Hooray For Me

[M Greenaway]

Energy

You are quite right - it is overkill.

Lets face it no-one but auditors ever look at procedures, and most good auditors only give them a cursory glance anyway.

 

[E Wall]

This is gonna be one of those things...

Some of the comments made just astound me and show quite often that there are those that don't bother to see either the content of a post, what context a post is made in (whether unable or unwilling), or are just looking to spout off. While I usually just consider the source and ignore it...I've about had it with a select few.

While I agree that many Level 1 & 2 documents aren't looked at frequently, that isn't what I was talking about. Anyone reading the post should have identified that.

I clearly stated "We too (meaning also) have specs and work instructions posted on an intranet". These are the level 3 docs and I didn't think I needed to spell that out - apparently a mistake on my part (*snicker* NOT). I then went on to describe what was put in place as a precautionary measure (which James stated he does the same thing).

There does have to be some 'worse-case-senario' planning...regarless of which level they are...but the measure should be commensurate to the expected use.

Any questions?

 

[energy]

Re: This is gonna be one of those things...

E Wall said:

Some of the comments made just astound me and show quite often that there are those that don't bother to see either the content of a post, what context a post is made in (whether unable or unwilling), or are just looking to spout off. While I usually just consider the source and ignore it...I've about had it with a select few.

Any questions?

As far as I know, one (or two) members can still have opposing views without feeling the wrath of the omnipotent. Take your own advice and climb down off that horse. And, yes,this will make it's way in a private message so go ahead and delete it.

 

[JodiB]

Yay Birthday Girl!

It is not overkill to have a contingency plan. No matter whether it is a level one or level three doc.

We get floods around here, and have the distinction of being the nation's county with highest tornado occurrence (or so I've heard). We aren't talking just a few hours of electricity outage. We're talking losing everything.

But for those times when the network goes down (and it happens from time to time for various reasons), not everything stops around here because we've set up certain files for synching on shut-down. All of the approved forms and templates, etc. are available on an offline basis. Individuals choose whatever folders they would need on an emergency basis and synch those as well. For anyone who has never set this up (and particularly if you travel alot and want to take network info with you and don't want to go through the task of transferring to C: drive and then deleting on your return), it is available on Windows 2000.

 

[M Greenaway]

E

Dont know if i was a target in your last post, but sorry if it appears I have a different opinion to yours, or anyone elses for that matter.

Just think perhaps we should consider 'risk' before we overburden ourselves with backup copies kept in paper and electronic formats in offsite bombproof shelters.

Most servers go down from time to time, and most get back up within a few hours.

Risk is an important issue that is rarely considered or addressed properly in the formulation of a QMS (there I go taking us off the thread again - naughty me).

 

[energy]

Re: Re: Well....Make that two!

JRKH said:

Eileen,

I have a complete set on My computer and also a hard copy set in a binder. Changes must go through me and all of these sets (my computer, master copy and Intranet) must match.

James

James,

Me too, exactly as you describe. So how about those atomic tornadoes?

 

[Aaron Lupo]

M Greenaway said:

Energy

You are quite right - it is overkill.

Lets face it no-one but auditors ever look at procedures, and most good auditors only give them a cursory glance anyway.

Mgreenaway unfortunately not everyone has a steel trap for a mind like the one you do. People do tend to forget from time to time and need to refer back to the procedure. Is it overkill and are auditors the only ones that look at procedures, maybe for your company, but where I work, I would have to disagree. Not everyone works in the world of making simple widgets (or what ever you do). We are performing testing on medical devices and there may be times when we don’t perform a particular test for a long period of time and yes the technician may need to refer back to the procedure. So, your computer system is down and will be for 3 days. Now what do you do, sit around and wait for your system to come back up, which in turn holds up the testing and pisses the client off. Well if you had one set of paper records, you could use them and get the job done. How often will this happen, probably not very often, but I like to look ahead and cover the what ifs rather than waiting for disaster to happen and then scrambling around when it does happen. JMHO

 

[energy]

Of Course

M Greenaway said:

E

Dont know if i was a target in your last post, but sorry if it appears I have a different opinion to yours, or anyone elses for that matter.

You don't? It certaintly wasn't me!

Just think perhaps we should consider 'risk' before we overburden ourselves with backup copies kept in paper and electronic formats in offsite bombproof shelters.

Risk is an important issue that is rarely considered or addressed properly in the formulation of a QMS (there I go taking us off the thread again - naughty me).

This thread jumped the track awhile ago. You're forgiven!

 

[Michael T]

Re: This is gonna be one of those things...

E Wall said:

*SNIP**
Any questions?

Yeah.... Why are you at work on your birthday?!?! Or are you checking from home - and if so... again... WHY?!?!

Happy Birthday!!!

Cheers!

 

[JRKH]

Re: Of Course

energy said:


This thread jumped the track awhile ago. You're forgiven!

I think I'd be more surprised if we had a thread that didn't jump track (except the humor thread).

James