SBS - The best value in QMS software

Forced ServiceNow validation - No change in our current user and functional requirements

sreekiran14

Starting to get Involved
#1
Hi, our Organization is going through the forced ServiceNow upgrade as the vendor will not support our current validated version.
I am looking for input on "to what extent the validation need be updated" as there is no change in out current user and functional requirements.

This is a cloud based system, appreciate your input.

Thank you
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

yodon

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Validation is never intended to be a one-time event. This is but one of the circumstances that could take you out of the validated state.

But to answer your question, the vendor should be able to provide the list of changes and bugs fixed. You should look at the changes and consider if they touch any of the areas for which you previously validated. Look at the problems fixed to determine if your previously-validated version may have been allowing errors to slip through. If you did something along the lines of an installation qualification, ensure all that's still valid (they may require, for example, updated versions of infrastructure software or may no longer support certain browsers / versions). Take a structured approach to all this and document the results.

It's also a good time to review your intended use. Have any of your use cases changed (are you using the software differently than originally intended, are there substantially more users now than previously expected, have you started using new features than originally planned, etc.)?

You may be able to justify a reduced-scope re-validation. In keeping with the risk-based philosophy, identify the higher-risk functions are and probably at least re-validate those areas, regardless.

Last "soap box" statement: you *should* have a master validation plan that helps you in these decisions! If not a master plan, you should have a specific validation plan for this software that drives the efforts.
 

sreekiran14

Starting to get Involved
#3
Thank you so much for the detailed input Yodon!
We have more users than previously. Wondering what kind of testing to perform to address that.

really appreciate your help.

thanks



Validation is never intended to be a one-time event. This is but one of the circumstances that could take you out of the validated state.

But to answer your question, the vendor should be able to provide the list of changes and bugs fixed. You should look at the changes and consider if they touch any of the areas for which you previously validated. Look at the problems fixed to determine if your previously-validated version may have been allowing errors to slip through. If you did something along the lines of an installation qualification, ensure all that's still valid (they may require, for example, updated versions of infrastructure software or may no longer support certain browsers / versions). Take a structured approach to all this and document the results.

It's also a good time to review your intended use. Have any of your use cases changed (are you using the software differently than originally intended, are there substantially more users now than previously expected, have you started using new features than originally planned, etc.)?

You may be able to justify a reduced-scope re-validation. In keeping with the risk-based philosophy, identify the higher-risk functions are and probably at least re-validate those areas, regardless.

Last "soap box" statement: you *should* have a master validation plan that helps you in these decisions! If not a master plan, you should have a specific validation plan for this software that drives the efforts.
 

yodon

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Are you seeing any errors, delays, or crashes due to the increased number of users? If not, maybe just acknowledge the fact and note that since operations are not impacted, no additional testing is required. Given it's a cloud app, I'm guessing it's suitably robust.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Validation of Forced Aeration Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M Brazil forced degradation study requirements Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 0
supadrai Forced into Regulatory Affairs Role - Where do I begin? Career and Occupation Discussions 4
M Forced NOT to meet End Customer Expectations - Corrupt Third World Country ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
Marc UK Executive Forced Out of Job For Posting Resume On LinkedIn Career and Occupation Discussions 2
C Keeping ISO TS 16949 Certification During Forced Production Interruption IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Marc Will the weather service be forced to stop giving weather information for free? World News 4
N Sterilization Protocol Change in Validation Process and further impacts ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
B Oracle Cloud ERP Validation during Quarterly Patch ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
D Software validation team Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
W LTPD, AQL, Ppk and Cpk validation sampling plan table Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
J Validation Sample Size for Tray Seal Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
F AS9100 - Validation, FAIR's, ITAR and Sub-Contracting AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
R PCBA process validation Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
A ISO 17025 - Methods validation and clients ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
S Sterilization validation after changing sterilization process provider Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
B Sterilization Validation Plan Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
D Test Method Validation Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
T Laboratory Verification after validation ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
silentmonkey Rationalising the level of effort and depth of software validation based on risk ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
D Questions regarding process validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
Y We found out we have been using a equipment without validation for past 4 years Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
Z Is IQ necessary for laser marking validation? EU Medical Device Regulations 3
E 13485:2016, Sections 4.1.6, 7.5.6 and 7.6 - Validation of Software - Need some Advice please ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
E Mentor for Test Method Validation (TMV) Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
M API 4F/7K/8C Design Package Validation Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
I ISO 2233:2000 Question - Medical Device Shipping/Transportation Validation Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
T Annual Validation as a detection mode on a PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 5
B TMV - Selection of TM's for Validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
P Human Factors / Usability validation in the time of COVID Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 14
C Template for Excel Validation Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 6
M IT validation for a paper based MD repair company QMS ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
P Unrealistic Packaging Validation Sample Size 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 13
D Test summary report example for design validation wanted - ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
M Is Validation of Plating Processes required and who is responsible? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 11
T ISO 13485 - Process validation at critical suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
K Software Validation for Measurement Tools used in Process Validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Stoic Manual soldering processes - 100% verifiable, or always requiring validation? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 15
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
S Rees System Validation Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
K PQ validation qualification - Asked to write a PQ protocol ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
Stoic Are any medical device companies using the 2011 FDA process validation guidance instead of GHTF/SG3/N99-10:2004? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
K Old medical devices -> 7.3.7. Design and development validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
S SOP for ISO 13485:2016 Quality related Software validation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
Y Retrospective Validation - Class I device 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 10
S High voltage testing - ISO 17025 - 7.2.2 Validation of methods and 7.3 Sampling ISO 17025 related Discussions 3
M Production approval testing - Alternative ideas for Validation Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 4
M Validation of two nearly identical products Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5
J Requested Validation plan and reports Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
S Validation Records - Very young QMS Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom