I am working as the Manger business Excellence for an organization which is dealing with the E commerce business and having various cross functional activities like E sourcing, Forward and reverse action, Customer Care and other related activities.

My query is regarding element no. 5.5.1 of ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management System. The standards mentions in very brief "Top management shall ensure that responsibilities and authorities are defined and communicated within
the organization"

My question is whether the "Authority" has to be designated to all the functional people as per organization chart of the organization or Responsibility and Authorities can be mentioned against each activity designated in a process line, which shows the involvement of respective departments.

Whether addressing of clause no 7.5.2 is required for the software design and development process or it is taken care of by clause no 7.3.6????

Hi buddies!!!

waiting for your valued response in this regard.

Cheers:cool:

Arindam

I am working as the Manger business Excellence for an organization which is dealing with the E commerce business and having various cross functional activities like E sourcing, Forward and reverse action, Customer Care and other related activities.

My query is regarding element no. 5.5.1 of ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management System. The standards mentions in very brief "Top management shall ensure that responsibilities and authorities are defined and communicated within
the organization"

My question is whether the "Authority" has to be designated to all the functional people as per organization chart of the organization or Responsibility and Authorities can be mentioned against each activity designated in a process line, which shows the involvement of respective departments.

Whether addressing of clause no 7.5.2 is required for the software design and development process or it is taken care of by clause no 7.3.6????

In my opinion, responsibilities and authority should be defined throughout your system, where appropriate. The organization chart plays a part, but does not describe much detail. So, usually this is discussed in procedures. If you address things in 7.3.6 or 7.5.2 is up to you. In the process approach, it is not linked to a particular clause.

For your industry, it would seem likely that the design people would be the operational people. If they are the same people, you can address it under either clause.

Responsibilities are basically those tasks that one is required to perform and will be held accountable for.....and authorities are the actions and decisions one is allowed to take to fulfill responsibilities.

My question is whether the "Authority" has to be designated to all the functional people as per organization chart of the organization or Responsibility and Authorities can be mentioned against each activity designated in a process line, which shows the involvement of respective departments.

I advise to define responsibilities for every (responsible:lol:) person and then accordingly define authority (by determining as necessary) of these persons to carry out the responsibilities alloted to them.

Whether addressing of clause no 7.5.2 is required for the software design and development process or it is taken care of by clause no 7.3.6????

The entire clause 7.3 (7.3.1 to 7.3.7) will be applicable to the process and then you do not need to address 7.5.2 for the activities addressed in 7.3

In my opinion, responsibilities and authority should be defined throughout your system, where appropriate. The organization chart plays a part, but does not describe much detail. So, usually this is discussed in procedures. If you address things in 7.3.6 or 7.5.2 is up to you. In the process approach, it is not linked to a particular clause.

For your industry, it would seem likely that the design people would be the operational people. If they are the same people, you can address it under either clause.
Hi buddy hjilling!!!!

I also thought in the same line.....actually, my design people are not involved in operation, they just develop the software application based on the requirements of the other business units.

I fully agree with you that the validation can be addressed in either clause, but there is only one ambiguity....if I want to include validation in 7.3.6 then straightway exclusion for 7.5.2 can be taken; but on the other hand if I want to address it in clause 7.5.2, can I claim exclusion for 7.3.6????? By doing this ami I not breaking the continuity of the design and development life cycle????

Cheers

Arindam

I advise to define responsibilities for every (responsible:lol:) person and then accordingly define authority (by determining as necessary) of these persons to carry out the responsibilities alloted to them.



The entire clause 7.3 (7.3.1 to 7.3.7) will be applicable to the process and then you do not need to address 7.5.2 for the activities addressed in 7.3
Hi buddy Parag!!!!

Thanx.......Can you throw some light on the authorities of the programmers who simply write the codes for any application????? His / Her responsibility is to do the coding of a particular module within a given time period.....He/she does not even have the final decision on the codes he/she is writing. The final authority lies with the team leader, as he is accountable for the debelopment of the project as a whole.

Cheers

Arindam

Responsibilities are basically those tasks that one is required to perform and will be held accountable for.....and authorities are the actions and decisions one is allowed to take to fulfill responsibilities.
Hi buddy Randy!!!!

That is quite obvious that "Responsibility" without "Authority" does not have any significance......my hitch is that whether authorities of all the responsibilities mentioned in an organization chart should be documented or not!!!! If yes then whether will it be done designationwise or process wise.

To my understanding, if I try to map the authorities process wise, then it is always better...because you need not bug your head for each and every authority along with the designated responsibilities for that particualr process, but the authority of the process owner can always be mentioned.

Cheers

Arindam

That is quite obvious that "Responsibility" without "Authority" does not have any significance......

Obvious to you, perhaps, but there are many instance where responsibilities are assigned without the necessary authority also being explicitly assigned.

my hitch is that whether authorities of all the responsibilities mentioned in an organization chart should be documented or not!!!! If yes then whether will it be done designationwise or process wise.



You can avoid all of the trouble by just stating in your documentation that "authority" is to be assumed when "responsibility" is mentioned.

Hi buddy hjilling!!!!

I also thought in the same line.....actually, my design people are not involved in operation, they just develop the software application based on the requirements of the other business units.

I fully agree with you that the validation can be addressed in either clause, but there is only one ambiguity....if I want to include validation in 7.3.6 then straightway exclusion for 7.5.2 can be taken; but on the other hand if I want to address it in clause 7.5.2, can I claim exclusion for 7.3.6????? By doing this ami I not breaking the continuity of the design and development life cycle????

Cheers

Arindam


OK. There are specific requirements that personnel designing things must have the particular skills needed. In your case, I assume that is writing program code, and designing the structure and flow of the software. These design skills must be defined and verified. The better fit for this is 7.3.6.

There is also a manufacturing skill requirement, where the product quality cannot be verified by inspection, then more specific controls must be defined. In your case, it seems the hard part is already done in software design, in 7.3.6. Any further details in 7.5 can cross reference to this. 7.3.6 is the better fit for you.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but there are many instance where responsibilities are assigned without the necessary authority also being explicitly assigned.



You can avoid all of the trouble by just stating in your documentation that "authority" is to be assumed when "responsibility" is mentioned.
Hi buddy Jim!!!!

That option sounds good. Thanx

Cheers.

Arindam

Hi buddy Randy!!!!

......my hitch is that whether authorities of all the responsibilities mentioned in an organization chart should be documented or not!!!! If yes then whether will it be done designationwise or process wise.


The standard is very clear and specific about what has to be documented.

The best way to document would be what is determined to be the most effective way for you to do it that meets your needs.

Your "hitch"?