IQ, OQ, PQ (installation, operational & performance qualification) compared to PPAP

W

wslabey

How does IQ, OQ, PQ compare to PPAP? Our company is moving into life sciences and producing FDA exempt products that will be used in laboratories. Our suppliers speak in the language of IQ, OQ, PQ and PPAP is foreign to them.

Are they comparable? If so, has anybody done a comparison. I would deeply appreciate a posting that answers my questions. Thanks in advance for your help.

Bill
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Re: IQ, OQ, PQ compared to PPAP

I haven't seen a comparison that I remember. The weekend is starting so if no one replies bump this thread next Monday morning and you'll probbly get a reply.
 
A

achorste

Re: IQ, OQ, PQ compared to PPAP

PPAP & IQ OQ PQ are quite different, I'm not sure if a direct comparison can me made. IQ OQ PQ validates a process, typically this is individual processes, although it is sometimes used as a basis to validate full manufacturing routes.

IQ OQ PQ doesn't call for process capability or gauge studies specifically but there's no particular reason why they can't be included. (Gauge studies may be required in IQ for new gauging methods)

IQ OQ PQ, as your may have inferred from the name comes in three stages:

IQ - installation qualification
OQ - operational qualification and
PQ - performance qualification

IQ - verify the equipment is installed correctly, training, utilities, could include DoE for new unfamiliar processes, SOPs, risk analysis, preliminary control plans etc etc

OQ - testing "worst case parameters" - basically define the worst case settings for the particular process and ensure it still gives acceptable results - i.e. for an ultrasonic cleaner it could be lowest temperature, lowest frequency and lowest solvent concentration.

PQ - this ensures the process is repeatable - to do this you would have to define a statistically relevant number of production runs of typical batch / lot sizes. Although often I used the "three batch rule" - running 3 batches of the largest & smallest parts in a product range. The 3 batch rule isn't recognised offically anywhere as far as I know. This is all done under normal manufacturing conditions - i.e. no special inspection - everything as it would be in full production.

I posted the GHTF (Global Harmonisation Taskforce validation guidance the other day .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W

wslabey

Re: IQ, OQ, PQ (installation, operational & performance qualification) compared to PP

Talk about a time delay. I appreciate the response. I am from an automotive background and work for an automotive supplier of engineering services, prototyping, and low volume production. Like many suppliers we are diversifying and have acquired a small startup company in Life Sciences. That division is moving along ISO 13485 registration with a scope that is limited to marketing and design. Its designs are made by contract manufacturers. I have learned a bit about IQ, OQ, PQ but I feel the quality deliverables I have seen from contract manufacturers are not concise or complete at each phase of the IQ, OQ, PQ. I would like to bring the discipline of PPAP with its deliverables (i.e., an all in one package) to our production approval process including engineering approval and validation of production run parts.

Any thoughts or comments would be most appreciated.

Bill
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Moderator
Re: IQ, OQ, PQ (installation, operational & performance qualification) compared to PP

Hi Bill,

I come from the medical devices industry.

I know you're talking about ISO 13485, but I just realized that in FDA (QSR) terms, your lifescience company may qualify as a specification developer. As such, I'm not sure that they are even required to have process validation; it may be the contract manufacturer's responsibility. While this maybe true for medical devices, I am less sure wrt pharmceticals (which also fall under "lifescience").

In MDD terms (which are more closely related to ISO 13485) they might suffice with an annex VI (product final inspection) conformity, leaving the whole actual production as a "black box".

Cheers,
Ronen.

Talk about a time delay. I appreciate the response. I am from an automotive background and work for an automotive supplier of engineering services, prototyping, and low volume production. Like many suppliers we are diversifying and have acquired a small startup company in Life Sciences. That division is moving along ISO 13485 registration with a scope that is limited to marketing and design. Its designs are made by contract manufacturers. I have learned a bit about IQ, OQ, PQ but I feel the quality deliverables I have seen from contract manufacturers are not concise or complete at each phase of the IQ, OQ, PQ. I would like to bring the discipline of PPAP with its deliverables (i.e., an all in one package) to our production approval process including engineering approval and validation of production run parts.

Any thoughts or comments would be most appreciated.

Bill
 
A

alex.Kennedy

Re: IQ, OQ, PQ (installation, operational & performance qualification) compared to PP

I am taking PPAP as meaning - Production Part Approval Process. As such it applies to a production part. Where as pharmaceutical / biotechnical / medical device cGMP

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=820&showFR=1

regulations apply not only to the product, but also all the manufacturing / testing / packaging / utilities / facilities / environmental / recording equipment, along with all associated processes that are used to produce test and store, the product.

There is no doubt you will have much of the required information to hand, but is it in an acceptable format? Many industries accept the likes of tick boxes (to indicate compliance), this practice is proscribed by our regulators. All tests must start with a rationale (justifying the test). Then contain a detailed test method. Then continue with a detailed acceptance criteria. Then complete with your test results and a statement that the acceptance criteria was or was not satisfied.

There is a strict regime of documentation that must be sequential in execution.

Alex Kennedy
 
Top Bottom