I would like to know the difference between revision number and version number.

The english meaning of revision and version are different.

From the quality perspective I feel that both are synonymous.

I would like to have inputs from other readers

Please let me have your thoughts on this

regards

Venkat,

I use only revision in my doc system, but I think it goes like this:

Let's say you write a procedure for document control for the first time ever and call it DC-1 Ver. 0 Rev. 0 and send it around for approval. Someone asks you to change a few things before they will approve it. You make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 1 Rev. 0 and send it around again for approvals. Someone again asks for changes before they will approve it. You make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 2 Rev. 0 and send it around again for approvals. This time they approve it. A month later, someone asks for a revision to be made, so you make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 3 Rev. 1.

Anyone else?

I agree with Mike S - the definitions are probably accurate. I typically don't worry about the differences though. Most of the time I see them used interchangeably.

I use the term "Revision" when I have made a change to a document.

I use the term "Edition" when releasing a complete re-wrtite of a document.

For example...when I release my new Quality Manual for the 9K2K upgrade, it will be "Edition 2, Revision 0".

Just the way I do it.

CarolX

As a participant in Mike S.'s example, I would be confused if the original release of a document is issued with a Version 3 Revision 0. I would probably want to see Versions 1 & 2. Are Versions only controlling the changes of drafts being reviewed by the Process Owners?

Doug

I use the term "Revision" when I have made a change to a document.

I use the term "Edition" when releasing a complete re-wrtite of a document.

For example...when I release my new Quality Manual for the 9K2K upgrade, it will be "Edition 2, Revision 0".

Just the way I do it.

CarolXThere is an SAE Standard
Revision of Engineering Drawings and Associated Documents Y14.35M-1997
available from the Society of Automotive Engineers, which discusses the issue of changes to documents and how to number them. The treatment of the terms version versus revision is pretty much ignored.

When a document (part drawing, text, Procedure, etc.) is revised to a point where it is completely different from the original and "Configuration Management" (search this term in the Cove for my other discussions on CM) determines the document deserves a new name or number rather than an additional "revision" designation, most organizations do not bother to keep any reference to the original in the naming or numbering.

There is discussion on this process in the Standard.

An interesting point is that the Standard suggests Revisions be given an alphabet letter rather than a number (A, B, . . . AA, AB, . . . XX) The Standard is quite clear an organization may adapt the Standard to its own purposes!

As a participant in Mike S.'s example, I would be confused if the original release of a document is issued with a Version 3 Revision 0. I would probably want to see Versions 1 & 2. Are Versions only controlling the changes of drafts being reviewed by the Process Owners?

Doug

This is what I have seen in the past. I do not particularly like this method, so I use revision numbers or letters only, not versions as well. If I give someone a Rev. A to approve for the first time ever, and they want a change, I destroy the old Rev. A and give them a new Rev. A with the changes they wanted for approval. But I can see where in some complex or large organizations that the Version/Revision system might be required, but it should be clearly stated what each means. JMO.

A version is a draft which can change based on the audience prior to release.
A revision is a change after release that must be communicated to one audience.

We use a rev level for all approved documents. The rev level is not effective until formal approval has been given. This allows users to review and modify the contents without having to change the level during document development.

Also, my last auditor suggested that we use something similar to the following:

Rev 0 (this is for initial release)
Rev 0a (this indicates a minor change)
Rev 0b (this indicates a second minor change)
Rev 0c (this indicates a third minor change)
Rev 0d (this indicates a fourth minor change and further changes would require a Rev change)

Minor changes are defined as changes that do not have an effect on the reqponsibilities, duties or authorities contained within the document. This method allows for the changes to be made without having to train on each little addition, deletion and/or correction.

Venkat:

I think you can see that the confusion you may have felt is rooted not in your English (which seems fine to me) but by the various interpretations attached to the question of version/revision levels. The fact that many people have a (different) system to control documents means the situation is widespread. Fortunately, as long as a workable system is adhered to within a given organization, there is no problem.

I wish I could remember who gave us the idea for our system. I like it for several reasons, but mostly because its simple. Say I have document A ready to go. When its time to give the document a revision number I look at the calender. So, today's revision/issue/version number is 102303 (for October 23, 2003).

That way, in use I can see how old the document is. Even though the document is controlled, and our system works well, finding a document with, say, 041392 as the revision number would likely make me want to double check on the master list to make sure it is the last revision.

Hope this helps.

Craig

Question:

If I have two forms that contain the same fields, and the operators only complete the fields on one of the forms can I delete the unnecessary fields from the other form without changing the rev level? Our procedure says that I can make minor changes without changing the rev level.

Thanks for the input.

Mshell

Question:

If I have two forms that contain the same fields, and the operators only complete the fields on one of the forms can I delete the unnecessary fields from the other form without changing the rev level? Our procedure says that I can make minor changes without changing the rev level.

Thanks for the input.

Mshell

I personally would change the rev level, but would add a statement that "previous versions/revisions may continue to be used". This will allow the users to deplete the previous version, before implementing the new revision (saves money and waste). :bigwave:

I would like to know the difference between revision number and version number.

The english meaning of revision and version are different.

Please let me have your thoughts on this

regards

Taking a slightly different viewpoint - when we make a change to our software, we call it a "revision" if it is a minor change (ie bug fix or minor enhancement) and a "version" if it is more significant. We are currently at "v2.07b" - v2.07 was a new version, since it had several additional features, and v2.07a and v2.07b have included a couple of fixes.

It's interesting, though, that one of the enhancements in v2.07 was to allow a user to copy a process definition and call it a "version"! This was done at the request of a user who wants to issue "versions" of a current process definition to nominated managers (1 each) who will then edit them and make their own suggestions for improvements. I assume that there will then be a vote to decide which of these versions will be approved as the next "revision" of the authorised process definition. Which seems to contradict the way we number our software releases!

If you weren't confused before, you should be now!

I would like to know the difference between revision number and version number.

The english meaning of revision and version are different.

From the quality perspective I feel that both are synonymous.

I would like to have inputs from other readers

Please let me have your thoughts on this

I use revision numbers only. The difference is that I start with 0.1 to infinity until the document is approved, at which point it goes to 1.0. Any changes from that point on move up one rev. level. Example 1.0 to 2.0.

By the way we don't make that many changes after approval.

Hope this helps some.

Jay

:thedeal:

This is what I have seen in the past. I do not particularly like this method, so I use revision numbers or letters only, not versions as well. If I give someone a Rev. A to approve for the first time ever, and they want a change, I destroy the old Rev. A and give them a new Rev. A with the changes they wanted for approval. But I can see where in some complex or large organizations that the Version/Revision system might be required, but it should be clearly stated what each means. JMO.

Same here. I've worked in organizations that need the type of control of rough draft versions you described in your earlier post. In the type of place I work now all that is not necessary. We are about 65 people total, our management team is 7 people. We don't do a lot of document revisions and when we do, I distribute the rough draft to only a handful of people. I clearly identify it as "Rough Draft" and the logo is black/white (because I do the "original if green" in the header). Once revisions have been approved, then I change the revision level - I just use the date, no letters or other numbers.

Po-tay-to

Po-tah-to


Machts Nichts

Po-tay-to

Po-tah-to


Machts Nichts
Why do you say that, Randy? Seems there is some agreement that version and revision can mean slightly different things, a bit more than pronunciation. I have one customer where it matters bunches.

Po-tay-to

Po-tah-to


Machts Nichts
Randy,
I couldn't agree more. Do what works best for you, unless your customer requires something different.
I recall one customer almost demanding that I change my revision levels from numeric to alpha, because that was the way he was accustomed to doing things.

JMHO, as always
CarolX

Do what works best for you or your company is always excellent advice, no argument there.

But still, there IS a difference, IMO, between revision and version as used in most QMS', which I think was the crux of the original question. I have never seen only version designations used (though it could be if you wanted), but I have seen only revision designations (seems to be most popular in my experience) and I have seen both used together and they mean something different as earlier posts describe. I have one customer, a major electronics company, who uses both, so we have to be cognizent of that. There is a big difference between document ABC123 Version 2 Revision 1 and ABC123 Version 2 Revision 2.