In our ISO 9001 documents we have the Org chart, Overall Sequence and Interaction and Responsibility Matrix. In reviewing them I see there are no ownership called out on them as is with the rest of the QMS documents. This is a mature system and this has not been noted in any past audits. Question to those who utilize these 3 documents in their systems, do you note ownerships of these?
Document ownerships
- Thread starter qcman
- Start date
We did not define "ownership" per se...but did list author(s) on the docs.
If any doc was revised, the previous author (if still employed) was required to be an approver of the revision...so I guess you could call that "ownership".
We had it that way so that original intent could be maintained, and preserve know-how through revisions.
All of that said, an org chart would be 'owned' by the person in authority over it (in my case, the company owner).
Overall sequence, owner and/or VP-Operations whoever looks at things on the 'overall' level.
We didn't have those docs as stand alones...but the thinking is the same...who knows best which pieces are crucial and which pieces are fluff?
There's your owner.
If any doc was revised, the previous author (if still employed) was required to be an approver of the revision...so I guess you could call that "ownership".
We had it that way so that original intent could be maintained, and preserve know-how through revisions.
All of that said, an org chart would be 'owned' by the person in authority over it (in my case, the company owner).
Overall sequence, owner and/or VP-Operations whoever looks at things on the 'overall' level.
We didn't have those docs as stand alones...but the thinking is the same...who knows best which pieces are crucial and which pieces are fluff?
There's your owner.
Tagin
Trusted Information Resource
Do you define 'ownership' in your QMS?
We specify the roles of the doc approver(s) in a document's approval electronic signature boxes. I suppose that implies 'ownership' of a sort, but we do not use the term 'ownership' in our QMS.
Most of the documented procedures we have in our manual such as "Purchasing" has an author, approver and owner. The org chart was recently revised by the President and only shows revision date which is ok. The other 2 need to be updated and I believe they should call out an owner so that person / position will do the updating.
Sounds like you need to revisit "why?" you have so much unrequired stuff in your system...
If author, and owner, are... are or can be... two different people...it sounds like you're spending a lot of calories for no reason...
Reset your thinking...That's my thinking...
If author, and owner, are... are or can be... two different people...it sounds like you're spending a lot of calories for no reason...
Reset your thinking...That's my thinking...
Actually the system is pretty lean. As with any system there's room for improvement but it's effective. Appreciate the feedback.
It's not clear whether the documents cited in the first post are a part of the manual cited in the second post. If so, then someone should have responsibility for updating the manual as needed. This shouldn't be a matter of who's responsible for the individual documents, but rather who's responsible for the relevant processes. That person (or persons) should have responsibility for the documentation that supports the processes. The map is not the territory it depicts.
The documents referenced as well as others are in our QMS manual and outline individual processes of the organization. Each process, purchasing for instance has a process map which is owned by the Purchasing Manager. Relevant updates to the process would be determined by the owner and or management team and the process owner is responsible for updating the process map. Other than the 3 documents in my original question the map author and owner are one in the same. Maps also include inputs, outputs and KPI's
If the originally-referenced documents form a part of the manual, who is responsible for updating the manual?
Similar threads
