Uncontrolled document
Spanish translation: documento no controlado // no registrado/clasificado
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 19:30 Apr 14, 2002 |
| English to Spanish translations [Non-PRO] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
|  Selected response from: José Luis Villanueva-Senchuk (X) Argentina Local time: 21:17 | |||
Grading comment
| ||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 +3 | documento no controlado // no registrado/clasificado |
|
Answers
7 mins confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +3
peer agreement (net): +3documento no controlado // no registrado/clasificado Explanation: Suerte, JL Most people would agree that a controlled document is any document, or data, that is used by someone as an instruction or is used as a basis for an informed decision which could directly affect the quality of the product or service. Some define document control in terms of general business or what an auditor tells them has to be controlled. But this is the entire definition? Hardly! The standards require that invalid and/or obsolete documents be promptly removed from all points of issue or use, or otherwise assured against unintended use (when you read past the comma, note that you do NOT have to necessarily remove them from the point of use if you can guard against unintentional use). The standards do not address the issue of using controlled vs. uncontrolled documents, only obsolete invalid documents. Therefore, making sure that the correct document is available and that ONLY the correct version is being used should be the key point of any document control system. Internal bureaucratic controls do not necessarily mean the documents are being controlled. For example, stamping documents as "master" vs."uncontrolled" or requiring signatures to assure that obsolete/invalid documents have been removed from points of used does not insure that people will refrain from making copies of uncontrolled documents and from then making decisions based on that information. If people can still get around the system, then such elaborate measures merely help to assign blame rather than prevent uncontrolled use of the information, which is small comfort when the cost of fixing the problem has to be incurred. When creating a system of document control, it must be broken down at every stop of the way to find out what the consequences might be and whether the effort to stamp, track, and sign off is worth the effort. Keep in mind that the latest revision of a document is not always the one that is required. For a long-term project, a previous revision might be mandatory depending on what was current when the project was started (this is particularly troublesome when external standards change during long-term projects and the previous reasons have to remain at the point of use because they are not out of date for that project). In some cases, documents’ revisions are specified by contract requirements or other agreements and require a change order before the new revision can be used. All of these issues have been addressed to insure that the point-of-use can correctly identify and use the correct document. A positive document recovery system is always preferred, but not mandatory, if it can be proven that a more simplified approach works just as well. This can be done through documented point-of-use audits. Document control is just that - control. No more, no less. Does your system control these documents? Are they at the place they are needed? Are they using documents that you know about and not "cheat sheets"? Can the correct revision be clearly identified so that obsolete/invalid documents are prevented from use? Were they approved by authorized persons prior to issue? That is document control. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
