T
TEJ09242010
In my last post (here: Inheriting Another Company's Controlled Documents?) I had requested some assistance on inheriting another companys' controlled documentation.
We are past the initial hurdle and now into the next large one of....revisions.
The first wave of changes to these many types of documents we took over are rolling in and here was our thought process for handling this change management:
1) When the documents were first inherited, they were to be considered as Rev 0 regardless of their current state due to the fact that they were being transferred from one company to another.
2) On our Master List of Controlled Documents we would show these documents as being Rev 0 but list the 'Old Revision Number' we inherited them at for auditing and control purposes
3) Nothing about the document (template, numbering, cover page) would change until either a periodic review was done or a revision to the document was needed
4) At the point described in Step 3, we would place the document in our companys' template, renumber by placing a 'ABC-' in front of the number with 'ABC' being our companys' designation, and the document would be considered at Rev 1 (when we inherited the document it was considered at Rev 0)
5) The new ABC document would be processed as normal and distributed so any previous and new copyholders have the current document
Are there any holes in this thinking we've put forth, at a high level, for starting the document over in its' life-cycle?
I ask because there are some individuals who are trying to shoot holes in this because they believe it will be too much work up-front and cause too much confusion.
They are trying to counter-propose us with keeping the exact same number and continuing on with the former companys' revision (i.e. if we inherited it from the company at Rev 9, the next change will result in Rev 10).
I am flexible in thinking and process but would love to get some input on this to see if there is a legitimate point in their thinking or if this is just a 'who-moved-my-cheese?' scenarior.
We are past the initial hurdle and now into the next large one of....revisions.
The first wave of changes to these many types of documents we took over are rolling in and here was our thought process for handling this change management:
1) When the documents were first inherited, they were to be considered as Rev 0 regardless of their current state due to the fact that they were being transferred from one company to another.
2) On our Master List of Controlled Documents we would show these documents as being Rev 0 but list the 'Old Revision Number' we inherited them at for auditing and control purposes
3) Nothing about the document (template, numbering, cover page) would change until either a periodic review was done or a revision to the document was needed
4) At the point described in Step 3, we would place the document in our companys' template, renumber by placing a 'ABC-' in front of the number with 'ABC' being our companys' designation, and the document would be considered at Rev 1 (when we inherited the document it was considered at Rev 0)
5) The new ABC document would be processed as normal and distributed so any previous and new copyholders have the current document
Are there any holes in this thinking we've put forth, at a high level, for starting the document over in its' life-cycle?
I ask because there are some individuals who are trying to shoot holes in this because they believe it will be too much work up-front and cause too much confusion.
They are trying to counter-propose us with keeping the exact same number and continuing on with the former companys' revision (i.e. if we inherited it from the company at Rev 9, the next change will result in Rev 10).
I am flexible in thinking and process but would love to get some input on this to see if there is a legitimate point in their thinking or if this is just a 'who-moved-my-cheese?' scenarior.
