Document Control Procedure - Revision Control

[Wes Bucey]

An other runaway from the OP, ladyrunaway question. We are getting into configuration management, and consultancy stuff. When a document in under review and is accessed by a set of approval responsible persons, and if that process takes some time, it is perfectly fine. This document the OP ensures is not the one in use, and details where the USE document is located.

Beg to differ - there are very few (almost none) well run organizations (other than governments) where in-house document approval takes so much time UNLESS there is a lot of technical testing to assure changes will work.

Everything changes, of course, when the approval process extends outside the organization to regulators (FAA, FDA, etc.), customers, suppliers.

Going beyond the limited scope of an initial post is often necessary to help the OP realize the true problem is MORE than the little snapshot presented.

What the so-called "experts"

i hope you experts can help me sort out a little confusion here

importuned by the OP really do is offer FREE consulting, even if that FREE consulting is the knowledge that the scope of the problem is often more than can be covered in a free public forum.

 

[somashekar]

Beg to differ - there are very few (almost none) well run organizations (other than governments) where in-house document approval takes so much time UNLESS there is a lot of technical testing to assure changes will work.

Everything changes, of course, when the approval process extends outside the organization to regulators (FAA, FDA, etc.), customers, suppliers.

Going beyond the limited scope of an initial post is often necessary to help the OP realize the true problem is MORE than the little snapshot presented.

What the so-called "experts"importuned by the OP really do is offer FREE consulting, even if that FREE consulting is the knowledge that the scope of the problem is often more than can be covered in a free public forum.

The question is not about the time it takes for documentation approval. The OP knows best how long it takes for approval within the organization, and if it does take few weeks or a month, lets respect it, as the OP knows best, and we are not in the OP's shoe. I feel we are running into lots of assumptions.
Let's clear the little confusion in the OP's mind and not surface what we assume as our true problems. Not all questions are consultancy opportunities.

 

[Stijloor]

The question is not about the time it takes for documentation approval. The OP knows best how long it takes for approval within the organization, and if it does take few weeks or a month, lets respect it, as the OP knows best, and we are not in the OP's shoe. I feel we are running into lots of assumptions.
Let's clear the little confusion in the OP's mind and not surface what we assume as our true problems. Not all questions are consultancy opportunities.

I agree!

OP's question was subject to "scope creep."

A straightforward answer is what most of our Members expect; not a lecture or long-winded dissertation..

 

[AndyN]

Let's put it this way: If a document is being worked on while a previous change is underway - because it takes too long - it's a fairly strong indicator that that part of the process is ineffective!

With respect, this isn't a case of "consultancy" at all, IMHO, it's very much in line with "people helping people" to understand that, with maybe a few exceptions, documents shouldn't be taking THAT long to review and approve!

I'd offer to suggest that, simply saying "yes, that's OK as far as ISO goes" is like a compliance audit. All the signs are there that the process isn't working (based on what we've been told) and the auditor says "yes, you're following procedure and ISO"... and walks away, having completely failed to identify why the approval process is talking THAT long.

While I'm well aware that we don't know all the ins and outs of the situation, can anyone really, seriously, suggest that documents of a QMS should be taking anything like a month (30 days) to approve?

 

[somashekar]

During the approval process i might already be working on an update, this version is being kept in a network drive where it is accessible for other document controllers. so they are always up to date with regards to changes.

Let's put it this way: If a document is being worked on while a previous change is underway - because it takes too long - it's a fairly strong indicator that that part of the process is ineffective!

The one for use is in the LIVE.
The one for approval is in the restricted network drive.
So for any document there is one in LIVE and in case a change is initiated, a copy of it is in the restricted network drive for approval formalities and this can take them few weeks.
So which process is ineffective? and who are we to say that a document review and revision process must be faster than what the OP says they perform within (weeks to month)

 

[insect warfare]

Hi,

i hope you experts can help me sort out a little confusion here

we have a document control procedure that is revision controlled and kept in our quality management system where it is being verified by QC, checked and approved in the system before it is ready for use. This process can take several weeks even more than a month.

During the approval process i might already be working on an update, this version is being kept in a network drive where it is accessible for other document controllers. so they are always up to date with regards to changes.

now my question is, is this a deviation on ISO 9001? if so, can we write it in a procedure describing that a 'live' version of the procedure exists?

The one for use is in the LIVE.
The one for approval is in the restricted network drive.
So for any document there is one in LIVE and in case a change is initiated, a copy of it is in the restricted network drive for approval formalities and this can take them few weeks.
So which process is ineffective? and who are we to say that a document review and revision process must be faster than what the OP says they perform within (weeks to month)

We are givers of "free advice" and "calculated opinions" even though what we opine about may or may not be of use to the OP. That is for the OP to decide.

But don't you agree that there is something not optimal about a process when you refer to a specific instruction for your work - only to find out it is not up-to-date, and that there is an update in the works (perhaps most of the time)? Would that not illicit a negative reaction from you as a "document user"? I have already ascertained that from the original post and determined that there may be some opportunities for improvement and gave them to the OP. I am no consultant, nor do I get paid like one, but my instinct (derived from experience) tells me there is an underlying issue and I am simply bringing it to attention.

So, is the process ineffective? Maybe....maybe not.
Should the process be improved upon? Most definitely....let's give them some food for thought; why not....isn't that the point of it all?

Brian