Douglas E. Purdy
17th December 2003, 09:49 AM
atetsade
Forum Contributor
http://www.qualitydigest.com/june02...doccontrol.html
I really like this article and I've read it from time to time to regain perspective.
atetsade,
I enjoyed the read, "Document Control Made Easy" by Craig Cochran! Thanks!
I do not know if it is appropriate to ask some questions about the article here or not, but I would like to discuss some items from the article. [I'm sure the Moderators will do with this as they see best.]
Under "Reviewing, Updating and Reapproving Documents," I was hit with the statement that "the standard requires an organization to review documents periodically to see if they're still valid. If they are, the organization reapproves them. If they are not, either a revision is made or the document is declared obsolete." Mr. Cochran goes on to suggest there are three ways to handle a document review. A recall on a strictly periodic basis; a review, update as necessary and then reapprove based on business triggers or real-world events that affect a document; and use of the internal audit process to review documents.
To begin with, the standard does not say 'periodically.' That may be implied or inferred, but not stated - right?
I worked in a DoD contractor where they routinely reviewed their Corporate Policies, Departmental Directives, and Sectional Instructions (I particpated in performing reviews), but I have not developed such a system of document control. (Parenthetically, that employment was long before the Process-Based Approach to a Quality Management System.) How do those who have written such a control deal with the reapproved documents? Do you indicate such a status on the document, or maintain evidence of a review in a seperate record system?
Mr. Cochran seems to indicate that all documents must go through this review and reapproval process, "If an organization intends to use its internal auditing process to satisfy this requirement, then extra care must be taken when planning and scheduling audits to ensure that all documents are sampled during an extended period." Is that so, or only those documents that I would designate that need to go through a review and reapproval process?
What approach have you utilized to meet this requirement?
Under "Making Documents Legible and Identifiable," Mr. Cochran states "Legibility means that documents can be read and understood. They should be written in a clear, decipherable manner, in the language spoken by document users." I looked for the word 'legible' in 9000:2000, and did not find it. Is this definition true? Is it stated somewhere in 9000 or 9001 and I missed it? I just do not believe that readability and understooding are criteria for legibility. Have you seen that Email that has gone around where spelling was hardly accurate, but the paragraph with understandable? As for multi-lingual (sp?) process participants, there is a paradigm in language acquisition that states that imitation precedes comprehension which precedes expression. This would indicate that I can comprehend much better than I can speak. Why should readability and undersatnding be a criterian for legibility?
I also found it interesting under "Control of External Documents" that Mr. Cochran makes the observation that "paper-based internal documents should also have their distribution controlled, but this isn't specifically required by ISO 9001:2000." I agree with the observation and that the likely hood of getting a nonconformace while ensuring "that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use" would be greater if I did not have controlled distribution of the internal documents.
Just some thoughts to ponder or discuss.
Doug
I was not getting any takers in the 9001 forum, so thought I would try here. Here are the questions:
To begin with, the standard does not say 'periodically.' That may be implied or inferred, but not stated - right?
How do those who have written such a control deal with the reapproved documents? Do you indicate such a status on the document, or maintain evidence of a review in a seperate record system?
What approach have you utilized to meet this requirement?
Under "Making Documents Legible and Identifiable," Mr. Cochran states "Legibility means that documents can be read and understood. They should be written in a clear, decipherable manner, in the language spoken by document users." I looked for the word 'legible' in 9000:2000, and did not find it. Is this definition true? Is it stated somewhere in 9000 or 9001 and I missed it? I just do not believe that readability and understooding are criteria for legibility. Have you seen that Email that has gone around where spelling was hardly accurate, but the paragraph with understandable? As for multi-lingual (sp?) process participants, there is a paradigm in language acquisition that states that imitation precedes comprehension which precedes expression. This would indicate that I can comprehend much better than I can speak. Why should readability and undersatnding be a criterian for legibility?
Still Pondering,
Doug
Forum Contributor
http://www.qualitydigest.com/june02...doccontrol.html
I really like this article and I've read it from time to time to regain perspective.
atetsade,
I enjoyed the read, "Document Control Made Easy" by Craig Cochran! Thanks!
I do not know if it is appropriate to ask some questions about the article here or not, but I would like to discuss some items from the article. [I'm sure the Moderators will do with this as they see best.]
Under "Reviewing, Updating and Reapproving Documents," I was hit with the statement that "the standard requires an organization to review documents periodically to see if they're still valid. If they are, the organization reapproves them. If they are not, either a revision is made or the document is declared obsolete." Mr. Cochran goes on to suggest there are three ways to handle a document review. A recall on a strictly periodic basis; a review, update as necessary and then reapprove based on business triggers or real-world events that affect a document; and use of the internal audit process to review documents.
To begin with, the standard does not say 'periodically.' That may be implied or inferred, but not stated - right?
I worked in a DoD contractor where they routinely reviewed their Corporate Policies, Departmental Directives, and Sectional Instructions (I particpated in performing reviews), but I have not developed such a system of document control. (Parenthetically, that employment was long before the Process-Based Approach to a Quality Management System.) How do those who have written such a control deal with the reapproved documents? Do you indicate such a status on the document, or maintain evidence of a review in a seperate record system?
Mr. Cochran seems to indicate that all documents must go through this review and reapproval process, "If an organization intends to use its internal auditing process to satisfy this requirement, then extra care must be taken when planning and scheduling audits to ensure that all documents are sampled during an extended period." Is that so, or only those documents that I would designate that need to go through a review and reapproval process?
What approach have you utilized to meet this requirement?
Under "Making Documents Legible and Identifiable," Mr. Cochran states "Legibility means that documents can be read and understood. They should be written in a clear, decipherable manner, in the language spoken by document users." I looked for the word 'legible' in 9000:2000, and did not find it. Is this definition true? Is it stated somewhere in 9000 or 9001 and I missed it? I just do not believe that readability and understooding are criteria for legibility. Have you seen that Email that has gone around where spelling was hardly accurate, but the paragraph with understandable? As for multi-lingual (sp?) process participants, there is a paradigm in language acquisition that states that imitation precedes comprehension which precedes expression. This would indicate that I can comprehend much better than I can speak. Why should readability and undersatnding be a criterian for legibility?
I also found it interesting under "Control of External Documents" that Mr. Cochran makes the observation that "paper-based internal documents should also have their distribution controlled, but this isn't specifically required by ISO 9001:2000." I agree with the observation and that the likely hood of getting a nonconformace while ensuring "that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use" would be greater if I did not have controlled distribution of the internal documents.
Just some thoughts to ponder or discuss.
Doug
I was not getting any takers in the 9001 forum, so thought I would try here. Here are the questions:
To begin with, the standard does not say 'periodically.' That may be implied or inferred, but not stated - right?
How do those who have written such a control deal with the reapproved documents? Do you indicate such a status on the document, or maintain evidence of a review in a seperate record system?
What approach have you utilized to meet this requirement?
Under "Making Documents Legible and Identifiable," Mr. Cochran states "Legibility means that documents can be read and understood. They should be written in a clear, decipherable manner, in the language spoken by document users." I looked for the word 'legible' in 9000:2000, and did not find it. Is this definition true? Is it stated somewhere in 9000 or 9001 and I missed it? I just do not believe that readability and understooding are criteria for legibility. Have you seen that Email that has gone around where spelling was hardly accurate, but the paragraph with understandable? As for multi-lingual (sp?) process participants, there is a paradigm in language acquisition that states that imitation precedes comprehension which precedes expression. This would indicate that I can comprehend much better than I can speak. Why should readability and undersatnding be a criterian for legibility?
Still Pondering,
Doug
