Annual revision, no changes, need new rev. number?

Hi,

I have two questions 

If I do annual revision of documents , if I don't have any changes is my version number the same?

If I have changes in HACCP team, actually I was  absent for one year from company, and guy who change me do only revision of documents , but he named himself as a persone who create a procedures, do I need to do revision and make new version of documents with my name as a creator ?

BR

We do three digits:

Rev change is the addition or subtraction of any paragraph ie 1.00 2.00 etc

Second digit is a (significant) change within any existing paragraph ie 1.10 1.20 etc

Third digit is for spelling, grammar or puncuation (minor change) ie 1.11 1.12 etc

Dear VTRex,

That is a nice system.

I am wondering, do you handle the different revision updated in different ways?

E.g. if internal or external auditor finds document with version 16.2.4 in production and version 16.2.6 is actual version in your system. Would you consider this a non-conformity?

I used to not correct spelling and grammar mistakes, until I changed the documents. In the printed manual/procedure book I noted and highlighted spelling mistakes found and when updating the document took these in consideration.

Further more, if a mistake was worth enough to correct it, it is worth enough changing the  version number.

Dear ikonic-ana,

If you change relevant information in a document, you should change the version. Changes in HACCP team, seems to me as an important change.

BTW I would not name the persons in the team, but name the jobs.

For every change, please take in consideration that version control of documents is to easy verify if everyone has the same document. Especially in areas were printed documents are distributed.

For annual revision, you can keep the version number and record the activities of revision (date, where & who did) that nothing changed, e.g. a meeting minute.

Or you can raise the version number to indicate the year of revision and erase all existing highlights of changes when there's nothing new.

Or other idea...

Review = document is still OK, no changes needed.  Keep the same revision level.  Record the review in a spreadsheet (the list of controlled documents).  This would show auditors that you are reviewing your system.

Revision = document needs to be changed (updated).  Go to the next revision level number.  Record this in the spreadsheet the lists all your controlled documents.  This would show auditors that you are making improvements to your system.

Document 1     Reviewed Sept 30, 2017     No Changes

Document 2     Revised Sept 29, 2017       Changes = xxxxx (or Changes listed on Document)

Hello :)

My document control header contains a section 'last revision date' and 'implementation date'. These are the only 2 dates on the document control header.

1) I wonder if the section 'last revision date' is a necessity.

2) If I do our annual review of all documents and the version does not change: did I screw myself by adding the 'last revision date' section? This way, I will have to reprint every single page of documentation even if the actual revised documents did not change.

OR

3) do we have to print a fresh copy of every document in any case during the annual review?

It seems absurd to reprint 300+ pages if, lets say, the only thing that changed is the 'last revision date'..(of course in my case now I will surely have to because of this header).

Thanks for any comments/recommendations.

Kind Regards,

DA

Hello :)

 

My document control header contains a section 'last revision date' and 'implementation date'. These are the only 2 dates on the document control header.

 

1) I wonder if the section 'last revision date' is a necessity.

 

2) If I do our annual review of all documents and the version does not change: did I screw myself by adding the 'last revision date' section? This way, I will have to reprint every single page of documentation even if the actual revised documents did not change.

 

OR

 

3) do we have to print a fresh copy of every document in any case during the annual review?

 

It seems absurd to reprint 300+ pages if, lets say, the only thing that changed is the 'last revision date'..(of course in my case now I will surely have to because of this header).

 

Thanks for any comments/recommendations.

Kind Regards,

DA

DA,

Everyone have a specific way of setting up document numbers and revision dates. As long as you can justify the numbering of the current document, there should be no issue.

As mentioned in the post above (post # 5) instead of changing the revision date ( as you are not making any changes to the document) , you can use a master document sheet, to address the review dates or revision changes of the document.

This way you are not updating anything on the document and you dont have to print 300+ pages, and while inquired, your spreadsheet can be a proof of your review date of the document.

In case, if you are making any changes to the document (not just reviewing it), you will have to reassign a revision number (as most people do) and you will have to print and replace the existing 300+ pages.

Hope it helps.

Hello FSQA,

Thank you for taking time to reply.

We have these document modification sheets for monitoring document versions, which modifications, by whom, why and when. Do you think this would be sufficient for justifying 'annual review done,document was revised no modification required'. Would an auditor accept this you think?

Thanks

Danica

DA,

I have used this method in my past experience with BRC and SQF auditors, no issues/observations were found.

The master document spreadsheet/document modification sheets was a separate document itself, which maintains list of all the document that were generated and assigned.

For further peace of mind, you can include these reviewed documents in your annual/monthly management meeting and include it in your meeting minutes, to verify the auditor the documents were reviewed.

Ah thank you very much this answers my question perfectly :)

Kind Regards,

Danica

Danica

The other option is to sign and date the master copy when NO revisions are made. If you put that into your document control and annual review program you will be covered

In some large companies, senior management is also required to sign off annually

Thank you for taking time to reply.

Best Regards.

DA

As long as the annual review is captured in some form the auditors usually do not find issue.  I have seen it as standard practice to only up rev a document when there are actually a change to the contents of a document.  Changing of the owner and of the reviewers and approvers do not constitute an up rev.  At the time the document was revised and approved the people listed on the document had authorization to decided if the document is valid.  If there are new people and the document is no longer valid as is then obviously a new version would be needed to make the changes.  

Also I do not see the need to make a new revision for trivial changes such as typos.  However you do need to set clear expectation as what constitutes as a typo and ensure it is communicated and other authorized people are able to make these changes.