>A version number alone is meaningless unless the number itself
>includes a date element. If ensuring the recency of the document is
>important, then why make the date information difficult (or more work)
>to find? I like your arguments for including the date in the footer,
>especially the "more than one version a day" scenario. 

I agree, but a caveat... this depends on the critical nature of the document
I would think.  As Tania mentioned, the multiple versions in a day scenario
is why it may be critical, but only if the document itself is related to
critical processes/decisions.

When we issue procedures/policies here or in my past positions with
Engineering, Utilities and Financial Services organizations we ALWAYS
included a change log as a front sheet that indicated current version number
and date, approvers, and what was changed (pages added, pages deleted,
sections modified) and if a major change was made that resulted in a 25% or
greater change to the document, we would provide an entire new copy, which
would also be noted on the log sheet.

One of our documents was a standards set of drawings used for installations
and construction that comprised 3- 5" post style binders.  In this, EVERY
PAGE carried a date and version number, and the instructions to users
included that they check the TOC to ensure they had the proper version prior
to using it as a reference.  The TOC was sent to all manual holders (200+)
monthly as part of a routine distribution, along with any changes for posting.

YES, this was an intense paper process (sorry, SteveW) but when you're
installing parts and pieces associated with high pressure natural gas
distribution and transmission systems, you want to make sure everyone has
the right stuff.  I haven't spoken to anyone there in the recent past, but I
know as of 2 years ago, these were STILL being managed in the same manner.

>Why do you think you're getting the pushback?

My assumption would be that it's more work to do things this way and people
have to follow someone else's procedures, not their own.  Maybe this is
something that should be in a 'style guide' for official publications?


Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]