Thursday, November 20, 2014

10 Points to Consider Before Becoming a Pharma Consultant

I am often asked for my advice on entering the consulting field, and I am happy to share my opinion from my own personal experience and what I have observed.

So here are 10 points to consider:

1. Family support is essential. You will be away from home most weeks. If you are someone with a young family; someone who likes to make all the decisions at home; someone who has a partner that has difficulty having you away from home---don't go into consulting.

2. Be financially stable. The consulting world is becoming more competitive and hourly rates are declining in many specialty areas. If the next on-time paycheck is critical for survival; if you cannot be without an income for six months--don't go into consulting.

3. Form your business entity. Don't mix personal and business money. Protect yourself by forming some type of a corporation. Talk to a accounting advisor who can listen to your unique situation to determine the best option for you. I am a "C Corporation," but make your decision on your needs, not what other consultants do.

4. Be realistic with your skills. Determine what your product is and refine it into tools, methods, approach, etc. Clients will readily detect when you have overstated you expertise. While it is acceptable to hone your skills and accrue more experience when consulting, it is not acceptable learn the subject on the clients' dime.

5. Charge by the hour. Consulting is typically billed by the hour, not the job. You have more control. Some clients may never agree when you are done.

6. Show something for your work. Agree upon deliverables with the client. What does "done" look like? Develop a common understanding of the client support required for the project to succeed. Know when you add value or not. When you no longer are adding value and just billing hours, discuss with the client. Warm-body-consultants give consultants a bad name.

7. Market through people who know you. Most projects come from people who know you directly and personally. Hopefully you have been building a network throughout your career from places you have worked and professional conferences. Being out in the consulting world is not a time to start thinking a network.

8. Be a consultant, not an employee. Study the IRS test rules for determining the difference between and employee and an independent consultant/ contractor. Don't allow either yourself or the client to cross the line emotionally or legally. If you feel you are "going to work" like you have all your life, you are not consulting.

9. Keep careful records. Not all clients require time and expense records. You should require it for yourself. Keep every cotton-picking receipts and a meticulous record of your hours: what you do and time. Never, ever pad the expense report or bill unreasonable hours.

10. Build-up, not tear down. You are there to help, not criticize. Avoid coming across as a "know-it-all". Lead the client to the point where they internalize and embrace your teaching. Find those among your client personnel who have that unexplainable spark, mentor them, and leave a legacy.

John E. Snyder
The QA Pharm

The QA Pharm is a publication of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.

Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.


Thursday, October 23, 2014

Part 2: Responding to FDA483 Observations and Fulfilling Commitments

Part 2: Organizing to Get the Work Done

Responding to FDA483 observations was my focus in Part 1 of this series. Responses lead to commitments, and commitments lead to changes that are intended to prevent recurrence of the underlying problem that led to the observation.

In Part 2, I share my views on getting the work done to fulfill the FDA commitments. The following have become benchmarks from those who are the best at getting the job done in a sustainable way and getting the problems behind them:
  • Form teams. This might seem obvious, but forming cross functional teams representing stakeholders is often overlooked. The solution will very likely involve creating different ways of working that cross functional lines. It is a rookie mistake to think that the fix is something for the Quality Department to do on its own, or just an editorial change to a procedure. Depending on the problem, the team may need to be dedicated to allow focus, particularly if accelerated timelines are involved. Include subject-matter-experts that have the scientific, technical, and cGMP backgrounds to provide appropriate guidance.
  • Use consultants judiciously. Consultants can provide valuable additional support. They should bring relevant industry experience that can help scope the project and give practical advice that keeps the project moving toward the solution. The best consultants are good listeners who can help you design the right solution that works for you. But, if the only team members that show up to meetings are the consultants, something is terribly wrong. Do not outsource your responsibility to consultants. Let them help you, but it's your company and you own the results.
  • Determine the deliverables. Many teams go off the rails because they fail to determine the tangible deliverables that address the problem. You cannot grasps the degree of effort, determine the resource needs, or estimate the timeline until there is a clear vision of what "done" looks like. If you cannot describe "done," then you do not know the problem well enough.
  •  Solve the problem, not just the Commitment. Make a careful assessment of what it will take to prevent recurrence of the observation, not just satisfy the specific commitment. The FDA always states in the FDA483 that the observations are just examples and are not all-inclusive. Companies are expected to determine all that is necessary to permanently resolve the problem that underlies the observation wherever it applies. Perform a root cause analysis and ensure that the solutions are operational and sustainable. That invariably involves more work that the narrow view of a specific example cited in an observation or the response given.
  • Determine how you will know the problem is solved. In true fashion of a CAPA, determine how you will measure effectiveness. What will tell you that the solution worked? What will be your first sign that it did not work? Consider whether this is yet another attempt at solving the same old problem. Remember that recurring observations lead to increased levels of enforcement. Be sure you know the problem is truly solved.
  • Avoid Information Technology (IT) Solutions. This may sound a bit strange, but in my personal experience, nearly every commitment made in a FDA483 response that involved an IT solution missed the commitment date by light-years. I know that it should not have to be that way. I'm just saying that in my 20 years of consulting experience, that has always been the case. Consider applying an IT solution as a later improvement, not within the commitment time line if at all possible.
  • Use Project Management Principles and Tools. Quality System development work is not like a capital project where the much of what is needed to estimate the time and cost is known upfront. Quality system and compliance projects are more often like exploratory surgery where a lot is learned once you open it up the patient. You may discover that multiple linking systems are affected after you start looking at the problem more deeply.  Recognize that plans will need to be adjusted along the way. Do not confuse progressive revelation with scope creep. Be adaptable. Establish plans and reports based on the work and target dates, not subjective feel-good dashboards with perpetual dates that slip. Anticipate problems with hitting the date and mitigate them before failure is foregone conclusion. When you see that the timeline is slipping, ask for help and consider first what it will take to get back on track. Don't just keep moving the target date back as the default solution.
  • Provide Infrastructure Support. Remediating compliance problems often require new ways of thinking, not just new ways of working. Compliance problems frequently go hand-in-hand with company culture problems. Progressive companies that recognize the business value of an effective Quality Management System also recognize the opportunity that regulatory inspections provide to examine its culture and values. Change management coaches can help a company adapt to the changes required to support a quality and regulatory compliance culture. Recurring compliance problems are frequently a culture problem that discounts the value of an effective Quality Management System and regulatory compliance to the business. 
  • Provide Management Support. Ensure that each project team has a sponsor who is the best fit based on the functional owner of the process being remediated. Clearly identify the role of the sponsor and ensure that it includes removing obstacles such as lack of organization alignment, stalled decisions, team dysfunction, and inadequate budget. Sponsor are the champions who are willing to delve into the level of the working team to provide visible support, rather than sit on the management team and undermine their own folks at project update meetings. Being sponsors of quality system remediation projects provides a unique opportunity for function heads to understand dependent processes across functional lines.
  • Establish Governance Oversight. The work associated with fulfilling commitments is tightly connected to managing risk. Thus, it is important to keep site governance councils frequently updated with progress and informed about unacceptable risks. These risks always include the risk of meeting a commitment date made to the FDA. Take commitment dates seriously. Other unacceptable conditions uncovered along the way should also be communicated to the governance body. Establish clear lines of communication and escalation between the team that actually does the work and governance. Learn how to escalate and resolve potential problems quickly. Nothing consumes the timeline as much as reluctant escalation and indecision.
  • Verify that Deliverables Solve the Problem. Take an independent look to ensure the work is completed and that the tangible deliverables are in-place and in-use. This is a good role for an independent consultant. It is far better to find out for yourself that the mark was missed than for the FDA to call it to your attention as a repeated observation. Be a healthy skeptic and ask, "How do we know for sure the problem is permanently solved?"
  • Revisit Commitments. Although you may have verified that the solution is in-place and in-use, revisit the problem at an appropriate time interval to ensure that the organization has not reverted to the old ways of working.
How have you managed regulatory commitments? What are your success stories? What have been epic failures, and why?


John Snyder
The QA Pharm

---------
The QA Pharm is a publication of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.

Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Part 1: Responding to FDA483 Observations and Fulfilling Commitments

Part 1: The FDA483 Response

In this two-part series will discuss responding to the FDA483 and getting the work done to fulfill the commitments in a sustainable way.

Unlike a Warning Letter, a response is not required--but highly advisable. It is standard industry practice to respond to FDA483 observations. Responsible companies that want to have a good relationship with the FDA respond to each observation by saying exactly how problems will be addressed.

There is plenty advice available, even from the FDA, on what constitutes a good response. For certain, the difference between a good and a poor response may differentiate how you are viewed by the FDA.

From my experience, the following are points to consider that have worked well when forming a response:
  • Do you agree with the response? Stating up front that you either agree or disagree, in part or on the whole, stages the rest of the response. Think twice before you say you completely disagree especially with everything-- because the FDA will always have the regulations, industry good practice, and the facts on their side. But it is quite possible that the FDA investigator got the facts wrong or drew the wrong conclusion. This is why a close-out meeting with investigators at the conclusion of the inspection is important. It is better to straighten out the record at the close-out meeting than in the FDA483 response.
  • Defend what you are doing right. The examples of violations cited in observation are just a snapshot in time. Although you may not be proud of what was found, the finding may not be representative of the current state of control. The example may pre-date significant improvements that you have made on your own initiative, although they may be in progress and not fully implemented. Be sure to give yourself credit for such improvements. The last thing you want to do is give the impression that the FDA was the first to call a problem to your attention.
  • Take product lot numbers seriously. When the FDA mentions specific lot numbers associated with a problem, it immediately puts you in the position of having to defend why those lots are still on the market, and why you have not shut down manufacturing associated with that product, process, or facility. Put your best minds and writers to work to lay out the defense of your release decision and the state of control. Be objective and use data. If you come to the conclusion, albeit late in the game, that the product should be recalled, seriously consider the right thing to do. Also take into account causing a critical drug shortage, because the FDA will work with you to avoid a shortage while you resolve inspection-related problems.
  • Defend State of Control. Some types of observations paint a picture of being out of control, particularly when it is associated with validation, sterility assurance, potency, content uniformity--you know--the SISPQ issues. Also, taken collectively, observations that run the gamut of the quality system can indicate a precarious state of control. Take your best, realistic, honest shot at how you know you are manufacturing and distributing a safe, quality product. And, for goodness sake, do not--I repeat--do not anchor your defense that there have been no complaints or dead bodies in the street. Meeting all end product specifications may be the best defense you have if statistically treated, but be aware that a "final product spec" defense will always peg you as a 1970s time traveler.
  • Commit to Action. Address the specific issues that were called to your attention, but do not stop there. Carefully determine the root causes of the issues cited in the observations. There will not always be a one-to-one relationship of root cause to observation. Nonetheless, run the problem to ground and understand what is behind the problem. Determine the action required to prevent the reoccurrence of the problem cited. Undoubtedly, the solution will require changes in multiple areas at the system level. Be sure to convey that you are taking system-level action, not just addressing the superficial, specific examples. Remember, observations are just examples. Indicate the action you promise to take and target completion date. Be clear in advance what "done" looks like and the specific deliverables that will provide the evidence of successful completion.
  • Commit to Developing Appropriate Action. If you do not know exactly what all is necessary to fix the problem, it is completely acceptable to indicate that the scope of activities and target dates will be established in a plan to be provided later. But state in the response when indicate the plan will be completed and provided. Major milestones and target month are usually acceptable in a follow-up communication.
  • Recognize the Minimalism. Very likely you have taken a minimum essential approach to the commitment. By the time all the internal reviewers have edited the response, you have pared down the work to something manageable for normal business. However, the work associated with FDA inspection observations in not normal business. The scope of the actual work required to prevent recurrence of the observation may be more than expected when you actually delve into the root cause and prevent recurrence through systemic changes. 
  • Provide Realistic Target Dates. There is always a balance between showing responsiveness with aggressive target dates and over committing to unrealistic dates. When dealing with operational and quality system problems, there may be more work involved than meets the eye. Some problems may require engineering studies or process development in order to understand the right approach to take when solving a problem. Take time to really think through all that is involved in order to provide realistic target dates. You don't want to go back to the FDA--at least not too often--to revise target dates. Do inform the FDA of changes in completion dates. Don't let a broken promise be a surprise when they return to reinspect. It's far better to inform them in advance.
  • Engage Your Internal Associates. I cannot tell you how often I discover the situation where commitments and target dates were given to the FDA in very well written responses, but those who carry out the work were not involved--even totally clueless. It's best to involve those who have to fulfill the commitments in the actual writing of the response. Time is of the essence when preparing a response, but cutting out those who actually do the work will always uncover significant execution issues at the worse possible time.
  • Take FDA Suggestions. When the FDA makes a suggestion about retaining a GMP consultant to assess your overall quality system and help you to improve--take the suggestion. This recommendation usually comes in Warning Letters where the FDA has come to the conclusion from the breadth of problems and recurring problems that there is no confidence in your Quality Unit or Management Oversight. Consider such a recommendation as a direct hit and taking on water, not just a shot across the bow. So be responsive and act accordingly.
What is your experience with preparing regulatory observation responses? What has worked well? What has not worked well?

In Part 2 I will talk about organizing to get the work done to fulfill commitments.


John Snyder
The QA Pharm

The QA Pharm is a publication of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.

Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.



Tuesday, September 16, 2014

If You Need a Burning Platform to Justify Change, You Must Like Firefighting

Often times pharma has a split personality. One personality loathes firefighting, and the other personality needs a burning platform to justify doing anything that requires spending money.

Go figure.

This becomes evident in our industry when some companies cannot part with a pittance of their multi-billion dollar profit to establish or ensure that an effective and sustainable Quality Management System (QMS) is in place--along with suitable facilities for intended use and sufficient staff levels.

This is really obvious when such companies are at the heart of the devastating drug shortage problem. The burning platform appears in the form of regulatory enforcement action, disgorgement and penalty fines, consumer stakeholder lawsuits, loss of goodwill from patient advocate groups, and a drop in stock price.

A burning platform you want? A burning platform you get.

But what about the patient? 

The patient deserves better. No company can claim to put the patient first without solidly and confidently knowing that an effective QMS is in place, in use, and providing the data-driven evidence that you are operating in a state of control. 

But that is way too boring. 

It is much more exciting to emerge victorious from the daily firefights. The person who rescues the baby will always get more recognition than the schmuck who goes around changing the batteries twice a year in the smoke detectors.

So the next time you hear someone say that there is no burning platform to motivate spending the money, investing the capital, or authorizing the project, tell them it is too late when the platform is on fire. Make the business case that the QMS and other worthwhile quality / compliance projects are an investment in ensuring a reliable supply of quality products to desperately needy patients. 

You will always spend more money at the most inconvenient time and under the most impossible timelines when you have to react to a crisis. Smart companies know how to anticipate a problem; not react when the damage is done.

Waiting for the platform to burn ends up scorching the patient.


The QA Pharm

The QA Pharm is a publication of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.

Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.


Sunday, August 3, 2014

The Quality Management Triad: a Model for Performance Sustainability

Establishing a sustainable Quality Management System that helps a company to become an anticipating, rather than a reactive organization requires intentional effort to bring three essential element together. I call these elements the Quality Management Triad.

At the end of this blog I provide information for obtaining your free survey to use at your company to facilitate a discussion on the health of your Quality Management System.




The first part is Quality Governance, this is the body that provides:

    • Vision—the aspirational view of the future, and how Quality Management is integral to the business strategy for operational performance and continuous product availability to patients;

    • Leadership—the top business unit and functional heads who motivate, align, plan, and engage the organization toward its quality goals;

    • Standards—endorse the policies and norms, which establish the quality requirements—the interpretation of laws and regulations to your operation—the “what” is required;

    • Oversight—the communication channels and forums that give Leadership visibility to product quality and compliance risks and trends—in order to make effective data-driven decisions—and provide Leadership the means to exercise management responsibility.

The second part is the Pharmaceutical Quality System (which is the ICH Q10 term for the Quality Management System). The Pharmaceutical Quality System—or PQS:

    •  Management System—the totality of policies, standards, processes that directs and controls activities with regard to quality;

    • Processes—to ensure consistency and intentional ways of working when applying the standards to your operation—and to control variables, including the human variable;    

    • State of Control—quality is about controlling variation, and the Pharmaceutical Quality System provide the capability of self-detecting and self-correcting problems and give us a clear picture of our current state of control.

    • Continuous Improvementknowing the top regulatory compliance risks at any give time and having project teams directed toward resolving them with verifiably effective solutions.


The third part is Quality System Ownership, which is the specific application of the concept of Business Process Ownership that sets expectations and accountability for managing the constituent parts of the Pharmaceutical Quality System:  Ownership responsibility includes:

    • Execution—they manage the daily operation of the quality processes described in procedures and ensure procedures are effective;

    • Maintenance—they ensure that the quality process remains current with regulatory requirements and industry practices; and remain applicable to your changing business;

    • Performance—they measure how well the process is working and identify problems with the process, and problems that the process detects—and always seeking ways to meet the requirements in the most efficient way.

    • Escalation—they identify unacceptable conditions or events that puts the patient and the business at risk—and take the immediate actions necessary to mitigate the risk, and make recommendations for permanently solving the problem.

At the center is the Quality function whose responsibility it is to engineer the processes for these three parts, and to ensure that they work—and work together effectively.
To be clear—quality is everyone’s responsibility. Much like Safety is everyone’s responsibility, it is the Quality function’s responsibility to establish the ways and means for the Quality Management Triad; and ensure effectiveness.

Why is The Quality Management Triad important?

The pharmaceutical industry is a dynamic business environment.  Acquisitions, operational realignment, portfolio changes, manufacturing relocation, facility re-purposing, and organization restructuring and integration are among the strategies to increase stockholder value. These continual changes impact the Quality Management System, and like any other aspect of the operation, it must be managed to remain effective and relevant.

Take this hypothetical example of the single-ingredient, solid-oral tablet manufacturer that constructed a dedicated facility for their new product.

Later, high-potency, multi-ingredient tablets were introduced into this facility as line extensions. The facility was then expanded to manufacture oral liquids and eventually retrofitted to produce oral suspension products.

Plans were being made to introduce parenteral drugs into the facility when the decision was made to enter into an agreement with a contract manufacturing operation—a CMO—for that technology, which was the firm’s first venture into a third-party partnership.

All the while, volumes were increasing, markets became global and the company turned to a twenty-four seven operation to keep up with demand. The increased profitability was directed toward the development of promising new drugs, while operating expenses were reduced and tightly controlled to fund new initiatives.

While this was great news for investors and employees, an unintended consequence was quietly undermining the business. The Pharmaceutical Management System had not evolved with the business, and was no longer capable of reliably detecting and managing product quality and compliance risks.

“Loss of management control” was the underlying theme of the series of FDA483s and the eventual warning letter when the site was fraught with recurring manufacturing deviations, missed target dates, and ineffective solutions promised to the Agency.

Although this is a hypothetical case, many people identify with some parts of this story when I share it.

Unfortunately, the Quality Management System is often viewed as a resilient tome of instructional content with little susceptibility to changes in the business environment. Nothing could be farther from reality.

Quality professionals across the industry who have looked back at their past quality problems and regulatory enforcement action, say—ironically—that their Quality Management System was a victim of their success.

Whatever the environment, the Quality Management System must be managed to ensure that it is Fit-for-Purpose and that it continually serves and protects the business.

The Quality Management Triad is a key element of a business strategy to sustain performance and ensure a continuous supply of quality product to patients.

How healthy is your Management of Quality?
Contact me for a free survey that you can use to facilitate a discussion to assess the Quality Management health at your company using this Quality Management Triad model. Write me at john@john-snyder.com. 


John Snyder
The QA Pharm

The QA Pharm is a publication of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.


Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Quality System Design Attributes: Criteria for an Operational and Sustainable Pharma Quality System

There are many instances when a pharmaceutical quality management system (QMS) must be improved in part or as a whole. In some cases improvements are made in response to regulatory inspection observations. In other cases improvements are made when new company standards are deployed in order to remain current with changing regulatory requirements and current industry practices. Still other improvements are made to support the changing mission and product portfolio of the business.

Whatever the driver may be, a mindful approach must be taken when designing the quality system to ensure that the organization is capable of operating and sustaining the system. Unfortunately, improvements are often viewed as an SOP-writing exercise without considering the factors that help to ensure that implementation is successful.

The following is a discussion of ten Quality System Design Attributes (QSDA) that must be considered as part of the quality system improvement process to ensure that the organization is ready and capable of operating and sustaining the system. These attributes can be considered essential design criteria, because these attributes are the most common root causes for the failure of the quality management system and consequent regulatory enforcement actions.

These attributes are worthy of serious consideration by those who are engaged in quality system development, as well as change management coaches that support adoption of new systems.


1. Standards and Site Procedures
These are part of a document hierarchy that collectively comprise the Quality Management System (QMS) and declares how a company intends to operate in compliance with laws, regulations and company requirements. While standards establish the requirements, procedures provide the detail for how they are applied to a specific operation. This architecture provides the structure for the library of interlinking requirements and instructions. Without standards and procedures, there is no control over the way work is performed and how decisions are made.

2. Process
An orderly process flow facilitates a common understanding of how work is performed. Process flow diagrams commonly appear in procedures, and process mapping is often the first order of business when designing a new system, or improving an established one. Process flows also support value stream analysis and employee training by showing the big picture, key interactions and decision points. Incomplete, inefficient and disjointed processes open the door to informal practices to develop over time due to the lack of a fluid, practical or understandable way of working. Designing the process to be Fit-for-Purpose and useable is essential for compliance.


3. Decision Processes
Most processes have decision points. While some decisions may be very straightforward, others may require critical thinking skills to weigh available information, assess the risks and implications in order to make the best-informed decision. Some decisions require the participation by other stakeholders, or escalation to higher levels of management, especially when events or conditions arise that create an unacceptable risk. Ensuring that decision processes, decision makers and escalation criteria are clearly described in procedures helps to establish appropriate responsibilities, governance and risk management.

4. Role of Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance (QA) has a unique, independent decision-making role codified by the Code of Federal Regulations. It involves review and approval of all cGMP matters, as well as the release of product into interstate commerce. QA also has a role within each quality system that must be procedurally established. This will include QA reviews and approvals, as well as a description of the type of events and conditions where QA must be notified. QA must not be put into a role where there would be a conflict of interest such as expediting production or approving its own work. Establishing the role of QA ensures the independent oversight and support required by our industry.

5. Records and Documentation
Equally important to procedures are the records created when procedures are followed. Examples of records include batch records, forms, logbooks, drawings, recording charts, and printouts. Instructions are given in procedures on how to complete associated records. These records are signed and dated by the one performing the work at the time the work is performed. Some records are considered so important that the work and the entries must be witnessed. It is common to have standards and training on good documentation practices to promote clear and consistent written entry conventions, as well as to prevent the perception of fraud. The design and content requirements, as well as storage and archiving of records are very significant. Complete, accurate, and timely records provide the batch history and facilitate data mining and support investigations.

6. Performance Metrics
Performance metrics are at the core of managing the quality management system. Performance metrics are designed into system procedures and are intended to help the system owner manage the performance of the system, and to detect problems. Metrics also help to identify improvement targets and measure the effectiveness of decisions and actions. The review of quality system performance metrics is the main content of the Quality Management Review (QMR) process. The QMR is at the core of Quality Governance, since it brings together cross-functional management, system owners, and performance metrics for the purpose of ensuring that risk are identified, effective decisions are made, and that the quality management system is continually effective. Performance metrics are essential for becoming an anticipating organization.

7. Infrastructure
Infrastructure is an attribute that encompasses a wide variety of tangibles that support the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. These could include facilities, equipment, software, and co-location of system users. Supporting infrastructure may be mentioned in procedures if they are part of the process (e.g., TrackWise software). Sometimes infrastructure is assumed (e.g., space and computers). Since infrastructure support takes significant lead-time to implement, be sure to allow sufficient time in the implementation plan in order to meet commitment dates.

8. Organization, Skills and Resources
To effectively execute the process and make appropriate decisions requires skilled system users and a supportive organization structure. Changes to each quality system require that the organization structure, skills and resources be evaluated to ensure that the organization is capable and ready to operate the new system.  Each role specified in a procedure must have identifiable personnel that have the education, experience and skills to perform the assigned activities. Implementation of the new system requires role-based training and a learning assessment in advance of start-up to ensure organization readiness. The bigger the change, the more effort will be required to be ready for effective implementation.

9. Dependent Linkages
The QMS is a network of interrelated systems. When designing a quality system, it is important to consider not only the inputs and outputs within a system, but also between systems. Inadequate linkages between systems create “short circuits” and can cause the quality management system to fail. Ensuring effective linkages can be a challenge when undertaking a comprehensive quality system remediation effort, since the state of the relevant linked systems can be a moving target, or the sequence of remediation targets may not be optimized. Nonetheless, the identification and continual assessment of dependent linkages is essential for an integrated and well functioning quality management system.

10. System Ownership
Each quality system must have a defined owner who takes responsibility for the design, procedures, operation, performance, reporting, and improvement of the system. The system owner also ensures that the system continually evolves as regulatory and industry expectations change, and when there are changes to the business portfolio, organization structure and function. Clear system ownership and ownership behavioral expectations are essential to fundamental quality system management. Establishing systems owners sets apart key personnel who can work together within and across sites for internal benchmarking and continuous improvement. These system owners also become a sub-set of company experts where investment of continuous education and development is well placed.


A Word About Working with OpEx Change Management Coaches

Quality system development efforts definitely require the organization to be ready and capable of adopting and adapting to changes required for sustainable implementation. The value of the effort in terms of time and cost can only be realized if the improved quality systems that are the result can be sustained. So this area of the business is definitely worthy of Change Management attention (not to be confused with the Change Control quality system). The challenge is to align and leverage quality system development and change management activities and targets. Here is where the ten Quality System Design Attributes come in.

These ten Quality System Design Attributes represent the areas where the most significant changes will occur and where support may be needed. Teams must identify the anticipated changes for each of these ten attributes. Each change must be clearly described (from what to what?) and expressed as a tangible quality system design deliverable. These changes must be assessed to determine whether the change is incremental or transformational. Change Management coaches can facilitate the conversation and organization preparation to receive and operate the new or improved system, particularly where the most significant changes will occur.

John Snyder
The QA Pharm

The QA Pharm is a service of John Snyder & Company, Inc.

John Snyder & Company, Inc., provides consulting services to companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. We help our clients to build an effective Quality Management System to enable reliable supply of quality products to their patients. We also help our clients to develop corrective action plans to address regulatory compliance observations and communication strategies to protect against accelerated enforcement action.

Contact us at john@john-snyder.com.