System take-overs 2nd edition


Martijn TVM

H I have already post this question once but I was hoping for a better answer than nothing, so any one:

If your IT system takes over certain way's to verificate of just basic actions you want to use in your procedures what do you do?

As you define responsebility for a certain action you cannot give it to the IT system or can you. Putting a function name in there which is no longer used as it became obsolete.

Hoping for a satisfying answer this time,

J.C.M. Teunissen van Manen

Andy Bassett

Hello Martijn

Have a go at rephrasing your question. I really cannot understand your problem, but if you try to explain it again i am sure somebody will try to help you.


Andy B

Martijn TVM

Well for instance the requirements state that: The pertinent issues of appropriate documents are available at all locations where operations essential to the effective functioning of the quality system are performed (section 4.5.2.a) but the system automatically distributes all documents to all places of usage. Since we use the loyd's format for our procedures, every action is attached to a function in our organisation. So I would have to state:

Manufacturing manager:
Ensures that all operations work instructions are current and available for usage on all places needed.

Problem: the manufacturing does not even know what the current revision is. Giving the responsebility to the IT manager who links the document to the operating system can't be hold responseble if the system doesn't distribute it correctly, or can he?

Another example: the requirements state:
The supplier shall require 100% on time delivery performance from subcontractors. The supplier shall provide appropriate planning information and purchase commitments to enable subcontractors to meet this expectation. (Section

Problem: Our buyer or planner would be hold responsible for that. but the system automatically sends all this information to the supplier and updates all changes in planning if they surpass an agreed amount. How can the buyer or planner verify that all information reaches the supplier correctly?

There are a lot of examples of this and this causes people to complain because when I state that they are responsable for the correct functioning of the system on parts that would be responsible for when we would still used pen and paper.

I really do hope to get some reactions on this not because I am desperatly seeking answers but because I like to hear some opinions on the influence of technology on QS9000 procedures.


Martijn Teunissen van Manen


Fully vaccinated are you?
Giving the responsebility to the IT manager who links the document to the operating system can't be hold responseble if the system doesn't distribute it correctly, or can he?
If it is the IT manager's responsibility to ensure distribution and the system fails, the IT manager is responsible. Need more specifics to say for sure.

How can the buyer or planner verify that all information reaches the supplier correctly?
You can ask for a 'return receipt', however many times these are not returned. Use some 'common sense' here -- if a trial run shows the data was transmitted, go with that and use history to show that the transmission is 'highly reliable' -- from this you may not need a confirmation every time. A FAX is pretty reliable, for example, as is e-mail. Some people do call to confirm 'important' FAXes, but thats not 'the rule'.

QS does ask more than ISO - so you may be doomed to requiring a confirmation.

What you have to do is take a close look at your systems and determine what the exact failure modes are.

If your complaint is that you brought online some systems which were once pen and paper and since then there have been many system failures (or audit problems), then you did not adequately 'spec' and design the systems in the beginning -- and your testing was not comprehensive. This is not unusual - but it is often extremely expensive and difficult to 'fix' as it's after the fact and many people are now 'burned' (and thus not very trusting).

The most important parts of bringing 'new technology' online are planning, understanding requirements, understanding the current systems, etc. And then, adequate testing prior to implementation.

The extreme case is bringing an ERP system (like Peoplesoft, BAAN or SAP) online. Less difficult is bringing something online such as document control.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09 July 2000).]

Martijn TVM

Thanks Mark
The system that is currently running is IQMS and it is implemented very well. Most people understand how it works and it does have great capabilities.

Our consultants did a very good job on defining and assessing our needs, the thing I come across often though is that because the system is a first step to paperless shoppingfloor is that people that lose specific action to perform don't wish to stay responsible for that what's been taken over by the system.

I was just wandering how other people handle the technologic revolution, the coming of e-business and ERPII systems changed a lot on every level of our company and it's hard to make a procedure that is still flexible enough to keep up and also conform the requirements.

But thanks a lot for your reply it helps, is there anyone else who has a comment?



Paul Morrow

Data input is by monkeys. Tie it in with responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities. If these have changed due to introducing new IT change the job specs or whatever to reflect.
Any changes here should be picked up at internal audit anyway. First question - who is responsible.
If it is unclear (or no one wants to take responsibility) slap a CAR and make it official. After all, these issues were considered during the planning phase right?

Martijn TVM

H thanks you got the point I just agreed with the Consultancy agency to make the standard work instruction for the system which will address all the responsibilities and authorisation. They are allready there but I didn't have them and They were as planned which is something else as executed. so I'll make something of it and I'm pretty sure that will cover the procedure story.
Top Bottom