Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

document version and review

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2008 - Quality Management Systems' started by marta, Mar 22, 2016.

  1. marta

    marta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Standard question I believe. Reviewing document but no changes needed.
    Some people advise to change the version number as it was reviewed some say to just change the review date and keep the same version.
    on documents there is a doc.ref/ Version/ Issue date /created by/ approved by.

    there may be a situation that there is a document that gets reviewed annually with version 1 but each year the date will change. Is that not confusing? can somebody not think that for example when they had this policy last year with version 1 and one year later it is still the same version but different date.
    It feels like there should be a date when it was created and additional field when it was reviewed.
     
  2. Candi1024

    Candi1024 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    We don't put review dates on documents. The approval on our review is saved in our document control software package. At another company we added it into the notes of the excel file, at another location we kept a spreadsheet.

    I agree that changing the date and not the version would be confusing. And there is no reason to rev the document if there are not changes. If you rev the document, does it go through approval signatures again?
     
  3. marta

    marta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    we put electronic signatures on policies. We are not that big company so polices get checked by the MD and if he is happy we issue it.
    we need to put the date on as for company policies it is required to have a review date and they need to be reviewed annually.
    oh dear. these all revisions, versions and issues.. causes a headache. Issue 1 of the ISO system and different versions of documents within as not all get reviewed at the same time and some company policies were brought into the system and they existed before.
     
  4. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Why would you change something that wasn't changed? If you need to keep a record of what was reviewed and when, you could use a matrix/checklist.
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  5. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    USA
    How many policies do you have? What are they for?

    I agree a matrix approach may serve you, and I also agree that a review and acceptance does not mean the same thing as an update. Do you allow yourself an administrative entry in the system indicating as-is acceptance during regular review? This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. In document control I find it best to keep things simple if we can.
     
  6. marta

    marta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    The company policies we have are the h&s related, procurement, recruitment, etc. about 15.
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Why are you doing this?
    Is this hypothetical? Are your processes and controls so stable you don't change documents in a year? What happens during internal audits? No situations where a document needs to change?
     
  8. drgnrider

    drgnrider Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    We use our internal audit process to be our annual review. The auditor reviews the document(s) before the audit to know what they auditing, thus the audit report also doubles as the 'record of review'.

    I agree, why change the documents when there has been no changes? Since our system is manual, we would then have to send an e-mail to all that the document has been updated. Sooner or later, they will start ignoring these notifications and miss the actual content update one.
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'm interested to understand why a small company has so many "policies". How are these policies worded? Is it your management's culture to have to have "policies" for so many things?
     
  10. TrueNorthQMS

    TrueNorthQMS New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    What does your document control procedure say. Be careful if you change the review process that you aren't violating something in the process
     
  11. hogheavenfarm

    hogheavenfarm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I too, include documentation in the internal audit, then, (from that) in the management report is a list of documents reviewed. I see no value in altering the document each time simply to show it was reviewed.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  12. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    It would be simple enough to develop a process that informs document owners that their document is due for a review and that some form of evidence is required indicating that the document owner replied with a "no changes needed - document continues to be current and valid". The review process is more for the process owners and serves as a trigger to ensured documentation reflects current practice. Document users (e.g., folks on the floor) don't really care if the document was reviewed...they just want to know that they are following the most current process. I've never been a fan of rev'ing up a document after a review. Revisions = revised = changes made. Review is just a review, but could be the trigger to recognizing the need for a revision.

    If your documentation is housed in a document control software package, many of them offer a document history, including review dates, so that it is easy to determine whether or not a document was reviewed within the organization's time frame.
     
  13. MarkMeer

    MarkMeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2015
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    27
    DON'T DO IT!! Unless there's some very good reason particular to your organization, you'll only be subjecting yourself to a document-control nightmare with this approach!

    How will you know the difference between versions that have actually changed and those that have just had their version changed following review (unless it goes through change-control every time - an unnecessary burden if nothing is actually changing)? How do you ensure all locations have latest versions - are you having to re-distribute documents every time they are reviewed?

    I'd strongly discourage this approach, and instead suggest what others have suggested: a single, simple table/spreadsheet/matrix with all your document IDs and review dates.
     
    tony s likes this.
  14. marta

    marta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thank
    thank you very much for your reply. I realised that this is not for me. After tomorrow, no more Iso;). Let's give it to somebody else:). Thank you anyway.
     
  15. normzone

    normzone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    27
    " We use our internal audit process to be our annual review. The auditor reviews the document(s) before the audit to know what they auditing, thus the audit report also doubles as the 'record of review' "

    Yes, that's the ticket. I've experienced a system where document control mandated a yearly review of all documentation - that fell to department heads, some of whom rubberstamped it " all good " and then internal audit found that the process had evolved and nobody had updated the documentation.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  16. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I may have been over this before, but why (only) internal audit annually? Do things change or perform so predictably?
     
  17. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    In my opinion, and it is perhaps somewhat off topic, an internal audit should be used as a pulse check of the management system. It's like going to the doctor for your annual check-up...you don't go expecting to find something wrong, but it is a check to make sure your system is in good working order.

    Using the internal audit as the mechanism for the document review is simply "passing the buck" within the management system. Process Owners are called Process Owners for a reason. This means they are responsible for the process...the standardization (including any documentation), the training, the results and addressing any hiccoughs. This does not mean that they need to do all of this on their own, but it is their responsibility to ensure the process is operating effectively and efficiently. Moving the review of documents to internal auditors (i.e., people who do not own the process, who do not live the process, who do not breathe process) is akin to having hospital administration staff review the procedures for performing heart surgery. Sure, the admin staff and the doctors all work for the same organization, but they are in completely different areas.

    Part of document control is having a review process. If Process Owners do not have an effective system (e.g., do it themselves, assign designates within the process team, etc.) for ensuring that the documentation for their process is reflective of reality, that's the issue the internal audit process should be capturing.

    Internal auditors review if the procedure is being consistently followed and that the process results (i.e., targets achieved, countermeasures implemented, process/documentation support the achievement of results, etc.) are actioned accordingly.
     
    tony s likes this.
  18. hogheavenfarm

    hogheavenfarm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Our management review (which occurs more than annually) simply records that there were changes to documentation. Thus it is our written record of mostly UNCHANGED items that were reviewed, which otherwise would have no records of review. Documentation that changes gets a revision, therefore it is "reviewed on the spot" and the record of the review and change is the revision date, (and notes of what and why the revision). Internal audits in our system also tend to occur more than annually, so it is more of an ongoing review.
    Customer auditors predictably ask to see all the procedures and the revision dates. Anything that has not been revised in over two years gets targeted for a teardown. Stupid maybe, but in a way it does focus on ignored procedures somewhat. I suppose a mature system rarely needs revision except for process improvements and new regulations. We have had our quality manual refused by a customer due to 'excessive' length of time between revisions (2006 rev. in 2010), so this started our doc review records then.
     
  19. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Ouch! And I had heard how CB auditors were "bad"...
     
    hogheavenfarm likes this.

Share This Page