Chapter 18: Publication Media

18.1 Selection of a Publication Media (Hard-Copy Versus Electronic)

The use of a myriad selection of software applications such as enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, and supply chain management software, which utilize the Internet and intranet environments, are commonly seen in both small and large enterprises. Web-centric systems provide powerful integration techniques to mold engineering, supply-chain management, manufacturing, and planning into networks known as collaborative product commerce systems ^[1].

In addition to the overall global gains in efficiency, speed, and productivity in sales and marketing, engineering, and manufacturing, the Internet and intranet is now used to solve what had previously been sticky issues with regard to documentation distribution and control of satellite sales offices and customer service field operations.

Of course, with software comes reliability and interoperability issues that are far beyond the scope of this book. The software division of the ASQ, for example, publishes extremely perceptive articles on this subject ^[2].

18.1.1 Media Types

As a result, it is vital to select the publication media type (i.e., hard copy, electronic [online], or a mixture) that best suits the organization's capabilities. The documents must be controlled in some fashion. The following are some examples of control:

• Stamped;

• Controlled versus uncontrolled check marks;

• Different colored icons or strips or pages;

• Page count noted;

• Provisions made for the issuance of uncontrolled manuals (e.g., to staff, employees, customers/clients, and subcontractors);

• Provisions made for the issuance of hard copy in online systems for training, revision control, and the use of hard-copy documents for specified limits of time by production personnel.

18.1.2 What Should Be the Exact Form of the Documentation System?

The answer of course will depend upon the specific needs of the organization. However, we can examine a generalized scenario and then look at a few specific cases to give the reader an idea of how this type of analysis is carried out. Once a particular alternative is chosen, it will be necessary to immediately begin to train all employees on that protocol. There is no easy answer to this question; it is a matter of experimentation to determine which system best fits our objectives.

A good rule is to figure that it will take twice as long to train people on online documents than on hard copy because of searching difficulties in systems with multiple directories. Very few employees will be comfortable when they are asked to find a document that they do not normally use in an online system. This is why it is a good design rule to set up the system with hub documents that start with an easy to find entrance icon, which sends the employee to the main ISO 9001:2000 directory and from there to a set of hub documents.

18.1.3 Control Issue

We begin with a simplified decision matrix portraying control versus documentation (see Table 18.1). We examine the possibilities for either central or local area manager (LAM) document control versus the type of document (i.e., either the manual or lower tier documents). Although there is another protocol—the concept of a local area user (LAU), whereby the user becomes responsible for the use of the correct document revision level—this approach is difficult to manage and is not covered further in our discussion, other than to say that each user must be effectively trained in document control protocols.

Table 18.1: Decision Matrix for Documentation Systems

Control	Type of Documents
	Quality manual	Lower tiers
Centrally	Online	Online
controlled	Hard-copy Hybrid	Hard-copy Hybrid
LAM controlled	Nonapplicable	Online Hard-copy

The chosen set of protocols includes online, hard copy, or a mixed (hybrid) system. A hard-copy system has another degree of complexity in that the documents can be distributed as either do the following:

• A set in binders;

• Individual documents.

18.1.4 An Example of How to Choose What Is Best for You

To limit the number of choices, we assume that your organization is characterized by the following:

• Little or no central control. A central document control center does not exist, nor does it readily fit into the economic viability of the organization. Top management would agree to the formation of such an organization, but under duress.

• Local area managers. These might be department heads who will agree to maintain document control procedures that include locally controlled master documentation lists if it is the best way to go.

• A networked system. Such a system should be readily available so that tiers I and II can go online immediately. There are not enough terminals for tier III documents to be used in production.

Therefore, of all the many possible configurations, it appears that we only have two practical choices:

1. Set up tier I and II to be centrally controlled and have tiers III and IV controlled by LAMs. Pro: This way is the easiest for finding high-level documents and the network is readily available. Con: This way requires a dedicated central document control manager and is more expensive.

2. Set up tier I central and have tiers II, III, and IV controlled by LAMs. Pro: This way requires minimal central document control management. Con: This way is difficult for finding high-level documents, but the LAMs are willing to work with this documentation control structure.

In an actual case, alternative I was chosen. The difficulty in finding highlevel documents turned out to be the decisive factor. The central document control function was shared by several employees and consumed a modest amount of time once the system was in maintenance.

^[1]Vogel, Steven A., "Satisfying QSR Requirements with Collaborative Production Management Systems," Medical Device and Diagnostics Industry, July 2001, p. 90, at http://devicelink.com/mddi.

^[2]See, for example, Kress, Michael P., "An Approach to Harmonizing ISO 9001:2000; AS9100:2001; and ISO 9000-3 for Software," Software Quality, Fall 2001, p. 10.