I'm sure most people here are familiar with Change Orders used to manage controlled documents. I've worked in a regulated environment for many years now and have gone through two ISO audits. In all this time I've never seen the need for change orders to have numbers associated with them. I understand that a lot of organizations use a numbering system for change orders but I've never seen any value in that approach. It just seems to result in more numbers to keep track of.

The subject came up recently in the organization where I currently work. Our change order forms are designed to allow users to list out as many as 15 documents on a single change order. Recently we had a situation where most of the documents on the form were ready for approval but some were not. My suggestion was to simply complete a new CO for the docs that were ready to sign and put the ones that still had unresolved issues aside to go on a separate CO form until the issues were resolved.

But when I suggested this I got some resistance from the document control department because the CO's had already been numbered and there was concern that if that situation were to re-occur (which in all likelihood it will considering the average number of docs listed on each CO form) we would begin to lose track of the CO numbers! This just goes to illustrate my assertion that numbering CO's is of little or no value. In order to avoid having perfectly good docs held up in the process by a few that still had issues one COULD adopt an approach whereby only one document would be listed per CO but that would result in the generation of MANY more CO's and CO numbers! Can ANYONE here please provide a RATIONAL reason why numbering change orders actually adds value to the document control process?? Thank you in advance for your input.

Jack

Can ANYONE here please provide a RATIONAL reason why numbering change orders actually adds value to the document control process?? Thank you in advance for your input.

Jack

Sorry, I can't. but let me restate, just to make sure I am following you - I've got a horrible sinus infection, and my mind is not working well today.

You are creating change orders, with numbers, to request changes to things like procedures and work instructions? And some of those change orders have many documents, some of those are ready to release as changed and some are not?

If this is correct, I really cannot see any really good reason to number them. It sounds like a task list, just work your way through the revs and be done with it? good luck!

In a previous life as doc control, I found that numbering the COs was helpful when one procedure (or spec or whatever) had more than one change in a short period of time. By using the tracking number of the CO, it seemed easier to keep the changes and revisions to the document separated. However, the CO process had been set up to have a tracking number on every CO in the first place, so everyone in the company was accustomed to using the tracking number.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I hope so. :)

It sounds to me an opportunity to simplify your process and maybe go electronicallly.

We use Outlook voting buttons to get documents approved (approvers in multiple locations).

hmm.. I was only wondering why your company has some many document changes.

(changing your process might have limitations if you have regulatory requirements).

I probably should have clarified things a bit. This company is a small start-up that's just in the process of establishing a quality system. The CO's I was referring to ALL pertain to new documents entering the system for the first time. I had advocated NOT numbering the CO's but the decision was not mine to make.

Jack

I probably should have clarified things a bit. This company is a small start-up that's just in the process of establishing a quality system. The CO's I was referring to ALL pertain to new documents entering the system for the first time. I had advocated NOT numbering the CO's but the decision was not mine to make.

JackLet me guess. The guy in charge USED to work for a much bigger organization and his recollection is that EVERYTHING should be numbered. When I was dealing with organizations back in 1965, we were just getting out of that mindset and now with the wonders of computer accessibility for everyone instead of only the guys in white lab coats working in climate-controlled sealed environments, and with wonderful new software, NOBODY needs to follow that dreary, time-consuming routine anymore.

A little background is in order, just so the powers that be don't look like complete idiots.
In the days before personal computers and superfast desktop printers, (BPC), most blank forms were pre-numbered as they were printed by the thousands. The forms were as common and ubiquitous as toilet paper, but woe betide the guy or gal who messed up a form or used one out of sequence, because little bean counters with green eyeshades and sleeve protectors demanded the blood of an unborn child to reconcile the missing numbered form within the system. Forms were numbered simply because it was the most efficient filing for the time since alphabetic systems continually required reshuffling paper from file cabinet to file cabinet to make room for a new influx of "Ba through Bu" or some other arbitrary subsection of the alphabet.

The numeric system was roughly chronological, but often, department managers would squirrel away a couple of extra forms on "spec" to avoid sending "Millie" down to central stores for each new form as the occasion arose (kind of like putting a blank check in your wallet and then forgetting about it as you write the next month's bills.)

Back then, the convoluted system seemed to make perfect sense, and it continued to make sense up until the Mickey Soft Emancipation Proclamation - "henceforth you shall be freed of an eight character limit for the designation of a file!"

A compromise suggestion for the OP:
The problem is most folks don't realize the Engineering Order [Request/Change/Notice/whatever] is not an end in and of itself. It is merely a step in the revision process of a document. There are organizations which have an entire hierarchy of change documents -first a request, then a preliminary order, then the change to the original document, then a round of approvals, then a publication of the final approved revision, then a notice which accompanies the final revision, explaining the allied and associated document and process changes that must take place for the new revision to be effective, etc, and so forth, ad nauseum.

The clever change manager will say, "Here's an idea, why don't we streamline the entire document issuance, revision process by combining engineering orders and notices and any other paperwork forms into one file and give everything the same master document name and revision number to which it applies? If there are Associated Documents (a term of art - see ASME Y14.35M - Revision of Engineering Drawings and Associated Documents) then let's make sure each document has a cross-index showing every other document it is associated with (so easy to let a computer do automatically!)"

The point to make is "hundreds and thousands of organizations have found more efficient ways to manage documents than were used 40 years ago. Why not take some time to look into those practices and cherry pick one that will work for our organization?"

To be prepared for that moment, start researching

Electronic Document Management
Configuration Management