Stijloor has a workable idea. Things always depend on the number of copies outstanding and where they are.
In my opinion, there are no "minor" changes if they affect a dimension or function which can result in a non-conformance if not followed. Minor changes consist of spelling errors or grammar errors which have no effect on the work procedure and thus can be delayed until the next official version of the document.
The situation is that you must assure you have retrieved and amended or replaced each of the outstanding copies. It is rarely a good idea to merely issue replacement pages and hope the end users will do the
delete/destroy/replace routine 100% on their own. If you do allow users to do the delete/replace procedure, then retrieve the removed pages and reconcile the count to assure all have been done.
Some tricks we used to use back in the "hard copy only" era
- Arrange documents so potentially replaceable pages or sections are at beginning or end - makes removal of obsolete pages and insertion of new ones a little more efficient.
- Number each outstanding copy and keep a grid to know location and whether the copy has been updated.
- Ensure the Engineering Change [document change?] process has been followed with all necessary approvals - no shortcuts here!
- Followup to evaluate whether the changes are actually deployed - often retraining and competency tests may be necessary because end users depend on memory, rather than referral to the document!
- Put a seal on ring binders to ensure stray material is not added, nor existing material removed.
- Laminated pages ALSO limit added notes (unapproved) by end users - encourage an open system where end users can bring ideas for efficiency or shortcuts to the approval system instead of "going rogue" by making their own variation of the document with their notes. If notes are needed for "clarification," that's a strong clue the document may need formal change, not individual "clarification."