Is it necessary to provide specific numbers to the various forms which are used?
Is it not sufficient to identify them with clear description (name)?

Dr.Madhavan,
In my opinion, only the name should be sufficient. All you need to have is an unique identification of the form for control purposes.

Any other comments??

Kannan

Names or titles are unique identification --- but how would you then identify changes to the documents -- I would think you need to also have them identified by date or a revision level to ensure the document is current.

You have to use what works for you. Many companies find that assigning a number to the form makes it clearer. We relate form numbers to elements, but that is only because it works for us; there is no need for the number to mean anything. I found that using a number eliminated any chance of confusion when a form was discussed or used.
Consider your environment and go from there. If a unique form name will serve your purpose, and you are confident that using a form name will remain workable for you as your system develop, do it.

Yes. We have provided issue / revision status to these forms. Moreover, a Master List shows the current status of all the forms.

I like the suggestion Tom made. Naming the forms against certain elements is something that I have started seeing more recently, and wish I would have done the same. It makes everything much more organized and meaningful. We currently give our forms identification that can be a combo of numbers and letters (ie. Quality Change form being - "Qualchg") This suits us, making it easy to find a form by it's id number.

All you have to do is identify them in some way. With smaller companies all the ID you need is the name of the form.

If you look at www.qs9000.com/pdf_files/Doc_Matrix.pdf (http://www.qs9000l.com/pdf_files/Doc_Matrix.pdf) you will see a document matrix for a small company. None of the procedures, forms, etc. have any identifier other than the disk file name. You could just use the name of the form as several clients have done. Companies turn to numbers and such as their size grows. If you have 5000 people you're gonna have a lot of different forms and procedures - a name simply will not do.

I recomment a letter prefix, number base and 'clarifier' (form, procedure, policy, whatever) suffix such as QA-1234-F (Quality Assurance form 1234) and where hte form is linked to the reference procedure. Let's say QA-1234-P has 3 associated forms - they will be QA-1234-F1, QA-1234-F2 and QA-1234-F3. I prefer the letter prefix so that you don't have to remember a number. If you see PUR you pretty well know its a document 'owned' by purchasing.

Keep it simple and keep it as self evident as possible. I prsonally recommend that a company NOT link procedures to sections of ISO9001 or any other standard. Do what's right for your company. As many companys are beginning to realize, as ISO9001 evolves their link to the old 20 elements means nothing. Nada.

My 3 cents...

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 02 May 2000).]

I agree what ever works...my personal favorite is link to the requirement .... typically the procedure that calls out its use......

Another reason to not link the forms to ISO is to promote the philosophy that what you're doing is for the company, not for ISO.

It drives me (a little) crazy when our employees constantly refer to Operating Procedures as the 'ISO Procedures'. ISO may have been the catalyst that got us off our collective butts and got SOPs updated, but first and foremost, they're here to benefit the company.

Hello everyone,
I have a question regarding forms. We have forms that are not uniquely identified but are a part of the related document (ie: SOP's, etc..).

I am struggling with the fact that the rev. date as depicted on the forms is not always changed when the document is uprev'ed. The only time this is done, according to the staff that have been performing the doc. work for several years, is when the form itself is changed. My quandry is that because these forms are a part of the primary document their rev should be changed(date of rev EX: 11/04) when the document is changed regardless of whether the form itself was or was not changed. If the form was an independant piece with a unique number and rev. This would not be needed. Can anyone provide me with the relevant regulation(s) that specifically apply to this..?
Thank You
Katherine McKay

If the form is part of the document and does not have its own unique identifier then I would say it should be revised with the document. (However, unlike some folks, I will argue, and have, that not all forms must be revision controlled -- at least from an ISO 9001 standpoint.) What does your doc. control porcedure say?

Can you envision harm resulting from the form not being revised? If so, do it!

If you do a search there are several threads on revision control of forms if you are interested. :bigwave:

We have forms that are not uniquely identified but are a part of the related document (ie: SOP's, etc..).

How do you define "uniquely identified"? After all, while the majority of the world has taken this to mean that the forms need to have number on them like Form-0234-HR-A, let's look at it from another angle....

Do the forms have titles?

Do any of the forms have identical titles?

If you answer Yes to the first question and No to the second question, then your forms are uniquely identified.

So, moving on to the next part...

I am struggling with the fact that the rev. date as depicted on the forms is not always changed when the document is uprev'ed. The only time this is done, according to the staff that have been performing the doc. work for several years, is when the form itself is changed. My quandry is that because these forms are a part of the primary document their rev should be changed(date of rev EX: 11/04) when the document is changed regardless of whether the form itself was or was not changed. If the form was an independant piece with a unique number and rev. This would not be needed. Can anyone provide me with the relevant regulation(s) that specifically apply to this..?

How are they are part of the primary document? Are they inserted right into the document? Or are the merely linked?

If they are inserted into the document, then yes, at this point I agree with you that their revision number should change as the document is revised (and vice versa).

If there are linked, and uniquely identified by their titles, then no, their revision number would not need to change as their associated document was modified.

:)

Is it necessary to provide specific numbers to the various forms which are used? Is it not sufficient to identify them with clear description (name)?
I think form numbers are a holdover from DOS days when you could only use 7 characters for a file name (I'm getting old, there are people here who have never seen the C:> prompt).

Now we have support for long file names, and keyword search.

Also, we were all told by the consulting community to structure our system around the 20 elements, so it made some sense to use numbers.

Now the same consultants are telling us that was a bad idea and we need to use processes not elements.

I favor simplicity, why not have a document called Training Attendance Form, Rev 2 and make the filename the same?

We use both names and numbers here and find it just adds to the confusion.

I think form numbers are a holdover from DOS days when you could only use 7 characters for a file name (I'm getting old, there are people here who have never seen the C:> prompt).

Now we have support for long file names, and keyword search.

Also, we were all told by the consulting community to structure our system around the 20 elements, so it made some sense to use numbers.

Now the same consultants are telling us that was a bad idea and we need to use processes not elements.

I favor simplicity, why not have a document called Training Attendance Form, Rev 2 and make the filename the same?

We use both names and numbers here and find it just adds to the confusion.The Cove reaches all over the world and folks who may have internet access to visit the Cove do not necessarily have computerized filing systems in their organizations. The main reason companies have not computerized their files is the dread of converting old legacy files to computer-friendly files.

The second reason is a combination of inertia and cost of implementation.

Thus said:
An organization can use whatever file naming scheme it selects - the main criterion is "consistency" so that everyone who needs to may find and retrieve a pertinent document or record.

The primary reason organizations used numbers for files was created long before the age of computers and file name sizes. The reason was to allow ease of maintaining the physical files in filing cabinets in numerical order, rather than reshuffling folders and filing drawers when new files had to be inserted in alphabetically maintained filing cabinets. Numbering schemes included prefixes and suffixes which identified main filing areas (often by department) and some chronological identification, since records do not get "revised." When the numbering scheme was well-designed and obediently followed, retrieving the proper document was a snap for the persons who were able to read and follow the scheme.

Strictly speaking, the numbering system for filing purposes often had no relation to the actual document title, only to the department, product line, or customer.

The impatience (intolerance?) folks raised in the computer age have with folks who were raised in the days of typewriters and carbon paper can often be tempered if the younger folks stop to think that organizations existed profitably, keeping documents and records in good order in the early 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, long before anyone dreamed of computers. Lots of "computerized organizations" are not profitable today. Ergo, computerization does not guarantee profitability.

Wes


Interesting thought process. This is why I like the Cove so very much, my ideas always get expanded.


Perhaps this needs to split to another thread, but we could start a discussion on paper based vs. computer based document management systems.

What would a poll show? I expect that there are very few paper based document systems out there today. But let’s get some data. As you say, the Cove reaches the world.

I agree when you say “that organizations existed profitably, keeping documents and records in good order in the early 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, long before anyone dreamed of computers”

However, the cost model and timeframe may be different. Remember the steno pool? Does anyone have a secretary to type anything for them today?

Can anyone be effective with a week long review and approval process where a document is walked around for signatures?


Perhaps because I am hunkered down in cost cutting automotive world, I have never seen a document control typist, even back 20 years ago now. I had to learn to type, because no one else was going to do it for me.

I can’t see how such systems have escaped the last decades worth of downsizing, right sizing, value analysis, re-engineering, 6 Sigma, Kaizen, cost cutting and so on.

Perhaps there are companies that still use true paper based systems – they must have a healthy profit margin. I’m going to guess Government or Defense Contractors.

In my career I have lived through speed up due to FAX, then e-mail. Remember when you used to be able to ask for a letter? You had weeks to reply. Then, we got FAX s, and you had a day. Now with e-mail you have to reply instantly (oh yeah, including weekends and vacations). Is it better – no, just faster!

The best logical question is :

How do you ensure the folks using the forms are using the right one?

That is what 4.2.3 is trying to accomplish. It makes no difference if the document in question is a form, work instruction, or the quality policy. How do you know it is the right version?

If the document associated with the form changes, does that make a difference in the form? Does it change what fields are being addressed, or what data is being collected? If by changing the base document, a referred document is changed, then it would probably need a change in revision level. If, changing the base document does not alter the referred document, then there is little value in changing the revision level. Except...


In QS, for example, the final rev was 3. The accompanying QSA was rev 2. This created a lot of confusion. If by having different rev levels, you are creating confusion, then it might be best to change both at the same time, even if the referring document has not changed.

The best logical question is :

How do you ensure the folks using the forms are using the right one?

That is what 4.2.3 is trying to accomplish. It makes no difference if the document in question is a form, work instruction, or the quality policy. How do you know it is the right version?

If the document associated with the form changes, does that make a difference in the form? Does it change what fields are being addressed, or what data is being collected? If by changing the base document, a referred document is changed, then it would probably need a change in revision level. If, changing the base document does not alter the referred document, then there is little value in changing the revision level. Except...


In QS, for example, the final rev was 3. The accompanying QSA was rev 2. This created a lot of confusion. If by having different rev levels, you are creating confusion, then it might be best to change both at the same time, even if the referring document has not changed.
Some of the questions db raises are main points in working out a Configuration Management scheme within an organization.

Id by the name everyone knows it as!!

Yes the forms are a part of the document as attachments