What constitutes an acceptable naming convention for traceability?

[BParker]

In the discussion so far (getting back to the poster's original question), there were several adjectives used: compliant, optimal, under control, unique, accurate, consistent, functional, passable. One word not yet used is EFFECTIVE.

The question was what is "acceptable", presumably in a quality system, as measured in an audit. A QMS audit will assess whether the system, as established by procedures and policies, is compliant with requirements of the standard (let's use ISO 9001 for discussion, but the same applies for different management standards).

However, a more complete, comprehensive audit objective is to assess, through objective evidence, whether an organization's QMS is "effective" in its operation, effective in fulfilling the organization's requirements.

"Shall" requirements from the ISO standard document are certainly part of the list because the firm is contractually obligated (presumably), but the organization will likely have additional strategic and operating requirements defined in their policies, procedures, management goals and metrics which are within the audit scope.

These strategic and operational objectives typically include: efficient in time or cost, not prone to error, ease-of-use, expandable as the business grows, audit-friendly. These qualities are rightfully examined in the scope of an audit, whether explicitly or implicitly stated in management documents.

So the short answer is, any document identification system you establish is "acceptable", as long as it does not
violate requirements AND it does not impede the organization in meeting its objectives.

Hi John, thanks for the insight. I agree that there is often a delineation between what "has to be done", and what is best for the operation of a system or process. Where I am landing currently is in between both; some documents are not controlled because they are openly editable to many people (NC), and there is a lack of consistency from person-to-person in traceability (OFI). Some are using initials and dates as traceable, some are using only title, there is a lack of rev control or notation for rev control. I am coming at this from a "not only looking for what it takes to pass an audit" and more of a "how can I do that, AND assist in finding continuity and standardizing the way documentation is handled. My take on this has always been; a formal approach such as "WI-001_A" is better than "Bob's list of things and how Bob does them" Even if the latter is "technically" acceptable, I find it lacking from a systematic approach to continuity across a department, let alone across an entire operation.
If it aids in understanding approach and resolution; the department affected (internal audit) is open to help and welcomes any assist in streamlining their processes and document control, not a hostile environment.

 

[BParker]

So as @John Predmore said: yes it is acceptable. Period.

Now back to our irregularly scheduled diversion about fast cars moving in an unending circle…

Most are ovals, some are tri-ovals, and some even include right turns , although you are correct, they ALL end up back where they began, an exercise in fun futility, for sure