I
irish634
I've been reading threads for a while but haven't really come across the answer I am looking for.
We are implementing our ISO QMS. For "Control of Documents" we have "to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified."
Most SOP and Work Instruction examples found on the net have a "revision table" of sorts embedded within the document.
However, in reviewing the IPC documents (ipc.org) (Standards and test methods) they do not include a revision table or revision history in the documents themselves. They do of course have revision letters. I presume they keep a separate document/database that keeps these revisions available.
I also presume an auditor/evaluator would question if we kept them apart from the documents. But for documents like forms, I don't think I have come across one with a revision history table. Revison status yes, table no.
So my question: Is the IPC incorrect in their method? I don't see where they are ISO certified, but reviewing document samples it was something I picked up on.
Are we likely to get 'dinged' if we keep the revision table separate?
Thoughts please and thank you.
We are implementing our ISO QMS. For "Control of Documents" we have "to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified."
Most SOP and Work Instruction examples found on the net have a "revision table" of sorts embedded within the document.
However, in reviewing the IPC documents (ipc.org) (Standards and test methods) they do not include a revision table or revision history in the documents themselves. They do of course have revision letters. I presume they keep a separate document/database that keeps these revisions available.
I also presume an auditor/evaluator would question if we kept them apart from the documents. But for documents like forms, I don't think I have come across one with a revision history table. Revison status yes, table no.
So my question: Is the IPC incorrect in their method? I don't see where they are ISO certified, but reviewing document samples it was something I picked up on.
Are we likely to get 'dinged' if we keep the revision table separate?
Thoughts please and thank you.