Food Safety Manual- Controlled Copies
Good day!
Is it okay to write in your manual that the controlled copy number 1 is the original copy (master copy)? and the duplicates or the photocopied ones are controlled copy numbers 2 onwards?
Please help. Thank you! :helpplease:
Hi Lorbi,
:welcome:
That should not be a problem as long as both sets of documents are controlled.
Kind regards,
Tony
Hi Lorbi,
:welcome:
That should not be a problem as long as both sets of documents are controlled.
Kind regards,
Tony
Hello Sir,
Alright! Thank you! I was confused because someone told me that the master copy is different from the controlled copies; that the master copy is the original copy and the controlled copies are just the photocopied ones. I have already printed almost half of the manual which has a "Controlled Copy" watermark. That's why I'm clarifying if I should disregard the already printed documents or continue using them. I hope there wouldn't be any conflict with their definitions. :lol: :uhm:
Lorbi
Hi Lorbi,
At one time because of the old 9001 document dinosaur, document control requirements were quite anal.
To me it is as simple as documenting your procedure and ensure that you control all copies of your documents. If you want to have a 'master copy' and control photocopies that is fine.
To clarify I would regard my electronic Word document as my 'master copy'. I would print as many 'controlled' copies as deemed necessary and have a list of the copies and location of the document together with information such as revision number and issue date.
Kind regards,
Tony
I suspect there is an infinite variety of systems in use thks to iso. And auditors.
"Uncontrolled when printed" seems a quite popular footer on documents. Recognizes the impossibility of zero human error.
Some people use coloured paper for a master copy.
email is a useful form of controlled distribution (=passing the buck).
Other than Draconian methods, something /someone will always find a by-pass.