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

[armaan]

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

[SteelMaiden]

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

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by armaan

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,

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.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by SteelMaiden

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

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.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

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.

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.

[SteelMaiden]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

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.

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.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by SteelMaiden

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

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.

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.

[SteelMaiden]

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.