RE: Numbering Convention for Policies & Procedures

Subject: RE: Numbering Convention for Policies & Procedures
From: "Harry Bacheler" <hbacheler -at- geo -dot- census -dot- gov>
To: "Parker, Cassandra M." <CMPARKER -at- intermedia -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:51:18 -0500

Cassandra

My comments are based on experience with MS Word, WordPerfect, and Ami
Pro (WordPro from Lotus)

Why start at 1.0.0, instead of 1? By doing so you are 'forcing' an
implied heading level "3".

Most "Outlining" methods that I have seen start at 1.

You will be forced to change the 'styles' for all of your headings,
table of contents (TOC's), and a WHOLE RAFT OF OTHER THINGS.

It is also forcing you to NOT use auto numbering.

As a side note, you would have to explain 'why' you went to (a perceived)
level 6 in your headings.
(1.1.1.1.1.1) when you are really at level 4. (1.1.1.1)

Another thought. Are your Policies and Procedures part of a "Set"
and possibly could be numbered based on the set (overall)?

Rather than just within each Policy and Procedure. (each having a unique
numbering set starting at 1.x.x)


BTW, my recommendation is to use

1.0 Purpose
2.0 Scope

Harry M. Bacheler, Jr.
Consultant
VGS, Inc.

"The thoughts, ideas, and opinions expressed in my portion of this email
are mine and mine alone.=A0 They are not the thoughts, ideas, and/or
opinions of any past, present, or future employers, or any group that I
might belong to."


-----Original Message-----

.. snip, snip ...

Subject: Numbering Convention for Policies & Procedures
What is the numbering convention for Policies and Procedures?
EXAMPLE:
1.0.0 Purpose (blah, blah, blah)
1.0.1 OR
1.1.0
1.1.1.1 (blah, blah, blah)
1.1.1.2 (blah, blah, blah)
2.0.0 Scope, etc.
2.0.0 OR
2.1.1
2.1.1.1 (blah, blah, blah)
2.1.1.2 (blah, blah, blah)
1.0 Purpose, etc.
2.0 Scope, etc.

HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!

Thanks,
Cassandra Parker





Previous by Author: RE: Do Users Refer to a Table of Figures?
Next by Author: RE: Help describing fields.
Previous by Thread: RE: Numbering Convention for Policies & Procedures
Next by Thread: RE: HUMOR: Old thread, hopefully new spin on "disembowel" vs. "Be tty Grable"


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads