Forms are no different than procedures. There is no requirement for a number.
One of the reasons I'm behind in finishing my 'Upgrading' package is my 'upgrade' clients so far have been companies I did the implementation for and they're small. Bigger companies are doing it internally and I'm talking to people is a few of them to find out how they're handling different aspects of the 'conversion'.
I'm looking at the manual of documents of one client right now. There are no document numbers or anything like that. All the documents (other than the lower level 'work instructions' - and in this case even most of them as well) are identified by disk file name and name. Forms are identifed in the same way - the disk file name.
When I set up client systems I tried to keep them away from structuring by numbers - which is why I've had such easy conversions. The only document set up along the 'standard' numbering and layout was/is the quality manual - which just points to the individual documents. No association. So - it's been rewrite Q Manual and insert correct references and massauge a few procedures and - it's done.
> Why not "Corrective Action Report" Rev date XX/X/XX? Or
> Supplier Survey, rev date....etc....etc.
Exactly. Numbering becomes more of an issue with lower lever 'work instructions' in larger companies. The larger the company, the more rigid the structure must be. I've had clients as big as 250 - 300 people in medium complex companies where the only 'numbered' documents were routers spit out by Mapix (one of many ERP type programs). Everything else was by name.
To 'help' auditors, I do suggest a matrix of these top level documents segregated by application in the standard. But that may be part of my experience 'hang over'. Many now just cite a directory listing of a protected directory as their 'master list' and use the Q manual as the pointer. Even when documentation is decentralized (another thing I preach), the top level procedure sets the limits - so each department has their own protected directory and are responsible for control of their own documents. Of course, the Q Manager is the 'Admin' and has top level access and can go through the over view with the auditor. The auditors will then check a few departments to ensure they're following guidelines (minimums) defined within the top level document control procedure.
If you would like to see an example of how I set up one company - where documents are defined by disk file name - not a number. Take a look at:
http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/Doc_Matrix.pdf - A simple spreadsheet. If you look at the forms, they're identified by Disk File Name - Just as the procedures/flow charts are. However, their names alone was/is enough for most people.
You'll see there is a segregation by the standard numbering - but those numbers are not in the title. I wanted clients to have a list like this during their implementation so it would all make sense (can we all say
Training Wheels?), but I didn't want them to link the procedures directly to the structure of the standard. This matrix, by the way, is from an early 1997 implementation.
The following quality manual 'tidbits' are relatively recent, but you can see how the QM ties everything together through references and notes.
and
This quality manual even included the main required flow charts (procedures) within it. That was their idea, but it worked well, actually.
So.... What do ya think? Do you need numbers in your company - or not?