Gosh, this situation occurs so frequently in organizations of ALL sizes, right on up to huge mega international organizations.
The problem O.P. faces is primarily political and only peripherally related to "quality procedures."
I don't mean to be pedantic, but let's go back to the basic purpose of "Change Control" and its relationship to Good Manufacturing Practices and Configuration Management.
It may soothe someone's ego to give titles (document owner, author, initiator, etc.) to various folks in the Change Chain , but no matter how complicated the product or process, Change is really a simple process, but sometimes it gets complicated when the communication flow between the folks in the Change Chain [my omnibus term for all the folks including designers, engineers, producers, customers, regulators, suppliers, accountants, clerks, etc. who either have a say or part in initiating, approving, or implementing Change] is choked or broken.
I've seen some slick software that can streamline the documentation through all the necessary levels, entities, and approvals from initial idea for a change to implementation, and subsequent review and evaluation of the change and keep track of versions, with permissions for each link in the change ranging from change to read only so no change goes undocumented and errors can be caught and corrected, eliminating willful or accidental sabotage.
Please read this post of mine (https://elsmar.com/Forums/601326-post4.html) to get an idea of how "complicated" a relatively simple Change can be to implement and document.
I'm not making a value judgement on your process or your company's software since I'm not employed as your consultant, but I can tell you there is no chance to get everyone on board of ANY change unless you can convincingly demonstrate to the majority the efficacy and efficiency of the process you hope to implement AND have included a process to review and evaluate the process once implemented.
The problem O.P. faces is primarily political and only peripherally related to "quality procedures."
I don't mean to be pedantic, but let's go back to the basic purpose of "Change Control" and its relationship to Good Manufacturing Practices and Configuration Management.
It may soothe someone's ego to give titles (document owner, author, initiator, etc.) to various folks in the Change Chain , but no matter how complicated the product or process, Change is really a simple process, but sometimes it gets complicated when the communication flow between the folks in the Change Chain [my omnibus term for all the folks including designers, engineers, producers, customers, regulators, suppliers, accountants, clerks, etc. who either have a say or part in initiating, approving, or implementing Change] is choked or broken.
I've seen some slick software that can streamline the documentation through all the necessary levels, entities, and approvals from initial idea for a change to implementation, and subsequent review and evaluation of the change and keep track of versions, with permissions for each link in the change ranging from change to read only so no change goes undocumented and errors can be caught and corrected, eliminating willful or accidental sabotage.
Please read this post of mine (https://elsmar.com/Forums/601326-post4.html) to get an idea of how "complicated" a relatively simple Change can be to implement and document.
I'm not making a value judgement on your process or your company's software since I'm not employed as your consultant, but I can tell you there is no chance to get everyone on board of ANY change unless you can convincingly demonstrate to the majority the efficacy and efficiency of the process you hope to implement AND have included a process to review and evaluate the process once implemented.