Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’
We have thousands of paper documents which are made accessible on the floor through document kiosks (large binders). Of course this is not always convenient for the operators
Here is the key to solving your problem: Make access convenient to those who must use the documents. Also, provide access only to the documents people
use. Sounds like you need to seriously streamline your documentation (root cause). Why should people have to flip through a large binder to find the information they need? Break down the information so that the right data is communicated to the right people as directly as possible - combining the information into one place (a binder) hasn't saved you any effort or prevented any document control issues.
(BTW, management is unwilling to fund electronic distribution and access on the floor, even though cost savings can be demonstrated)
Centralized document control and distribution has proven ineffective in your case already, therefore, making it electronic will not solve the problem, and stands a good chance of making the data even less accessible than it is now. People are performing work away from computer kiosks right now as you read this post, and probably performing it competently without referring to a binder document either. So although you might save money in manhours, paper and binders, people still would not be using the electronic media because a) they may not be able to figure out or be comfortable with accessing it electronically; and b) it still takes them away from the task they are performing. Besides, every electronic system I have seen has the exact same problem you have now: People can't conveniently access what they need, so they make copies and squirrel them away.
A good first step is the most basic one in document control: determine which documents seem to be victims of poor control, and then find a way to make sure that people who need them have the most current version. You should also try to determine why these documents are changing so much that people end up with obsolete copies. Is it trying to cover too many functions and activities? If so, narrow the document content.
If the document naturally changes frequently, then decentralized control of it is a better bet. Determine what needs to be documented, and then determine the natural owner of the document: the person performing the task, or at least the most accountable level of supervisor or manager. They should be the one to write it, and, with proper approval from others who know applicable KPIs and requirements, should be the ones who are responsible for controlling and distributing it. This form of decentralized document control is perfectly acceptable under the standard, and is no more challenging or unreasonable than what you have now. Although some may define it as less "traditional," it appears tradition hasn't been doing you any favors...
What do you think of stamping "This Document becomes obsolete 24 hours after <Current date>?".
This is a quick fix that does not address the root of the problem, and will also create a whole new slew of nonconformities. I agree with others that stamps are unnecessary, but by the same token, there is no wording you can use on a document (either in stamp form, or in headers, footers or watermarks, etc.) that will accomplish the physical act of preventing someone using an obsolete or uncontrolled document. Similarly, the presence of such wording on a document will not exempt it from control requirements or associated nonconformities if it is found to have been used outside your defined tolerances (24 hours).
What you are indicating with such wording is that documentation is so unstable that it could change in 24 hours, and folks can't rely on anything they are reading in print for more than a few hours. This is not effective document control, nor does it promote effective communication, which is the primary purpose of creating the document in the first place.
All that is needed to demonstrate a document is controlled is for it to have a unique, traceable identifier (this does not have to be a number) and the revision status must be indicated. Password protection or other means of limiting access to the original demonstrates approval prior to use. Anything else is extra, and can potentially cause more nonconformities than it solves.
People who use the documents should be aware of which revision is current. You will greatly increase the likelihood of people knowing the rev level if the folks who use it are also the ones who wrote it. This will also solve problems with suitable access and appropriate distribution.
If people have responsibilities in the management system, and are accountable for the performance related to those responsibilities, then it is only logical that they should be responsible for the associated documentation.
Good luck!