From Elsmar Cove Quality Assurance and Business Standards Wiki
Added a blurb at the end for counterpoint. Readers may want to know of roadblocks they may encounter. To me it also makes the article a little more even-handed.
Rewrote the Implementation Section and moved the discussion here.
Critics have cited employee training in the use of a wiki as a deterrent in implementing a wiki QMS.
I can see where management might find training to be a problem. However, I've found it to be incredibly easy and straightforward. There is a lot of potential that can't be ignored simply because employees need to learn to type.
My main problem is two-pronged:
1) How does one get the revision status on the printable version of the form? This would allow coherence and integrity between hard copies (printed copies) and the online (active) pages.
2) How does one allow for the approval of revisions? I understand the idea of erasing the author/review/approval/revision process, but it is not so easy to get the rest of the company to do such a thing. It might be easier to make the revision of some pages possible only with the correct approval from a certain user.
On (1),
Many wikis have the capability to display the revision status on the form (i.e. Projectforum).
On (2),
We use RSS feeds to notify process owners of any change to their documents, and we also use issue tracking software to request changes in documents to these process owners.
