Tier 2 & Tier 3 Documents Numbering scheme (Level 2 and Level 3) documents

E

energy

Does anyone have a numbering scheme to identify level 2 and 3 documents under the revised standard. For example, currently we would use QP 209 as level 2 for Process Control. Level 3 documents would start as 309, etc. A form would be 409. If it were element 5 it would be 205 and so on. With the new numbering system it looks like it will be more difficult. Management is resisting the idea of using a matrix to cross reference procedures to the new standard. As usual, I'm looking for something that even I can understand.
 
D

Dan Larsen

Energy,

Numbering systems...this will open a can of worms, I'm sure :)

My approach...

I try to number the policy manual consistent (in some way!) with the standard. For ISO 9000:2000, I use ISO section 4 = My section 1, ISO section 5 = My section 2, etc.

I tend to number the procedures consistent with the policy. For example, a procedure for document control might be numbered 1.01, a procedure for management review might be numbered 2.01.

By the time I get to instructions, I move to a system that makes sense internally. I might group generasl quality system instructions in a section 1, process instructions in a section 2, inspection instructions in a section 3, etc. I tend to make the section breaks at the instruction level with the way the company views it's processes.

The form numbering pretty much follows the instrutions. For example, forms related to inspection would be numbered in the "300" sequence.

The bottom line: I tend to keep the policy and procedures numbered somewhat consistent in a unified manner with the standard; I tend to number the instructions and forms using a system that's consistent with the internal process flow.

My philosophy has been: I want my policy and procedures tied to a quality system that's universal; once I move to instructions and forms, I want a system that matches the way the people think internally. The people making the translation between policy/procedures to instructions/forms generally have to think both ways...but then that's what the managers are paid to do...interpret.

Just my thoughts...the REAL bottom line is that the numbering system has to make sense to users of the system!
 
D

Dan Larsen

An after thought...

If you have a numbering system that everyone is comfortable with already, maybe the thing to do is slide the new requirements into your current numbering system in a place that makes sense to you. Then create a cross reference matrix (not much different than the matrix included in the standard) that tells the external auditor where to look for the new requirements.

The auditor (one person) may have a tough time figuring out the relationship, but your users (many persons) should have an easier time. Who should suffer...one or many? :D

Added PS...I realize your management balking at the matrix, but maybe because they see it as something the company is going to have to use internally on a routine basis. I guess I see matrix as something that is designed more for those outside your system, a directory in a way, telling the external user where you've addressed the elements. Internal users of the system, I sdon't believe, would have to use the matrix at all. I use a tool like this to lead the ISO 17025 requirements into an ISO 9000 based quality manual.

[This message has been edited by Dan Larsen (edited 22 March 2001).]
 
A

Al Dyer

Consider the can opened, let's give it a shot:

QS-000 Level I Policy Manual

QS-011 Level II Procedure (4.1 Management Review)
QS-021 Level II Procedure (4.2 Quality System)
QS-031 Level II Procedure (4.3 Contract Review)
QS-041 Level II Procedure (4.4 Design)
etc...
etc...
etc...

QS-171 Level II Procedure (4.17 Internal Audit)

qs-171A Level III Form (Audit Initiation)
qs-171B Level III Form (Audit Checksheet)
qs-171C Level III Form (Audit C/A Sheet)

wi-171-01 Level III Instruction (Audit Initiation)
wi-171-02 Level III Instruction (Audit Reporting)
wi-171-03 Level III Instruction (Audit Closure)

Hard to get the point across in this format but the intent is to have all documents under the element trace back to the controlling procedure.

Capital "QS" prefix always designates the Policy or a Procedure.

Small "qs" prefix always designates a form related to the procedure.

Small "wi" prefix always designates a work instruction called out in a Procedure or Form.

ASD...


[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 22 March 2001).]
 
E

energy

Al,
My 1974 version documents are numbered in such a way that they are all traceable to the applicable elements. I'm thinking about the new version that has essentially done away with the 20 elements as we know them. Now we have "sections?" that make it a cut and paste task to re-locate the pertinent information from the old element procedures to the new ones.
Current Example: QP-214-03 Customer Complaint/Feedback Tier 2
Referenced Documents are: Quality Procedure QP-201-01 Management Responsibility
— Quality Procedure QP-213-01 Control of Nonconforming Product
— Quality Procedure QP-213-02 Material Review Board
— Quality Procedure QP-214-01 Corrective and Preventive Action
— Quality Form QP-FM-414-?1 Customer Complaint Form (not crafted yet)
— Quality Form QP-FM-413-02 MRB Report
Quality Form QP-FM-414-01 Corrective Action Request

It is easy to see where the documents are by element. The Procedure "Book" is broken down according to the 20 elements. Hey Al, I'm getting a head ache.
Energy
 
A

Al Dyer

Energy,

I feel the pain, let alone setting up a numbering system, it is equally as hard to keep it up and explain its relevence in interfacing with other documents.

As said before, the most important aspect is to keep it simple so all employees understand and comply.

Depending on the size of the company there may even be a person who is soley the Document Control Coordinator.

This is one area where I think there are some good canned packages that can reduce the pain.

ASD...
 
E

energy

Al,
Thanks for your time. I knew if there was an easier way, you would know it.
Energy
 

barb butrym

Quite Involved in Discussions
use what ever will make it easy for the user to find what he/she needs to read.

i used to use an ISo based system but the typical user has no clue what element to go to. Now I tailor it to each company
 
E

energy

Barb,
It has been my experience that "users" don't use procedures. They know their jobs so well that they don't need no stinkin procedures. After all, they were written with their input and only written to comply with written work instructions. For the Level 2 stuff, controlled copies are distributed to the cognizant parties who also participated in their creation. My selfish reason for a simplified numbering system is to answer auditor's questions without remembering what sections contain what. I'm going to have the manual crafted in the ISO9000:2000 version with my existing Level 2's referenced as the are, by elements, using the matrix in the standard. As long as I can show where we have addressed the requirements in writing, I'm comfortable. For those "users" who fail to demonstrate to the auditor their knowledge of the procedure or it's location, woe to them.
 
E

energy

"I don't need no stinkin procedures" reflects the impact that ISO requirements have on the worker bees and some management types. We, the QA geeks (Mgt Reps) need the documentation to satisfy Auditors. (I'm posting again to try to restore my light bulbs)and cookies
 
Top Bottom