10 replies to this topic

[Alang]

Hi all - looking for some quick advice,

 

There has been a recent change of the Quality Manager in the company that I work for. We have our annual audit in Jan, 22. The new QM has asked if all reference to the previous managers name needs to be updated to the new QMs name?

 

In other words does the old managers name which appears on all polices and SOPs need to be changed to the new managers name, and does the corresponding revision need to be moved up?

 

Thanks in advance,

[Charles.C]

Hi all - looking for some quick advice,

 

There has been a recent change of the Quality Manager in the company that I work for. We have our annual audit in Jan, 22. The new QM has asked if all reference to the previous managers name needs to be updated to the new QMs name?

 

In other words does the old managers name which appears on all polices and SOPs need to be changed to the new managers name, and does the corresponding revision need to be moved up?

 

Thanks in advance,

Hi Alang,

 

A typical solution is to avoid using names as far as possible. I guess the "Approval" is the usual exception (electronic option).

[Alang]

Thanks Charles C. So therefore, we would need to change all reference to the previous QM? 

 

e.g. Approved by: John Smith          to           Approved by: Quality Manager

 

Also would the revision need to be changed up for this name adjustment?

 

Thanks,

[Charles.C]

(a) Thanks Charles C. So therefore, we would need to change all reference to the previous QM? 

 

e.g. Approved by: John Smith          to           Approved by: Quality Manager

 

(b)Also would the revision need to be changed up for this name adjustment?

 

Thanks,

(a) Yes.

(b) I suppose so in order to be consistent. Alternatively you could define a fixed Global documentation "reset date" so that any/all revisions automatically become the new originals. The options/convenience depend on how you have formatted and how many documents. Mass formatting is also possible using Xerox machines.

IMEX BRC are not particularly concerned over details as long as the system meets basic expectations and seems logical. I used numbers for virtually everything bar titles because it was computer convenient.

[CMHeywood]

Good idea to avoid listing names in policies and procedures especially if you are listing who is responsible or invovled.  Better to list people by job titles.  Then you can have a separate document that lists people, job titles and, if you want, a short description of their responsibilities.  This way you only have to update this document that lists people and job titles.

 

My opinion is that any documents signed by former employees (and names not listed elsewhere in the document) are still currently valid.  A new employee has to comply with all the current policies and procedures, even if signed by a former employee.

[Charles.C]

Good idea to avoid listing names in policies and procedures especially if you are listing who is responsible or invovled.  Better to list people by job titles.  Then you can have a separate document that lists people, job titles and, if you want, a short description of their responsibilities.  This way you only have to update this document that lists people and job titles.

 

My opinion is that any documents signed by former employees (and names not listed elsewhere in the document) are still currently valid.  A new employee has to comply with all the current policies and procedures, even if signed by a former employee.

Hi CMH,

 

Unless a new employee revises of course which IMEX is the norm. (New Broom Sweeps Clean).

[Duncan]

If the document control section of any document indicates that that revision was approved by the previous QM by name, there is no particular reason that the document would need to be updated upon that person's leaving. It remains the case that wile they were employed by the company, they approved the activation of that revision of the document. There is nothing about an employee leaving that requires their name to be scrubbed from all active documents (though I've seen that done at a few food factories).

 

If a procedure assigns certain responsibilities to the QM by name (For example, John Smith is to inspect the area after cleaning following a glass breakage incident) rather than job title, then the procedure would need to be updated - so that those responsibilities were accounted for.

[Charles.C]

If the document control section of any document indicates that that revision was approved by the previous QM by name, there is no particular reason that the document would need to be updated upon that person's leaving. It remains the case that wile they were employed by the company, they approved the activation of that revision of the document. There is nothing about an employee leaving that requires their name to be scrubbed from all active documents (though I've seen that done at a few food factories).

 

If a procedure assigns certain responsibilities to the QM by name (For example, John Smith is to inspect the area after cleaning following a glass breakage incident) rather than job title, then the procedure would need to be updated - so that those responsibilities were accounted for.

Hi Duncan,

 

The above IMO well supports the non-use of names and thereby avoiding all such subtleties at one stroke..

[TaraMcKinzie]

I would check your Recall Procedure and Business Continuity Plan because those two specifically name duties that the Quality Manager and/or Food Safety Manager should be specifically listed on, as well as their contact information.  Those will need to be updated to reflect who the new point of contact is moving forward.  Also, look at your HACCP plan if you have one in place to ensure it is updated as well.

[Duncan]

Hi Duncan,

 

The above IMO well supports the non-use of names and thereby avoiding all such subtleties at one stroke..

 

 

I completely agree, if everything were to reference job titles rather than individuals' names it would completely sidestep this issue. Most document control systems I've seen require authorisation of documents by specific individuals, but in principal I can't think of a particularly good reason the role-holder shouldn't authorise documents with a more generic indication of their position.

[SQFconsultant]

Names do matter if you decide to use them - a change out is advisable.

One step is all you need however to never have to worry about this again - use titles instead.