1 WHITE PAPER Analyst Software Validation Service Considerations When Validating Your Analyst Software Per GAMP 5 Blair C. James, Stacy D. Nelson Introduction The purpose of this white paper is to assist users in understanding what must be addressed when validating their Analyst Software in accordance with GAMP 5. What is Software Validation? Software validation, in the context of government regulation, is distinct from hardware qualification (ie. IQ/OQ/IPV). 1 Rules and regulations for laboratory systems can be found in 21 CFR 211 (Good Manufacturing Practice), 21 CFR 58 (Good Laboratory Practice), 21 CFR 820 (Quality System Regulation for Medical Devices), 21 CFR Part 11 (Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures), as well as several others. 2,3 An analysis of the relevant regulations is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the spirit of the regulations can be summarized as follows: Validation is a required activity that should document that the system is secure, reliable, and fit for its intended purpose. It must also provide procedures so the system remains in a validated state throughout its operation. The FDA considers software validation to be confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that software specifications conform to user needs and intended uses, and that the particular requirements implemented through software can be consistently fulfilled. 4 Note the terms objective evidence, and particular requirements. Confirmation of conformity to user needs and intended uses is obtained by comparing actual system performance against particular or pre-determined requirements. During validation this comparison is accomplished by executing test procedures and collecting objective evidence (screen shots, printed reports, result data files, etc.). The point is not to produce a mountain of documentation, but rather to demonstrate that the software satisfies the intended use. It is also important to demonstrate that validation activities were properly planned and that the tests were executed according to the plan. Who is Responsible for Validation? Under OECD5, validation is the responsibility of the Test Site Management. In GLP, is it the responsibility of the System Owner or Business Process Owner. Often, but not always, this is the GLP laboratory manager. While the laboratory manager will be a key member of the validation team, the team must include representatives from all validation stakeholders. The Quality Assurance team certainly has a role to play in validation. Ultimately upper management must provide the impetus and resources for validation. They must also accept that the system is validated. While an organization can utilize third parties to design and perform the validation, the responsibility for validation and the maintenance of a validated state cannot be delegated. To Validate or Not? The most important update in GAMP 5 is the focus on risk management as it relates to patient safety. 4 GAMP 5 requires validation if there could be an impact on patient safety, product quality, or data integrity. 6 Therefore, the decision to validate, what to validate and how to validate is largely an exercise in risk management. When doing risk assessment in accordance with GAMP 5, it is important to assess the probability and severity of harm to the patient if a fault occurs, rather than the probability of the fault occurring. Therefore, risk must assessed based on critical functionality, for example, in Analyst acquisition of samples would be more critical than formatting reports. Therefore, more in depth testing would be needed for acquisitions. GAMP 5 also recognizes that higher system complexity increases the likelihood of risk.1 For example, a system configured to use Analyst Administrator Console (AAC) AAC for centralized security and project file management would be more complex than a stand alone system using Analyst. Therefore, additional tests would be required to validate the system with AAC.
2 The Cost of Compliance vs. The Cost of Non-compliance The decision to forego validation when it is required amounts to the acceptance of the unmanageable risk of noncompliance. A brief review of recent judgments against pharmaceutical companies and independent/contract labs reveals that the cost of compliance may be thousands of dollars. But the cost of noncompliance can be millions of dollars along with lost revenue, lost productivity, possible process rework, and damaged investor and customer confidence and goodwill. Compliance can be accomplished by validating critical sub-systems thoroughly and other functions minimally. This does not eliminate risk, but reduces it to manageable levels, while still controlling validation effort and expense. The decision to fully validate all components of a system further eliminates risk, but with a higher cost., not necessarily equivalent to the reduced risk. Prospective vs. Retrospective Validation Ideally, the validation process should begin at the earliest stages of system procurement. It is not possible to wisely select a computerized system without an explicate understanding of the needs of stakeholders and the requirements of regulators. If one is to ensure that a system meets the needs it is intended to, then one must have a clear definition of what those requirements are. In practice, it is sometimes necessary to validate an existing system already in use. In this case, it is still necessary to clearly state the requirements of the system, and to verify that those requirements are met. The validation process continues throughout the lifecycle of the system. As changes to the system are made it will be necessary to confirm that the system remains validated in the face of those changes. Planning for the ultimate retirement of the system is also part of the validation process. Controls: Technical and Procedural To satisfy the regulations, it is necessary to place controls in the system. Controls can be of two types: technical controls and procedural controls. Technical controls are those controls that are enforced through hardware and software. They reduce human effort through automation thereby reducing the incidence of human error. Procedural controls are processes that are documented, approved and enforced typically in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). An example with both technical and procedure controls can be a door to a lab with an electronic lock. Procedurally, the lab should have an SOP describing the assignment, distribution, and maintenance of identification devices such as entry of a pass code, presentation of an electronic identification such as a badge, or use biometric identity verification. The badge or the biometric identity lock are technical controls because the lock uses hardware and software to allow or deny entry to the lab. A procedural control would instruct a user to identify themselves to the lock in order to open the door. The badge must remain in the sole possession of the employee to whom it was assigned. If an employee lends her badge to another employee, who then uses it to access a restricted area, the procedural control is compromised. As shown in this example, it is important to put both technical and procedural controls in place. Standard Operating Procedures As described above SOPs are a major part of the procedural controls of the system. Some requirements, such as training, cannot be satisfied through technical controls, but must be satisfied through procedural controls. Some important SOPs are issuance and control of usernames and passwords, training procedures, change control procedures, documentation maintenance procedures, backup and restoration of data, and archival and retrieval of data. It is also worthwhile to document your company s software validation procedures in an SOP. Change Control Change is inherent in any computerized system. As new requirements are identified, errors found, and procedures revised, changes to the system will be necessary. It is essential that changes to a validated system be carefully controlled. Any change contemplated should be documented, analyzed, and tested. It is not adequate to test only the change. A change to one subsystem might affect other, seemingly unrelated, parts of the system. Minimally, a change should be requested in writing via a Change Request. The Change Request must be analyzed and approved by the technical resources involved. The risk assessment may need to be updated. Finally the Change Request must by approved by the Quality Assurance Unit. The Change Control policy should be documented in a SOP. Failure to control change will result in a system that is no longer validated, and will expose the business to the risk of non-compliance. Software Categories Originally the GAMP Good Practice Guide: Validation of Laboratory Computerized Systems classified computer software in five categories 3. There were some changes to categorization of software in GAMP 5 and category 2 was discontinued. The categories were not renumbered. Therefore, Analyst remains in Category IV - configured Commercial off-the-shelf (Configurable COTS). 7
3 Analyst is configurable because it accommodates the storage and persistence of user names, passwords, customized audit trails and instrument configuration. The effort required to validate a configurable system such as Analyst, is greater than that required to validate operating systems, firmware, and standard software. Analyst can also be customized using Microsoft Visual Basic (VB). Custom or bespoke software requires even greater validation effort. GAMP 5 Increased Awareness of Configurable and Networked Systems GAMP 5 recognizes that most computerized systems are now based on configurable packages that utilize computer networks. Therefore, it recommends that software testing should focus on the specific configuration of the program rather than core operational characteristics, especially when the supplier can demonstrate testing of the core operational functionality of the system. 8 Therefore, Supplier Audit Programs have more importance in GAMP 5 because more and more supplier certificates are accepted in lieu of actual supplier audits. This table also includes a mapping of these documents to the GAMP 5 Validation Lifecycle. Validation Document Lifecycle Category 01 Validation Plan (VP) Plan 02 Validation Risk Assessment (VRA) Plan and Risk Management 03 User Functional Requirements Specification Specify (UFRS) 04 System Design Specification (SDS) Specify 05 Test Plan Plan 06 Installation Qualification Protocol Configure and Verify 07 Operational Qualification Protocol Verify 08 Performance Qualification Protocol Verify CFR Part 11 Verify 10 Traceability Matrix Plan 11 QAU Review Verify/Report 12 Vendor Assessment Verify/Report 13 Validation Summary Report (VSR) Report Changes to the V Validation Life Cycle Plan Specify Risk Management Verify Report It is important for the validation document set to be well organized. This can be accomplished by numbering the documents in a clear, easy to read manner. For example, each document is numbered as shown above. Each document also has a code corresponding to the company, document and version such as CMPY-SDS-01 in the following example which is the typical introduction section in the Analyst? document set. 1. Introduction Terms used in this document: Figure 1. GAMP 5 Validation Lifecycle 1 Configure VENDOR COMPANY TEAM SYSTEM Analyst IQ AB SCIEX, Inc COMPANY NAME (CMPY) Analyst Software Validation Project Team defined in the Software Validation Plan CMPY-SVP-01 Defined in the System Design Specification CMPY-SDS-01 Analyst Software Installation Qualification created by the TEAM in accordance with the Software Validation Plan CMPY-SVP-01 Because GAMP 5 recognizes that most systems are configurable software, it suggests a simplified V validation life cycle as shown in Figure 1 GAMP 5 Validation Lifecycle. Important Documents This type of cross-referencing makes for ease of use, modularity, and can assist any auditor in finding information quickly. The following sections provide an overview of each validation document. At a minimum, the validation documentation set should contain documents 01-08, 10 and 13 listed in the table below. Documents 09, 11 and 12 are special documents provided by AB SCIEX for software validation of Analyst?.
4 The Validation Plan (VP) The Validation Plan is a key strategic planning document 9 that describes the entire validation effort, and covers the system life cycle from inception to retirement. The regulations place great emphasis on the Validation Plan, because it is the key to controlling the validation project. At a minimum, the Validation Plan should describe the scope of the validation project, the work to be done, the schedule of activities, and the individuals responsible for planning, execution, testing, and approval. Additionally, instructions for testing including protocol execution and collection of objective evidence, as well as, post validation activities, deliverables, and instructions for identifying and documenting anomalies may be included in the Validation Plan or the Test Plan depending upon the needs of the System Owner. Validation Risk Assessment (VRA) The VRA documents the risks in accordance with GAMP 5 and includes prescribed mitigations for each risk. User Functional Requirements Specification (UFRS) The UFRS contains objectively stated requirements that the system is intended to fulfill. It must address Analyst Technical Controls, Procedural Controls, capacities, accuracy, security, fault tolerance, physical environment, and training requirements, among others. It is critical that the UFRS be a complete statement of the needs and objectives of the acquiring organization. A typical UFRS will contain up to several hundred unique requirements. The System Design Specification (SDS) Because Analyst software is configurable, it is adaptable to variations in instrument and peripheral equipment setup, security, and data processing. Therefore, it is necessary to describe the intended configuration in a System Design Specification (SDS). Some examples of the Analyst features that are addressed in the SDS are: security and user roles, audit trail settings, equipment configuration, and quantitation settings. It is important for the validation document set to be well organized. This can be accomplished by numbering the documents in a clear, easy to read manner. For example, each document is numbered as shown above. Each document also has a code corresponding to the company, document and version such as CMPY-SDS-01 in the following example which is the typical introduction section in the Analyst? document set. Test Plan (TP) The Test Plan ensures that each test is supported by a user requirement. At a minimum, it serves as a forward-pointing traceability matrix showing the relationship of the tests to the user requirements. Qualification Protocols The qualification of the Analyst software can be separated into four phases: Design Qualification (DQ), Installation Qualification (IQ), Operational Qualification (OQ), and Performance Qualification (PQ). Since it is not always clear in which phase a particular requirement or test belongs, the following guidance may be helpful. Since Analyst is a GAMP 5 category IV software, the DQ is performed by AB SCIEX, the vendor. This can be verified by performing a vendor audit or accepting vendor certifications. AB SCIEX provides a standard postal audit that addresses the common elements of a vendor audit. It identifies the development and verification methodology and the quality procedures, such as ISO 9001 as implemented by AB SCIEX. IQ, OQ and PQ testing involves the execution of a pre-defined set of tests. A test script contains the instruction, the expected result and the acceptance criteria. It also has a place for the tester to indicate whether the test passed or failed. Good test scripts will reference each applicable requirement specifically. A single test script or a certain number of tests might address one or several requirements. Normally, test scripts are organized around a specific range of functionality, such as security or data acquisition. Test scripts must be carefully designed, and should include both positive and negative tests. For example, a test for password acceptance will include procedures to verify the result of entering a valid password, as well as the result of entering an invalid password. If a test step fails, then an Anomaly Report is required. The deviation report should identify the nature of the deviation, the test script or procedure where the deviation occurred, proposed corrective action, and responsibility for implementation and verification. 21 CFR Part 11 Assessment The Analyst software can be configured to meet the requirements of 21 CFR Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures (Part 11). Part 11 regulates the security, reliability and integrity of laboratory data, and the security and integrity of electronic signatures. The predicate rules contain relatively few signature requirements. Where signatures are required, such as in a data audit trail, Part 11 defines how an electronic signature must be derived and the meaning of the electronic signature. Many Part 11 requirements will be met with a combination of technical and procedural controls.
5 The Analyst software is not compliant with part 11 until the Analyst software has been configured correctly and appropriate SOPs are in place. The 21 CFR Part 11 Assessment contains a checklist to verify that 21 CFR Part 11 regulations have been met. Traceability Matrix The Traceability Matrix shows the relationship between each user requirement to a corresponding test script (in the case of technical controls) or SOP (for procedural controls). The TM makes it possible to confirm that each user requirement has been addressed and satisfied by the validation procedure. Quality Assurance Review The Quality Assurance (QA) or Quality Control (QC) department must be actively engaged in the validation effort. Management s approval of validation depends on the recommendation of QA. Fortunately, GAMP 5 simplified the document approval process. Technical experts are now empowered to approve technical documentation. QA must ensure documents meet applicable regulations. For example QA should review a UFRS against the applicable regulations but the UFRS technical review is the responsibility of technical subject matter experts. Thus, QA no longer needs to sign a design specification because they can rely upon technical subject matter experts. QA should verify that design specifications are being produced for projects (i.e. verify that processes are being followed) but QA does not need to sign every document in a project. 1 After a final review for completeness, the QA department must submit recommendations to management regarding the release of the system for use. The best way to ensure that the QA department can recommend the release of the system is to include them in the validation effort throughout the lifecycle. The Quality Assurance Review document provides a checklist to ensure the above criteria have been met. It also requires signatures denoting the pass/fail status of all validation documents. Planning for Maintenance of the Validated State Analyst validation is not a one-off process. The validation effort should encompass the entire system lifecycle, from inception to retirement. The most important tool for maintaining a system in its validated state is the Change Control Procedure. By carefully following a pre-defined plan for evaluating and approving changes to the system, the physical environment, and the procedural environment, a system can be maintained in a validated state over time. Replicate System Validation When more than one instrument is being installed in a laboratory at the same time, the system can be replicated. When this occurs, it would be redundant and costly to perform a complete software validation on each system. The following provides guidance for tailoring the software validation for replicated systems. First, the Validation Plan must describe that several instruments are being validated at the same time. The strategy is to test all requirements on one system called First in Family then test a subset of requirements on the replicated systems. The Test Plan must denote tests to be performed on the First in Family and tests to be performed on Replicated Systems. Tests to be performed on Replicated Systems include security, audit trail configuration and acquisition settings. Thus, testing is limited to confirming that the configuration is correct. Additionally, an acquisition of a small number of samples (about 10) must be run to ensure the instrument is acquiring properly. Quantitation validation would not be necessary, nor testing reporting because these functions have been tested on the First in Family. There should be two sets of IQ/OQ/PQ protocols. One for the First in Family, one for replicate systems. The Validation Traceability Matrix should trace both the First in Family and the Replicated Systems. More than one trace table may be required. The Validation Summary Report must list the validation status of each system and any anomalies encountered for each system. Vendor Assessment The vendor assessment contains the standard postal audit for AB SCIEX. Validation Summary Report (VSR) The VSR contains the results of the software validation project including the decision as to whether the system passed or failed.
6 Conclusion Analyst validation need not be an onerous undertaking. By adopting the best practices prescribed by GAMP 5, other regulatory bodies and professional societies, validation can be performed efficiently. GAMP 5 brought some changes to software validation. These include: Validation based on risk management with more testing required for functionality that could impact on patient safety, product quality, or data integrity. Increased Awareness of Configurable and Networked Systems Changes to the V Validation Life Cycle Simplified the document approval process In addition to regulatory compliance, the processes and business objectives of the organization are enhanced by proper validation. Contact Us Contact your local AB SCIEX sales representatives or AB SCIEX Validation Services at: REFERENCES 1. GAMP Good Process Guide: Validation of Laboratory Computerized Systems. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, The Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) Guide for Validation of Automated Systems in Pharmaceutical Manufacture - GAMP 4, International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation (IEEE Standard 1012), The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, GAMP 4 to GAMP 5? Summary ISPE GAMP GAMP 5 Newsletter Holistic Approach to Science-based Risk Management, Thursday, 13 March GAMP 5 Quality Risk Management Approach, Kevin C. Martin and Dr. Arthur (Randy) Perez, Pharmaceutical Engineering, May/June 2008 Vol. 28 No.3 9. Draft Guidance for Industry: 21 CFR Part 11; Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures Validation (WITHDRAWN). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostics procedures. Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation AB SCIEX. The trademarks mentioned herein are the property of AB Sciex Pte. Ltd. or their respective owners. AB SCIEX is being used under license. IN NO EVENT SHALL ABSCIEX BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY, OR UNDER ANY STATUTE OR ON ANY OTHER BASIS FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, MULTIPLE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING FROM ABSCIEX PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OR THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT. Publication number Headquarters 353 Hatch Drive Foster City CA USA Phone International Sales For our office locations please call the division headquarters or refer to our website at
WHITE PAPER SDS Software v2.x Enterprise Edition Considerations for validating SDS Software v2.x Enterprise Edition for the 7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR System per the GAMP 5 guide This white paper describes
services and support WHITE PAPER SDS v1.4 21 CFR Part 11 Software Module for the 7500 and 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR Systems Considerations for validating the SDS v1.4 21 CFR Part 11 Software Module for the
1 of 11 1. Introduction The International Safe Transit Association (ISTA), a non-profit association whose objective is to prevent product damage and excess packaging usage within the distribution environment.
INTRODUCTION This book offers a systematic, ten-step approach, from the decision to validate to the assessment of the validation outcome, for validating configurable off-the-shelf (COTS) computer software
Reprinted from PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING The Official Magazine of ISPE July/August 2011, Vol. 31 No. 4 www.ispe.org Copyright ISPE 2011 The ISPE GAMP Community of Practice (COP) provides its interpretation
Computer System Validation - It s More Than Just Testing Introduction Computer System Validation is the technical discipline that Life Science companies use to ensure that each Information Technology application
OECD DRAFT ADVISORY DOCUMENT 16 1 THE APPLICATION OF GLP PRINCIPLES TO COMPUTERISED SYSTEMS FOREWARD 1. The following draft Advisory Document will replace the 1995 OECD GLP Consensus Document number 10
September 2, 2003 Risk-Based Validation of Computer Systems Used In FDA-Regulated Activities Purpose This document provides a summary of the requirements relating to use of computer-based systems in activities
GE Healthcare Life Sciences GAMP5 - a lifecycle management framework for customized bioprocess solutions imagination at work GE Healthcare s engineering department, Customized Bioprocess Solutions (CBS),
BPA Applying Critical Thinking to the Validation of Spreadsheets, Access Applications, Purchased Applications, and Web-Hosted Applications IVT 11 th Annual Computer and Software Validation Conference April
Whitepaper FDA Software Validation-Answers to the Top Five Software Validation Questions Author: Penny Goss, Penny Goss Technical Solutions The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and IEC (International
OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENT PA/PH/OMCL (08) 69 3R Full document title and reference Document type VALIDATION OF COMPUTERISED SYSTEMS Legislative basis - CORE DOCUMENT
TM ComplianceSP TM on SharePoint Complete Document & Process Management for Life Sciences on SharePoint 2010 & 2013 Overview With increasing pressure on costs and margins across Life Sciences, the industry
IVTGXP_july06.qxd 6/28/06 1:09 PM Page 36 Computerized System Audits In A GCP Pharmaceutical Laboratory Environment By Maintaining data integrity for both clinical laboratory processes and patient data
Using the ISPE s GAMP Methodology to Validate Environmental Monitoring System Software TEST DOCUMENTS DETAILED DOCUMENTS FUNCTIONAL SPECS USER REQUIREMENTS Introduction Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS)
The SaaS LMS and Total Cost of Ownership in FDA-Regulated Companies The SaaS LMS and Total Cost of Ownership in FDA-Regulated Companies By Rob Sims, Director, Life Science, UL EduNeering When a Life Science
Validating LIMS in a GMP Environment How To Page 1 Validating LIMS in a GMP Environment Support for sterile production of solutions & lyophilizates of peptide & protein hormones The Goal Improve Data Handling
TITOLO SLIDE Testo Slide Testo Slide Testo Slide Clinical database/ecrf validation: effective processes and procedures IV BIAS ANNUAL CONGRESS Padova September, 26 th 2012 PQE WORKSHOP: What's new in Computerized
This article illustrates the risk analysis guidance discussed in GAMP 4. 5 By applying GAMP s risk analysis method to three generic classes of software systems, this article acts as both an introduction
EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Public Health and Risk Assessment Pharmaceuticals Brussels, SANCO/C8/AM/sl/ares(2010)1064599 EudraLex The Rules Governing Medicinal Products
A Model for Training/Qualification Record Validation within the Talent Management System IN THIS PAPER: Meeting 21 CFR Part 11 and Annex 11 Requirements Delivering Qualification Transcripts During Audits
International GMP Requirements for Quality Control Laboratories and Recomendations for Implementation Ludwig Huber, Ph.D. email@example.com Overview GMP requirements for Quality Control laboratories
21 CFR Part 11 Implementation Spectrum ES INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY T E C H N I C A L N O T E Introduction Compliance with 21 CFR Part 11 is mandatory for pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers to sell
A Pragmatic Approach to the Many GxP critical spreadsheets need to undergo validation and testing to ensure that the data they generate is accurate and secure. This paper describes a pragmatic approach
ISCT Cell Therapy Liaison Meeting AABB Headquarters in Bethesda, MD September 10, 2009 David Doleski, Team Leader, Branch 2 Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality (DMPQ) Office of Compliance and
Qualification Guideline June 2013 Disclaimer: This document is meant as a reference to Life Science companies in regards to the Microsoft O365 platform. Montrium does not warrant that the use of the recommendations
GAMP 4 to GAMP 5 Summary Introduction This document provides summary information on the GAMP 5 Guide and provides a mapping to the previous version, GAMP 4. It specifically provides: 1. Summary of Need
Documenting Distribution Operations: FDA Validation Beyond the Laboratory and Manufacturing Facility Kellie Wittman, Tompkins Associates September 2009 www.tompkinsinc.com Contents Introduction 3 Why bother
GAMP 5 A brief overview IFF møde 2012-09-19 Kort fortalt NNIT er en af Danmarks fire største leverandører af it-services Fokusområder: It-rådgivning, udvikling, implementering og drift til life sciences,
STATISTICA for Validated Applications A Compliance Statement from StatSoft Executive Management Last updated: July 2011 Page 2 Introduction StatSoft Inc. has a long history of partnering with our customers
Prelims 13/3/06 9:11 pm Page iii CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures ix xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Need for Guidance on ERP System Validation 1 1.2 The Need to Validate ERP Systems 3 1.3 The ERP Implementation
Training Course Computerized System Validation in the Pharmaceutical Industry Istanbul, 16-17 January 2003 Change Control Wolfgang Schumacher Roche Pharmaceuticals, Basel Agenda Change Control Definitions
Table of Contents Validating Enterprise Systems: A Practical Guide Foreword 1 Introduction The Need for Guidance on Compliant Enterprise Systems What is an Enterprise System The Need to Validate Enterprise
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OCDE/GD(95)115 OECD SERIES ON PRINCIPLES OF GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING NUMBER 10 GLP CONSENSUS DOCUMENT THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF GLP TO COMPUTERISED
Manage Software Development, Testing, and Validation Presented by Sharon Strause, Senior Consultant EduQuest, Inc. IVT s Computer and Software Validation EU Conference The Hilton Dublin Dublin, Ireland
Back to index of articles Qualification of Computer Networks and Infrastructure R.D.McDowall McDowall Consulting Validation of computerised systems generally focuses on the providing documented evidence
Computer System Configuration Management and Change Control What Your IT Department Is Really Doing Justin J. Fisher, Pfizer IT Quality and Compliance Manager Agenda 1. Background 2. Audience Demographics
Software Verification and Validation Georgia L. Harris Carol Hockert NIST Office of Weights and Measures 1 Learning Objectives After this session, using resources and references provided, you will be able
QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN CLINICAL RESEARCH Martin Valania, Executive Director, Corporate QA and Compliance Introduction Pharmaceutical companies recognize the benefits of carefully managing
Computer validation Guide Final draft Version 2 December 2002 Revision History: Version 1 August 2002 Version 2 References to 21 CFR part 11 in Chapter 6. Legal Reference December 2002 COMPVALFINALDRAFTDECEMBER2002.DOC
Validated SaaS LMS SuccessFactors Viability Executive Summary SuccessFactors has a long history of working with validated organizations and has brought this expertise to their validated SaaS LMS package.
STS Federal Government Consulting Practice IV&V Offering WBE Certified GSA Contract GS-35F-0108T For information Please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 2007 by STS, Inc. Outline Background on STS What is IV&V?
GAMP 5 ARiskBased Risk-Based Approach to Compliant GxP Computerized Systems Stephen Shields 10 September 2013 ASQ Orange Section Meeting Part 1 Disclaimer This presentation is made at the request of ASQ.
Software Validation in Clinical Trial Reporting: Experiences from the Biostatistical & Data Sciences Department Andrea Baker Senior Programmer GlaxoSmithKline SeUGI 19 Florence May 29-June 1 2001 Introduction
BIOVIA QUMAS FOR SHAREPOINT TM COMPLETE DOCUMENT & PROCESS MANAGEMENT FOR LIFE SCIENCES ON MICROSOFT SHAREPOINT 2010 & 2013 DATASHEET BIOVIA QUMAS FOR SHAREPOINT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION DELIVERING UNIFIED
until further notice 1 (10) Applicable to investment firms GUIDELINE ON RISK MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL PRINCIPLES AS WELL AS INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION OF INVESTMENT FIRMS By virtue of section 4, point
COTS Validation Post FDA & Other Regulations TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Abstract 3 2. What is COTS 3 3. Why should COTS require Validation? 3 4. Risk Based Approach 4 5. Validation Approach 6 6. Applicable Regulations
VISIONsecurity Software: 21 CFR Part 11 Compliance The information in this publication is provided for reference only. All information contained in this publication is believed to be correct and complete.
. User Bulletin 8200 Cellular Detection System Analysis Software v4.0 August 14, 2007 SUBJECT: 21 CFR Part 11 Software Console - Administrators Guide In This User Bulletin This user bulletin covers: Introduction.......................................................
How to Survive an FDA Computer Validation Audit The Myth Within the pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device industry there is much fear and concern over approaching FDA audits. The FDA strikes fear
LOW RISK APPROACH TO ACHIEVE PART 11 COMPLIANCE WITH SOLABS QM AND MS SHAREPOINT Implementation of MS SharePoint provides companywide functionalities for general document management and workflow. The use
Conducting a Gap Analysis on your Change Control System Presented By Miguel Montalvo, President, Expert Validation Consulting, Inc. Standards, Regulations, Guidelines related to Change Control Management
NucleoCounter NC-3000, NucleoView NC-3000 Software and Code of Federal Regulation 21 Part 11; Electronic Records, Electronic Signatures (21 CFR Part 11) A ChemoMetec A/S White Paper September 2013 ChemoMetec
Beamex Calibration White Paper email@example.com Calibration in a regulatory environment World-class calibration solutions Calibration in a regulatory environment In areas where instrument accuracy is critical
Barnett International and CHI's Inaugural Clinical Trial Oversight Summit June 4-7, 2012 Omni Parker House Boston, MA This presentation is the property of DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSC company, and
Full Compliance for and EU Annex 11 With the regulation support of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The regulations 2 3. FDA 3 Subpart B Electronic records 3 Subpart C Electronic Signatures 9 4. EU GMP Annex
Regulatory Asset Management: Harmonizing Calibration, Maintenance & Validation Systems 800.982.2388 1 Introduction Calibration, maintenance and validation activity, despite operating within the same department
Overview In our business, success is achieved by taking on difficult, sometimes seemingly impossible tasks, and accomplishing them on-time, on-budget, and meeting all functional requirements. To do this
Cognizant 20-20 Insights e-signatures: Making Paperless a Reality A paperless solution not only reduces printing costs; it also streamlines the entire life sciences regulatory submission and approval process,
Analyst 1.6 Software Laboratory Director s Guide Release Date: August 2011 This document is provided to customers who have purchased AB SCIEX equipment to use in the operation of such AB SCIEX equipment.
GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE (GLP) GUIDELINES FOR THE VALIDATION OF COMPUTERISED SYSTEMS Working Group on Information Technology (AGIT) Release Date: 14 December 2007 Version: 02 AGIT - Validation of Computerised
QUESTIONS FOR YOUR SOFTWARE VENDOR: TO ASK BEFORE YOUR AUDIT Heather Longden Senior Marketing Manager Waters Corporation Boston Chapter Educational Meeting June 2016 About Waters Lab Informatics Separations
IPSWITCH FILE TRANSFER WHITE PAPER Supporting FISMA and NIST SP 800-53 with Secure Managed File Transfer www.ipswitchft.com Adherence to United States government security standards can be complex to plan
Overcoming the Challenges of Compliance, Quality and Cost An MKS White Paper Introduction Software is fast becoming the differentiator for manufacturers of medical devices. The rewards available from software
Risk-Based Validation of Commercial Off-the-Shelf Computer Systems Published by Advanstar Communications in Journal of Validation Technology May 2005, Vol. 11, No. 3 Supplied by (*) www.labcompliance.com
AAMI TIR 36: Validation of SW for Regulated Processes Denise Stearns April 2008 Agenda Software for Regulated Processes TIR In Scope Discussion Software V&V Basis for TIR The Journey to Critical Thinking
Overview of STS Consulting s IV&V Methodology STS uses a 5 Step Methodology for IV&V. Our risk-based methodology conforms to Best Practices, relevant international standards, and regulations/guidelines
MHRA GMP Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry Introduction: Data integrity is fundamental in a pharmaceutical quality system which ensures that medicines are of the required quality. This
Nova Southeastern University Standard Operating Procedure for GCP Title: Electronic Source Documents for Clinical Research Study Version # 1 SOP Number: OCR-RDM-006 Effective Date: August 2013 Page 1 of
Decommissioning Case Study A Risk-based Approach to System Retirement and Data Migration Chris Clark Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd Agenda Overview System Retirement Data Migration Annex 11 considerations Case
Welcome Computer System Validation Training Delivered to FDA ISPE Boston Area Chapter February 20, 2014 1 Background Training Conducted on April 24, 2012 Food & Drug Administration Division of Manufacturing
Page 1 of 7 Software Supplier Process Requirements 1.0 QUALITY SYSTEM FRAMEWORK 1.1 QUALITY POLICY The Seller shall document and implement a quality program in the form of Quality manual or detailed Quality
The Impact of 21 CFR Part 11 on Product Development Product development has become an increasingly critical factor in highly-regulated life sciences industries. Biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical