Documentation when "ISSUER" and "Approved By" leave the company

[Helmut Jilling]

A quick question:

"if work procedure contain name of "ISSUER" and "Approved By". Those guys left the company and some one else responsible for that area, then do we have to change the name in procedure and version number as well to modified ISO documentaion or it should be ok"

Thanks,

Sorry i got the Got the partial answer from the thread

ISO Procedure Writing Tips

I don't see any reason why you would have to change anything, until it is time to revise the document for some othger reason.

For example, if a manager signs a contract, then leaves the company later, that contract is still valid. You don't need to renegotiate the contract, and I don't think you have to "renegotiate" the document either.

Let's not make this stuff too complicated.

PS: for this reason, I prefer using names, not titles.

 

[Stijloor]

I don't see any reason why you would have to change anything, until it is time to revise the document for some othger reason.

For example, if a manager signs a contract, then leaves the company later, that contract is still valid. You don't need to renegotiate the contract, and I don't think you have to "renegotiate" the document either.

Let's not make this stuff too complicated.

PS: for this reason, I prefer using names, not titles.

Hello hjilling,

Do you mean to say: "for this reason, I prefer using names, not titles."
Would a title be easier to use? Because if you use a name, and this person would leave the organization, you need to make a change. More work....
Please clarify if you have some time.....

Thanks. Stijloor.

 

[harry]

Many organizations here use 'title' and keep a register of signatures. You can trace the person who signed on the title block through his signature. Please note that this is a practice and not a requirement.

 

[JaneB]

Armaan,

No need to change. The documents were signed by someone with valid authority at the time. They remain so until they are updated and/or a period elapses which a reasonable person would assume required some review to ensure they remained current and valid, at which point they could be authorised by the new incumbent.

Think of it this way. Suppose someone in your company signed contracts (eg, purchasing contract, or contract to supply) - if the person who signed it leaves, the company doesn't immediately decide 'all bets are off' and the contracts invalid, and you certainly don't race around getting them all re-issued. Similarly, documents such as these.

That's the whole point of having a system - it is the system that prevails, not the individual.

 

[madannc]

To each his own, Jim, but this is why I have a database that records the approver for each revision. My document still does not have a name on it. If I want to know who actually approved it (my company is not so small that we don't have multiple people working with the same job title) I pull it up in the database. Nobody doing the real work on the floor has ever cared who, as long as they knew that what they were working from was current.

Interesting is this database controlled and does it meet part 11 requirements for electronic records, did you perform V & V? if not is it outside the quality system and therefore not something that should be used for control of documentation?

Just friendly enquiry

cheers

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Hello hjilling,

Do you mean to say: "for this reason, I prefer using names, not titles."
Would a title be easier to use? Because if you use a name, and this person would leave the organization, you need to make a change. More work....
Please clarify if you have some time.....

Thanks. Stijloor.

I like names, because I want to know WHO approved something. Titles are not as meaningful, you have to research who it was back in 2001, etc. It is not necessary. Names are not any more difficult because you do not have to update just because someone left. The signature was valid at the time.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I like names, because I want to know WHO approved something. Titles are not as meaningful, you have to research who it was back in 2001, etc. It is not necessary. Names are not any more difficult because you do not have to update just because someone left. The signature was valid at the time.

Maybe I can shed some light on the titles/names thing, as there seems to be some confusion.

1. In the quality manual, wherein responsibility and authority should be formally delegated, it's always best to refer to a title rather than a position. The logic is that whomever fills the position has the responsibility and authority. This might extend to another level of delegation, but titles and not names should be referred to in all cases. This might also extend to process documents, where it's best to say, "The production manager (or delegate) must be notified when nonconforming material is discovered," rather than saying "Hal Frobisher must be notified..."
2. When it comes to document approvals (drawings, process documentation, etc.) it's almost always better to have a record of who actually wrote and approved the document. There are times when it's necessary to contact these people if clarifications are needed. If there's something that's perceived as ambiguous, it's not particularly helpful to know that "Design Engineer" approved the drawing, especially when there are thirty design engineers.
3. Names do not have to appear on the documents themselves, but if they don't, there should be at least a reference to where the names can be found. For example, in the case of drawings, there is usually a release notice for new prints, and an ECN for changes, or some combination of those. If the drawing carries a release or ECN number, then it should be a simple matter to pull the relevant document and find out who did what. In the case of process documentation, if names don't appear on the documents themselves, there should be records somewhere that contain the information (and also the rationale for the changes.)

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Maybe I can shed some light on the titles/names thing, as there seems to be some confusion.

1. In the quality manual, wherein responsibility and authority should be formally delegated, it's always best to refer to a title rather than a position. The logic is that whomever fills the position has the responsibility and authority. This might extend to another level of delegation, but titles and not names should be referred to in all cases. This might also extend to process documents, where it's best to say, "The production manager (or delegate) must be notified when nonconforming material is discovered," rather than saying "Hal Frobisher must be notified..."
2. When it comes to document approvals (drawings, process documentation, etc.) it's almost always better to have a record of who actually wrote and approved the document. There are times when it's necessary to contact these people if clarifications are needed. If there's something that's perceived as ambiguous, it's not particularly helpful to know that "Design Engineer" approved the drawing, especially when there are thirty design engineers.
3. Names do not have to appear on the documents themselves, but if they don't, there should be at least a reference to where the names can be found. For example, in the case of drawings, there is usually a release notice for new prints, and an ECN for changes, or some combination of those. If the drawing carries a release or ECN number, then it should be a simple matter to pull the relevant document and find out who did what. In the case of process documentation, if names don't appear on the documents themselves, there should be records somewhere that contain the information (and also the rationale for the changes.

Very well articulated. I agree with all points.

 

[Stijloor]

I like names, because I want to know WHO approved something. Titles are not as meaningful, you have to research who it was back in 2001, etc. It is not necessary. Names are not any more difficult because you do not have to update just because someone left. The signature was valid at the time.

Hello hjilling,

Thank you for your explanation. Excellent point!

Stijloor.