Revising Forms referenced in the body of our procedures

D

Dingo

Forms revision

Hi. I need some help on an issue I am having with the way our procedures are structured.

We currently reference forms in the body of our procedures and include them as exhibits (our entire system is built this way). My logic tells me that when we revise a form we therefore have to revise the procedure. By including the form as an exhibit don't we make it a part of the procedure... therefore requiring the entire procedure to be revised...?

If we don"t do this then we have a procedure with a 2001 revision with 2002 revision dated exhibits.

We are not ISO compliant but the Quality Manager is considering moving in that direction. Before our system gets much bigger than it already is I would like to get this little issue squared away.

Dingo...!
 
R

Russ

Dingo,
You are better off just referencing the forms in the procedure. I have hyperlinked most of mine for ease of use. Unless you just reference them you get in the boat you are in now. Definitely a predicament to avoid. No sense making it harder to keep maintained!
 
D

Dingo

I agree with you. Unfortunately I am the 'Newby' and I don't seem to be able to explain my point to the Q Manager...

Dingo
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Dingo,

Welcome to the Cove!

Personally, I do not revision control most of my forms nor do I think ISO 9001 requires it IF certain conditions are met.

First, if the form is just a place to record data and does not act as a work instruction or procedure in itself.

Second, in my WI/procedure I say something like: "Record the following data (and then I list what data is to be recorded). The data may be recorded on Form ABC, a sample of which is attached for reference, or on a similar form". This means the format of the form is not revision controlled and as long as the required information is recorded, the format of the form can change without requiring revision control. I did this for most of my forms because, in the spirit of continual improvement, someone always wanted to make one line a little longer or shorter, or change some minor detail of the form but I didn't want the hassle of doing a formal revision. So long as the required data is recorded I don't care what the form looks like.

Some may disagree with my idea, but that is what I do for now. JMHO.
 
J

JodiB

We simply state the form name and number within the procedure where needed, with hyperlinks in place. The reader is always assured of seeing the current form regardless of the year or revision of the procedure. The procedure is PDF'd, the form is not.
 
M

M Greenaway

Dingo

I would say you are quite correct, and your manager should recognise the merits of the rationale stated above.

I also REALLY like the approach used by Mike S above, and given the freedom to do so would implement exactly such a system.
 
S

Sam

I guess my question would be; is a form a document?
Dictionary.com defines a form as,
"A document with blanks for the insertion of details or information: insurance forms." Based on this definition would a form need to be controlled. ISO9K2K requires us to control documents,4.2.3 and records 4.2.4. If forms are not controlled , what kind of inconsistancies could we expect or be required to accept on our records? Just my thoughts.
 
M

M Greenaway

Sam and Russ

We are perhaps not talking about no control of forms here, just not getting bogged down in controlling the format of the forms. A better way might be, as Mike suggests, to mandate in your procedure the information that must be communicated, and leave the format of that information up to the communicator.

This would I agree have potential draw backs on forms that are analysed on mass, or by computer systems. In such instances the actual format of the page may well be crucial. But for the occasionally used form do we need to mandate a format ?
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
I think Martin and I are on the same page, so to speak. By all means, if having a form revision controlled is helpful or works better for you, do it! There are cases where this may be absolutely necessary, for example as Martin said if it is read by a computer. Also, if the form acts as part of the procedure/WI or contains formulas, etc. it should be rev. controlled.

But consider the simple form used as a test quality record. For example, you do a final test which involves weighing a given part and comparing it to a specification. The WI tells you that you must record your name, the date, the p/n, the s/n, and the weight and keep it as a quality record for at least 6 months. You have a separate router/traveller that tells you the part's weight specification.

Let's say you make up a simple little form that has the names of the parameters you must record (your name, the date, the p/n, the s/n, and the weight) and a line to write the data on. I see no reason that this form MUST be rev. controlled from an ISO standpoint or from a common-sense need standpoint. The WI tells you what MUST be recorded, the form simply makes it easy to run-off 50 copies on the copier and saves you time in recording your data. You could get by with this same info handwritten on a blank scrap of copier paper so long as it was legible and you saved it properly.

If you did rev. control the form in my example, but wanted to make the line where you write the part number a little longer because your company started using longer p/n's and a longer line means you can write your normal size (which is fast) vs. writing teeny tiny (which is slow), you'd have to go thru the trouble of rev. control steps. If you don't rev. control it, it is much faster/easier to make this change and it is much more likely the change will actually be made simply because it IS easy.

Now, if you decided to add checkboxes to the form which contained weight specifications associated with the most popular part numbers, then you'd have to rev. control it.

JMHO. Always willing to listen to opposing views!
 
Top Bottom