Multiple Formats for a Single Document?

[Golfman25]

My current thought is to remove the revision level from the Traveler template entirely. Our SOP for document control has a note specifying that Purchase Orders and similar digital forms do not require a revision level. I may expand that note to include travelers. If that looks like it would work to anyone here?

Just set word to print your current doc name when you print it. Then you can trace it back.

 

[Kurt Smith]

What I really want is some kind of language I can include in our SOP or WI that clarifies that what we are doing is intentional. That way a future auditor can't try to hit us on this.

Any recommendations? I'm nervous that I will make the problem worse by misunderstanding ISO requirements in making this adjustment.

 

[Golfman25]

What I really want is some kind of language I can include in our SOP or WI that clarifies that what we are doing is intentional. That way a future auditor can't try to hit us on this.

Any recommendations? I'm nervous that I will make the problem worse by misunderstanding ISO requirements in making this adjustment.

You're fighting a ghost. But I would just put a note in your SOP/WI that says something to the effect:

1) Part Travelers are recorded on the Traveler template, which is saved at it's own rev. level. When that rev. level changes, it is not necessary to update all existing part travelers.
2) Once prepared the part traveler is saved in the part file with it's own identification and it's own revision.
3) When production is require, the part traveler is updated with order information and printed for use. The revision doesn't change.
4) The only time the part traveler revision is changed is when the production process is changed, not when order information is added.

Or something to that effect.

The problem is you're not addressing their bogus concern -- which was two "versions" of the traveler where in use, B and C (actually they weren't). Even with that language, you would still have older traveler template versions out there. Good luck.

 

[Kurt Smith]

I am considering adding the highlighted line to our Document Control SOP. Anyone see anything wrong with it?

 

[Quality_Goblin]

Correct, we are using templates in MSWord. The template has a QF and is controlled.

However, we don't have a dedicated list that would define which parts and travelers were made on each revision. That might be a viable solution to the issue in and of itself.

Currently we have a network folder with all the previously made parts having their own folder containing their travelers, prints, and supporting documents. When a order comes in we check against those folders to see if we have made that part before. If we have we just use the traveler that is already inside.

Why can't you copy/paste information from Rev B to Rev C for the parts that you've made before? That way you are using the correct revision of the template.

 

[Kurt Smith]

Why can't you copy/paste information from Rev B to Rev C for the parts that you've made before? That way you are using the correct revision of the template.

We can. But it means every time a part is ordered that still uses the original format, we would have to take that time to switch the template. That might only take 1-2 minutes per part. But it would mean every batch of orders for the next few months takes hours longer to process. And all of that time adds zero value to the final product.

Plus, we need a better system at some point soon. So changing them now be pointless (from a process point of view). Then when we upgrade to an EDI or similar system, they will all need redone again.

 

[Bev D]

How will you provide objective evidence that no “substantive” change was made? What is your definition of a substantive change?


Not that it helps you now, but I think you’ve provided convincing evidence of why we advise to keep things as simple as possible with a single change point. Otherwise you end up painting yourself into a corner of your own making…Perhaps others will learn from this lesson.

 

[Kurt Smith]

How will you provide objective evidence that no “substantive” change was made? What is your definition of a substantive change?


Not that it helps you now, but I think you’ve provided convincing evidence of why we advise to keep things as simple as possible with a single change point. Otherwise you end up painting yourself into a corner of your own making…Perhaps others will learn from this lesson.

Yeah I didn't end up going with that language. the current draft reads:
Note: Forms completed for specific parts or tasks (Travelers, etc.) are saved at the revision level the form was at the time of completion. At the discretion of management, they do not require to be updated to subsequent revisions of the blank form to continue being used.

Sometimes it is hard to see the corner coming. I had one auditor tell me our system was fine, we could use them this way. Then a year later the next objected.

 

[Bev D]

Yeah. Fine doesn’t mean the best. Or the easiest or the simplest to maintain. Auditors are not supposed to consult only assess your compliance.