Version comparison and impact
- 4 changes; 3 material.
- Accepted and material: 0; the resulting text has 4 lines.
Transition and knowledge transfer
See what changed between versions
When a procedure is revised, people cannot tell what actually changed, so they either re-read everything or miss the one change that matters.
Demonstration: Pinecrest Foods plc (fictional) · Food manufacturing. Fictional data and a scripted answer.
The situation
- Organisation
- Pinecrest Foods plc (fictional)
- Who is asking
- Production manager
- Industry
- Food manufacturing
- What happened
- Version 5 of the sanitation procedure has been drafted, and the manager must see exactly what changed and what retraining it triggers.
The question asked
What exactly changed between version 4 and version 5, and which changes alter what the crews must do?
What it reads, and who can see the result
- Version 4 (approved) documentThe current procedure.
- Version 5 (draft) documentThe proposed revision.
- Reads
- The two versions of the procedure.
- Does not read
- Other procedures.
- Permission
- The manager attaches both.
- Who sees it
- The production manager, the quality manager and the trainers.
Try it
Accept or reject each change. The text below is rebuilt from the changes you accept, and changes that alter what people must do are marked.
Sanitation procedure, version 4 (approved)
Rinse the line with potable water.
Removed Changes what people must do
Removes the pre-rinse; the quality manager must confirm this is intended.
Apply the cleaning solution and leave for ten minutes.
Reworded Changes what people must do
Apply the cleaning solution and leave for fifteen minutes.
Contact time changes from ten to fifteen minutes; changeover time grows and crews must be retrained.
Rinse again until no foam remains.
Added Changes what people must do
Swab the line and send the sample for an ATP test before restart.
A new verification step needs swabs, a reader and a person trained to use it.
Record the cleaning in the log at the end of the shift.
Reworded
Record the cleaning in the log immediately after completing it.
Clarifies timing; no new equipment or skill.
The text after your decisions (4 lines)
- Rinse the line with potable water.
- Apply the cleaning solution and leave for ten minutes.
- Rinse again until no foam remains.
- Record the cleaning in the log at the end of the shift.
The answer
Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.
4 changes: 0 accepted, 0 rejected, 4 undecided; 3 change what people must do.
The comparison lines up the two versions step by step and says what each change means in practice [S1]. Three of the four change what crews must do: the longer contact time, the new swab test and the removal of the pre-rinse [S2].
Of the changes you have accepted, 0 are of that kind, so retraining and the swab equipment must be in place before the version goes live. The text below is version 5 as it would stand with your decisions.
Relies on: S1 · Sanitation procedure v4 and v5S2 · Change control policy
Review and approval
The production manager with the quality manager decides. Approving sends the resulting version for approval and retraining planning. It does not publish it or retrain anyone.
Not ready to approve. 4 changes are still undecided. Accept or reject each one first.
In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.
What it produces
Limits of this example
- A line-by-line comparison cannot see a step moved to another procedure.
- Whether a change is safe is for the quality manager.
- This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.
More in Transition and knowledge transfer
The Transition and knowledge transfer story · This capability in the full register