Forms vs Records

[rogerpenna]

let's not think about ISO requirements. But simply on usability. Users need to know that when they create records based on some form, or any other kind of record will go in this or that place, should be stored at least X years and how it should be disposed.
Also, not thinking about ISO, but if I have Meeting Minutes from different departments, or even same department, but different purposes and importances, if all of them are the same name, users might store and deal with them the same, while in theory the company would have different requirements for how to store them and thus a code for the "type of record" would be needed?

Example​

Performance Reviews​

Department A (Human Resources)

• Record Type: Performance Reviews
• Description: Annual performance evaluations of employees.

Department B (Operations)

• Record Type: Performance Reviews
• Description: Evaluations of operational efficiency and team performance.

same name... so might cause confusion, right? While they could be coded like RQS-HR-005 and the other RQS-OPS-023

 

[Bev D]

What you are struggling with is that it is the form that is controlled with a document number and it will become the record when filled out. It is a seamless process. You’re overthinking this. The ‘master list of records’ is the list of forms that will become records when the form is filled out. I've seen many, many organizations do it this way and they have never had a nonconformance for it.

But as Randy says do whatever you want.

 

[Bev D]

same name... so might cause confusion, right? While they could be coded like RQS-HR-005 and the other RQS-OPS-023

Just use different names like everybody else in the world does…
No one except the document control dept even understands these codes. They understand words and names…

 

[Chrisx]

One of the QMS software packages I used had the ability to produce a new record number from each form. You would then fill out the form electronically and route it for electronic signature approval. Once approved, the filled out form was converted to pdf and kept in the QMS software. Every record completed had a unique number. Not really a requirement, but such a software can do this, if it is really desirable.

Where I work now, every form is filled out on paper and ink signed (if signatures are required). None of the records have a unique ID number. It still works and is compliant.

 

[rogerpenna]

What you are struggling with is that it is the form that is controlled with a document number and it will become the record when filled out. It is a seamless process. You’re overthinking this. The ‘master list of records’ is the list of forms that will become records when the form is filled out. I've seen many, many organizations do it this way and they have never had a nonconformance for it.

But as Randy says do whatever you want.

ok, that was actually like we did. In our QMS software, we had the list of records and they were actually the list of forms plus instructions on how to deal with the records. Then we got a Minor Non Conformity in an External Audit because of it.


Ok, I had to check my Non Conformity Registry to remember the history.
In 2018 the external auditor gave us a non-conformity because we were not properly controlling several records that were not created from forms.
Because we only had forms in our Master List of Records (like you said you do), and the code for the forms was not like "FORM-ADM-001", it was more like "RCD-ADM-001", there wasn´t info about a lot of records that didn´t come from forms. Those records didn´t even appear in our master list.
The External Auditor asked for our list of records, I presented it and he said "but where is this and that in this list".
From then on, and it was part of our Action Plan based on our root cause analysis, we decided to split... a list of Forms and another of records. All forms would be related to a record, but not all records to a form.

 

[Bev D]

Let me add this: in our master records list we say calibration records. No code, no specific name, just he retention period and storage location, etc. some calibration records have a different form for different types of measuring equipment and in some case from different calibration sources…BUT THEY ARE STILL JUST CALLED CALIBRATION RECORDS. If the retention period is different for some types of instruments we call them out by TYPE NAME. For example we will say that all calibration records have a 5 retention period except precision pipette ahve a 7 year retention period. It is just that simple.

 

[rogerpenna]

Let me add this: in our master records list we say calibration records. No code, no specific name, just he retention period and storage location, etc. some calibration records have a different form for different types of measuring equipment and in some case from different calibration sources…BUT THEY ARE STILL JUST CALLED CALIBRATION RECORDS. If the retention period is different for some types of instruments we call them out by TYPE NAME. For example we will say that all calibration records have a 5 retention period except precision pipette ahve a 7 year retention period. It is just that simple.

Thanks, but in this case, not all of your Master Records List are a form, right?
Like you said here

The ‘master list of records’ is the list of forms that will become records when the form is filled out.

As I mentioned, part of the problem is exactly because in 2018 we got a non conformity from an auditor who complained our Master Records List only had records that had a form.

 

[Randy]

As I mentioned, part of the problem is exactly because in 2018 we got a non conformity from an auditor who complained our Master Records List only had records that had a form.

And he/she could have been correct, emails could be considered "record's of communication" and they aren't on a form. Then again, other than what ISO 9001:2015 says/requires (quit referencing those other out of date documents) it's your organization that says what is or is not a record except when an auditor can demonstrate with objective evidence a lack of effectiveness due to the lack of one.

I'm just a simple old 3rd party auditor, that's all I do, nothing else just audit, this week in Tennessee, last week in Kansas, next week in New Jersey, all ISO:9001 audits in these cases and I don't really give a personal crap how, who, what, where or why about your records other than effective consistency, control and effectiveness of them, while meeting whatever requirements for them exists.

 

[Bev D]

Read my last post. You are mistaken. We listed All RECORD categories regardless of source. We listed the RECORDS. NOT THE FORMS. WE USED NAMES NOT CODES. This is how most people do it.

But again do what you want as you don’t seem to hear or want to think about any answer that doesn’t agree with your misguided opinion.

 

[rogerpenna]

BevD, I appreciate your input and expertise. I'm genuinely trying to understand and learn, not argue or impose my view. My questions stemmed from what appeared to be different statements in your posts. You initially said, 'The 'master list of records' is the list of forms that will become records when the form is filled out.' Later, you described a more comprehensive approach including all record categories.
I asked for clarification because these seemed different, not because I'm dismissing your advice. My goal is to create a system that works well for my company and complies with standards.
If I've come across as argumentative or disrespectful, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize. I value your experience and insights on this complex topic. Thank you for taking the time to provide a more detailed explanation of your approach to record management.