ISO 10013, Guidelines for Developing Quality Manuals, gives an example of a documentation structure for ISO 9001 quality management systems. While this document suggests using a three-level structure, most companies implement four-level documentation structures to include records, as required by element 4.2.4 Control of quality records, of the ISO 9001:2000 Standard. A typical four-level documentation structure includes:

Quality Manual – level 1

Procedures – level 2

Instructions – level 3

Records – level 4

Actually, the documentation structure starts from the policy. The policy defines, among others, commitments with what standard a company intends to comply with. If you choose to use this approach, your quality management system will have five levels, similar to the structure below:

Quality Policy – level 1

Quality Manual – level 2

Procedures – level 3

Instructions – level 4

Records – level 5

ISO 9001 – Naming your documents

Companies use various approaches to titling their manuals, procedures, instructions, etc. For example, one of my customers titled their quality manual as “Quality Management System Quality Manual.” This very descriptive title does define the document, but does not appear to be efficient.

This tendency to use long titles and document identifiers like “Standard Operating Procedure” most likely comes from regulated industries. Even though I could not find a requirement for such title formats, many companies still use these apparently outdated and ineffective conventions. If a short name sufficiently describes a document, let’s use it. I suggest streamlining all elements of management systems. Consider this and do not make your system more complicated than it can be.

Numbering your documents

It is not a specific requirement of the ISO 9001 or any other standard to uniquely identify a part or a document. It is perhaps a common-sense measure and a worldwide practice in any documentation system, to give a document or a component a number and a title, and to identify its revision level. As documentation titles, document numbering is an area for creativity and an opportunity for optimization.

A company had some 130 employees. They had two part number formats: one for procedures, another for drawings. Procedures used XX-XXX number format. Drawings were numbered as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000022-003. Assemblers simplified the system and called it “twenty two.”

One can certainly use these long-long numbers, but is it practical? So far I did not meet a single company that could justify such an approach. When I audited this client, the organization had less than 250 documents. There were no indications that the company will significantly grow. Therefore, to use document number format allowing hundreds of thousands of numbers could hardly be justified. The most unreadable part numbers I had to deal with was at a mid size company with 13-digit alphanumeric part number format! Try to write those in your audit report!

If you are designing and building a Trident-class submarine, a MIG-27 jet fighter or an international space station, you, most likely, will need millions of parts, so a long part number format would be needed and will make sense. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble of reading all those zeros and make your numbering system practical. One of my customers, who won my “The Best Part Number” Grand Prize, numbered their documents as 101, 102, 103, and so on. Short and sweet!

Another debatable issue with the part-numbering format is part number designation. Some systems associate a part number with a particular part type. For example, 10xxx indicates a procedure, 20xxx indicates a drawing, PLxxx indicates a policy-level document, and so on. My experience with a number of medical device manufacturers has convinced me in the benefits of a “no designation” system. Three systems that used designation I have worked with have failed. Just recently, one of my customers reported that they ran out of range in their part-numbering format. The system allowed for assigning materials through a two-digit designator within the part number. When the system was designed a few years ago, needing more than 99 materials was not considered possible. Unfortunately, things changed, and just a few years later, the company needed more than 99 materials causing the existing part number format to fail.

An alternative approach to part numbering is a “no designation” system, where parts are given sequential unique numbers within a specified format, regardless of their type, material, application or other attributes. After all, isn’t the part title the best designator? Seriously, through my entire professional career, I worked only with one company that did not use even document numbers. Their documents were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level, like The Prefect Manual 01.