Design & Documentation of Control Systems and Procedures

What kind of system is more reliable, self sustaining / continuous-improving ?

  • Comprehensive definition of procedure with inadequate implementation or effectiveness

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Minimalist definition of process/procedure with effective implementation of it in letter & spiriti

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Comprehensive documentation but records created offline.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Online documentation but leaves a lots of improvement for complete details

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4

v9991

Trusted Information Resource
#1
How do you respond/act when you notice that
a) procedures are NOT-comprehensive, but implementation is adequate
vs
procedures are comprehensive BUT implementation is IN-adequate. (i.e., all the steps, parts, stages of procedure areimplemented but not effective)

b) documentation is NOT-comprehensive, but completed online.
vs
documentation is comprehensive, but NOT-completed online. (i.e., documentation is done after completing the activity, viz., end of activity, shift, batch etc)

& + clarify if you select the even options on the poll.

+ does the above perception change, when moving from industries which are self-regulated to regulated industries!

note :- ideal situation "comprehensive and effective systems" "comprehensive and online documentation" are always, anytime desirable, but we are in a state of flux, unless that is a very small team and products etc.,
 
Last edited:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
L

lk2012

#2
Hi,
I'd rather see a procedure that doesn't cover absolutely everything that's being done but the work and the system is being done 100%. Making additions/amendments to a document when everyone already knows what they're doing (and they're doing it right) is much better than having a fantastically written procedure that nobody follows and nobody cares about.
As for documentation completed online or post-process, I wouldn't worry about it too much as long as the documentation is completed within reasonable time and it doesn't affect the quality of the product / process.
Hope this helps
Lil
 

v9991

Trusted Information Resource
#3
thank you for your response,
:agree:
I'd rather see a procedure that doesn't cover absolutely everything that's being done but the work and the system is being done 100%.
I too agree, but taking an insider view, how do i be assured that across the teams, the procedure will be implemented in letter and spirit. because, as QA, i will be only seeing off the samples during the audit!!!
and with an outsider view, as an auditor, how to be sure that sample which is reviewed is representative of whole process, after all, i cannot be running through all exhausitve examples of all processes!!!

As for documentation completed online or post-process, I wouldn't worry about it too much as long as the documentation is completed within reasonable time and it doesn't affect the quality of the product / process.
Hope this helps
Lil

can you help me define the 'reasonable time'; any example or defenition or approach towards that.

thank you.
 

v9991

Trusted Information Resource
#4
by the way, I tend to go with a comprehensive procedure, its like an track laid out, then its only to train-monitor-maintain the personnel for effective implementation. (this is particularly true for large teams, and otherwise, it will be more person dependent, i.e., unless it is enforced, it is there, otherwise it is lost!)

and on documentation account, no question about the completeness of records; but wrt online records your point is true &valid!,, we need to define that 'ratione time lag' which is considered online for relevant operations.
 
P

pldey42

#5
I don't know what kind of industry the question refers to, but in the software industry I would not rely upon quality alone to check everything.

Software development typically includes generation of requirements specs, design docs, test specs and test records. We often build cross-checks into the process itself, calling them quality gates. So, for example, the requirements aren't approved until they've been reviewed - not by quality, but by the people who will use the document. They'll review the requirements against the template, maybe a checklist too. Ditto the design, even the code. So quality monitoring gets easier: we only need to check that the people doing the work are doing the detailed checks, and sample a few to assure ourselves it's going well.

So in short, my suggestion is to build cross-checks into the system so that quality only has to monitor the cross-checking. Extra effort for those doing the work, sure, but it's more efficient in the long run to find errors early. And cross checks can be cheap: think of those manufacturing lines where operators check the previous work was done correctly by inspecting the incoming work-piece against a photo of what it should look like.

Hope this helps,
Pat
 

v9991

Trusted Information Resource
#6
I don't know what kind of industry the question refers to, but in the software industry I would not rely upon quality alone to check everything.

Software development typically includes generation of requirements specs, design docs, test specs and test records. We often build cross-checks into the process itself, calling them quality gates. So, for example, the requirements aren't approved until they've been reviewed - not by quality, but by the people who will use the document. They'll review the requirements against the template, maybe a checklist too. Ditto the design, even the code. So quality monitoring gets easier: we only need to check that the people doing the work are doing the detailed checks, and sample a few to assure ourselves it's going well.

So in short, my suggestion is to build cross-checks into the system so that quality only has to monitor the cross-checking. Extra effort for those doing the work, sure, but it's more efficient in the long run to find errors early. And cross checks can be cheap: think of those manufacturing lines where operators check the previous work was done correctly by inspecting the incoming work-piece against a photo of what it should look like.

Hope this helps,
Pat
Like I indicated, i work with regulated sector ( pharma); wherein QA is not only expected to check/cross-verify, its responsible for everything going right and accountable for anything gone wrong. (obviously, its patient,,health and more so from regulations stand point)
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#7
Like I indicated, i work with regulated sector ( pharma); wherein QA is not only expected to check/cross-verify, its responsible for everything going right and accountable for anything gone wrong. (obviously, its patient,,health and more so from regulations stand point)
v9991,

If QA does all this, what are the non-QA managers doing in Pharma?

John
 

v9991

Trusted Information Resource
#8
v9991,

If QA does all this, what are the non-QA managers doing in Pharma?

John
i didnt mean that "QA does all",

When i used word, "responsible", i meant line clearance and reviews at batch level, and including audits are process levels...
like for all critical steps, starting from dispensing(weights) till dispatch (product clearance); line clearance for all key steps is given by QA(QC),

and when i used the word "accountable", i meant coordination and collaboration for any failures, investigations, and audits, QA would be enabler-execution for ensuring they dont recur/successfully addressed..

note : !!! from management and regulatory point of view, its (almost)not a control untill the qa clears that...and since problem occurred after qa clearance! they are part of problem!!! (atleast thats how situation is (made to be) felt/perceived ~~~)
 
Last edited:

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#9
v9991,

It sounds like pharma management has QA exactly where they want them.

A shield from any responsibility for getting their work right the first time.

And independence compromised when it comes to audit.

John
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#10
v9991,

I chose:

Minimalist definition of the documented procedure implemented with an effective process in both letter and spirit.

My corrections reflect the fact that the process is the work and the procedure (documented and undocumented) is the specified way of carrying out the work.

John
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J What things go in Design Control Documentation for a 510k of Class II Medical Device 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
C Design control documentation provided in special 510(k) + FDA response 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
Marc Design Control 4.4 - Design Engineering manager has no structured documentation Design and Development of Products and Processes 11
C Documentation for items used for Design Verification 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
R Design Verification Documentation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 19
pbojsen Intuitive Quality Design and Documentation Systems ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
C ISO 9001 2015 Documentation for Engineering and Design ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Q What documentation is required for Design Feasibility trial? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
T 510k Submission - Where to describe firmware and firmware design documentation? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
SteveK Medical Device Technical Files (Class IIa & IIb) ? Design Development Documentation EU Medical Device Regulations 7
M Manufacturing Process Design Documentation - Inputs and Outputs Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
J Design and Development Documentation and Records Requirements Design and Development of Products and Processes 7
Casana Design Documentation Rqmnts Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
A Design Review Documentation Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
R DFA & DFM - Examples for Design for assembly and design for manufacturability Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 2
D Using Laboratory Notebooks in R&D and Design and Development ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D ISO 13485 - 7.3.6 Design and development verification - Do most folks create a separate SOP? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
K Joint approval between OEM and Manufacturer on Design Documents ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
M API 4F/7K/8C Design Package Validation Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
A Design History File - Not ready to share the design drawings or Bill of Material US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
W Need for current design or process control FMEA and Control Plans 2
A What is the difference between Design Process, Process Design and Design Control? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
D Test summary report example for design validation wanted - ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
B Why the Greek god Hephaestus should have done a design FMEA (DFMEA) on his giant robot APQP and PPAP 1
S Documenting Design Verification Test Results (ISO 9001) Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
DuncanGibbons Understanding the applicability of Design of Experiments to the IQ OQ PQ qualification approach Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 0
S Requirement to Conduct New Shelf-life Testing? (re-do testing for design change) EU Medical Device Regulations 3
A Sample Agreement available for Outsourcing Medical Device Design activity? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
DuncanGibbons How is the arrangement between Design and Production organisation envisaged? EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 4
L Design & Development of a SERVICE Service Industry Specific Topics 13
P Design verification driven by new equipment. How is this different than process validation? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
A AS9102B - 3.6 Design Characteristics and form 3 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
P Design FMEA - Detection Rating criteria ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
U Medical Device Design finalization testing ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
S MDR Delay - MDD design Change? (before new MDR DOA) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
J Iterative design and production for custom made products ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
T Design Input detail & specificity ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
J Design file for pre-existing products - Inputs and Outputs ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
D Design Transfer Template capturing Customer Specific Requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
T Design Control Procedures later in the Development Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
M Looking for a Presentation on Design for Excellence (DfX) Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
K Old medical devices -> 7.3.7. Design and development validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
R Design and Manufacture Guidelines for Surface Mount Technology Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 9
optomist1 Design Exclusion, but now we might have an outsourced Product Design ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
Q Relabeler for patent expired product - design control responsibilities? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
B Supplier of design and manufacture process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
I Does anybody use Detection in medical device Design FMEA? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 18
A Design process goal for ISO 9001 Manufacturing and Related Processes 23
Z Definitive definition of design? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
A UDI and Design Controls - Labeling change via the Design Control process 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom