Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Document, SOP and WI format.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 SPL

SPL

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 85 posts
  • 21 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:07 PM

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?



#2 Snookie

Snookie

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,625 posts
  • 267 thanks
171
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:14 PM

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. 


Posted Image
Live Long & Prosper

#3 Divyesh

Divyesh

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 16 July 2014 - 04:38 AM

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 !



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,393 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 16 July 2014 - 06:19 AM

Dear SPL,

 

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

 

IMEX that is unique ! :smile: :thumbup:

 

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

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 SPL

SPL

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 85 posts
  • 21 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:26 PM

Dear SPL,

 

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

 

IMEX that is unique ! :smile: :thumbup:

 

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.


#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,393 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 16 July 2014 - 12:47 PM

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


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 Sharon (Dewsbury)

Sharon (Dewsbury)

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 105 posts
  • 59 thanks
14
Good

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:West Yorkshire UK

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

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..........



#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,393 posts
  • 4841 thanks
944
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:44 AM

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


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate