Document numbering - What is your favorite identification scheme?

[TownDawg]

I'm in the middle of a ISO/TS-16949 project, and the QMS documentation will include COPs, QPs, and WIs, and well as the forms/records to support them.

Just curious if anyone has a favorite numbering ID scheme regarding all this. I know you don't HAVE to number, and I know you certainly don't have to use any numbering ID scheme, and in fact ISO/TS-16949 discourages this practice a little, due to their concern with elemental approaches to the QMS. All that said and done... I'd like to use a numbering ID scheme anyway!



QPs -- QP-7.2.1 or QP-4.2.3 or whatever. Level II documents that support the COP by providing the who/what/where/when criteria.

WIs -- WI-7.2.1 or WI-4.2.3 or whatever. Level III documents that support the QP by providing the exact step/step content when such pain to document is absolutely required, or as other needs would dictate.

COPs -- I have no numbering scheme, but COP1, COP2.. I just don't like -- as I've never been a fan of sequential numbering schemes anyway, especially when WI-804 turns out to be much more important than WI-017. I also like the ability to reference back to the quality manual through consistent numbering through-out. I also like the ability to 'infer' a possible number to the respective QP/WI etc.. by cross-referencing to the applicable section(s).

=======================================================

There will be those who will want to debate, but I just wanted to hear some crafty suggestions. Any ideas some of you might share? Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Al Rosen]

How about some way of numbering so that either the process or department is reflected in the scheme. You may already have dept numbers assigned for other purposes.

 

[CarolX]

my scheme

Here’s my scheme—

Procedures
QP-04-01: Quality Procedures – 04 is the year created, 01 is sequential numbering.
MP for manufacturing
EP for engineering
PP for purchasing
HRP for human resources

Work instructions like this..
QP-04-04-WI01 – Work instruction to support procedure QP-04-04

Forms:
QP-04-04-001 – form needed for procedure QP-04-04

 

[TownDawg]

Al: I did it that way once before..

QP-section--department-seq numbering.. so it would be QP-7.2.1-PRJ-01, QP-4.2.3-QUA-01 etc.. etc.. I liked that pretty well -- but it does reinforce the department silo's somewhat.. and I am trying to get away from that POV if I can.

I am sure I will need departmental distinction -- just not sure how I want to 'get it done.'

Carol: Thanks. Interesting approach. I used to save the file with the rev level.. so using my example above.. QP-7.2.1-PRJ-01 R0, QP-4.2.3-QUA-01 R7 etc.. etc.. I don't know though -- doesn't feel like 'my final answer' yet.



Thanks!.. Keep those suggestions coming.

 

[RoxaneB]

We stick with the numbering format provided with our document control software.

SOP-####: Procedure - traditionally used for our H&S documentation and the core documents

WI-####: Work Instruction

FCD-####: Form

QP-####: Quality Plan

PCD-####: Process Map

We do not identify the department in the number as it is identified in the document "header" information and our software programme allows for us to search via # or department or author or approver or area.

 

[TownDawg]

RCBeyette: Thanks!.. Just not what I want tho. The numbering looks sequential. I'd prefer not to go that route. The abbreviations look like too many (five types) documents to 'control'. The forms are numbered, and the TS standard tends to discourage FORM numbering.

Oh well.. thanks again.. I'm just trying to find a numbering system that reflects my QMS, rather than creating a QMS that reflects my numbering system.

 

[RoxaneB]

RCBeyette: Thanks!.. Just not what I want tho. The numbering looks sequential. I'd prefer not to go that route. The abbreviations look like too many (five types) documents to 'control'. The forms are numbered, and the TS standard tends to discourage FORM numbering.

The numbering is sequential based on creation dates...not necessarily importance. It is simply a way to clearly disguish what type of document it is. The title is the most important identifying feature in that it tells us what the document is for - shy of actually reading the "Purpose". WI-0807 may be more "important" than WI-0015 right now, but maybe 1 or 2 years ago, the process didn't exist to allow for WI-0807's existence and WI-0015 was the only way to go. The numbering should have absolutely no basis on the importance or relevence of a document...it is simply one of many ways of uniquely identifying a document.

The types of documents are what came with our document control software package and we could use them...or not use them. Procedures, Work Instructions and Forms are the 3 most common types of documentation. However, for process maps, we wanted them to stand out and our software packages allows for this. Our Quality Plans were actually our original process maps and these have been slowly phased out,with some departments keeping them as a tool to distinguish key sub-processes within their main process.

Oh well.. thanks again.. I'm just trying to find a numbering system that reflects my QMS, rather than creating a QMS that reflects my numbering system.

Why number at all? Simply identify your documents. Yes, most of us has gone the route of numbering and some have taken it to the n-th degree of detail. Why my organization is simply SOP/WI/FCD-####, our corporate powers-that-be prefer the route of <plant code>-<cell code>-<process code>-<creation year>-<revision>. Holy "War and Peace" numbering, Batman! The number is, in my opinion, meaningless except as a means of "storing" the document. The title, its department and area of application ar the important stuff.

 

[TownDawg]

We have ver 5.8 of the QSI software here. It's been running about 5 yrs, but is configured with mostly defaults -- when means it does sequential numbering, and is fairly 'fixed' in its approach to QMS.

My problem is that I've never seen approaching this sort of task with a cookie-cutter approach necessarily.. and the fact that it calls its documents SPs, WIs, and other versions that I may or may not have troublesome.

I'm thinking my QMS documentation will reflect about 10 COPs, 6/7 mandatory QPs, and bunches of WIs. The QSI software doesn't seem all that flexible.. for example do I really need purpose, scope, definitions, etc.. etc.. at the WI levels?

Anyway.. this thread ran one day, and got some good opinions.. I guess the next thing I need to do is find me some QSI documentation and determine EXACTLY what the software will do, and what it won't.

Thanks again for all your response. I really appreciate it! (The Cove rocks.)

 

[Greg B]

Why number at all? Simply identify your documents. Yes, most of us has gone the route of numbering and some have taken it to the n-th degree of detail. Why my organization is simply SOP/WI/FCD-####, our corporate powers-that-be prefer the route of <plant code>-<cell code>-<process code>-<creation year>-<revision>. Holy "War and Peace" numbering, Batman! The number is, in my opinion, meaningless except as a means of "storing" the document. The title, its department and area of application ar the important stuff.

Roxane,
I think I am stalking you with praise . Yet again you have hit the nail on the head. We used to go the WI-7.2.1 or WI-4.2.3 etc but the only person that knew the system was myself, the auditor and another guy that had a fixation on numbers and matchsticks .

We have now gone well away from linking the numbering system to the ISO standard as it was confusing. Our system is based around the plant structure and the tiers of documentation.

QSPs are QSP - ## or QSP AAA-## and are numbered sequentially. QSPs can be generic, where they don't carry an alpha prefix, for the entire company or specific as in a Quality Procedure for suggestions QSP CIS-07. (CIS = Continuous Improvement Suggestions)

WI are WI-AAA-## where the AAA is the plant area and the ## is a sequential number for recording purposes only. For example, our Calcining Plant is called CCM so all of it's WIs are identified WI CCM - 01, CCM-02 etc
Likwise its Forms are identified QF CCM-01 etc. The form and the WI need not be directly related but may be. This system has been in use for about two years and now when you search for a WI or Form on the intranet you look for the area of responsibility and then scroll thru the selection. Much easier than having to know that WI 5.3.2.A (now WI K25-01) belonged to our Deadburn Plant and that WI 5.3.3.A (now WI EF-01) belonged to our Electrofusion plant.

 

[RoxaneB]

I think I am stalking you with praise .

Stalk away, my friend. My personal life is slowly settling down and I could use some excitement again.

Yet again you have hit the nail on the head. We used to go the WI-7.2.1 or WI-4.2.3 etc but the only person that knew the system was myself, the auditor and another guy that had a fixation on numbers and matchsticks.

Bingo! Had a job where we did that kind of numbering and it was totally meaningless except to those of us who had no life and spend our Friday evenings at home memorizing the Standard, word-for-word, number-for-number.

Like TownDawg, we use QSI and we have the option of saying which clause(s)/sub-clause(s) are applicable to the document, rather than incorporating the clause/subclause into the actual document number. Following the format you just mentioned, Greg, can lead to a few problems which I'm sure you've realized:

• What do you do when there is more than one applicable clause/subclause?
• What do you when the Standard changes and all the clause/subclause numbers change?
• What do you do when you want to have a true Business Management System that focuses on 9K, 14K, 18K and, in some cases, your own internal Standard where there are no numbers?

QSPs are QSP - ## or QSP AAA-## and are numbered sequentially. QSPs can be generic, where they don't carry an alpha prefix, for the entire company or specific as in a Quality Procedure for suggestions QSP CIS-07. (CIS = Continuous Improvement Suggestions)

Who makes the call if the document will be generic enough to not require an alpha prefix? If it does require a prefix, how do people know which prefix to use?

I mean, I think I know what your answer will be here, Greg...something along the lines of trained document authors, right?...but thought I'd ask just the same.

WI are WI-AAA-## where the AAA is the plant area and the ## is a sequential number for recording purposes only. For example, our Calcining Plant is called CCM so all of it's WIs are identified WI CCM - 01, CCM-02 etc Likwise its Forms are identified QF CCM-01 etc. The form and the WI need not be directly related but may be. This system has been in use for about two years and now when you search for a WI or Form on the intranet you look for the area of responsibility and then scroll thru the selection. Much easier than having to know that WI 5.3.2.A (now WI K25-01) belonged to our Deadburn Plant and that WI 5.3.3.A (now WI EF-01) belonged to our Electrofusion plant.

I know that many organizations have opted to go that route. For us, while we could have gone that way as well, we chose not to. Since our document control software allows us to literally select the area that the document applies to (e.g., Rolling Mill, Melt Shop, Finance, Human Resources, Safety, Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Environment, Health and Safety, etc.), we can still do a search for a document within the area that we are interested in.

We can also indicate what type of document it is beyond procedure, work instruction, form, etc. We can select that it is Improvement, Process Control, Measurement, etc. and, once again, do a search for a document that way.

When all is said and done, as Town Dawg says he is doing, find what works best for you. The Standard does not tell how to identify our documents, simply that we need to. The "how to" aspect is left up to us.