Documentation when "ISSUER" and "Approved By" leave the company

A quick question:

"if work procedure contain name of "ISSUER" and "Approved By". Those guys left the company and some one else responsible for that area, then do we have to change the name in procedure and version number as well to modified ISO documentaion or it should be ok"

Thanks,

Sorry i got the Got the partial answer from the thread

ISO Procedure Writing Tips

Re: Documentation

Why not use job titles? I never use names just for that reason.

Re: Documentation

armaan said:

A quick question:

"if work procedure contain name of "ISSUER" and "Approved By". Those guys left the company and some one else responsible for that area, then do we have to change the name in procedure and version number as well to modified ISO documentaion or it should be ok"

Thanks,

Click to expand...

It's never a good idea to rewrite history. No matter who goes where, the original "issuer" and approver don't change. Of course, if the document changes, someone else will approve the new release, but the originals are still the originals.

Re: Documentation

SteelMaiden said:

Why not use job titles? I never use names just for that reason.

Click to expand...

Because you might need to know exactly who approved something. It's a good idea to use titles when responsibilities are defined, but when document approval is the issue, you need names.

Re: Documentation

Jim Wynne said:

Because you might need to know exactly who approved something. It's a good idea to use titles when responsibilities are defined, but when document approval is the issue, you need names.

Click to expand...

I like to think about signatures approving documents in this way:
Just because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Edgar Allan Poe, William Shakespeare, et al are dead does NOT mean all their works need to be reprinted and signed by Scot Turow or some other living author.

If the documents were valid when the dead or otherwise departed persons signed them, then they are still valid after their departures.

Re: Documentation

Jim Wynne said:

Because you might need to know exactly who approved something. It's a good idea to use titles when responsibilities are defined, but when document approval is the issue, you need names.

Click to expand...

Why do you need names? Don't you remember who your production manager is?

And as Wes points out, in much better fashion than I could btw, even if he leaves does that mean that suddenly the document is no good? If the new production manager wants to make changes, so be it, he can revise and re-approve.

Re: Documentation

SteelMaiden said:

Why do you need names? Don't you remember who your production manager is?

Click to expand...

I've worked in situations where there might be dozens of people authorized to approve drawings or other documents, all with the same job title.

And as Wes points out, in much better fashion than I could btw, even if he leaves does that mean that suddenly the document is no good? If the new production manager wants to make changes, so be it, he can revise and re-approve.

Click to expand...

There's simply no good reason to not use names in this application, and a lot of good reasons why you should. When a drawing or document changes, there's a new approver (for the change), thus a new name, but we still know who originally approved it. In the case of things like the quality manual, if you used a name instead of title, you would have to go back and change the document because there's a new person with the title.

To each his own, Jim, but this is why I have a database that records the approver for each revision. My document still does not have a name on it. If I want to know who actually approved it (my company is not so small that we don't have multiple people working with the same job title) I pull it up in the database. Nobody doing the real work on the floor has ever cared who, as long as they knew that what they were working from was current.

SteelMaiden said:

To each his own, Jim, but this is why I have a database that records the approver for each revision. My document still does not have a name on it. If I want to know who actually approved it (my company is not so small that we don't have multiple people working with the same job title) I pull it up in the database. Nobody doing the real work on the floor has ever cared who, as long as they knew that what they were working from was current.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference whether the approver is identified on the document or somewhere else. But in some cases, the approver should be identified by name.

armaan said:

A quick question:

"if work procedure contain name of "ISSUER" and "Approved By". Those guys left the company and some one else responsible for that area, then do we have to change the name in procedure and version number as well to modified ISO documentaion or it should be ok"

Thanks,

Sorry i got the Got the partial answer from the thread

ISO Procedure Writing Tips

Click to expand...

I see this as a management issue. Top management can always issue a memo to state that pending a new revision, these documents (signed by people that had left the company) is still valid.

Otherwise, if there is no reason for a new revision, the new guys can just countersigned on the 'issued' and 'approved' column to signify their acceptance and approval of the same document.