Team 7 Jaeger/Lopez
You must find a proper balance between:
1) Regularly scheduled review and revision
2) As-needed review and revision
The best balance for your organization depend both on content factors and on logisitics.
Regularly Scheduled Reviews:
Ideal time to review policies and procedures is once a year. Otherwise, create a realistic schedule that will work in your organization with your own time frames. The more frequent, the better. Consider your consequences if you choose not to review them. One method of reviewing is called rolling reviews. Roll through different groups of policies and procedures for review periodically and move along to the next, next time around. The key here is a disciplined schedule.
As-Needed Reviews:
A revision is needed when:
1) A significant number of changes have been made to the documents
2) Content changes, such as operation or legal, occur or are pending
3) Certain types of problems or behaviors increase
Accumulated Changes are when a number of changes have been made over a period of time to the policy and procedures document. You must eventually fix the whole and not continue to patch it up. Good rule to follow is if approximately 25% of a given policy or procedure has been changed, it’s time for a complete review.
Content Changes are when a policies and procedures need adjustment anytime you have new equipment, new programs, or new products, procedures, and policies. Makes notes on other people so opinions about your policies. Keep these for future changes.
Significant Clues might tell you that a change is necessary. Pay attention to others conversations and be alert at meetings; they could be telling you something. Some clues that it’s time for a change might include: Accidents, Errors, Complaints, Deviations, Questions, Rejection rates, Confusion, Corrective actions.
When Not to Revise
Even if your policy or procedure isn’t working, that might not mean it is time to review. Look at other reasons why it may not be working. Don’t rush to revision.
How Much to Revise
The goal is to change as much as necessary and as little as is possible. Depends. You can change: A portion of an individual policy or procedure, all of an individual policy or procedure, a section or related group of policies or procedures, an entire handbook or manual.
How to Revise
Research the topic, organize the information, format it, and draft it. Review it, edit it, and get it approved.
How to Clarify the Changes
Make it as easy as possible for the user to see what, and how much, has been revised by: Visually highlight the changes on the page, Use clear, descriptive wording in your transmittal document, and summarize the changes.
How to Hold Users Responsible
Revisions often have people saying afterward that “I never got it!” To avoid problems like this, use a notification system that forces users to share responsibility for updating their document(s). A shared responsibility system is fairly easy to construct.
1) 1) Users are given a revision index form on which they record all revision notices in the order or receipt.
2) 2) All change notices are clearly numbered in an obvious and easy to –identify manner.
3) 3) Users are instructed that it is their responsibility to record all change notices in their revision indexes and notify the appropriate person if any are missing.
4) 4) A summary of all the change notices issued is periodically sent to users.
This system is straightforward and simple, yet very effective.
10 comments:
I really get a lot of useful information from Campbell's chapters and chapter 11 is no exception. It seems like it's critical to have a policy and procedure plan in place but sometimes these documents are useless because of no follow through, like reviewing for updates. I liked Campbell's comments about the different types of reviews and especially liked the rolling review concept. Somehow, this approach doesn't seem so overwhelming yet is effecient to keep manuals, rules, etc. updated and useful. I do think waiting 5 years for a review in this day and age is too long. There are so many changes weekly within my work group that the updates usually don't get added to the online manual for support staff. The documentation project Lindsay and I worked up addresses this very topic and is a policy and procedure that will ensure changes are communicated as they are instituted. I believe that's the key to better understanding, at least in my work setting. Right now, no one really refers to the manual because the information is not updated. There does need to be someone responsible for keeping up with the changes as Campbell suggested. It was interesting to read that the policy/procedure might not be at fault when it's not effective; it could be the implementation process. Interesting and useful information in this chapter.
It's important to have a policy/procedure ABOUT your policies and procedures! That is what I got out of this chapter. I didn't think so much thought went into the revision and review of policies and procedures but that is almost as important as the policies themselves. The "clues" for change (accidents, errors, complaints, etc.)seem obvious to me, but when working regularly on procedures it is important to keep an eye out for these clues so policies are always up-to-date. The information about paying attention to other employees was a clue I never thought about before. If many people are complaining about how something isn't working anymore, it is time to look over the policy for a change. "Rolling reviews" seem, to me, the most effective way to make sure that every policy/procedure gets looked at on a regular basis. It may also be important to look out for "clues" instead of sticking to a rigid schedule so policies are revised at the most effective times.
I agree with Joan that the rolling review is a concept that makes the whole policy review and revision process less daunting. I'm sure with most companies, policies don't get reviewed until something happens that forces a review action. Two years ago someone gave our field staff the great idea of spending down their leftover budget before year's end by putting down deposits on next year's meetings, and prepaying services like DSL and cell phones. One guy even bought a bunch of gas cards to use the following year. When corporate figured out what happened, not only did they get extremely upset, but they were forced to issue a new policy stating that employees cannot prepay expenses just to spend down the budget. There was never a policy in place before; this forced them into action. It was kind of funny because we have some staff that hadn't gotten around to spending their budgets and were out of luck.
This kind of ties into the fact that having a schedule for a rolling review of different processes could have alerted the company to the need to establish policy not currently in place.
I think the portion that addresses when not to revise something is very interesting. I think that most people would assume that if something is not working then it obviously needs revision. Campbell instead says to look at the specific reasons that something is not working and not necessarily revise the whole policy and procedure. I also think this chapter is important because it lets you know exactly how to do the revisions, not just tell you when to do the revisions. Telling you how much to revise is important because I think that a lot of people may just scratch something and start over if they were able to do revision upon revision.
I think this was a really important chapter and an important aspect to the creation and maintenance of a document. I am in complete agreement with Campbell for the need to review policies and procedures. Each company large or small should develope some type of review process. The company that I work for has a two year review cycle for quality policies, 1 year for safety, 3 years for job descriptions. I have a spread sheet that tracks the review period for each document type. At the start of each quarter I will review which documents are up for review and the department manager or supervisor will be notified to review their list of documents. Some spend a lot of time in review and create new procedures. Some quickly scan and send back with review complete, no changes at this time. Then a month later I might see one of these documents getting a total re-write due to some big change.
We are so quick to change our policies and procedures at work we often don't ask if it's necessary to do so right away. We do tend to patch our documents rather than revise them altogether, which could be a detriment. In order not to say "I never got that update" we have to sign our documents and give them to our managers. Reviewing once a year seems too long for me, because in every company policies and procedures on certain items tend to change at least twice a year. If nobody uses the manual because it is not updated, there is no point in the manual to begin with. Perhaps a new way to post manuals, like an intranet site, would be a better idea. (Kind of like what our policies and procedures document talks about at Mayo).
This chapter is more relevant than ever. As I found out when I researched my Techniques article, our department policy is to review and revise procedures and policies a minimum of every 2 years. This is easier said than done, but as the text points out, it is necessary. I do like the idea of soliciting input and feedback. That is something we currently do not do in my office. Also, a notification system is an excellent idea – we have many people who say they didn’t receive notice of a change in procedure.
Each chapter of this textbook is becoming more and more relevant. I am on a new process committee at work. The committee was developed simply because it has been so long since anyone had written or revised a procedure for the dept. I have discovered first hand how important regular "check-ups" of procedures are. We plan to meet once a year after the initial repair process is complete. Hopefully that will do!
I thought the rolling review was an excellent tidbit of advise, and felt that this overlapped quite a bit with the chapter "no body told me"
Post a Comment