.

Jennifer did a great job explaining the difference between form and record. I wanted to give another example. You can consider your bank check book as forms. You keep your check book in your purse. Once you write a check...lets say to electric company, that particular check will become your record. You want to keep it for certain period of time to prove that your account is up to date.

1st of all: welcome

In my opinion: a form is something you need to fill out whether it is a hard copy or a digital screen. Once that is done it becomes a record. Records are registrations that you want to keep for a certain lenght of time e.g. a form, personell file, diploma's, certificates, data etc.. (in any appearance: digital, hard copy)

Greetz, Wouter

I am new member in the cove. I want to know the difference between a FORM and a RECORD.

Hello Sabbara,

A simple thing to remember the difference:

A form and/or document says: "DO"
A record says: "DONE"
Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Hello Sabbara,

A simple thing to remember the difference:

A form and/or document says: "DO"
A records says: "DONE"
Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Goodness there Jan let's not make it too simple, we really need to stay on the Rube Goldberg track.:lol:

Goodness there Jan let's not make it too simple, we really need to stay on the Rube Goldberg track.:lol:

HHH :tg:, you're quite right, but then again we're not all native english.:)

Goodness there Jan let's not make it too simple, we really need to stay on the Rube Goldberg track.:lol:

That's good one! :D

Some certified/registered organizations have never heard from Rube Goldberg, and practice/implement his ideas all the time....:frust::frust:

Stijloor.

A form and/or document says: "DO"
A record says: "DONE"


Another simple explanation:

A FORM is a DOCUMENT - it is ALIVE and is valid till it is REVISED.

A RECORD is HISTORY - it cannot be revised.

Nowadays, a record is considered a 'special' kind of document because it cannot be revised.

A form is a preplaned format with relavant headings to capture vital information. There are just so many examples you can find in all kind of establishments, for example bank load appication form, visa application, employment applicaton, etc.

A record is an unfilled form fill-up with required information. For example, you fill up a cash withdrawal form at a bank. Once a form is completed with all the requested infomation, it becomes a record.

Just visit the Cove Documentation systems, procedures, forms and templates thread, you find tons of examples of forms, templates and records. Also there is a thread on Records & Data.

Eric

Hello Sabbara,

A simple thing to remember the difference:

A form and/or document says: "DO"
A record says: "DONE"
Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Great explanation - will help people to keep the difference in mind!!!

Hello Sabbara,

A simple thing to remember the difference:

A form and/or document says: "DO"
A record says: "DONE"
Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Well said.Very precise and to the point! :applause:

/Umang

A form is a document; when its used to document an event, it becomes a record.

I am new member in the cove. I want to know the difference between a FORM and a RECORD.

Welcome Sabbara...and yes, yet another contribution to your enlightenment.

Here's a picture, and possibly a thousand words...

Good Luck,
Patricia

Another simple explanation:


A RECORD is HISTORY - it cannot be revised.

Nowadays, a record is considered a 'special' kind of document because it cannot be revised.


You're not taking the correct view here because records and history get revised all the time. You need to check out history books, political speeches and people themselves.

You're not taking the correct view here because records and history get revised all the time. You need to check out history books, political speeches and people themselves.

You're joking, right Randy?

You're joking, right Randy?

Randy is correct.

There are two types of records:

1) Controlled Records (those subject to review and revision, and usually have a Revision Level on them)
Examples:
Purchase Orders
Organizational Chart
Business Plan
Communication Plan
Training Plan
Business Operating System Model
Engineering Drawings
Engineering Standards
Material Specifications
Bill of Materials
Policy Statement

2) Uncontrolled Records (those that are not subject to revision, and don't have a revision level):
Examples: Design Review Records
Production Part Approval
Inspection & Test Results
Audit Records
Time Cards
Non-conformance Records
Management Review Records
Calibration Records
Training Records

Sorry Randy...I'm not trying to answer for you...just supporting your perspective.

Patricia

You're joking, right Randy?After confusing intended output of a process with byproducts, the concept of revision controlled records is not that far fetched...:mg:.

After confusing intended output of a process with byproducts, the concept of revision controlled records is not that far fetched...:mg:.

:confused:OK, I'm confused, :confused:
Your message is a bit cryptic...Are you suggesting that Records aren't "revised"...or that the Revision of records is just a concept???

Patricia

:confused:OK, I'm confused, :confused:
Your message is a bit cryptic...Are you suggesting that Records aren't "revised"...or that the Revision of records is just a concept???

Patricia

Allow me to chime in here. It depends on the definition of document and record. What some folks call "records", are actually documents (instructive) and subject to review and possible revision. I view records as evidence of completion, are filed and not revised anymore.

Stijloor.

hai

it is very clear,Form can be controlled with rev no and can be changed.

But the record is a filled form ,which can't be corrected or revised, if so it is offence.

Regards

R.L.Satthish Kumar
:bonk::agree1:

Allow me to chime in here. It depends on the definition of document and record. What some folks call "records", are actually documents (instructive) and subject to review and possible revision. I view records as evidence of completion, are filed and not revised anymore.

Stijloor.

Your right...it's a matter of definition. I've never seen the term "instructive" as a distinguishing or required attribute/characteristic of a document...(but that's germane to this discussion...).

Call them what you will, but assuming the following, fairly typical System Documentation Hierarchy, where do the "Controlled Records" which I identified above, fit??
Level 1 - System Manual
Level 2 - Procedures
Level 3 - Work Instructions
Level 4 - Forms
Level 5 - Records (controlled & uncontrolled) and References (controlled and uncontrolled)

...or explain/show where they fit in your system documentation hierarchy.
Patricia Ravanello

Your right...it's a matter of definition. I've never seen the term "instructive" as a distinguishing or required attribute/characteristic of a document...(but that's germane to this discussion...).

Call them what you will, but assuming the following, fairly typical System Documentation Hierarchy, where do the "Controlled Records" which I identified above, fit??
Level 1 - System Manual
Level 2 - Procedures
Level 3 - Work Instructions
Level 4 - Forms
Level 5 - Records (controlled & uncontrolled) and References (controlled and uncontrolled)

...or explain/show where they fit in your system documentation hierarchy.
Patricia Ravanello

Patricia,

Using your 5-level hierarchy, my "definition" of records (for what it's worth) would fit in level 5. I do not get hung up on "levels of documents." I look at them in the context of the system and its processes they support and the need for objective evidence to be provided. My clients can call them John, Dick and Harry if they wish. Ultimately, it's the effectiveness and continual improvement that counts.

Stijloor.

Using your 5-level hierarchy, my "definition" of records (for what it's worth) would fit in level 5. I do not get hung up on "levels of documents." I look at them in the context of the system and its processes they support and the need for objective evidence to be provided. My clients can call them John, Dick and Harry if they wish. Ultimately, it's the effectiveness and continual improvement that counts.

Stijloor.

I agree:yes:

I am concerned about the perception that increase in the number of level/tiers of documents assures improvement and control. ISO does not specify if a company should have three, four, or ten tier of documents. Organizations have to determine the shortest distance between point A to point B.

Patricia,

Using your 5-level hierarchy, my "definition" of records (for what it's worth) would fit in level 5. I do not get hung up on "levels of documents." I look at them in the context of the system and its processes they support and the need for objective evidence to be provided. My clients can call them John, Dick and Harry if they wish. Ultimately, it's the effectiveness and continual improvement that counts.

Stijloor.

Hi Stijloor,
I'm not caught up in the level of documents...I just want to clarify what records are...and I can see by your response, that we are in agreement regarding the "Controlled Records" which I listed earlier.

I think it wise to concur on terminology. Isn't that the whole point of "Standardization", thereby enhancing effectiveness and efficiency?? Everyone should be speaking the same language when it comes to terminology. It's not that complex, but this discussion is likely to confuse more than to enlighten.

Back to Randy's point, which was, that Records can change...and per the "Controlled Records" identifed above (and which you have agreed, are in fact records), I submit to you, once again, that "Records can change".

Regards,
Patricia

PS. I would discourage my customers from referring to "records" as Tom or Harry Dick (and I'd be reluctant to ask to see them!!) :notangel:

Randy is correct.

There are two types of records:

[INDENT]1) Controlled Records (those subject to review and revision, and usually have a Revision Level on them)
[INDENT]Examples:
[INDENT]Purchase Orders
Organizational Chart
Business Plan
Communication Plan
Training Plan
Business Operating System Model
Engineering Drawings
Engineering Standards
Material Specifications
Bill of Materials
Policy Statement

Sorry Randy...I'm not trying to answer for you...just supporting your perspective.

Patricia

This is a new one to me, so I'm going to need some help. I don't see what or how these record anything. Can you explain for me Patricia, you basis for this thought?

you see, I've always gone along with the practice that a record was related to some (planned) event, hopefully some data that would give evidence of that event showed conformity with a requirement (like an inspection record of variables data to show a product chracteristic meets the design drawing, for example) Just as others have posted here. Now I'm really befuddled.

A business plan, org.chart etc have, in my world at least, always fallen under the heading of a document, and never a record..........

This is a new one to me, so I'm going to need some help. I don't see what or how these record anything. Can you explain for me Patricia, you basis for this thought?

you see, I've always gone along with the practice that a record was related to some (planned) event, hopefully some data that would give evidence of that event showed conformity with a requirement (like an inspection record of variables data to show a product chracteristic meets the design drawing, for example) Just as others have posted here. Now I'm really befuddled.

A business plan, org.chart etc have, in my world at least, always fallen under the heading of a document, and never a record..........

Hi Andy,
I hope the attached page sheds some light on my thinking. If it doesn't answer your questions, hit me with them again...

The reason why agreement on this is important is because employees have to know clearly what's what when they implement their SOP on the Control of Documents and Records. They need to know "what is" and "how to" manage both a Controlled and Uncontrolled Document, regardless of whether it's an SOP, WI, Form, Record, Standard, Specification, or Report, and regardless of what you call it...document or record.

It doesn't matter how many documentation levels you have.Your SOP should distinguish the difference and the appropriate management process of the various documents, both controlled and uncontrolled (ownership, storage, retention period, review, approval, etc.)

Patricia Ravanello

I agree:yes:

I am concerned about the perception that increase in the number of level/tiers of documents assures improvement and control. ISO does not specify if a company should have three, four, or ten tier of documents. Organizations have to determine the shortest distance between point A to point B.

Hi Michellemmm,
The number of documentation tiers/levels is not in contention. I concur that that decision is left to the discretion of the organization.

Please see attachment in my last post for further clarification.

My point was, and is, as Randy said, "Records can Change".

Patricia Ravanello

My point was, and is, as Randy said, "Records can Change".Change of results or data in records should be a very rare exception. Definitely NOT the rule. Records are supposed to capture the factual data of an activity. Thus, they should not change, unless it became apparent, at a later time, that the results were mis-recorded.

If you look at this document (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553645/Documentation.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553645), part of the ISO 9000 support package, you will read:
e) Records:
- Examples of records specifically required by ISO 9001:2000 are presented in Annex B.
- Organizations are free to develop other records that may be needed to demonstrate conformity of their processes, products and quality management system.
- Requirements for the control of records are different from those for other documents, and all records have to be controlled according to those of clause 4.2.4 of ISO 9001:2000.
If you then look at ISO 9001, 4.2.4, you read:
4.2.4 Control of records
Records shall be established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity to requirements and of the effective operation of the quality management system. Records shall remain legible, readily identifiable and retrievable. A documented procedure shall be established to define the controls needed for the identification, storage, protection, retrieval, retention time and disposition of records.
I don't read anywhere in the Standard the need for the revision of records. Simply because it is NOT supposed to happen.

Sidney,
For the purposes of this discussion, please refer to my attachment above.
I think you would agree, that in order to know how to manage documents, you have to know what kind they are.

1) Do you agree that those "items" listed under Tier/Level 5 are Records?

2) If they're not Records, what are they? and Where do they belong in the documentation hierarchy. Please demonstrate on your own model if necessary.

I still contend that there are 2 kinds of Records... those Records that are "Controlled" are treated like Procedures, Work Instructions and Forms, and for them, it is necessary:
a) to approve documents for adequacy prior to issue
b) to review and update as necessary and re-approve documents
c) to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified
d) to ensure that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use
e) to ensure that documents remain legible and readily identifiable
f) to ensure that documents of external origin are identified and their distribution controlled
g) to prevent the unintended use of obsolete documents, and to apply suitable identification to them if they are retained for any purpose.

And yes, these RECORDS can change.

Records that are "Uncontrolled" are treated like 4.2.4 (...identify, storage, protection, retention period....etc.)

Thanks for providing the Reference sources. I guess you can call them what you want...employees just need to know how to handle and manage them.

Patricia

What is the eact defintion of a Record & a Form? :nopity:

What is the eact defintion of a Record & a Form? :nopity:

See Stijloor's post #7 for simple explanation.

Hi Michellemmm,
The number of documentation tiers/levels is not in contention. I concur that that decision is left to the discretion of the organization.

Please see attachment in my last post for further clarification.

My point was, and is, as Randy said, "Records can Change".

Patricia Ravanello

Hi Patricia,

Thank you for your response.

Your classification records may be very beneficial for large organizations...I just cannot see any benefit of such system for small and medium organizations. >80% of organizations in US are classified as small.

Regarding your statement; Record can change, Sidney has covered this issue in terms of ISO. Personally during the last 28 years, I have not experienced changing records and if I see it, I consider it as red flag. I have worked in Medical manufacturing where traceability and record keeping were crucial.

I encourage everyone to perform a 5S on their archives. According to one study I saw recently (I can't recall where), each record cost around $40 per year to maintain. Many individuals keep records and rationalize their actions through "just in case" reasoning. I call it "record hoarding". Some have no idea why they are keeping certain records...Others keep ancient documents to prove past accomplishment and use them as trophies.

More emphasis should be placed on future of QMS. Simple systems are more flexible and manageable for me.

Best Regards,
Michelle

Hi Patricia,

Thank you for your response.

Your classification records may be very beneficial for large organizations...I just cannot see any benefit of such system for small and medium organizations. >80% of organizations in US are classified as small.

Michelle...the attached Model is as applicable to an organization of 50 as to 500...as a matter of fact, it's from a company of 35 employees...numbers and tiers are irrelevant. The ISO Standard defines the types of documents required, I didn't. The number of classifications is irrelevant. What's important is that employees understand the differences.

Regarding your statement; Record can change, Sidney has covered this issue in terms of ISO. Personally during the last 28 years, I have not experienced changing records and if I see it, I consider it as red flag. I have worked in Medical manufacturing where traceability and record keeping were crucial.

Well, here's another example: A Business Plan/an Engineering Drawing, an Org chart are all CONTROLLED RECORDs, by default (since they're not System Manual, SOPs, WIs, or Forms). They provide evidence that a mandatory process has occurred and demonstrate compliance to a requirement. They might not change in a year, or they could change 10 times...it's still a controlled record, and it should be recognized and handled as such. By the way....not all records are recorded on FORMS (in response to someone else's distinction between records and forms).

I encourage everyone to perform a 5S on their archives. According to one study I saw recently (I can't recall where), each record cost around $40 per year to maintain. Many individuals keep records and rationalize their actions through "just in case" reasoning. I call it "record hoarding". Some have no idea why they are keeping certain records...Others keep ancient documents to prove past accomplishment and use them as trophies.

I agree.

More emphasis should be placed on future of QMS. Simple systems are more flexible and manageable for me.

Best Regards,
Michelle

Michelle, please see Red Text above for responses to specific comments.

Patricia

<B>Well, here's another example: A Business Plan/an Engineering Drawing, an Org chart are all CONTROLLED RECORDs, by default (since they're not System Manual, SOPs, WIs, or Forms). They provide evidence that a mandatory process has occurred and demonstrate compliance to a requirement. They might not change in a year, or they could change 10 times...it's still a controlled record, and it should be recognized and handled as such. By the way....not all records are recorded on FORMS (in response to someone else's distinction between records and forms).
</B>
Patricia

Patricia,

The documents you cited, are rev sensitive and become obsolete if they are changed. But, you cannot change a rev n document and leave it at rev n. Hence xyz rev 2 is not the same as xyz rev 3. They are distinctly different.

In the case of org chart, date determines the revision level.

By the way, why would you need to archive an old copy of an org chart?

Hi Michelle,
Of course, I agree, the previous version of a Business Plan/Org Chart is obsolete if there is a change (Controlled records are treated just like SOPs, WIs and Forms in that regard).

Whether or not they keep an old Org Chart, or SOP or Policy Statement, or for how long is up to the organization...or sometimes it is defined by their customer-specifications, as is the case with "Customer Purchase Orders" in the automotive world, or sometimes they are kept for historical reference (like Business Plans, so you can compare them from year-to-year).

Whether a document is controlled or uncontrolled, your procedure on the Control of Documents and Records should provide guidance of how they are handled (including storage, retention periods, etc).

Bottom line is...Employees need to understand what kind of document they're dealing with, and handle it according to their organization's Management Operating System.

Patricia

Well, here's another example: A Business Plan/an Engineering Drawing, an Org chart are all CONTROLLED RECORDs, by default (since they're not System Manual, SOPs, WIs, or Forms). They provide evidence that a mandatory process has occurred and demonstrate compliance to a requirement. They might not change in a year, or they could change 10 times...it's still a controlled record, and it should be recognized and handled as such. By the way....not all records are recorded on FORMS (in response to someone else's distinction between records and forms).

I will try to answer the question you have been repeating consistently. The five levels that you have listed are not exhaustive. There will be two more catagories at least:


other documents
documents of external origin


The controlled records that you have listed shall fall in the other documents catagory.

Again your contention that anything that is not Manual / SOP / WI / Form is a not a document is not supported anywhere. :nope:

Let's agree for a moment that an engineering drawing is a record because it provides evidence that a mandatory process has occurred and demonstrates compliance to a requirement. Whats wrong with a typical WI10 rev02 then? This also should be a record. It shows that the mandatory control of documents procedure has been followed and is the proof of it. Why do you call it a document then? ISO 9001 doesn't.:confused:

Maybe you could have a sit back and a rethink.

And yes, I don't think Randy agrees to what you said (thats being presumptious). I think I was acting a trainer, to which he was replying like a typical weatherbeaten auditor who has been there, seen it.;)

I will try to answer the question you have been repeating consistently. The five levels that you have listed are not exhaustive. There will be two more catagories at least:


other documents
documents of external origin


The controlled records that you have listed shall fall in the other documents catagory.

Again your contention that anything that is not Manual / SOP / WI / Form is a not a document is not supported anywhere. :nope:

Let's agree for a moment that an engineering drawing is a record because it provides evidence that a mandatory process has occurred and demonstrates compliance to a requirement. Whats wrong with a typical WI10 rev02 then? This also should be a record. It shows that the mandatory control of documents procedure has been followed and is the proof of it. Why do you call it a document then? ISO 9001 doesn't.:confused:

Maybe you could have a sit back and a rethink.

And yes, I don't think Randy agrees to what you said (thats being presumptious). I think I was acting a trainer, to which he was replying like a typical weatherbeaten auditor who has been there, seen it.;)

Dear Potdar,
What an interesting twist...now there are more categories of documents...that I missed!!
and no, I didn't overlook "Documents of External Origin", I just called them all
"Records" instead of "Documents"...see the attachment. Maybe this could be resolved if I changed my Tier 5 to Records, References and Documents. Again, I say, I don't care if you call them Records or Documents...it's how you manage them that's important.

So why don't you map out your Document/Record "whatever" hierarchy, and show me what you're talking about.

Frankly, I've about exhausted my time, and we're not getting anywhere.

Thanks for trying,
Patricia

P.S. -As for Randy, he probably should speak for himself.

So why don't you map out your Document/Record "whatever" hierarchy, and show me what you're talking about.

Simple.

Documents - Minimum two defined types. Manual + Procedure(s).
Records


P.S. -As for Randy, he probably should speak for himself.

Fully agreed.

Simple.

Documents - Minimum two defined types. Manual + Procedure(s).
Records




Fully agreed.

Hi Potdar,

Earlier, you stated that my 5 categories were not exhaustive, and that "there are two more categories, at least"...and then, you offer a "2-Tier Model"...I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

I've added the word "Document" to my Tier 5 Classification on the attached Model. It works for my customers, and it works for me....and yes, that's my final answer.

I fear that further rhetoric on this subject will only serve to confuse the neophytes among us. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me.

Patricia

Randy is correct.

There are two types of records:

1) Controlled Records (those subject to review and revision, and usually have a Revision Level on them)Examples: Purchase Orders

Organizational Chart

Business Plan

Communication Plan

Training Plan

Business Operating System Model

Engineering Drawings

Engineering Standards

Material Specifications

Bill of Materials

Policy Statement2) Uncontrolled Records (those that are not subject to revision, and don't have a revision level):Examples:Design Review Records

Production Part Approval

Inspection & Test Results

Audit Records

Time Cards

Non-conformance Records

Management Review Records

Calibration Records

Training Records
Sorry Randy...I'm not trying to answer for you...just supporting your perspective.

Patricia

I'm late to the party here, because I've been very busy lately and haven't had time to get involved.

A "record" (as a noun) is a written (or otherwise recorded) account of events or facts, which is preserved for as long as it might be useful (or required). Engineering drawings, purchase orders or other contracts, BOMs, etc. are not records, at least upon initial use. A PO or drawing might become a record once it's been used for its initial purpose, and in that sense should never change, unless the change is intended to correct errors in the original.

A form is a device for the controlled creation of records, and may or may not be controlled in the document system.

Your right...it's a matter of definition. I've never seen the term "instructive" as a distinguishing or required attribute/characteristic of a document...(but that's germane to this discussion...).


Call them what you will, but assuming the following, fairly typical System Documentation Hierarchy, where do the "Controlled Records" which I identified above, fit??Level 1 - System Manual

Level 2 - Procedures

Level 3 - Work Instructions

Level 4 - Forms

Level 5 - Records (controlled & uncontrolled) and References (controlled and uncontrolled)
...or explain/show where they fit in your system documentation hierarchy.
Patricia Ravanello

Perhaps the mistake here is a category error. In other words, we shouldn't have to assume that a typical hierarchical system is (a) all inclusive, or (b) a good idea. I've personally never seen the purpose behind tiered "systems," and this thread provides ample reason to avoid them. An engineering drawing, for example, doesn't fit in any of those five categories, and trying to shoehorn it into "Records" doesn't help anything. It seems like what you're proposing is that we must use those five categories or tiers (or something like them), so anything that doesn't naturally fit into one of them will be forced in. Why not just discourage the use of exclusive categories altogether, and encourage rational decisions?

Randy speak for himself? Novel idea.:lol:

My being weather beaten doesn't come from auditing (that's when I rest and relax). My being weather beaten comes from standing on my feet for well over 1,000 hours every year teaching this kind of stuff to hundreds of people.


Guys, you have taken something very simple and make it so complicated and so convoluted that black has become white and right is now left.

Good job:applause:

Guys, you have taken something very simple and make it so complicated and so convoluted that black has become white and right is now left. :applause:
what does it mean? :cool:

It means "Who's on first?".

That seems to be where we're at now with forms and records.

Here are the definitions straight fron the ISO.

ISO 9000:2005, 3.7.6 record
document (3.7.2) stating results achieved or providing evidence of activities performed
NOTE 1 Records can be used, for example, to document traceability (3.5.4) and to provide evidence of verification (3.8.4), preventive action (3.6.4) and corrective action (3.6.5).
NOTE 2 Generally records need not be under revision control.

ISO 14001:2004, 3.20, record
document (3.4) stating results achieved or providing evidence of activities performed

ISO 17021 3.2 form
document used to record data required by the quality management system
NOTE A form becomes a record when data are entered.

Randy speak for himself? Novel idea.:lol:

My being weather beaten doesn't come from auditing (that's when I rest and relax). My being weather beaten comes from standing on my feet for well over 1,000 hours every year teaching this kind of stuff to hundreds of people.


Guys, you have taken something very simple and make it so complicated and so convoluted that black has become white and right is now left.

Good job:applause:

Right on Randy!

In Dutch this is called: "Van een scheet een donderslag maken."
Translation: "Making an explosion out of a fart."

I hope I did not offend...:D

Stijloor.

Right on Randy!

In Dutch this is called: "Van een scheet een donderslag maken."
Translation: "Making an explosion out of a fart."

I hope I did not offend...:D

Stijloor.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

I love literal translation!!!!

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Jesus Christ!! :truce:

Jesus Christ!! :truce:

This is entirely unnecessary.

Guys, you have taken something very simple and make it so complicated and so convoluted that black has become white and right is now left.It all got started from your inference that records are "revisable". Then Patricia decided to run with that flag, mistakenly associating obsolete documents (kept for knowledge preservation purposes) as records.

Since you teach this stuff, I hope you don't teach the concept of "revisable" records.

hello.. am cha , new member of this forum.. thanks for the idea, reading from the discussions...
my question is, how to properly put reference codes on forms and record. in my experience, when it is a form it is labelled as; FM-PU-01, this is a sample reference code of Purchase Order form. Then, since it is being considered as a quality record when filled up, on the lower portion of the form, it is identified as QR-PU-01. quite confusing, right?
can anybody suggest a format on how to control or put reference codes on forms or records? Im currently making the QMS documentation of our company and i plan to include in the process manuals, the list of records or list of forms. however, im confused on how to do it properly.
please i need your advise.

thanks,
charlene

hello.. am cha , new member of this forum.. thanks for the idea, reading from the discussions...
my question is, how to properly put reference codes on forms and record. in my experience, when it is a form it is labelled as; FM-PU-01, this is a sample reference code of Purchase Order form. Then, since it is being considered as a quality record when filled up, on the lower portion of the form, it is identified as QR-PU-01. quite confusing, right?
can anybody suggest a format on how to control or put reference codes on forms or records? Im currently making the QMS documentation of our company and i plan to include in the process manuals, the list of records or list of forms. however, im confused on how to do it properly.
please i need your advise.

thanks,
charlene

Welcome to the Cove,

I want to ask you a question. If you use Purchase Order No:1234 now (dated 30th Jun 09) to place an order and receive the goods tomorrow (1 July 09), can you trace the purchase made from the PO Number and date or the receiving of goods - also from the PO number and date of receiving?

If the answer is yes, why do you need all the so-called codes?

Form is one kind of record but record not necesary to be a form,it can be a book, softcopy etc

Form is one kind of record but record not necesary to be a form,it can be a book, softcopy etc

What does that mean?

Form is one kind of record but record not necesary to be a form,it can be a book, softcopy etc

Form = allows a user to enter data
Record = Filled-up form