7 replies to this topic

[SPL]

I current have my documents following this order:

• Policy
• Scope
• Attachments
• Purpose
• References
• Materials
• Safety or Special Precautions
• Procedure
• Change History

I feel this format is a little bit old and at times redundant. What other format would you suggest?

[Snookie]

I current have my documents following this order:

1. Policy
2. Scope
3. Attachments
4. Purpose
5. References
6. Materials
7. Safety or Special Precautions
8. Procedure
9. Change History

I feel this format is a little bit old and at times redundant. What other format would you suggest?

 

Personally I would eliminate any section that is not necessary. 

 

Change History is not on the document but instead kept on a log.

 

Sometimes I find scope and purpose is redundant and combined them in some cases. 

 

References is at the end for me. 

[Divyesh]

The inputs mentioned is appropriate but change in order is what essential.

 

Materials are used whenever dealing with lab sops / WI else it can be removed.

 

Responsibility part is vital in SOP format.

 

I would suggest to keep attachments after procedure part. For me, it will be admissible if procedure field is kept at the frontal part of SOP.

 

Might be useful !

[Charles.C]

Dear SPL,

 

I understand from yr OP that every "document" has a Policy.

 

IMEX that is unique !

 

And diametically opposite (redundancy?) to my own structure (barring one set) although an obviously subjective topic.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[SPL]

Dear SPL,

 

I understand from yr OP that every "document" has a Policy.

 

IMEX that is unique !

 

And diametically opposite (redundancy?) to my own structure (barring one set) although an obviously subjective topic.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

Charles,

 

I inherited a unique documentation system, its a mixture of pervious QA/QS personnel organizational, AIB trying to conform to SQF and BRC. I did make some changes, the posted outline is for a policy/SOP but WI uses a condense version. I would like to revise the current system to modernize it and make it less confusing. Laying out the policy then proceeding with instruction is logical for a small organization like mine.  

 

I running into issue with attachments e.g. forms, where forms may change more times then the actually document.

Edited by SPL, 16 July 2014 - 12:27 PM.

[Charles.C]

Dear SPL.

 

 

I running into issue with attachments e.g. forms, where forms may change more times then the actually document.

 

And there I have to agree with you.

I choose to issue a Rev.(sub)No, with every form change to avoid utter confusion but this can be a distribution nightmare unless electronic assistance exists. Particularly when the lab. (rightly) expects a typical filled-in example every time. I usually blame it on R&D.

 

Never found a manual solution to this one.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

[Sharon (Dewsbury)]

Old BS5750 times we used to have a pyramid of documents. Starting at the tip with Policy and working down the list the numbers of documents increased to a large pyramid base of forms. For each level we had an index of status and behind that a list of amends with dates and reasons. (sorry this is supposed to be a pyramid shape)

Regards

Sharon

 

 Policy

Manual

Procedures

Work instructions

.............Forms..........

[Charles.C]

Dear Sharon,

 

Looks like a precursor(?) of the basic ISO triangle (eg 1,3, 4) (5 sort of floats 3-4)(2 is, i think, usually understood)

 

Subsequently re-vamped for many other exercises, eg OPRPs.

 

Rgds / Charles.C