Regardless of paper or softcopy, they are doc, all subject to different degree of controls, and may not required to be "controlled" at all...we think ! We think the most important one to control are those that could result in huge losses or impact if not the right version for use.
"There is certainly a difference between a 'document' and a 'record' and as such one has to treat them differently so far as 'controls' are concerned. Whilst the 'documents' need to be controlled in line with 4.2.3, the records have to be controlled per clause 4.2.4. The examples of Work Orders, Audit Plans etc. cited by you, are 'documents' as long as the jobs defined in them are under execution, else they are records which never become 'obsolete' the way the 'documents' do. Further, a 'work order', for example, may have different meaning (and thus different type of controls) for both the issuer as well as it's recipient.
There are differences but also have common characteristics and not so important to differentiate so much…we think. A doc can be a record "at the same time"....for example is the route card or work order that carries instruction of process steps and records of work activities carried out (i.e. who does what, when, where and qty of rejects, etc) when it flows thru work stations....). 9001 also states that record is a special kind of doc ! In fact we find that most of the requirements for 4.2.4 shall be applied to Doc too! Also when we change the data in the record, it should be subject to 4.2.3b and c too. 4.2.3d also applies to record when we need to refer...A doc is also a record of what you have done, for eg we prepared the audit plan, it serves as a record of our work effort (i.e. discussion, preparing...). In fact, NC shall be raised if a doc cannot be retrieved readily for use that cause nonconformity or give rise to effectiveness and efficiency issues, but it was confined in 4.2.4, ISO missed out this point? Or should we say that it was implied in 4.2.3d and e? Instead of saying a doc shall be available at points of use...and readily identifiable, why not requiring a practice of "the access of doc shall be in way to facilitate the work and enhance efficiency"?
There shouldn't be a question of any document being & found 'uncontrolled' at the 'point of use' as long as it is required by the QMS. It is either a 'controlled' document or an 'Obsolete' one (with suitable identification).
We do not agree to use the term "controlled doc", but do agree that all doc subject to different degree of controls or no need to control (e.g. issue a note to remind people to use what revision of doc but never need to tell people that our previous note is obsolete and issue a new note....someone may say then this is "uncontrolled" or no need to be controlled at all...???).
What's the harm in tagging an 'obsolete' document an 'obsolete' one. I can't agree to your assertion that the people are able to distinguish between the 'current' and 'obsolete' ones based on the version numbers alone (?). Simply by looking at the version numbers, one can't tell for sure whether the document in use is current or not unless
(a) one is aware of the release of any new versions of the same document
(b) the 'obsolete' doc. is removed from the 'point of use'
(c) one has a razor sharp memory and has the version numbers of all the documents on his finger tips
(d) the 'obsolete' copy is marked so.
We did say that to make people know what doc is the right version for use is to make use of your point (a). We do not require people to have razor sharp memory, but we expect people to be respecting the rule, if they are not sure of which version is the right one to use they shall ask! If they are unsure of the correct version and simply use it (be it obsolete or not, with or without "obsolete" stamp), that isn't the doc control system's fault but is the people's "intentional" violation act and relevant disciplinary action shall be taken!
Again, the 'revision number', in itself, places no guarantee for a document being 'obsolete' (or 'current'). A revision number simply indicates that it's a revision of it's predecessor without any indication of being 'current' & relevant (or 'obsolete') even if it may have a date on it. Hence, a document with whatever version/ revision number on it, cannot be [/B] an 'obsolete' one unless proved otherwise.
And above all, the standard does require