Re-Numbering Documents from the last Standard to Department and Title

[pziemlewicz]

The document control system I inherited is numbered to coincide with AS9100 rev C. For example, the procedure on Control of Nonconforming Product is QP 8.3.1-001. As many people have stated this simplifies life for an auditor, but has a pretty steep learning curve for the everyday operator.

Now that the clauses have been re-numbered in the new standard, it's the perfect opportunity to simplify system to department and title.

For anyone who has done this before, what is the best path?

• New approval for each document vs blanket matrix?
• Training on each doc, or blanket for all?
• Make the effective dates coincide with the sign-off, or use one implementation date?
• Do registrars prefer one way to the other?
• Anything else....

Thanks in advance.

 

[Marc]

How many documents do you have?

 

[pziemlewicz]

10 procedures, >100 work instructions, and ~30 forms

 

[Coury Ferguson]

In my opinion, if you do decide to change the numbering system, you will need to release after signature the new numbering system. A simple way of doing this would be to, in the revision history, identify them as a "change in numbering system." But, it would have to be each individual procedure/form.

If you have a document control procedure, that will have to be revised to add the new numbering system.

As for the 3rd Party's preference, it shouldn't matter. The Organization decides how the numbering system is established. When I was a 3rd Party Auditor, it didn't matter.

Just my

 

[howste]

If all you're doing is changing numbers and you aren't changing the content, re-approval really isn't necessary - unless your document control procedure requires it. It would be easy to just change the header/footer and be done. If you want to add it to the revision history that would be fine, but I wouldn't spend too much effort on it.

If you have references to documents in other documents, then it would probably be more complicated because you would need to review each one, change the references, and review for accuracy. For example, if the quality manual refers to QP 4.2.3-001 Document Control you'll need to change it to Dept XXX Document Control. Every reference will need to be updated and (ideally) released at the same time so that you don't have references to document numbers that don't exist anymore.

Don't get too hung up on it. It shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Lexylou]

In our system, we felt it was better to keep the Rev.C numbering where we could and in parentheses place the new numbering until everyone gets familiar with the changed structure.
In other cases where we have made new documents to meet the new Rev. D we just used the new numbering.
Hopefully we will get all new numbering changed over in order to cause less confusion with our employees.
However, I keep asking myself is this a good way of doing it and will an auditor take issue with the double numbering system?:

 

[Golfman25]

Numbers shouldn't matter. With the upgrades, we took the opportunity to re-number. We did it by process. So all manufacturing stuff is 4.something. Etc. We then have a matrix comparing the clause and the procedure/process where it is handled. Seems to work pretty good.

 

[mikeh54]

If you're going to re-number them, do it in a way that makes sense for how your processes work. If you re-number all of them, you don't have to bring forward the rev from the old document either. You could start them all at Rev A. Create a crossover matrix Old-New and retain as reference information. Also a good time to force a review for need and accuracy by the doc owners.

You will create issues wherever the work instructions are referenced (work orders, other work instructions/procedures, training documentation, etc.) You would know how difficult the task would be changing the references.

 

[AndyN]

Since file naming schemes (on computers) have less restrictions on them, why not just title a document what it is? No-one NEEDS to reference an ISO-based requirement IN the document. It's meaningless to most. If you have a non-conforming product process/procedure, call it that. Yes, you might need to have a look-up table someplace to know which bit of ISO/AS/IATF you're referencing (really?) but after that, it's pretty much redundant these days to embed an ISO type reference. Personal experience with someone else's QMS and having to navigate by some arbitrary numbering scheme has shown me why it may look good "on paper" but it's a royal PITA for mere users...

 

[BoardGuy]

The document control system I inherited is numbered to coincide with AS9100 rev C. For example, the procedure on Control of Nonconforming Product is QP 8.3.1-001. As many people have stated this simplifies life for an auditor, but has a pretty steep learning curve for the everyday operator.

Now that the clauses have been re-numbered in the new standard, it's the perfect opportunity to simplify system to department and title.

For anyone who has done this before, what is the best path?

• New approval for each document vs blanket matrix?
• Training on each doc, or blanket for all?
• Make the effective dates coincide with the sign-off, or use one implementation date?
• Do registrars prefer one way to the other?
• Anything else....

Thanks in advance.

Before doing anything understand that the standards states this in Section 0.1:

“It is not the intent of this International Standard to imply the need for:

− uniformity in the structure of different quality management systems;

− alignment of documentation to the clause structure of this International Standard;

− the use of the specific terminology of this International Standard within the organization.”

If your current system is understood by the organization and it works, then you can keep your current numbering system per Section 0.1. To help outside auditors you could, but are not required to, put a cross reference list showing AS9100D vs your quality management system.

I can find nowhere within the AS9100 a requirement to meet the registers preferences but I do find that the organization must meet its own needs, customer needs and regulatory requirements as part of the context of the organization.