[Originally appeared 2000.]
Much of the discussion in the current collaboration of The Word of Law has focused on comparison of documents. To make the comparison meaningful, it is essential to keep track of the version of the document.
Let’s set aside some features of Word that might appear to be helpful, but in fact are not. Word 97 and 2000 documents have a property called “Revision Number.” It can be viewed on the Statistics tab of the Properties dialog (File | Properties).
Unfortunately, it increments every time that a document is revised and saved. If one practices the first rule safe computing (save early, save often) this number can (and should) become large. For those of us who compose or edit directly on screen, the importance of frequent saves cannot be over emphasized. Try keying CTRL-S along with entering each paragraph mark. One way or the next, we cannot rely on the Revision Number property to be an accurate guide of the identity of a document version.
The second theoretically helpful feature is the Versions function of Word (File | Versions). This enables Word to store in the electronic file for a document multiple versions of the text. There is an option to automatically save a new version on closing a document. At least for our lawyer readers, we recommend very strongly not to use this feature. It causes the prior text of a document to remain in the file, raising the risk of unintentional disclosure of changed or deleted text. The storage of multiple versions, especially in larger documents, increases the file size and raises the risk of failure in editing the document.
That leaves file naming conventions to keep track of versions. Many law practices and some other sizable organizations have deployed software called document management systems to enhance the storage and retrieval of their electronic files. Without explaining the rest of their features, document management systems offer version control by associating all versions of a document together. The user interaction with the several versions is similar to that provided by Word’s Versions function. Users generally edit the most recent version of a document, but have access to the prior versions.
Unlike Word’s Versions, the prior versions are maintained in distinct files, so the problems of adverse disclosure and file integrity are avoided.
For those without document management systems, similar tracking can be accomplished through document naming conventions, especially taking advantage of long file names. The naming convention can include version number as part of the document name. It might be abbreviated v1, v2 … or Ver 1, Ver 2, or it could be spelled out as Version 1, Version 2.
The key issue, whether or not using a document management system, is to know when to identify a new version. Here are some rules worth observing.
1. Increase the version number whenever a document is distributed to others for review. This should occur whether the distribution is internal to an organization or external. This supports unambiguous use of document comparison tools to trace changes between the version distributed and the revised version. It may be desirable to track separately internal and external distribution. For instance, there might be three internal revisions between version 2 and version 3 distributed to third parties. To distinguish the revisions, use a subversion number for the intervening internal revisions. Some document management systems support these directly. With document naming conventions, the subversions could be labeled 2A, 2B or 2.1, 2.2 and so forth.
2. Those who receive and revise documents should rename their copy. Rather than increasing the version number, they should add their identity to the current version name. Thus, if I were to be reviewing a version 3 of a document written and managed by Peter Deegan, I would save my revisions to the file as “Document Name, Version3 (Blacksberg).” Obviously, long files names are a must.
These are not new concepts. With electronic collaboration growing rapidly, and multiple copies of files traveling by e-mail, however, the advice grows more important.
This 2000 article originally appeared in Office Watch. Subscribe to Office Watch free at http://www.office-watch.com/.