Signature Required on Quality Policy?

L

Logic

#11
Re: signature on Quality Policy?

I just checked and it does NOT state in clause 4.2.2 that the quality policy must be signed.
Noticed which part of the woods you hail from so you may well be aware of the following. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a signatory to the APLAC/ILAC MRA. If you check their website, you will find interpretative notes which are to be used by their assessors. I have taken the liberty to cut and paste a few items from that document to show that there are different ways to approach the issue of signing the quality policy.

http://www.scc.ca/Asset/iu_files/criteria/1630_e.pdf

Management review: formal evaluation by top management of the status and adequacy of the management system in relation to the quality policy and objectives.

4.2.2
The Quality policy statement must be signed by top management, having the highest authority in the laboratory with the responsibility and authority for the budgeting of all necessary laboratory resources. If it cannot be signed (e.g. electronic systems) there must be a means of ensuring top management endorsement and control (document control) of the policy (password protection, directory rights, etc.). The management system objectives stated in the Policy must be measurable and must be reviewed during management review.


(Refer to the interpretative note Section 4.15.)

All requirements specified in 4.2.2 (a) to (e) must be documented

4.3.2.3
All documents in the management system (Quality Manual, policy, process, procedures, instructions and forms) must have a unique identification. It is not necessary for documents to be signed by the approvers to indicate that they are approved. Some electronic systems control the approval of documents without signatures. A laboratory could also have a paper based system without signatures; however, in this case, signatures should be a suggestion.


Notice that it says suggestion. Hope this helps.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
C

cogito

#13
Nowhere in the standard is there a requirement for a signature on a Quality Policy. It is not a record, under the definition. My advice: File an appeal with the auditor if he/she cannot show you where in the standard it is required. One thought though, if it is a requirement of your Quality Manual, obviously your stuck with it (or changing your manual). There is such a push inside most CRB's to get auditory consistency that I'm surprised the finding wasn't withdrawn (assuming the lead auditor reviewed the findings, of course:lmao:)
 
V

vramc

#14
Hi,
Recently, I too had an experience with a CB during pre-audit, when similar problem of Quality Policy displayed were not signed. had come up. We showed that the Quality Policy in the Quality Manual was signed and that the Policy statement on display was no different. But the auditor did not agree and continued to insist. We however, were firm and we did not want to disturb the signatory of the company to sign in all the displays. Fortunately, the Auditor who came in for the Initial Audit did not raise any issue.
In my opinion, the signature in the Quality Manual is more than adequate.
Thanks
 

ScottK

Not out of the crisis
Staff member
Super Moderator
#15
Re: Signature on Quality Policy Required?

My only comment is to say no wonder ISO 9000 has so many detractors. We were asking that very same STUPID question in 1988, together with
  • Should a quality policy have a revision level?
  • does ISO 9000 allow for records in pencil?
  • can we use white out in our records?
  • and other useless, meaningless nonsensical questions.
20 years later, the rookie auditors are asking the same garbage. Haven't we learnt anything? What value could a signature have there? If the auditor has any doubts the policy was endorsed by top management, just go and ask them...
It is sad that we are bound to repeat the same foolish mistakes over and over...
It ain't just rookie auditors, Sidney.
The registrar who made the same comment to me when doing a ISO9001 quality manual review is the director of auditing for his organization.
Then when the auditor got here, a guy who's been auditing us for 6 years for CE marking and has been doing ISO9001 auditing for about 10 years, it took me a half hour to convince him that it's approved just as any other controlled document.

I think some registrars like to dictate the system they want to see, standard be damned.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#16
Noticed which part of the woods you hail from so you may well be aware of the following. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a signatory to the APLAC/ILAC MRA. If you check their website, you will find interpretative notes which are to be used by their assessors. I have taken the liberty to cut and paste a few items from that document to show that there are different ways to approach the issue of signing the quality policy.
Just a comment - their auditors are operating to ISO IEC 17025 - not ISO 9001 - it's not an excuse.

Just that accreditation body assessors operate to a different set of rules (and are a breed apart, IMHO). :lol:

Hi,
Recently, I too had an experience with a CB during pre-audit, when similar problem of Quality Policy displayed were not signed. had come up. We showed that the Quality Policy in the Quality Manual was signed and that the Policy statement on display was no different.
I'm not saying your CB auditor was right by any means - I'm just a bit confused about the logic of the argument.

If there is any document that should be signed it is the one on display to the workforce. If a signature has any value it is as a visual display of endorsement and commitment.

So the purpose of having the hidden document signed when the displayed version is not frankly baffles me ... :confused:
 
R

rickbrazil

#17
Yes. Sidney:

I thought that even years later, with the net, etc we would get rid of those rookie stupid "personal clauses" . As I say here, each rookie auditor has his own 9001 clauses and requirements!!
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#18
Here is a worrying thought about rookie auditors. I know 2 CB's who are actively trying to recruit new auditors and they both told me that there is a shortage of what they regard as experienced people wanting to work as a 3rd party auditor.

Now, this may be down to the CB's but I know them both well and I am not sure that is the case. The worry is that if there are no experienced auditors taking up the posts - we get more rookie auditors = more of this type of nonsense again.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#19
Here is a worrying thought about rookie auditors. I know 2 CB's who are actively trying to recruit new auditors and they both told me that there is a shortage of what they regard as experienced people wanting to work as a 3rd party auditor.

Now, this may be down to the CB's but I know them both well and I am not sure that is the case. The worry is that if there are no experienced auditors taking up the posts - we get more rookie auditors = more of this type of nonsense again.
Now, Colin, knowing at least one of the CBs you work with it probably just is them! :lol: Only kidding. But perhaps:
  • Those of us experienced people in and around certification wouldn't want to be doing auditing day in day out
  • Maybe employing some "rookies" gives the CB the opportunity to train them so they get it right first time. There are plenty of experienced auditors posting here that have opinions I don't hold
It is a simple matter for any CB to publish guidelines and build a body of knowledge that their auditors work to. If they publish to their clients it also gets rid of the arguments between client and auditor as well. Perhaps we can start a thread and capture it in a "Top 100 NCs that aren't." :lmao:

What do you think?
 

Colin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#20
Paul, I wouldn't argue with your comment about 'a certain CB' - they are not the same since I left :lmao:

Serious point though, during my time there I used to hold workshops with the auditors - both full time and associates - where we discussed exactly the things you mention. It was a way of ironing out what was and was not important. An auditor's life can be pretty lonely and if they don't get the chance to work in teams often - and most don't - how do they balance their judgement against that of their peers?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R 21 CFR 11 Timeframe of Inactivity after which all Signature Components are Required? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 11
D Test report requirements - Signature required? ISO 7176-19 Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 13
K ISO 13485 and compliance of electronic signature ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
J Document Approval Signature Order Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 10
D Signature Matrix questions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
A 21 CFR part 11 - section 11.100 - Electronic Signature Certification Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
Q Document approval through SharePoint (without signature) Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 4
L MDR 745 - EU Declaration of Conformity - Signature Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 3
W Customer Signature / Acceptance Service Reports Service Industry Specific Topics 2
QIE FDA 21 CFR Part 11 "Meaning of Signature" Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
I Document Signature Software? (Certificate Authorities) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 15
S Is Adobe Sign - E-signature for QMS documents - 21 cfr part 11 compliant? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
C Signature manifestations - 21 CFR Part 11 Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
M Electronic signature - name.lastname or equal to handwritten Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
M Electronic Signature - Certificate Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 8
M Suggestions for Electronic Signature Software (FDA 21 CFR Part 11 Compliant) Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 12
S Medical Device Servicing - Forms and Signature ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
S Imaged signature is it Ok? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 11
D 21 CFR Part 11 - Electronic Signature Management SOP Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
G Auto electronic signature on Calibration Form ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
R Wet Signature Document Attachments in SAP - Risk on Data Integrity issue? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 6
S Boss wants customer delivery signature specimen form Customer and Company Specific Requirements 16
M Management Commitment signature issue in same Quality Manual Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 8
B Digital Signature Solutions acceptable to use in an FDA Medical Device Environment 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
T Test Report - Customer Signature - Customer did not witness test General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
B Requirement to have Customer Signature Profile on File Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
L Must the Signature on a Quality Record be Legible? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 33
A Do controlled documents require a signature on every page as per 21 CFR 820.40? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
x-files Signature(s) on ?Document control form? and/or on ?Document? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
K AS9102 Field 19 Signature Requirement AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 9
C 21 CFR Part 11 - Electronic Signature Certification Other US Medical Device Regulations 13
H Is this training records signature app FDA compliant? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 10
T "Typing name on MS.Word directly" can be "Electronic Approval Signature" Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
M Part 11 Compliant Digital Signature Requirements - Sharepoint Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
S Quality Policy without Top Management Signature Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 37
G Signature Missing from Calibration Certificates General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 6
D E-Signature Compliance Requirements for Training Records Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
S 21 CFR Part 820.198 - Complaint Files & Electronic Signature 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
D How to meet AS9100 Electronic Signature Requirements AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
J How to Link Electronic Records (510k Documents) to Handwritten Signature Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 16
L Employee Signature List for Medical Device Company ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
D Electronic Signature Documents - FDA Requirements for Retention and Hardcopy Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 4
P Part 11 Hybrid System - Partial paper based record but with e-signature Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
Q Physical vs. Digital Signature Requirements Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 7
sagai Automated System's Signature on Electronic Record - PART11 Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
E Approval Signature Record Retention Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
E Signature of Records - Microsoft Word forms Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 7
S AMS2750 rev D - para 3.2.6.2 - "Signature of the calibration company representative" Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 3
J Electronic Signature Validation Protocol example or template Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
K Question about paperless signature - Electronic signatures in outlook emails ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom