Document Control / Revisions vs Versions

A common miscommunication occurs daily on construction projects, where different parties use the term 'Version' when they actually mean 'Revision'.

To clarify once and for all: a Version is not the same as a Revision.

WIP = Work in Progress (Suitability Code S0) = Version = P01.01, P01.02, P01.03 (decimal points) = Version 1,2,3 for the Revision P01

= normally, not uploaded to CDE as these are WIP documents of a task team

Shared (Suitability Codes S1-S5) or Published (Suitibility Codes A, B) = P01, P02, P03 / C01, C02, C03 = Revision

= uploaded to CDE

Let's make communication in the industry easy and clear!

If you would like us to review your current document control systems, 

book a call:  www.qalitv.com/book-online

Image Source: IMI Framework

Document Control / Receipts

The importance of receiving receipts

Companies: 

Tesco www.tesco.com

Sainsburys www.sainsburys.co.uk

1 / Issue:

Many shops have made a receipt of purchase optional. Clients need to explicitly request a receipt for their purchase. Some shops, like Tesco have permanent information on their self-checkout machines: 'receipts not available at this time'.

This practice puts clients at risk of:

• not being able to return an item or file a complaint

  
  

Even the most trivial and unexpected items may need returning, for example, expired or not properly sealed food.

• not being able to prove that they fully paid for all items taken

Any customer may be asked by a security officer on request to prove that they fully paid for all items on leaving.

Without proof of purchase/receipt it becomes very inconvenient and sometimes impossible without access to CCTV that may not be granted.

Lack of receipts shifts the burden of proof to a customer, which should not be the case and may constitute an unfair term of the contract.

2 / Solution:

Receipts as proof of purchase should be mandatory and issued to every customer by default.

3 / Has been QALITV approved: NO

Document Control / Procedures

No copy of complaints submitted /

Restricting evidence

Companies: 

Nationwide www.nationwide.co.uk

KROO www.kroo.co

SMARTY www.smarty.co.uk

Royal Mail www.royalmail.com

1 / Issue:

There is an ongoing issue in the UK market where clients submit a submission/complaint to a business via their required medium, for example, an online form or a chat, and in return they are not receiving a copy of their own submission/complaint.

Companies send an email that 'your message has been received', but there is no track or a record for the client of the actual submission/complaint made.

This kind of practice is unacceptable, as there is no full track record of the submission and a response from a company available to a client.

It creates confusion for clients as they are not able to easily track how the response received is relevant to their original submission sent.

By implementing this kind of Procedures, companies restrict evidence available to clients.

2 / Solution

A copy of  submission/complaint submitted on a company website or through their chosen medium should be always send to a sender via email for their own records.

This is a standard practice in Document Control and Quality Assurance that should be implemented by any company or service provider.

All parties involved in any communication must have access to the same information at all times.

3 / Has been QALITV approved: NO