Document Control - Changing Company Logo

[newtoallthis]

I apologise if this sounds like a sill question but I am a little unsure about something.
We have recently changed our company logo and are in the process of changing the headers of our controlled documents (such as booking forms, customer satisfaction forms etc) to display the new logo. This is the only change we are making and these documents - and all documents with the previous logo will be withdrawn from use.

In the eyes of 9001, 14001, 18001 Do we still need to issue a new revision status for this, and add it to the register and amendment history? Or do documented changes only apply when the integrity of the document is changed? For example - adding another question to a customer satisfaction form

Thank you in advance for any help

 

[TPMB4]

Is an amendment history a requirement in those standards? What is needed is revision control where you can control that the latest issue is out there being used but do you need to record in a record each and every change? Is an up-issue of the revision number and a date issued enough but a list of all the changes ever made to the document not needed by the standards? Of course if you have written it into your system then you have to follow your system I guess.

Just asking the question as I think I have read about this elsewhere and recently.

 

[harry]

I apologise if this sounds like a sill question but I am a little unsure about something.
We have recently changed our company logo and are in the process of changing the headers of our controlled documents (such as booking forms, customer satisfaction forms etc) to display the new logo. This is the only change we are making and these documents - and all documents with the previous logo will be withdrawn from use. ............

The last time when the same issue cropped up with us, top management just issued a memo to inform of the change and with the following instructions:
1. Any new document created with immediate effect shall carry the new logo
2. All changes to the logo shall be completed by the next QMS document revision
3. In the interim, both logos are as good

 

[newtoallthis]

The use of the document amendment history form is used to evidence accountability for changes made to the controlled documents.
Although 30 new entries into this form is just a waste of time.

From what I have now read I believe that maybe one entry to say that all controlled documents now bare the new logo, together with an e-mail/memo to all those concerned, informing them of the change will be enough.
After all it doesn't change the purpose or information given within the documents - it just makes it look nicer

 

[PaulJSmith]

I could see this going both ways. If at some point the use of documents with the old logo becomes unacceptable, then you have what amounts to a controlled document change. On the flip side, though, I cannot imagine an an auditor really hammering you for not using revision control on what is just a cosmetic change that does nothing to alter the integrity or intent of the document.

 

[Ajit Basrur]

newtoallthis,

You could have a management meeting to document that the company logo and company name (if it has changed) has been changed and all the documents will be changed in a phased manner.

And as harry mentioned, thats the right approach

 

[insect warfare]

We currently state this in our document control procedure under the section of "Revisions and Re-Approvals":

The following types of document changes will not require the use of a change request form and will be made only by the Document Controller, as appropriate, provided they are standalone changes:

• Logo changes that are global in scope (and supported by a memorandum)
• Typos or grammatical errors (which do not alter the meaning or intentions of the controlled document's contents)

This provides us the flexibility we need to ensure that requirements are clearly stated or met, and stay that way. We also view this as part of meeting ISO 9001 paragraph 4.2.3(e), which requires that documents remain "legible", defined in the ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Terminology used in ISO 9001 and 9004 document as "possible to be read by a person or machine for intended use".

We also apply the same methodology to meeting 14001 and 18001 requirements with no issues.

Brian

 

[dsheaffe]

Agree with Brian completely. I think occasionally we get caught up in the minute detail and end up making our lives way too difficult.

Our Doc Control procedure is along the same lines as Brian's example, but extend that concept to a degree: "Documents will not normally be changed and re-issued for insignificant corrections, such as minor spelling errors, changes to position titles, document formats, etc., where these have no impact on the content or context of the document. These corrections will be made to the document during its next normal review, or if it is submitted for other significant changes beforehand. Because of the minor nature of these changes, they would not warrant mention in the “Revision Reason” section of the document."

We have never had a problem with staff getting confused where something like a persons title is not exactly the same in a procedure as it is the Org Chart - and it has never been a problem in any external audit.

 

[Randy]

Ask yourself this question "Will the change effect product conformity, cause customer dissatisfaction, effect environmental performance or increase health & safety risk?"

If the answer is no, then concern yourself with something more important and move on.

Just keep it simple and don't let it drive you crazy

 

[insect warfare]

Our Doc Control procedure is along the same lines as Brian's example, but extend that concept to a degree: "Documents will not normally be changed and re-issued for insignificant corrections, such as minor spelling errors, changes to position titles, document formats, etc., where these have no impact on the content or context of the document. These corrections will be made to the document during its next normal review, or if it is submitted for other significant changes beforehand. Because of the minor nature of these changes, they would not warrant mention in the “Revision Reason” section of the document."

Seeing as my document control procedure could use a slight wordsmithing, I have just updated the same section (see my previous post) as follows:

The following situations will not require the use of a change request form and will be made as appropriate by the Document Controller, provided these are standalone changes:

• Additions, deletions or changes to referenced documents
• Updating position titles (which have been re-named only)
• Changes to typos or grammatical errors (which will not impact the context of a controlled document)
• Logo changes that are global in scope (and supported by a memorandum)

I had a couple of minutes so I felt, why not? You may notice that I used a little bit of your verbiage, dsheaffe, so I thank you for providing it here.

Brian