Pro's & Con's for revision number AND revision date?

drgnrider

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
I have been assigned as our Company's QMR since the previous QMR is now the Facility Director (FD).

When he made all the ISO documents he had all of them given a revision number and a date. When I went to my Lead-Auditor class in July, it was recommended to not have a revision number, but only a revision date, as this makes about two less items that one can get dinged on during an audit. I would like to remove the number, but since the FD is the one who created them, I want some information before I take this step.

Questions:
1) Since ISO 9001 4.2.3.c only requires 'current revision status [be] identified', what are the Pro's and Con's to having both? Will an auditor dig deeper if these do not match (document to 'master list', etc.) or will they really care (other than note a finding)?
2) If I do decide to change, can the change be gradual, (remove the number as it gets revised), or will everything have to be done all at once?
3) Will changing format of a document (from .doc to .xls) be considered a revision?

:thanx:
 

somashekar

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Questions:
1) Since ISO 9001 4.2.3.c only requires 'current revision status [be] identified', what are the Pro's and Con's to having both? Will an auditor dig deeper if these do not match (document to 'master list', etc.) or will they really care (other than note a finding)?
2) If I do decide to change, can the change be gradual, (remove the number as it gets revised), or will everything have to be done all at once?
3) Will changing format of a document (from .doc to .xls) be considered a revision?
1. Revision xxx of date yyy is the most common as I know as it indicates both rev and when done. If you have a master list maintained, just with your dates you could still have a not match situation. It depends upon the auditor. If you state something in your procedure and have evidence of not keeping by it, you are exposing your lack of procedural work and if this happens on document control procedure, it is more serious as it is a structural requirement binding across the processes of the QMS.
2. Why bother about change on this when it is established and your people conversant. You may have more important QMS tasks than this type of change run.
3. Revise it and provide reason for change as "migrated from .doc to .xls based on xx..xx..xx".
You may not be changing the contents at all, but if you have a forced reason to migrate from .doc to .xls, put it on record.
 
#3
Getting 'dinged at an audit" maybe because the auditor didn't understand and forced an NC on the client.:mg:

I'd suggest you work on whatever system you decide - dates and revs if that works for you. Implement it, audit it to see what issues there are, coach any users on what's "supposed" to happen and work it, work it, work it...
 
Top Bottom