Document Version vs. Revision - Semantics?

[venkat - 2011]

Version vs Revision

I would like to know the difference between revision number and version number.

The english meaning of revision and version are different.

From the quality perspective I feel that both are synonymous.

I would like to have inputs from other readers

Please let me have your thoughts on this

regards

 

[Mike S.]

Venkat,

I use only revision in my doc system, but I think it goes like this:

Let's say you write a procedure for document control for the first time ever and call it DC-1 Ver. 0 Rev. 0 and send it around for approval. Someone asks you to change a few things before they will approve it. You make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 1 Rev. 0 and send it around again for approvals. Someone again asks for changes before they will approve it. You make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 2 Rev. 0 and send it around again for approvals. This time they approve it. A month later, someone asks for a revision to be made, so you make the changes and call it DC-1 Ver. 3 Rev. 1.

Anyone else?

 

[howste]

I agree with Mike S - the definitions are probably accurate. I typically don't worry about the differences though. Most of the time I see them used interchangeably.

 

[CarolX]

I use the term "Revision" when I have made a change to a document.

I use the term "Edition" when releasing a complete re-wrtite of a document.

For example...when I release my new Quality Manual for the 9K2K upgrade, it will be "Edition 2, Revision 0".

Just the way I do it.

CarolX

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Versions of Un-Issued Docs Mean What?

As a participant in Mike S.'s example, I would be confused if the original release of a document is issued with a Version 3 Revision 0. I would probably want to see Versions 1 & 2. Are Versions only controlling the changes of drafts being reviewed by the Process Owners?

Doug

 

[Wes Bucey]

I use the term "Revision" when I have made a change to a document.

I use the term "Edition" when releasing a complete re-wrtite of a document.

For example...when I release my new Quality Manual for the 9K2K upgrade, it will be "Edition 2, Revision 0".

Just the way I do it.

CarolX

There is an SAE Standard
Revision of Engineering Drawings and Associated Documents Y14.35M-1997
available from the Society of Automotive Engineers, which discusses the issue of changes to documents and how to number them. The treatment of the terms version versus revision is pretty much ignored.

When a document (part drawing, text, Procedure, etc.) is revised to a point where it is completely different from the original and "Configuration Management" (search this term in the Cove for my other discussions on CM) determines the document deserves a new name or number rather than an additional "revision" designation, most organizations do not bother to keep any reference to the original in the naming or numbering.

There is discussion on this process in the Standard.

An interesting point is that the Standard suggests Revisions be given an alphabet letter rather than a number (A, B, . . . AA, AB, . . . XX) The Standard is quite clear an organization may adapt the Standard to its own purposes!

 

[Mike S.]

As a participant in Mike S.'s example, I would be confused if the original release of a document is issued with a Version 3 Revision 0. I would probably want to see Versions 1 & 2. Are Versions only controlling the changes of drafts being reviewed by the Process Owners?

Doug

This is what I have seen in the past. I do not particularly like this method, so I use revision numbers or letters only, not versions as well. If I give someone a Rev. A to approve for the first time ever, and they want a change, I destroy the old Rev. A and give them a new Rev. A with the changes they wanted for approval. But I can see where in some complex or large organizations that the Version/Revision system might be required, but it should be clearly stated what each means. JMO.

 

[ben sortin]

A version is a draft which can change based on the audience prior to release.
A revision is a change after release that must be communicated to one audience.

 

[mshell]

We use a rev level for all approved documents. The rev level is not effective until formal approval has been given. This allows users to review and modify the contents without having to change the level during document development.

Also, my last auditor suggested that we use something similar to the following:

Rev 0 (this is for initial release)
Rev 0a (this indicates a minor change)
Rev 0b (this indicates a second minor change)
Rev 0c (this indicates a third minor change)
Rev 0d (this indicates a fourth minor change and further changes would require a Rev change)

Minor changes are defined as changes that do not have an effect on the reqponsibilities, duties or authorities contained within the document. This method allows for the changes to be made without having to train on each little addition, deletion and/or correction.

 

[Craig H.]

Venkat:

I think you can see that the confusion you may have felt is rooted not in your English (which seems fine to me) but by the various interpretations attached to the question of version/revision levels. The fact that many people have a (different) system to control documents means the situation is widespread. Fortunately, as long as a workable system is adhered to within a given organization, there is no problem.

I wish I could remember who gave us the idea for our system. I like it for several reasons, but mostly because its simple. Say I have document A ready to go. When its time to give the document a revision number I look at the calender. So, today's revision/issue/version number is 102303 (for October 23, 2003).

That way, in use I can see how old the document is. Even though the document is controlled, and our system works well, finding a document with, say, 041392 as the revision number would likely make me want to double check on the master list to make sure it is the last revision.

Hope this helps.

Craig