Document/Record Numbering and identification

I have just a few words to say here.... I peeked into our new integrated QMS system today and found that our corrective action reports, as a result of audits (and will be also used for other procedures), are comprised of combination of letters, numbers, dashes and spaces and results in a total of 43 "characters". Yes, I said 43 total "characters". That includes spaces and dashes. Today is my 12-year anniversary. Things have been a bit unbearable lately. No passion, no vision, ego everywhere... but, yes.. I now live in a world where the nomenclature of a corrective action report is a total of 43 characters long! I can't.. I can't even imagine sticking around long enough to have to use it.

Then leave, what's holding you back? No sense going postal over dribble and you might have hit on an underlying issue that definitely could impact you later.

I think it's funny in the sad kind of way.
For some educative context, a rule of thumb for line length to assure people can comfortably repeatedly comprehend matters is around 75 characters (let's say 60-90). Long references or (function) titles kill the flow of a text in that way.

43 characters is nuts. Mine is 9-10. Most I encounter are similar. But it sounds like aside from this, you know it is time to go. The best time to get a new job is while you have one.

Jean_B said:

I think it's funny in the sad kind of way.
For some educative context, a rule of thumb for line length to assure people can comfortably repeatedly comprehend matters is around 75 characters (let's say 60-90). Long references or (function) titles kill the flow of a text in that way.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. 75 letters is extremely long. 75 characters is very nonsensical.

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is only 34 letters.
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is 45 letters long.

I suppose that IF there was logic to the sections of a name separated by dashes like year-month-day-sku-department-etc. one could make some sense of when the CA report was initiated or closed and which department owned it. But then most people don’t associate this type of alpha numeric designation with the actual CA (or procedure).

I wouldn't be surprised if a machine-based system didn't use some sort of long-ish "key" as an index.

For human-readable and human-generated files, 43-characters seems excessive. 2^43 is encoding something like 8 trillion bits. If I am generous and assume that there are ten delimiters (i.e. "dashes") which encode no information, 2^33 still encodes well over a billion bits.

My guess is that there are very few "unique" characters necessary, and that someone has decided to encode (some, likely quasi-arbitrary) metadata in the file naming convention, for the benefit of (quasi-arbitray) humans. I understand this desire, but I have never seen it end well.

There is a practical set of problems with such large "file names": There is a upper limit on the length of path/file names before systems start to "choke".... and it isn't always obvious that the file system is having problems. I have seen long-ish file names cause data to not be saved and/or archived.

Randy said:

Then leave, what's holding you back? No sense going postal over dribble and you might have hit on an underlying issue that definitely could impact you later.

Click to expand...

I hear you! I am just using this time to be choosy and explore what opportunities exist out there currently. I actually work on the supplier side of things which at this organization reports to plant quality. The plant quality director just retired at the end of the year. My direct boss thought he was a shoo-in for the position. He has been SQM for the past 10 years and had worked for this man at two previous companies. Brought into this company by him. For the past 8 months of knowing that retirement was eminent, my boss started spending more time at the plant and the mask started slipping. Began treating everyone horribly. Has been very hard for me to handle.. imagine, I have worked directly for him, very closely for all of those 10 years and had never seen this "person" before. Now very suddenly, he was condescending, arrogant, dismissive, etc. Well, he was also very absent in supplier quality while "training" for the plant director position. I had stepped up and addressed a lot while he was focused on his growth. I even worked to automate a few processes. We had lost our central system where everything happened, SCARs, CARs, PPAPs PCNs, etc. very suddenly almost two years ago and my boss had been working to "customize" an integrated system for us for that long. There was no sense in not ensuring an interim solution. But, he refused to let me implement all of them.. only one.. and that was implemented kinda by accident on a day my boss was out. We also had not been able to monitor/report SRPPM and I found a way to not just do it, but automate it. I also automated his metrics. I took it to him and he wouldn't give me the time of day. I kept on it while keeping it to myself. My team was disgruntled, distant.. and about the same time my boss was told he didn't get the job, a lot of things started being seen by others. Through this process my boss has done some things that are unforgiveable in my mind. Lines you just don't cross. I mean, he tried everything he possibly could to get me back under control and prevent me from doing anything that could be construed by anyone else as good. The gaslighting has been severe. I never thought in a million years that he would actively stand in the way of improvement. He isn't technical. He hates change. I built tools that saved time, reduced steps, streamlined, made output consistent and every month I got no, no, no. It started out at first just completely benevolent and from a desire to help my team and him. I ended up realizing I really enjoy it! Although, I was operating under the premise that I was offering interim solutions just until our system was up.. somehow it became about my systems vs his. He made it that way. Our new Director.. appreciates automation. The night my boss found out he didn't get the job, he asked me if I could be ready to launch two of the systems the next day. React right.. react react.. I didn't respond. So, now he wants to claim my work as his own for the new guy that supports automation. Imagine that. Now, these are things that.. HE DIRECTED me to do! My team.. 3 other guys.. they seem never to be treated as I am.. in fact, they are also never held accountable for anything. They also never take initiative. Thats perfect for my boss. So, yea.... 45 characters in a corrective action name.. made me smile! I'm tired..

Jean_B said:

I think it's funny in the sad kind of way.
For some educative context, a rule of thumb for line length to assure people can comfortably repeatedly comprehend matters is around 75 characters (let's say 60-90). Long references or (function) titles kill the flow of a text in that way.

Click to expand...

very sad! The person working to "develop and customize" the integrated system is not a "technical" person at all. He once.. kept his computer for 8 years.. and dealt with issue after issue when it was getting old.. just because he didn't want to lose or have to redo his "favorites".

Mike S. said:

43 characters is nuts. Mine is 9-10. Most I encounter are similar. But it sounds like aside from this, you know it is time to go. The best time to get a new job is while you have one.

Click to expand...

touche! Keep your fingers crossed for me!!!

Bev D said:

Not sure what you mean. 75 letters is extremely long. 75 characters is very nonsensical.

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is only 34 letters.
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is 45 letters long.

I suppose that IF there was logic to the sections of a name separated by dashes like year-month-day-sku-department-etc. one could make some sense of when the CA report was initiated or closed and which department owned it. But then most people don’t associate this type of alpha numeric designation with the actual CA (or procedure).

Click to expand...

I understand and agree. But, no logic here. I stopped trying to understand a while ago... and only smartened up and stopped trying to help and care recently!