Is a "Designee" List needed? For example: "Quality Manager or designee"

[Ninja]

He explained that the Chemical Coordinator was sick today, and that he was the designee. But there was no evidence to support this, other than him saying it.

I have to agree with the previous posts that maintaining (or not) a dynamic list is just asking for trouble. When the task requires a level of training, a level of responsibility or a level of confidence, however, I've found it necessary (in my opinion) to designate specific people to perform tasks while excluding others who fit the same positional description.

Example: Product certs may be signed by AsstDirector or designee. Document of corporate structure details that anyone above any position may act as being in that position...so the Director, VP, Pres are already allowed to sign too. But the Asst Director decides that Joe Smith can sign Certs coming out of one specific group, but not all certs. AsstDirector also decides that he does not have the confidence in Joe's coworker Frank to let Frank sign.

We simply write a memo from AsstDirector to Joe Smith that Joe can sign Certs from that group and Joe keeps a copy and ISODOC Coordinator keeps a copy. On a day to day basis everyone is used to who can sign and who cant...and there is a piece of paper to back it up if needed. No document change, no dynamic list needing updating, just a note on file.

If specific training is needed to perform the task, said note might reference "if training is up to date" which would be supported by the evidence of training that you need to keep anyway.

That's how we do it, anyway...and it's pretty simple and functional with no findings yet.

 

[sooeey2u]

As QA Manager I appoint a QA Representative or Designee to perform some inspection or verification of work (i.e., welded work, dimensional checks, cleaning methods, PT, etc) on a day by day basis.

No need to document these activities in that I am the one who signs the final QC Report and is assured that these functions were carried out as per my instructions.

 

[somashekar]

What first got me thinking about this was an observation I made while walking thru the warehouse. Our saftey procedures say that all chemicals received must be picked up and distributed by the Chemical Coordinator or designee. The warehouse paged the Chemical Coordinator to come back, but another person showed up. He explained that the Chemical Coordinator was sick today, and that he was the designee. But there was no evidence to support this, other than him saying it.

As I read thru some of our other procedures, the same seemed to apply. How to prove who your designee is, if it's not writtten down?

If no written evidence is needed that you're a designee, then why even list anyone as being responsible for anything in a procedure? Chemical Coordinator or designee = Chemical Coordinator and any other person in the company the Chemical Coordinator VERBALLY gives permission to perform their duties, as needed.

Why put any responsibilities in procedures then? Just say "the person with that responsibility will do it." Because to me that's what it sounds like when you say "or designee."

I don't know....maybe I'm overanalyzing?? (wouldn't be the first time...ha ha)

5.5.1 Responsibility and authority
Top management shall ensure that responsibilities and authorities are defined and communicated within the orgnization.

At 5.5.1 the ISo 9001:2008 says this above.

To define and communicate what better way than a Job description carefully drafted, documented and implemented. It is in this document that we can keep a clear communication to everyone about their role, authority, responsibility, secondary responsibility, and such things that makes a persons job more clear and competency can be jointly built.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

What first got me thinking about this was an observation I made while walking thru the warehouse. Our saftey procedures say that all chemicals received must be picked up and distributed by the Chemical Coordinator or designee. The warehouse paged the Chemical Coordinator to come back, but another person showed up. He explained that the Chemical Coordinator was sick today, and that he was the designee. But there was no evidence to support this, other than him saying it.

As I read thru some of our other procedures, the same seemed to apply. How to prove who your designee is, if it's not writtten down?

If no written evidence is needed that you're a designee, then why even list anyone as being responsible for anything in a procedure? Chemical Coordinator or designee = Chemical Coordinator and any other person in the company the Chemical Coordinator VERBALLY gives permission to perform their duties, as needed.

Why put any responsibilities in procedures then? Just say "the person with that responsibility will do it." Because to me that's what it sounds like when you say "or designee."

I don't know....maybe I'm overanalyzing?? (wouldn't be the first time...ha ha)

I don't think you are overanalyzing, I think you are raisng an important consideration. I think it hinges on the term, "or his 'designee.'" I am going to modify my previous response.

The standard requires responsibilities to be defined. That is to ensure competencies. We have all designated tasks to a subordinate to handle for us. That is normal, and we should be making sure the individual has the necessary competencies.

However, as we go up in significance of activities, at some point, we come against the requirement that the standard requires responsibilities to be defined. The purpose is to make sure the individual has the necessary competencies.

When you mention handling chemicals, or signing off inspections, or safety response team, doing other things that are significant, I don't think we can just leave it with "assign a designee." If we are talking about leading a weekly meeting, well, that can be a little more generic. I think in this case, we might have to look at the intent of the standard, and find a practical soultion.