4.2.3a Approve Documents - Is listing the verbage 'Engineering Manager' sufficent?

  • Thread starter George Trybulski
  • Start date
G

George Trybulski

#1
4.2.3a Approve Documents

I have a master List File that shows the following (example)

Document Name Product Launch Checklist
Document Number ENGDOC-004
Rev. Level A
ISO 7.2.1
Issue Date 8/16/02
Approval Authority Engineering Manager

My question would be is listing the verbage "Engineering Manager" sufficent to meet the standard 4.2.3a (to approve documents for adequacy prior to issue) or should a specific persons name apply there. In the past I have had a person "sign a master copy" and keep it on file, however in this day and age of electronic documentation I find that to be outdated. Any comments or help would be appreciated.

Attached File included for those who like to "rob" ideas from other people as I do !!!!!!!!

George Trybulski
:ca:
 

Attachments

Elsmar Forum Sponsor
N

noboxwine

#2
COMPUTERS ARE YOUR FRIEND

HEED THE ELECTRONIC AGE !!!

I HAVE ALWAYS USED TITLES INSTEAD OF PERSON'S NAMES. USUALLY THE CAPACITY WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION IS STABLE, BUT THE PEOPLE WITHIN THEM ARE TRANSIENT. SO SAVE YOURSELF TIME BY NOT HAVING TO UPDATE YOUR DOCS EVERYTIME SOMEONE GETS FIRED, PROMOTED OR RESIGNS. GOOD LUCK AND HAVE A DAY----------:bigwave:
 
J

Jimmy Olson

#3
George,

Great document. It's pretty similar to what we use (guess someone here had robbed it from you before :) )

We've always just listed a title rather than a specific person for our responsibilities and authorities and have never had a problem with it. The argument that we would make if questioned is that people change, but the position doesn't. I hope this helps.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
#4
I agree that a job title as the approving authority (i.e. Engineering Manager instead of John Smith) is the way to go. However, I still believe it is best to have the personalized signature of the current approving function on the document. That can be having someone actually sign their name in ink on a hardcopy document as you have done in the past Geroge, or it can be via an electronic signature. I'm not sure what the best way to do electronic signatures is, perhaps someone can shed some light on that.
 
C

C Emmons

#5
Electronic signatures

We are currently considering this for our Corrective Action Form that just went on-line. I can tell you what my MIS guy says the plan is.

He is trying to purchase a business card scanner (100.00). If this gets approved we will send blank signature cards out and have the managers sign them. Scan them. Somehow MIS is assigning "PIN" numbers for each signature. You just enter your personalized pin# and your signature prints out.
 
R

Randy Stewart

#7
Electronic!!!

I have gone a little easier on approvals. For the higher level documents it is left at the "original approval level" and instead of having signatures it is in the email tracking that follows the procedure. Personnel know that it is approved for use by the document being posted to our Control Doc Web Page by the Quality Systems Manager. For Departmental procedures, they need to be routed from the manager through the Qual Sys Mgr but changes may be done on the floor by the mgr. if they sign & date the change. It has worked for years now in our ever changing prototype environment. We control the few prints (CAD is master) in the same manner, with the addition of the customer being allow to change a print on the floor with signature and date.
 
D

Dan Hiland - 2003

#8
Signing The Master Copy

George: This reply is a little late, but I wanted to weigh in on the subject of master copies and signatures. :)

The following may seem archaic and outdated to you, but it helps me explain where I'm coming from.

I write, store and maintain electronic and hard copies of all work instructions (WI) for the Manufacturing area in our plant. As such, I have to be able to access them at any time, regardless of whether or not the network server is behaving itself. I also have to archive obsolete WI's for quite a while (mainly because the Engineers want to have a historical record for R&D purposes). We also do not have a records retention policy- but that is a subject better left for another time.....frust

After receiving the signed-off WI back from the last of the approvers, I sign it and then make a copy for the respective dept. Then I red-stamp the docs with the date of issue. I place the original signed-off hard copy of each WI in its respective binder. The binders are classified by dept (Assembly, Punch Press, etc.).

Each one of these documents contains a set of sign-off boxes on the last page. They are labeled as:

AUTHOR SUPERVISOR QA ENGINEER ENGINEERING

I agree with one of the other posters who stated that it's better to list a title than a specific name. Turnover plays "revision ****" with docs that have specific approvers' names listed on them. Also, you may have more than one approved signer for any particular box. In my case, I am the only "Author", and there is only one "QA Engineer". Depending on the department, though, there six different supervisors, and at least that many engineers who are authorized to sign-off in their respective boxes. Flexibility is important here.

If you have a doc control program/application that has electronic signature capability, it can work well (as long as you are vigilant in updating the signatures on file). We don't have it here yet, but I have seen another company that does, and it does save them some time. Even then, they still keep a master copy of each WI in a binder. I look on it as a documentation "security blanket".
They do this even though they use Harrington Group's "Document Control System" for doc maintenance, report generation, and ISO compliance.

The computer may be my friend, but it is a fair-weather one .....

I hope this helps. Your results may vary.

Dan Hiland :) :bigwave:
 
G

Graeme

#9
Not with MY signature!

C Emmons said:
... I can tell you what my MIS guy says the plan is.

He is trying to purchase a business card scanner (100.00). If this gets approved we will send blank signature cards out and have the managers sign them. Scan them. Somehow MIS is assigning "PIN" numbers for each signature. You just enter your personalized pin# and your signature prints out.
What you are describing here is actually storing a picture of a person's actual signature in a computer.

[Caution! Strong personal opinions ahead!]
In my opinion, a system such as you describe has a major potential for abuse that can damage the cormpany and the people whose signatures are stored. Personally, I will not knowingly do anything that will result in my signature being captured in a computer system. There are many companies that do this, but none has ever been able to tell me (a) why they need it, (b) what they do with it, or (c) how they make it any more secure than any other of their records that are regularly stolen electronically. To me, allowing someone else to have my signature is as dangerous -- possibly more dangerous -- as letting them have my socialist insecurity number. (For one thing, there are a number of biometric identity verification systems that use the person's signature as the authenticator - it's that personal!)
[End of strong personal opinions.]

There are a number of secure digital signature or digital ID products on the market, all based on the public-key encryption algorithm. They all provide a signature or identification that (1) cannot be forged, (2) provides authentication of who made the signature and when, and (3) authenticates the document by verifying that it has not been changed since that signature was applied. Note that none of those three things can be provided by a picture of someone's signature, or even by the actual ink on paper.

This technology is not new, and it is available in many products. Every time you use a secure web page you are using a weak form of public-key encryption, because it is built into your web browser software. That is the part which encrypts your passwords and credit card numbers. If you have Microsoft Outlook then you also have digital signature capability for e-mail. (Select Options from the Tools menu, choose the Security tab, and see the "Secure e-mail" and "Digital IDs (Certificates)" sections.) There are also shareware and commercial programs specifically for this functionality, and the capability is built into many other products - Adobe Acrobat and Lotus Notes come to mind instantly.

As for documents in the QMS, using encrypted digital signatures should not be a problem. Our auditor was unfamiliar with it, but after a quick demonstration he accepted it with no problem.

Yet another system, also in the $100 price range, is one that creates an encrypted digital signature or ID based on a person's fingerprint. The user "signs" a document by just placing the correct finger on a small reader, and it verifies the identity and applies the digital signature to the document.

With all of the available alternatives - especially ones that are more secure and provide authentication of both the signer and the signed document - I would suggest seriously resisting using an actual picture of a signature. (Especially if it means memorizing yet another [email protected]#$%^&* four-digit PIN!)
 
E

energy

#10
Secure feeling

We include name and title on documents. If someone leaves his job, so what? The procedure is still there and good to go until you want to make a revision. You simply approach the new "Authorizer" and get his signature on it. No biggee. I keep originals with actual signatures in a Master File in the office. It's easy, and maybe archaic, but I know that I can produce the original document as it was when signed and not have to be concerned with electronic hanky panky. If so, nothing like a hard copy original to :ca: JMHO :ko: :smokin:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N IATF 16949:2016 7.1.5.3.2 External Laboratory - How to approve the Testing Laboratory without accreditation scope IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
F Which Business Function should Approve Suppliers and maintain the ASL Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
M Opportunity For Improvement - Customer to sign off or approve a new design ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
B Changing dimensional tolerances to approve rejected product ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
S ISO9001 how to approve trade supplier and packaging supplier ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
Chennaiite Can an Auditor question Top Management decision to approve deviation? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 30
R When Pp>2, and Ppk<1.33, can we approve a new process? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
T Can I approve my own Documentation per FDA QSR 21 CFR Part 820? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
Ronen E TGA may approve rapid HIV test, but only as PoCT (Point of Care Tests) Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
T Do I need to approve my Registrar and include them in the Approved Supplier List? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
P General Parameters to Approve Supplier ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
B Who can approve Acceptance Activities? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
A Action on Quality Records - Approve, Update and Carry Out Revision Control Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 10
S Product Development Program - Design, develop, approve and manufacture new products Design and Development of Products and Processes 6
C Approved supplier/vendor - How do I approve my Registrar? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 17
A Is there any way of approve a procedure without printing it? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 12
I Verifying our process to approve suppliers for indirect material Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 2
C How to Approve that an employee is 'Competent' - TS-16949 Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
W MSA 3rd- need customer approve!!! Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
S How to "approve" a start-up facility QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 15
L 3rd Tier Supplier - ow can we approve this company as being a qualified supplier Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
eule del ayre Documented Information - Periodic Review of Documents? IATF 16949:2016 / ISO 9001:2015 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 34
M Retention period of documents and records ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
D Offsite storage of QMS documents ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
K Joint approval between OEM and Manufacturer on Design Documents ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
was named killer AS 9100D - Calibration Instructions - Controlled documents? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
N Audit non-compliance API Q1 - Use of External Documents 4.4.4 in Product Realization Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 5
C Corrective action for failure in documents control ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
A QMS Overhaul - Reorganizing and Renaming Documents - Internal References Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 18
J Controlled information versus defined documents / records ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D DQ documents of new equipment - Function specification Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 0
B Using Unreleased Documents & Process Maps for Internal Audit purposes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
N Device Labeling - Medtronic Ventilator Files (Risk Management documents) Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
qualprod To set frequency to review documents in ISO 9001 7.5? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 13
S Mandatory documents vs shall "something" but without mandatory documents ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
I Reissuing documents due to missing version / issue numbers Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
I Dating controlled documents after changes - Revision History Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 13
C Document Control Stamps - Does anyone still stamp their documents? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 24
M Advertising medical devices in the U.S - Advertising regulations or guidance documents Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
R Process control documents - Context of API Spec Q1, Clause 5.7.1.3 Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 0
C Identifying and Controlling External Documents Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
E Part 11 Compliance, Excel living documents (i.e. document master list, equipment list, approved supplier list) Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 3
M EU MDR - Annex II 3b - What documents fall under this requirement? EU Medical Device Regulations 3
H New 510K VS Documents about design change. Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
M Informational EU – Manufacturer incident report (MIR) for serious incident- template 2020 (Directives and new regulations) version 7.2 and related documents Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
M Informational EU – Some documents related to Call for expression of interest for expert panels on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
R Implementing Design History Documents/ Technical Documents in the QMS ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
R Approvals on QMS Documents - ISO 13485 Requirements Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
K Mandatory Documents for EU authorized Representative under MDR CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 8
Sidney Vianna Interesting Discussion Hello IAF. Are you listening? Please explain the inconsistency in your IAF Mandatory Documents (2019) ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom