Wow - audit simplification? I'd need some help understanding that one! Isn't the criteria for internal audits, the organization's QMS? Not the ISO standard? And, as has been suggested, what happens when the standard changes, as it will, that's a (potentially) huge amount of work...
Yes. I suppose I should have specified my example was to simplify registrar audits. But creating a system to simplify internal audits could be made. Which was kind of my point. Whatever system is developed will have strengths and weaknesses - or more specifically was created to simplify a particular task or set of tasks. By department to be easy to know who uses it, by date to know when changed, just a next number system because it is easy and no one uses the system anyway...
The full flow is the registrar confirms your company's QMS complies with and conforms to the standard. Thus the certificate says you are certified to ISO 9001:2009 for [whatever your scope is]. The top level of the QMS identifies a company's interpretation of the standard. It is the Management Representative's job to to make sure that document (or documents) covers all elements the standard and trickle down to the rest of the QMS. Internal audits are confirming conformance of day to day operations to the QMS.
As for when the standard changes - well, the management rep needs to do a gap analysis to determine if the QMS still meets the requirements of the new standard (say ISO 9001:2009 vs. ISO 9001:2000). Unless of course you'd rather fail your audit and have your registration revoked. So, the top level QMS will be rewritten (or at least modified) and all documentation should be reviewed through a paper review to confirm that the detail processes in place jive with the new requirements. You can streamline that by identifying what sections changed, how, cross referencing to the appropriate procedures, work instructions, and forms. But no - not a happy week (or months - depending) for the person in charge of the system. And of course, training ensues.
In my opinion, it saves time by keeping the #s from ISO through the QMS. There are always a comparison that comes out that tells you section 4.2 is now 4.2.1 and blah blah blah. Since the document #'s follow the standard, gap analysis is faster. Oh - 4.2xxxx is now 4.2.1xxx ok - oh and what does the new 4.2.1 say, ya my old 4.2xxxx works with that. This can also be done through a cross referencing table if you are really opposed to changing the numbering, but then you are back to scrambling to find documents for the registrar audit every 6 or 12 months depending on your schedule. And given the recent changes have been 1994, 2000, 2009, well, I'm guessing we won't see another one until at least 2016. And 2020 is more likely.
I'd also be very interested to know how people go about creating documentation and if they can find their way around the numbering system...
Specifically, they didn't need to. The document # was assigned during the approval process. So, they would just e-mail a word document with a useful title. Like "Standardized Set-up Checklist". The doc control department (who is well versed in how he #ing scheme works gives it a number. The document once approved by the appropriate people would get released.
Specifically, as I pointed out in a previous post, our IT group would add it to the intranet. In this example under the set up group's page with a link that said "Standardized Set-Up Checklist". The document # was purely for reference back to the QMS (and therefore ISO 9001) for ease of registrar audits. The people on the floor didn't need to use it. For that matter, I rarely hear anyone say "hey - where is form # 45892??" They say, "hey - where are the RMA sheets?" Fortunately, the form usually says "RMA" in big letters on the top, and in 6 point font in the bottom corner says "FORM 45892".
My comment about it not being horrible to find things, was in regard to the QA/documentation/audit groups. As we all were well versed in the QMS & ISO standard it wasn't as convoluted as looking through a table that was sorted by document # looking for P-INV-045A Title "Hold Tag Completion" (or worse "process steps for securing product"). Additionally when in doubt we would just open the document via the intranet, get the doc # then pull the word copy open to edit / replace / whatever.
Thus leading to my repeated comments about moving to a Wiki being the preferred goal. This would potentially simplify the whole thing as cross-referencing becomes easier, modification can go through an online approval, etc, etc.
