We have a storage building downtown where they have been keeping a lot of our production logs and sheets. These are how we ensure accountability for all product being built so if there is an issue, we can track it back to through the process. We keep them for 5 years and only the current year is kept in our plant. Now, how readily does readily retrievable mean?:confused:

Thanks

We have a storage building downtown where they have been keeping a lot of our production logs and sheets. These are how we ensure accountability for all product being built so if there is an issue, we can track it back to through the process. We keep them for 5 years and only the current year is kept in our plant. Now, how readily does readily retrievable mean?:confused:

Thanks

The clause in question says that records must "...remain legible, readily identifiable, and retrievable."

"Readily" modifies "identifiable," not "retrievable." In other words, records must remain retrievable.

So, as long as they can be retrieved, it should be ok? It does not matter if it takes a day?

So, as long as they can be retrieved, it should be ok? It does not matter if it takes a day?

The intent is to make sure that you can get them if you need them, and the length of time it takes is neither specified nor implied. Let common sense prevail.:D

The intent is to make sure that you can get them if you need them, and the length of time it takes is neither specified nor implied. Let common sense prevail.:D


I agree with Jim. The time limit really is irrelevant. As long as the records can be retrieved within a "reasonable" amount of time.

I usually can retrieve any records within 2 working days and our customers have not had any problem with that, but since most of your archived records are off-site that may take a little more time.


Coury Ferguson
Program/Contracts Manager

The intent is to make sure that you can get them if you need them, and the length of time it takes is neither specified nor implied. Let common sense prevail.:D

While this is true, I have found that 3rd party auditors usually have an expectation that the records will be available either by the end of the day, or before the exit meeting.

Thank you.

While this is true, I have found that 3rd party auditors usually have an expectation that the records will be available either by the end of the day, or before the exit meeting.

Good point; I think it's a good idea to keep reasonably recent records on-site. Like I said earlier, common sense should be the guide. It's reasonable to expect an auditor to want to see records relevant to recent events, so they shouldn't be archived at a remote site.

Thank you.

You're welcome.:agree1:

Good point; I think it's a good idea to keep reasonably recent records on-site. Like I said earlier, common sense should be the guide. It's reasonable to expect an auditor to want to see records relevant to recent events, so they shouldn't be archived at a remote site.

Because, although I agree in principle with Jim and Miner, why should the company keep records on site - simply in case an auditor wants to see them. If the auditor 'randomly' wants to see some records, take them to the location and have them actually audit the records archiving system to see that it works for you. If the expectation is that they nominate a bunch of records and then you play 'hide and go seek' then I'd suggest there's little practical benefit to that exercise. Show the auditor how the system works.

Andy