Document version control and document maturity definitions. Document review guidelines?

I am trying to communicate document review guidelines to people who have not been involved with this sort of stuff before. Examples of the problems we are encountering are - getting feedback on first draft documents containing low level, detailed comments. We are also encountering a lack of understanding of why documents sent around in initial draft are not the same quality as those submitted for final review.





The standard titles used with in this project to convey document maturity /status are - Initial Draft, Core Draft, Peer Review, Final Draft %26amp; Approval.





As part of the education process, I really want some help to define each stage? eg ';Initial Draft should contain... As a reviewer you should be looking to verify... (table of contents or something)'; where as ';Final draft should be at .... level of maturity, and reviewers should be looking to verify...';Document version control and document maturity definitions. Document review guidelines?
I was the Drawing Control Supervisor for the company that built the Syncrude tar sands plant. We had hundreds of blueprints, specification changes, memos, etc constantly changing. I developed a document information log that was updated as the revisions were made. The log listed all documents , which listed the dates and status of each one. including initial date . All depts were given a copy weekly and they were required to sign it and return it to the drawing control dept with any requests for extra copies, or any that they didn't have the current version of. It was less confusing to use revision numbers rather than naming them. you could have a sheet attached to each document that must be signed and returned to the originator within a certain period, and it should have an area for comments etc. As for the quality you should have a highlighted area on the document explaining that it is only a draft and the quality may be lower .