1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Department Manager owner vs. Manager name

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by Linda, Jan 27, 2016.

  1. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I have an outside auditor telling me I need to use a persons name as owner verses department manager or title as owner. Problem is our turnover is too great and document will be obsolete when that person leaves. What is correct? Also telling me there can only be 1 owner of a document. Where is this stated in the requirements?
     
  2. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    I don't have a single name in any document (outside the "Author" box). Only roles and generic titles.
    FWIW...we have documents with three authors too...

    What item of the standard does your auditor say you are violating?
     
  3. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    While there is no requirement that specifically says you need to have a name on the document - electronic approvals are a way of ensuring the right people approve a document - just because a person leaves, that should not necessarily render a document obsolete.

    I do typically agree with 1 owner, who serves as a gatekeeper to any changes to the document. Limiting write-access can limit the likelihood of incorrect changes made to the document. If the document impacts multiple processes, have more than one approver, but keep the updating responsibility to 1 or 2.

    If turnover is high, maybe a behind-the-scenes document showing owner titles and current names would satisfy the auditor - and help set up suitable document access rights and responsibilities.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    "Shaking my head"... A classic case of a CB auditor bringing bias to their audit, while, at the same time, missing the point entirely - the turnover - which is a measure of the effectiveness of the management system. Please be sure to tell your CB to NOT send THAT auditor back...
     
    Andrej, charanjit singh and Bev D like this.
  5. Candi1024

    Candi1024 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Owner of what? A document or a responsibility?
    Is this owner approving the document? I would think that that would require a name, but would not make the document invalid if the person left.
    Owner of a responsibility listed within a document could be listed as a position, where the person fulfilling that position could change.
     
    tony s and charanjit singh like this.
  6. Bev D

    Bev D Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Maine
    Andy is correct. there is NO requirement to include the actual name of a person on any document. it is also not smart. you would have to change the document every time the person in the role changed...talk about non-value-add.
    There is also no requirement that there be a single owner of a document. I would go further than Andy and ask for your money back.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  7. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Playing devil's advocate here...why does the document need to change if the name of the owner was used in it? Simplistic analogy - laws aren't re-signed when government leaders switch.

    The OP indicated the issue was with showing the name of the document owner (presuming for approval purposes), not names of those doing the job in the body of the document (e.g., Joe turns on the lights. Sally starts the printing press.). So, while I agree that it is not necessary to show that Jane Smith approved Procedure 123 (i.e., showing the title or department only is adequate), even if it did say Jane ok'd the document, I don't think it needs to change if Bob suddenly takes over (unless Jane was let go for job competency issues) and the review cycle can hold.
     
  8. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    She doesn't tell me and I can't find a shall on this. Can't step on toes as she was brouht in by a higher up to help.
    Thanks for the info.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 27, 2016
  9. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    She's not helping if those are her recommendations. :(
     
    tony s and Andy Nichols like this.
  10. Sidney Vianna

    Sidney Vianna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    42
    ISO themselves advise that we should have PROCESS OWNERS identified. Nevertheless is not a hard coded requirement.

    To me, the biggest concern in this thread is the admitted very high employee turnover rate. Hard to have an effective QMS when new employees pop up every day. From a knowledge management perspective this is serious risk.
     
  11. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I agree that process owners, document owners, document approvers should be identified, but would a behind-the-scenes document showing who-does-what be adequate? If the person making this recommendation only made it so she knows who to speak with, the behind-the-scenes document would still work.
     
  12. drgnrider

    drgnrider Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Agree with Roxane. She is going to put extra burden on your system than necessary... and removing it later will be more difficult.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  13. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    We ran into a problem a few years back with a TS auditor because someones name was not removed when they left and it had been more than a year, that was the reason we went to dept managers for owners. Now this auditor wants the name put back. I figured it was her way or no way but wanted to make sure.
    Thanks everyone for your advice.
     
  14. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
     
  15. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I agree about the turnover rate.
     
  16. hogheavenfarm

    hogheavenfarm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I have run into this with customer auditors, they insist that the org chart have individuals listed as well as SIPOC (single point of contact) for that department. All processes had to owned by an individual, not a department head. Never heard of it anywhere else except in meds, as others have pointed out, for electronic signing.
     
  17. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your document review period is one year. If that is the case and the no-longer-there person was gone for > 1 year, I would have put that original finding towards an ineffective document review cycle rather than "his/her name is still there". Ugh...non-value-add findings!...I'm amazed I don't have high blood pressure from all of them!
     
  18. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    What role is this person playing? CB auditor? Contract internal auditor? Consultant? Whatever the case is, they clearly lack basic understanding of effective implementation....
     
  19. Linda

    Linda Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Contract Internal Auditor and I agree with you
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  20. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'd be waving these replies under the nose of the person who hired this auditor. They are paying for (valueless) work to be made, not addressing the true business issue...
     
    Bev D likes this.

Share This Page