Starting fresh with new QP's and Forms! Reset Rev levels??

[Gman2]

Okay, this ia a big question that I better get answered before I go ahead and have a bunch of forms printed up.

Here goes, I am basically revamping all the old procedures that were left from the old QM. They are being renamed and re-numbered and totally re-written.
Nowlets say I had a procedure that was titled "control of nonconforming material" And now I re-wrote it and titled it "nonconforming material review and disposition" and gave it a new number lets say the old was QMP13.09.09.01 rev2. Now its (sorry I dont have the standard in front of me, but they wil all match it now) but lets say it's now QP 081.01

Now my question is, since it is a NEW procedure with a new number and a new name can I reset it back to REV 0? (with all included FORMS that go with the procedure, whice are all also brand new, with new names)

And if I can, since it IS at a 0 now do I have to put the REV Level on the form (which is 0).
Or can I just number the procedure and the form and omit the rev all together because it is brand new. I am sending forms off to the printer this week and as of now there is NO rev level listed on the forms or a date either.
But there IS a date on the procedures. Just not on the forms.

Thanks for all the help

G.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I consider myself a maven on the topic of Document Management and Control.

Simply stated:
1) A revision designation is for a REVISION of an original document.
2) An original document has not been revised, hence it needs no "revision number" yet. (in electronic file systems, you can set the field to be "null" unless a revision number is entered.)
3) There is a Standard from ASME for numbering revisions - (if you need the number of the Standard - email me) it suggests revisions be numbered by capital letter (A, B, etc.) and lists some letters which should be avoided because they can be confused with numbers.
4) The organization has the option any time it chooses to withdraw old documents and replace them with new documents using a completely different numbering scheme.
5) The most important thing to consider is "Configuration Management" which is managing the revisions so no one uses an obsolete document. It also entails consideration of interchangeability between revisions or whether all previous versions need to be recalled and replaced (like product recalls)

There are some "rule of thumb" nuances in making the decision whether to "Revise" an existing document or issue a completely new document. (These nuances are beyond the scope of this thread, but you should be aware they exist.)

 

[edward.gibbs]

I don't think it is required, but we generally mark an original issue Rev. - and we always date forms and documents, even original issue.

One reason to date them is so you know when they are due for review - though there are certainly other ways of tracking that.

Since you are starting fresh how difficult would it be to add the revision and date? If it's not a big effort, consider doing it - if you decide later that you should have it, it will be a big job to recall and re-issue everything.

Just an aside - why are you spending money to have forms printed? We have most of our forms online as PDFs or Word documents, and people print them as required. Saves on printing, and ensures that the current version of a form is always available.

There are still a few multipart and special forms that we can't do that for, but we're eliminating them as fast as we can.

Ed Gibbs

 

[energy]

I"m no Maven, but.......

Now my question is, since it is a NEW procedure with a new number and a new name can I reset it back to REV 0? (with all included FORMS that go with the procedure, whice are all also brand new, with new names)
G.

Having done a little of this Document Control myself, here's what I would do, if it were me. Don't forget, I love tracaceability. All my "totally rewritten" documents would be rev'd to the latest. My reason for the revision would be "Revised Procedure and Document Numbering scheme to align with ISO Standard". Date and sign it and forget about it. I went through this and what I considered "totally" re-written was very similar looking and could be construed as the latest of an existing procedure. We numbered kind of like you're doing and changed a few things, added a few things, but they were not really "totally rewritten". If you wrote brand new, different looking/structured documents and people would know they are brand new, by all means start at Rev 0. We actually numbered ours n/c (No change) as the original release letters, with a Revision Sheet started for that document stating that n/c is "Intitial Document Release", dated and authorized.
The revision sheet contains the complete history of that document, including it's re-birth under the new standard. JMHO

 

[Gman2]

Thanks for the info that is some GREAT help!

Sounds like from what wes said I am all good.
I don's see a need to add a rev to any of the forms until the time comes when they are revised. And it makes total sense to set them back to 0 if they have a new number. I was just checking to make sure there were no conflicts with ISO.

Anyway, the reson we do have 2 forms in this format is because for one, we are all not online and even so these 2 forms will always be in hard copy format due to the fact that they are corrective action type forms and when these are sent out to the plant I want somone to actually have to sit and fill this thing out.
I just think it makes more of an impact that way.


G.

 

[energy]

Chances are..........

Thanks for the info that is some GREAT help!

I don's see a need to add a rev to any of the forms until the time comes when they are revised. And it makes total sense to set them back to 0 if they have a new number. I was just checking to make sure there were no conflicts with ISO.

G.

I agree it's not necessary. We did it because once the procedure/form was released and test driven, there were always some things that required changing. It was convenient to have the template already in place. Where would you have the document origination date? Cover page? You would transfer that to your revision history page when you make the first revision? We changed the review and approval block (authorizing signatures on our cover page) each time a revision was made, so date of origin only showed up on the rev sheet. Is it necessary to have that origin date? Probably not. But, like I said, I love traceability, or document history. As for conflicts with ISO, Document Control is up to you, not ISO. They don't care how you do it. Just as long as you have controls in place.

 

[SteelWoman]

We're doing the same thing here - total re-write of procedures as we move from QS to TS. I added a footnote to my Doc/Data Control procedure explaining that as part of the movement to TS ALL the TS procedures were assigned a revision level "A" and a uniform date of effectiveness of 11/1/2003 (when we launch plant-wide re-training). I did this because when I first started looking at procedures re: TS, I was doing so much re-writing, combining, morphing of procedures that it was mind-numbing for ME to keep up with what changed - we use a standard where we have changes in RED on the latest revision - I was having to change literally some LETTERS or WORDS to red, and others were nearly totally red! So I blacked it ALL out and lettered them A and moved on.

We maintain traceability in our records and if someone really wants to know what changed between the last QS version and the fisrt TS version there is AMPLE documentation in the files.

 

[db]

We're doing the same thing here - total re-write of procedures as we move from QS to TS. I added a footnote to my Doc/Data Control procedure explaining that as part of the movement to TS ALL the TS procedures were assigned a revision level "A" and a uniform date of effectiveness of 11/1/2003 (when we launch plant-wide re-training). I did this because when I first started looking at procedures re: TS, I was doing so much re-writing, combining, morphing of procedures that it was mind-numbing for ME to keep up with what changed - we use a standard where we have changes in RED on the latest revision - I was having to change literally some LETTERS or WORDS to red, and others were nearly totally red! So I blacked it ALL out and lettered them A and moved on.

We maintain traceability in our records and if someone really wants to know what changed between the last QS version and the fisrt TS version there is AMPLE documentation in the files.

This sounds good to me. I really like the idea of having some traceability concerning the transistion. This is especially critical if you have actually changed the body, not just renumbered to meet the new standard. Worth a green dot.

 

[SteelMaiden]

G-


I did a lot of that kind of stuff when I started at this div. They had borrowed some stuff and I revamped, renamed, etc. When I renamed a doc, and pretty much left the intent of the content alone, I gave it a Rev. (2 to 3, B to C etc.) If I was basically re-writing something I made it a new document with a Rev. 0 in our case (zero not oh). There is no law that says your original release needs a rev. and if I were using alpha I would not give the original release a rev. On the ones I rewrote, I made an entry in the "old" documents history that it was deleted from use on such and such a date, and whether or not it was now in a "new" document:
##XX###Nonconforming Product deleted 9/25/03, Re-released as XX##, Nonconforming Material Dispostion ETC.

That gave us the traceability we wanted, plus cleaned up a bunch of junk that we didn't need.

 

[CarolX]

One more tidbit I will add here....on my top level document - my QA Manual.

When I first put it together before I called it the 1st Edition, Rev 0. As changes needed to be made, I would up the Rev Level.

When I transition for 9K2K, the new manual will be 2nd Edition, Rev 0.

Just another way to skin the cat.

CarolX