TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
This is an interesting topic. I wish more discussion was spent on ISO
9000 compliance and less on whose degree is inadequate for tech writing.
I've worked at three major firms that were forced to comply with
governmental audits; however, at the time they were not ISO certified.
We employed the second technique exclusively (using marked up review
copies) with and without reviewer initials. (Some initialed, some
didn't.) Employing a second separate document would (IMO) carry a risk
of separation, thereby creating a need for complete statements and
copies of discrepancies from the original documents (page #'s, etc.).
This would naturally be a hassle. I wonder how ISO auditors view
Discrepancy Tracking software and whether the software would be
sufficient to document the problems.
----------
From: Ron Sering CDS
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: QUESTION: ISO compliance & archived documents
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 1:24PM
I've perused the TECHWR-L archives and come up empty, but I was
wondering how other organizations have handled documenting changes made
to manual review copies to comply with ISO 9000 record-keeping
requirements.
Do you write all the changes made to manuals on a separate document (and
duplicate effort) or do you simply use the marked-up review copies as
your record, notewho made the markups, and when (and rent a warehouse to
store them)? The latter seems more practical, to me...
