Interesting Discussion Using a Wiki to implement a Quality Management System (QMS)

[Brizilla]

I'd like to see the banner language.

 

[Le Chiffre]

For those that are interested in the Mediawiki markup to create these banners, they're included in the attachment. There are 3 "templates" (Mediawiki's term for macros) used as the first line of the article:

• {{Include_not_controlled_yet_text}}
• {{Include_controlled_text|permanent id number}}
• {{Include_uncontrolled_text}}

These macros also categorize the article in the appropriate wiki category: Draft, Controlled or Uncontrolled.
All macros that we've defined are themselves in a category called "Template". Provision is made to prevent the including article from ending up in this category by the wiki's magic word <noinclude>.
Controlled revisions are tagged with Mediawiki's "Permanent Link" feature, somewhat awkwardly. There's no pretty way to obtain this. When an article is to become controlled, the next id is predicted from the number assigned to the last edit in the wiki (best done in a quite time when there's not much editing going on!). The banner macro is changed and the predicted number is used as a passed-in variable. Always test the link after saving.

 

[Obstacle3]

Hey all I thought I would share my experience with Wikis.

I have recently migrated a system with hundreds of procedures/processes/WINs etc into a Sharepoint wiki.

I had been using sharepoint for a few years to manage all documents, even got to the final of some internal improvement award on the back of it. This is the final phase.

For those wondering the best way to go, I use an issue register list to manage corrective actions, a list with a calendar view for internal audits etc etc. Out of the box it enable automatic generation of notification to action owners, filters, exporting to excel for reporting etc. Another department has spent over 500k to get a system that isn't near as good as our sharepoint action request register.

The best part is I can chuck this up on the relevant wiki pages.

The benefits are wonderful. Our staff can pull up a procedure and drill into every related document from any given point (eg work instructions, external documents, SOPs etc).

One thing I am lost on as I review my internal document procedure is where we stand with that.

I have traditionally steered clear of putting every friggin document we use in the QMS register because of the tiresome nature of obtaining and managing signatures. I have only included the "core" QMS documents in the QMS doc register (quality policy, CA procedure etc).

The rest of the docs we use are doc controlled but just in a document library called "Business documents". Auditor has had no problem with this in the past.

Alot of these documents will now be live wiki pages where staff can get the most current version at any time. If they print it, it will be marked "uncontrolled when printed".

I dont want to have to get 3 managers to sign off ever change to a wiki page. I have the approval control on for the pages so only "approvers" can alter the content. Critical things will be in the business docs registers (ie the wiki page will provide an overview then a "click here for detailed procedure" hyperlink)

What are peoples thoughts? Is the concept of only having your core documents requiring sign-off adequate?

 

[Le Chiffre]

It's great to hear of another successful wiki implementation.

Regarding your concern about "the tiresome nature of obtaining and managing signatures", there's probably some working solutions to help you here. How are you handling signatures at the moment? Are they electronic? Or do you save a handwritten copy of the document somewhere?

One provision that helped us was to define the minimum level of signing authorities for the various document types. For example a Work Instruction may need a review signature of the author's peer and approval by their manager, whereas a SOP requires department head review and QM approval.

Our system of banners for wiki articles can allow an article to be created as draft, reviewed and approved once complete, with an authorized representative changing the banner to controlled. The article's history record will show who did this and when it was done. By changing the banner to controlled, the authorized representative (document controller or QM rep) is confirming they have witnessed the review and approval by the required authorities. A written record of the review & approval may be kept in some cases, but not many. The records of review are logged in the discussion section of the wiki article by a minute taker and "signed" by the attendees (they add their acceptance by editing the discussion which gets recorded in the wiki's edit history).

Wiki changes don't necessarily need official review. Subsequent drafts will be visible to all, allowing refinements and crowd-sourced corrections to be made as the content matures, under a watchful eye of an owner or other responsible authority (the wiki's watch lists are good for this). If the changes are significant then a new controlled version can be "issued" by re-reviewing the content/changes and obtaining the necessary clearance for approval. The "permanent id" number in the banner is updated and the users are informed of a new controlled version by email or whatever.

 

[Obstacle3]

Right now the only documents I get sign-off for are ones that are the core QMS ones (eg Internal Audit procedure, quality policy etc).

All other processes are reviewed by process owners as noted in the document control history but not signed off, there are waaay too many of them for this to be viable. For the docs with a sign-off sheet, the doc sign-off gets signed off, scanned and stored in a folder on sharepoint.

The way I am using the wiki is as a sort of "cheat sheets" containing details further outlined in documented processes, hyperlinks to these documents as well as hyperlinks to other related internal and external documents.

From feedback from users, putting a 25 page procedure/instruction in the wiki makes it useless for the readers as it is way too detailed. It might be helpful for brand new starters, but the detail is in the hyperlinked controlled procedure document anyway. So with consultation from the users I have a wiki page with the main steps summarised as well as critical considerations (check this that or the other). If the user wants more information they can click the "click here for detailed procedure" hyperlink to open the detailed controlled document.

Anytime there is a major process change this detailed document would be updated and staff would be notified accordingly.

Right now, as the Business Process Manager, I am the only that can edit the wiki. I can turn on an approval workflow but that occurs in the consultation process changing the detailed controlled document anyway. I dont want every small typing change to have to go through an approval workflow, I figure I am empowered to make this change as the business process manager anyway.

What I guess i am worried about is some uptight auditor saying "so who approves changes to the wiki and where do you store that proof'. I can turn the version control on the wiki, but it will just clog us the server with redundant information.

Right now I am saying the current version is available on the wiki at any given point in time, there is an uncontrolled and date stamp when a staff member prints this information.

Do you think my logic is adequate?

I am saying basically that the wiki is current at any given point and any major changes

 

[Pancho]

Hi Obstacle3,

Congratulations on your good setup. Here are a few comments:

Right now the only documents I get sign-off for are ones that are the core QMS ones (eg Internal Audit procedure, quality policy etc).

All other processes are reviewed by process owners as noted in the document control history but not signed off, there are waaay too many of them for this to be viable. For the docs with a sign-off sheet, the doc sign-off gets signed off, scanned and stored in a folder on sharepoint.
...
What I guess i am worried about is some uptight auditor saying "so who approves changes to the wiki and where do you store that proof'.

The standard does not demand any specific controls for your documents, such as proof of approval. If "signing-off" the "core QMS" documents and not signing off other documents are the controls that you determined are required to meet the requirements of 4.2.3, and they do, then your system works.

The way I am using the wiki is as a sort of "cheat sheets" containing details further outlined in documented processes, hyperlinks to these documents as well as hyperlinks to other related internal and external documents.

From feedback from users, putting a 25 page procedure/instruction in the wiki makes it useless for the readers as it is way too detailed. It might be helpful for brand new starters, but the detail is in the hyperlinked controlled procedure document anyway. So with consultation from the users I have a wiki page with the main steps summarised as well as critical considerations (check this that or the other). If the user wants more information they can click the "click here for detailed procedure" hyperlink to open the detailed controlled document.

One of the greatest advantages of wikis is their natural tendency to become small world networks. In these networks the "distance" (clicks) between any two pages in a wiki is proportional to the log(# of pages). This means that it is very efficient to break up long pages, as you are doing. With proper linking, the complexity of a 10,000 page wiki to a user is comparable to that of a few paper documents.

As far as linking, in addition to the contextual links in the text of a particular page, I like to keep two indexes available in all QMS wiki pages via includes: one index contains links to all entry-pages of key processes, and another index contains links to documents in the same process as the page you are on.

Right now, as the Business Process Manager, I am the only that can edit the wiki. I can turn on an approval workflow but that occurs in the consultation process changing the detailed controlled document anyway. I dont want every small typing change to have to go through an approval workflow, I figure I am empowered to make this change as the business process manager anyway.
...

Right now I am saying the current version is available on the wiki at any given point in time, there is an uncontrolled and date stamp when a staff member prints this information.
...

I can turn the version control on the wiki, but it will just clog us the server with redundant information.
...

Do you think my logic is adequate?

Yes, except for the parts about you being the only one editing the wiki, and not taking advantage of versioning.

Empower your users and you will see quick improvement in your processes (not only your documents).

Turn on versioning to comply with the requirement of 4.2.3c. You will find the history of changes is itself invaluable in many instances, such as process improvement, reverting changes, and accountability (particularly when you allow others to edit). There is no "clogging" because (a) the history is not kept in a binder to get in the way, and (b) the amount of disk space consumed is truly negligible given today's storage costs even with tens of thousands of wiki pages each with dozens of edits.

Wiki changes don't necessarily need official review. Subsequent drafts will be visible to all, allowing refinements and crowd-sourced corrections to be made as the content matures, under a watchful eye of an owner or other responsible authority (the wiki's watch lists are good for this).

Exactly!

Pancho

 

[Obstacle3]

thank you all for your insightful posts

 

[sfazal]

Hi,

Great forum thread and article regarding how geometrica uses wikis. I had a question that was not answered by the article or the forum threads so I thought I would ask everyone who had commented on this thread.

I like the idea of using a wiki to collaborate on the creation of policies and procedures. I also love the idea of this information being accessible to all at the click of a button.

I have three questions:

1. With audits, can reminders be set to carry out these audits?
2. Again on audits, are there addons to wiki platforms that will automatically create charts etc showing results of an audit across different locations?
3. Is there a way whereby we can get our staff to record the fact that they have read and understood a procedure?

Your answers to the above questions are most appreciated.

Kind regards,

Shaheed

 

[Pancho]

1. With audits, can reminders be set to carry out these audits?

Try a shared calendar. We use Apple's iCal for this, but there are add-ons for many wiki engines.

2. Again on audits, are there addons to wiki platforms that will automatically create charts etc showing results of an audit across different locations?

I am not familiar with chart addons, but Google says they exist and are not unique.

3. Is there a way whereby we can get our staff to record the fact that they have read and understood a procedure?

We draw up a list of procedures per position that a person in that particular post must know and understand. When an employee has read and understood every procedure in his position's list, he signs a record of the training. This is done upon first assignment to a new post, when there are major changes to a process, and at least once a year for all positions.

 

[Stijloor]

<snip> We draw up a list of procedures per position that a person in that particular post must know and understand. When an employee has read and understood every procedure in his position's list, he signs a record of the training. This is done upon first assignment to a new post, when there are major changes to a process, and at least once a year for all positions.

Pancho,

What determines the effectiveness of the training?
How do you determine that the person is competent after the training?

Thank you!

Stijloor.