Recently there has been quite a number of company undergo merger. Just curious to find out, if the company go through a merger, is it an immediate need to update all controlled documents to reflect the change ? i.e. company logo, company name etc even though the process remain the same?

Recently there has been quite a number of company undergo merger. Just curious to find out, if the company go through a merger, is it an immediate need to update all controlled documents to reflect the change ? i.e. company logo, company name etc even though the process remain the same?

well , this is according to the company needs, but sure you should do , specially if you have new resultant company,how would you have a name of a company which is not exist any more!!!

you could do that gradually within a specified plan , not all dcuments at once, this would be better .


Samer

Welcome to the Cove, Lee :bigwave: is it an immediate need to update all controlled documents to reflect the change ? i.e. company logo, company name etc even though the process remain the same?We discussed a similar question in this old thread: Is it mandatory to change right away all the procedures header (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11701).

Anyway, my take is that if the process is unchanged there is no need to update the written procedure. It would be a waste of resources to update a document just for the sake of a header, logo or such. That can be taken care of in the course of normal updates as the content changes.

/Claes

I agree with Claes and would offer these additional observations:

A merger is often a time of downsizing, while the new owners try to gain economies of scale. In such an environment I would not want to be seen spending time on a zero-value activity like changing logos on documents.

Also, I've visited companies that have survived mergers. All the old hands remember which company they used to work for and often still have strong allegiance to it, even though it may have been defunct for years. They will happily tell new hires all about the old company, so I think the risk of anyone being confused by references to the old company is minimal.

Indeed, I think there's a risk of reducing morale in the workforce by unceremoniously removing the old identity and appearing to be more concerned with that, than with rewriting processes. And rewriting processes will almost certainly become necessary, as common infrastructure in purchasing, manufacturing, HR, sales, help desk and so on is merged on the hunt for economies.

Indeed, mergers are a time of opportunity for quality departments, I think, ensuring that new processes are defined to match new organisations. I have often seen situations where the quality department have not revised the processes (often due to weak management commitment to, um, what I'd call real management) with the result that the process says, "Take the document/component/subassembly to department X for processing" and the people say, "But department X has been axed: now what do we do?"

So in my experience, mergers are an opportunity for quality to make a difficult time just a little easier, by matching new processes to the new organisation.

Hope this helps,
Patrick

What effort would be wasted in changeing yr documents which is supposed to be six procedure and yr records -in a defined time interval- ?this could be opportunity to review yr system

What I know that the new owners will always welcome any changes !!!

and dont forget that it is a must to review yr Quality Manual, Policy, Vision ....since it should be forwarded to customer ,in addition to customer related procedures

this is my opinion , and as a conclusion , the document change depends on the point of view of yr new Top mangemnet ,they are the party who decide the right track for you, it is not directly a matter of complying to the standrad or not .

Samer

What effort would be wasted in changeing yr documents which is supposed to be six procedure and yr records -in a defined time interval- ?this could be opportunity to review yr system




Please, I really think we need to stop perpetuating this error.

...The system is NOT "supposed" to be 6 procedures and records. You are misreading the requirement.

4.2.1.c makes the reference which translates to the 6 procedures required by the standard itself (or 7 in TS), HOWEVER, the very next sentence (4.2.1.d) adds "DOCUMENTS NEEDED BY THE ORGANIZATION..." which adds all kinds of additional documents, procedures, work instructions, etc.

The intent never was to create a system of 6 procedures. That is obviously the starting point. The intent is to create the system that you need, rather than everyone has the same.

I have yet to audit a company that only has 6 procedures. It may exist, but is unlikely to be robust.

Please, I really think we need to stop perpetuating this error.

...The system is NOT "supposed" to be 6 procedures and records. You are misreading the requirement.

4.2.1.c makes the reference which translates to the 6 procedures required by the standard itself (or 7 in TS), HOWEVER, the very next sentence (4.2.1.d) adds "DOCUMENTS NEEDED BY THE ORGANIZATION..." which adds all kinds of additional documents, procedures, work instructions, etc.

The intent never was to create a system of 6 procedures. That is obviously the starting point. The intent is to create the system that you need, rather than everyone has the same.

I have yet to audit a company that only has 6 procedures. It may exist, but is unlikely to be robust.

Absolutely right. Real systems have many, many, many documents.

The value of changing them is, in my view, proportional to the impact of changes on customer satisfaction, defect rates, on-time delivery, fix response time and so forth. By this measure, the value of changing them just for logos and company name is almost zero (with, as hjilling points out, the possible exception of documents the customer might see, although even these might be better handled with a cover note).

Patrick

this could be opportunity to review yr systemYes, indeed. No argument there, and I agree with your point about documents sent to the customer.

The intent never was to create a system of 6 procedures. That is obviously the starting point. The intent is to create the system that you need, rather than everyone has the same.Absolutley. Good point.

The value of changing them is, in my view, proportional to the impact of changes on customer satisfaction, defect rates, on-time delivery, fix response time and so forth. By this measure, the value of changing them just for logos and company name is almost zeroHey... Well said :agree1:

with, as hjilling points out, the possible exception of documents the customer might seeAgreed, but I think that was samer.

Good discussion :applause:

/Claes

Please, I really think we need to stop perpetuating this error.

...The system is NOT "supposed" to be 6 procedures and records. You are misreading the requirement.

4.2.1.c makes the reference which translates to the 6 procedures required by the standard itself (or 7 in TS), HOWEVER, the very next sentence (4.2.1.d) adds "DOCUMENTS NEEDED BY THE ORGANIZATION..." which adds all kinds of additional documents, procedures, work instructions, etc.

The intent never was to create a system of 6 procedures. That is obviously the starting point. The intent is to create the system that you need, rather than everyone has the same.

I have yet to audit a company that only has 6 procedures. It may exist, but is unlikely to be robust.

My freind , this is a figurative expression used by me ,I,m not giving here an awarness course for people who dont know what ISO is , you should be aware of that ,I can read the standard very well ........................

it doesnt mean that if I didnt talk in yr own words , that I cant read the standard ,look to the purpose of the thread please........with my respect

Samer

Hello Hui Yee

To answer this question, you need to know a bit about company laws in Malaysia.

All legal entities need registration with the registrar of companies. A certificate will be issued upon approval. Subsequent changes in name, ownership, share holding structure etc need to be lodged with the registrar. Even if there are several changes of name and ownership over time, its history can still be traced.

If the entity is listed, there are even more procedures such as shareholders approval. Thus a merger exercise is not a child play. It takes time – generally 3-6 months for privately owned business and as much as a year or more for listed companies. Only after the necessary procedures and paperwork are lodged will the registrar issue a new certificate with any change of company name.

Meanwhile you have all the time to ponder over necessary actions. What the standard required had been clearly replied by other fellow covers.

Welcome to the Cove, Lee :bigwave: We discussed a similar question in this old thread: Is it mandatory to change right away all the procedures header (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11701).

Anyway, my take is that if the process is unchanged there is no need to update the written procedure. It would be a waste of resources to update a document just for the sake of a header, logo or such. That can be taken care of in the course of normal updates as the content changes.

/ClaesI agree with Claes that many of the factors were discussed in the referenced thread.

Let me add this:

Sometimes the nature of a merger means incorporating the documents from each of the predecessor companies into a "harmonized" version which is equally applicable through the new combined organization. In many cases, the various Quality documents (Procedures, work instructions, inspection formats, etc.) only need a change of logo to keep from confusing customers and suppliers.

In such cases, I recommend merely adding a cover sheet to identify the document as belonging to the combined organization (with new name), explaining there is no change to the document. Numbering (if used - numbering is NOT necessary) can be left the same or changed as the organization finds best - neither the Standard nor the auditor has any say in this matter. Same thing goes for version, which can be added to the cover sheet as "1" if the numbering is changed.

In every case, it is important to make such changes as are necessary to avoid confusion among employees, customers, and suppliers. Auditors do NOT figure into the mix of who needs to be kept from confusion, as long as the other three groups are accommodated. The consideration, therefore, is not the Standard, but the efficiency of the business purpose using such documents.