Document issued with incorrect Revision Number

G

GTTraveller

First time user, so please forgive me if this has already been answered, but I don't FIND it listed anywhere, so here goes.

We previously issued Revision 9 of a document with it identified as Rev 10. IE, the change summary listing states it to be Rev 9, while the rev number on the document, on the sign off sheet, on the master list, and indicated in the file name all state Rev 10.

If noted by an auditor, it would have been identfied as a finding. I think that it would on the minor side, I believe, since we find no other instances of this occurrence. In addition, the distribution of our documents is very limited, and in this instance, we have 1 controlled hard copy in the QM office, and a digitial copy on our intranet. As such, the risk is very limited.

Moving forward, we are making revision to the document, so the question or disagreement has come up with the new and old QM's - am we revising Rev 9, which it is according to the doc revision listing, or Rev. 10, which is how it has been distributed.

Two side notes: this revision is roughly 2 years old, and secondly, and I hope you appreciate the irony of this, this is our document control procedure!

My thought is to go with Rev 11, note for Rev 10 "Issue number on Rev 9 document / No change to content" in the revision control section, and move on. The current QM wants to make the new revision as Rev 10, since the Record of Revisions shows that the current is actually Rev 9. (He apparently has some emotional interest in this, and did not appreciate my postion.) I do get the joy of taking over the position with his pending retirement, and we do have a SA scheduled for early next year, for which I am slated to have responsibility.

Thanks for your comments.
 
S

silentrunning

My feeling is go with Rev. 11 to make sure all possible problems are left in the past. I also would visit all other documents to ensure that this is a one off, human error, defect and not something systemic. Also, welcome to the Cove. :bigwave:
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
First time user, so please forgive me if this has already been answered, but I don't FIND it listed anywhere, so here goes.

We previously issued Revision 9 of a document with it identified as Rev 10. IE, the change summary listing states it to be Rev 9, while the rev number on the document, on the sign off sheet, on the master list, and indicated in the file name all state Rev 10.

If noted by an auditor, it would have been identfied as a finding. I think that it would on the minor side, I believe, since we find no other instances of this occurrence. In addition, the distribution of our documents is very limited, and in this instance, we have 1 controlled hard copy in the QM office, and a digitial copy on our intranet. As such, the risk is very limited.

Moving forward, we are making revision to the document, so the question or disagreement has come up with the new and old QM's - am we revising Rev 9, which it is according to the doc revision listing, or Rev. 10, which is how it has been distributed.

Two side notes: this revision is roughly 2 years old, and secondly, and I hope you appreciate the irony of this, this is our document control procedure!

My thought is to go with Rev 11, note for Rev 10 "Issue number on Rev 9 document / No change to content" in the revision control section, and move on. The current QM wants to make the new revision as Rev 10, since the Record of Revisions shows that the current is actually Rev 9. (He apparently has some emotional interest in this, and did not appreciate my postion.) I do get the joy of taking over the position with his pending retirement, and we do have a SA scheduled for early next year, for which I am slated to have responsibility.

Thanks for your comments.

Why not just void the erroneous ECO and start over?
 
K

Kymmie

:bigwave:Hi Jim,

I'm a new user also (this is my third post) but I do have some experience with this problem. I was the one at fault with placing the wrong document number on the document. My management team does not review very thoroughly (all in all they do not seem overly-concerned with my department) and so the mistake was not caught. I would agree with your QM. Draw up a new DCO - correcting the mistake and stating why - and go with Rev 10. If that is the only change then you don't even need to redistribute the document (since it already has the "correct" rev number on it at this point). You simply have paperwork showing that you noticed the error and corrected it. I think that is the best you can do and I agree that it would be a minor find. I hope this helps.

~Kymmie
 

somashekar

Leader
Admin
Do you have the system of retaining obsolete documents ?
If so, and if you have rev 8 as the last, then rev 9 is correct and rev 10 is an error. Clean up the error.
If you have obsolete as rev 9, then rev 10 is correct and rev 9 was an error. Clean up the error.
Your own history must tell you which was the error.
 
I

isoalchemist

:2cents:I'd go with Rev 10. It's a lot easier to explain a typo than to explain why your revisions indicate you have one less document. In the new revision history you can also ID it (why 2 seeming Rev 10's) as one of the changes in the procedure.

If you really want to make your auditor happy write yourself up with a nonconformance and blame it on the retiring QM:notme:
 
G

GTTraveller

Thank you all for your prompt responses.

I've been out of the ISO Management game for a bit, dealing with overseas suppliers in non-ISO situations*, so I certainly was pushing towards Rev. 11, as silentrunning suggested. From the feedback from the others, it sounds like Rev.10 might be the better solution - less opportunity for the necessity of explanations!

Thank you to all, and I look forward to maintaining the conversations!

*ISO certified on questionable paper.....
 
S

silentrunning

The only reason I suggested going Rev. 11 is that our auditor has super powers! If there is one hard copy of the old Rev. 10 laying around the shop somewhere, he will find it. Having two documents with Rev 10 on them and not being identical, would make his eyes pop out. :D
 
G

GTTraveller

That was my primary concern as well. Again, if I were sending these over to our supply chain in my old job, I might have a different take.

Super powers in the hands of an auditor are a potential risk, for sure!
 

Lamesser

Larry M.
This is a process failure. 1) For the issuance of an incorrect revision and 2) why was this not picked up during training on the revised document, daily use or in a periodic review? This should be addressed at a minimum as a nonconformance or possibly a CAPA. This way all appropriate parties will sign off on the proposed solution (Rev 10, Rev 11, etc.) Plus you will have a paper trail documenting the approved decision (referenced in the change log). This will address the need for any corrections (the Rev #, retrieval / destruction/ replacement of issued copies, etc.), Corrective actions (How did the issuance process issue an incorrect version in the first place?), and any preventive actions.
 
Top Bottom