[John:] Following from Richard and Jenny erm, they both had to attend a meeting in Dublin but it's with absolutely no other alternative. Erm, they have made some progress erm, but there is still one major outstanding item, which Jenny promises, on her return, she will take up complete, which is erm, new procedures for a continuous survey. So, they can't be with us erm.
[Stella:] Do we believe that's going to happen very often?
[John:] Very?
[Stella:] Erm, that neither of them can be here, they're both attending the same meeting, 'cos I think it's going to slow down progress, if that's the case.
[John:] Ros is meant to be attending this meeting in their place but couldn't get.
[Stella:] She's coming instead?
[John:] No,
[Stella:] Oh, really. Oh. Just as well she's not here, they didn't do any food for her. [LAUGHTER].
[speaker003:] She hasn't got that much of an appetite.
[Stella:] Well.
[John:] Should we make a
[Stella:] Yes, I think we should. Can ya.
[John:] Erm, there are a lot of masses arising from [loud noise next to microphone] meeting. In answer to Stella's question, it'll happen very, very rarely. Hardly ever does Jenny leave this building.
[Stella:] Okay. It's just that was the whole purpose of having the two of them. Yeah.
[speaker003:] It's just that the er, Southern Ireland due to T G I. It must be right, assuming it must be.
[Stella:] Oh.
[John:] There are an awful lot of masses arising, probably most of this will be covered again as we go through the other items on the agenda. So shall we erm, take the rest of the writing at the very end? When you might have ticked off all the other things.
[speaker003:] Okay.
[John:] Yep. Which leads that on to erm, suggestion forms. I did circulate a brief note to everyone before Christmas because it became clear in our autumn debrief meeting that there was some confusion about suggestion forms, and whet.
[speaker003:] They went and told you where it was.
[John:] Richie is coming. Erm, the confusion was whether suggestion forms should be er, restricted to suggestions about procedures in the quality system. Whether suggestions should be restricted to procedures or whether they should be general company-wide suggestions about everything and anything and the latter, who is responsible for sealing the suggestion, actioning it and making it move forward. And, I think Alan, this actually arose in, in, erm, our suggestions because you felt that what do with procedures.
[Alan:] That's right.
[John:] And therefore in a sense, it might be down to departmental management that it wasn't something that the suggestion system should encompass. Erm, I put a proposal forward in this saying, I think.
[speaker003:] Which didn't come to everybody of course.
[John:] It didn't, no.
[speaker003:] Who did you send it to? Divisional policy managers, Elizabeth and Richard.
[John:] Er, my suggestion is actually that er, the suggestion form should be suggestion forms and we must all suggestions to start. If they're procedural they go to the procedure owner who follows them through, gives feedback to the person making the suggestion, in the way that we decided already, and if they're not procedures then the divisional quality manager picks them up and deals with them appropriately, either within the division or by bringing.
[Stella:] Seems reasonable.
[John:] Agreed. You'll never be able do, train people to design, whether a suggestion will or will not fit. The implication of this though is that where a member of staff makes a suggestion about the way the department should be run, where the divisional quality manager thinks that suggestion should not be taken aboard er, feedback has to be given and, and some reason why. In other words, we don't just discard the suggestion.
[Stella:] on the other one.
[John:] Yeap. Is everyone happy with that? So, will probably come back to you now. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker003:] Oh, it all right, we did handle it, that issue anyway, separately, so that's, we probably did receive your outline there. Yeah. Yeah, Okay.
[John:] Erm, that will mean a further change to the suggestion procedure in term of the application of it.
[speaker003:] Yep, whose is the suggestions procedure.
[John:] Mine.
[Stella:] Simon.
[John:] Is that so, that will do. At the moment it says, it describes how suggestions for improvements to the systems and procedures are generated. Or is that good enough as it is.
[speaker003:] That will cover, that covers the changes... That covers the suggestions
[Stella:] to the procedures and such like. But, all you're saying is that you're not going to restrict your suggestions to that.
[speaker003:] Our suggestion box, yes. You just meaning that someone else is gonna sort them out, so you won't need to change the procedure unless you want to cover in that procedure this alternative route. It's just it's a postbox, in other words, the suggestions box. Sub which are relevant to.
[John:] Are you saying we don't need to change?
[speaker003:] Mmm, yes.
[Stella:] You don't need to unless you want to, include it. You don't have to change it.
[John:] I wouldn't change it. Your proposed division to that procedure Simon, already allow for the responsibility to these suggestion s to be either divisional quality manager or a procedure officer. That's how I think it will stay. Yes, it's, it's really the application that possibly needed changing.
[speaker003:] Okay, the next item generally suggested we formed. Again, I think we should deal with these in, in two parts. Those which are suggestions towards review and procedures. I think maybe we should take as we look at all the procedures where we have suggested be draft. Are there any other suggestions that are around, which I'm not specifically relating to, specific procedures.
[Stella:] You're looking at me. We went through them. I don't think so, but weren't they all to do with, Richard.
[speaker003:] I think they are So, you will have a procedure coming up soon where you will recommend a change based on suggestions of the company.
[Stella:] Yes, in the main. Yep. Sorry, when I say in the main, some of it I might, I just want to clarify with the quality committee as to whether they agree or not.
[speaker003:] Right. I have one suggestion in relation to Q P twenty-nine, quality forms. It's just that two people asked if we could just print the form relating to what is in the master job file and it on the same colour paper or card as the erm, job files. I think that plastic wallets inside the job files. Erm. Richard's after that as well. Yes, there were about three different people wanted company suggestion about that. In fact, we clearly, we agree just an instruction to sample to. I don't think I do agree there. It means the whole sale change of forms and colours and it must reduce the range of other colours that we have for other forms, don't necessarily go into those wallets. It had all sorts of implications. There will be surely, there'll be forms on other colours at the moment that match the wallet colours. So have we got to change. Well, there's not much, there doesn't seem to me to be much point in in having pink forms to go into pink files if there are pink forms that don't go into pink files. So, we'd have to change the colour structure on everything. [sound of drink being poured]. Anyone else got any views on this issue? I think it's a nice idea but I don't, I think once we've settled down we'll get used to it. It seem, I mean it does seem like a good way at the moment of making it easier for everyone to use the system..., but I don't know whether it's vital.
[John:] I don't know how many colours there are er, because...
[speaker003:] There's four wallets.
[John:] ... you only want four wallets, if you've lost four colours is that too drastic or not?
[speaker003:] No, there are probably other forms already existing on those colours, we presume we would have to take off those colours. We only probably have to take seven standard colours off in the end. Er. No, if you think of it from the users point of view, not necessarily. Not necessarily. All I'm saying is the forms that are mentioned in the procedure that have to go in those wallets ought to be in those colours, so red, so pink. We've just gone on pink onto red. Yes, but then do all, all costing forms have to on the same colour? Yeah. Because at the moment we have different costing forms on different colours so as to know, to differentiate between post or telephone, face-to-face and so on.
[John:] Ah, colour is used to mean something else. Erm, true.
[speaker003:] I think it's a nice idea, I just don't think it's necessary.
[John:] Well, erm, a compromise position is to move part the way there. If there's a form the colour of which is irrelevant, it may as well be on the colour of the wallet. If, if the colour is not signifying any thing else, it doesn't matter if two forms er, time sheet and something else are both on pink, does it.
[speaker003:] A time sheet should never end up in a master job file.
[John:] But no, but nobody would ever think of putting it there anyway. But clearly to have costing forms different colours is more important than, yes.
[speaker003:] And booking forms actually fall into different sizes of cash flow as well. We've got different colour codes for different types of, of things like. They're all together. Has she. They're all yellow. Don't know. And they're all white when they hit our design sheets. No, they're all yellow when I reach, to go in a yellow wallet. Oh. I think this is one of those things which if, when we're in the process of re-issuing forms, we can bring them into line, that's brilliant. But it doesn't seem to be worthwhile to chuck out all the bits of paper we've got and replace them all just to get the colour right. And I, if it'll make it mandatory then we, we've got all sorts of other forms that you can't, you're running out of forms and you can't take a photocopy on.
[John:] So why don't we reply to the people who put this suggestion that in reprinting it'll be taken into account but there are some reasons that we can't follow it completely and that, two chief of which are different, where colour is used for coding and erm, secondly what Richard has just said.
[speaker003:] So this is down to... So, sorry. I think at this stage we could define for Sandra though, so that we ensure that this does happen and it happens throughout, as and when things run out. We could define the colours to Sandra, yeah, as of now. Yeah. And who is the best person to do that.
[John:] . All of the mentioned in Q P twenty-nine.
[speaker003:] Not as colours. No, not as colours, no. But I've just designed [coughing next to microphone]. Aah. Are there any other suggestions which are general, not about specific procedures? Erm, can you, can you just bear with me and I'll go through these? Erm, they are about procedures but I would like the committees view on them. Erm, there's many suggestions I've got here, where I've just taken the necessary action in view of the procedures and I don't feel that it's necessary for us to discuss it, if you're happy with that. Right, well why don't you take the ones that you'd like to get discussed? Right, okay, erm, there's no mention of whether we should be keeping a copy of the final and I feel that we should have that in one of our procedures somewhere. Do you agree and therefore is it best that it goes in the research one? No,
[John:] , printed volume.
[speaker003:] Printed volume, it'll go in the tabulation one. Okay, that's what it's all about tabulation. Researcher tabulation.
[John:] Would you not regard a printed volume as tables as part of a report.
[speaker003:] Well, it might be that we regard it as whether everybody else interprets it that way. But if it is regarded as a report that's covered already. Yes. It's the cases where it isn't. Or in the case whether it changes or not, are not printed. But, if we turn to the copy of the tables I will keep a copy. I think it's still better, I think it's better that we actually just put it in. 'Cos it's procedure, isn't it. Yes. Just make a simple statement at the end of the D P one. A copy of the tables is retained. 'Cos some would go to the information office, for instance B T with any of their, so if we just said. Right, whose responsibility is it to make sure the copy of the final tables is kept. Research. Researcher, right. Okay, so that's that one.
[John:] Well, that doesn't sound again as though it should be in the D P.
[speaker003:] Well no, it's our responsibility's to put the researcher in there. No, yeah It's D P and researcher. It's all about data processing and. Yeah, makes sense for her to go in there. Job completion. Yeah. I mean, it's on the job description bit. Yeah, yeah, that's fair enough. So that's you procedure, is it? You're happy with? Yes. Erm, Simon, there's one that's come up right field in the fact that we mention, I think you might have got it 'cos you're responsible for the Q P five, which talks about interim reports, services.
[John:] Yep.
[speaker003:] And that's not what face-to-face call theirs currently. Erm, I'm suggesting they're going to call them interim fieldwork reports.
[John:] Oh well, I'd followed their suggestion and taken that out.
[speaker003:] Oh right, okay.
[John:] So, which way do you want to do it.
[speaker003:] I expect to get them talked into fieldwork reports.
[John:] But, not be told?
[speaker003:] But, not be told. Yes.
[John:] Alright, well I'll, get that on my account to that.
[speaker003:] We'll deal with that when we review your document on recommendational procedures. Okay.
[John:] In the same, well no, we'll deal with that detail when we come to that.
[speaker003:] Erm, again a suggestion from Richard that he feel, that we feel we need a new, a procedure for creating a procedure. I don't know whether this is necessary but Caroline erm, but when we take on a new type of business which isn't covered by our current procedures erm, say electronic data collection or something, which up until then has been done on paper, that we ought to have some simple statement in a procedure about how we are going to er,ma, ensure that we've got a new set of procedures to deal with that new type of, new system. Can? You don't have to have one. If you do have one as though it's we're doing whatever document control procedures you've got as to how many are raised and authorised. Erm, the alternative is if you are going to retain some form of erm, quality group, I guess it would be done through that anyway. And, it will just be meant to do that particular. So, it's very much up to you what you want organised. Sort of thing which event will be spotted as part of audit, won't it. You audit a job and it doesn't conform to procedures, [plane overhead], there are procedures to deal with it, it's probably for a major change to that. We know about it before, always used to, we know that what we're doing with B T is, you know, we're starting up clapping. So that we know we've got to cover that and it was just er Caroline, Karen's suggestions were in the external order, was that we, we should draw up some kind of plan, with dates as to say right, okay, we're gonna do the work first. Find out the best way to do it and then by this date we're gonna assume a graph of procedures to work around what we decide is the best way to. And just to actually formalise they've laid out the plan to say that we are actually doing, we are aware that this doesn't combine and we are doing something about it. Seems sensible. Can't it, could it be in the quality manual, rather than erm, have a procedure about how to write a proce, when to start and have a pro. Such the quality committee regularly considers whether it's necessary to have any new... Perhaps, we a standard agenda item on every quality committee meeting and, and it be out of the. agenda item. One, one of the things that I think will be in value to you, once the systems in place, is to have some standard agenda items for the quality committee meeting and that may be sensible as being one of them. Yeah. Yeah, I think that sounds about the best way of handling it, doesn't it? I, I'm always reluctant to put down specific methods of writing new procedures, or who's responsible for it, or where it's got to be done because it depends entirely on what it's about. From now on? Yep. Yep, good. Next, Stella.
[Stella:] Erm,.... No, I think these are then just very general ones that I can deal with myself. Oh, I've got one other. This is er, a, this was not clear whether all the versions on disc prior to M one have previous procedure holders and previous master links which should be kept on record for one year.
[speaker003:] So all the documentations for the last provision. Yeah.
[John:] We need help there.
[speaker003:] The decision is yours. You're saying that your system works as of, M one and everything from N one forward you need to keep. Prior to that, if you've got any use for it keep it, if you haven't.
[John:] I think we've got a use for it to demonstrate that we, merely to demonstrate we had it er, at least er, on, in March the twenty, what ever it is. I think that.
[speaker003:] I think we should have. Yes, but all the records of who got issued what. Oh no, oh no, I mean the old procedures. Keep the procedures. We certainly need to keep the minutes of all the committee meetings. Yeah, the procedure says for a year. That's not a problem. It's really all the old, old procedures and distributions.
[John:] Yeah, I think they could go.
[speaker003:] Any other general suggestions which aren't linked to a specific procedure that we're gonna review? I've sort of got one there. I don't know whether you want to have it now or at the end. It's about erm, about seething inspection, which is a, a clause that we're not covering these without checking that when you buy, that when printing all the paper when it gets here we actually carry out a check. Is there something in the boilers commission?
[Richard:] There's something down on the subject. erm, I've drawn something out, just a quick memo out putting the sort of details in erm, a bit more. I think I've covered everything on it.
[speaker003:] And what do you propose to do. To re-issue the staff or to incorporate the to it.
[Richard:] Yeah, I'll look at, er.
[John:] I think Richard's asking the question shall we take this item now or later.
[speaker003:] Erm, let's take it now. Is it ultimately going to be a procedure then Richard? That's er, what John trying to understand.
[Richard:] It will be, it might be. There are bits in all over the place.
[speaker003:] The discussion that Richard and I had, my recommendation was that it was not a big enough thing to cover a separate procedure for. , sausage roll? Right. That what it relates to is, if you subcontract certain items like, exactly the same way as your ordinary one one line in whichever procedure deals with checking. [loud noises next to microphone]. Erm, it really does make sure that it's covered in all the areas where it's, where it's needed specifically. Where it's not needed specifically then we can have a very general statement probably after the. Fair enough. Okay, well why not circulate this and what we should do is read it, agree it and then decide which procedures need minor adjustment on the straighter principle. We've gone over this before. [quiet talking and laughing]. We need an inspection. Do you want some fine? [reading documents]. Any comments after reading? It seems remarkably sensible apart from writing down exactly what Marie has to check. You can see she. . How, how do I check? It's, it's not that you would necessarily [loud coughing] an individual area. Where, when you sub- contract some international work, at some stage you get something back that you checked and it looked like a right pig but.
[John:] You wouldn't got.
[speaker003:] And partly it was the final report that you. It's really just because backing fieldwork might be slightly different from checking normal supplies which will be quality and quantity. There might be specific things that you want to check around the fieldwork like the number of respondents er, the type of respondents. It seems to be easier, as a procedure only you can take on all of this idea, but if your not clear about the detail bit. something to the research at the end of the delivery or whatever it is. Confirm that you still have to work with. . good. Sometimes it takes a bit of a while to. This is why I don't think it sensible to have a separate procedure for it, 'cos it's so simple. have to push it in the right place. . Sorry, I was just going to say that this and the individual department activities seem fair enough. It's the purchasing of paper, what the implications are of that. . Yeah, in selection of B twenty erm, paragraph five, it does say that erm, supports order book would record if there was any unsatisfactory performance. Now, that in itself implies that everything you receive you check to see if it is as specified. So are you saying they need to expire that paragraph? Yes, it's, it's coming not to sub-contracting but just your ordinary purchasing. I'd like to... When you or, when you order five hundred reams of paper, do you get five hundred reams and is it of the right quality from the sheets. Yeah, which is precisely what they're doing in the order book. So, then all we have to do is make that a statement. Just very quickly? Erm. No, I think that, are we, that, that do you think we are? If for every sh... Every ream Pallet of paper that comes in, is us, some sort of check used to go on, didn't it. Erm, the order book is ticked off, each order that's in there it's ticked off as being complete. It's as, what I'm looking for is that the people who tick it off as being okay know what they are looking for, and that maybe that it's the right number of boxes, it might be it's the right grade of paper, whatever it happens to be that, that, if they tick it to say it's right, then that's what, that they have checked in some way.
[John:] The correct number. Yes. Some sort of phrase in the type that Rita's just bought up. Upon delivery erm, the items are checked against the original er, order.
[speaker003:] All we're looking for is that you've got what you've ordered. If that's under control that'll be quite easy to demonstrate in the print shop, quite easy to demonstrate in Maries too. When we run into trouble is say, when we're buying software or some hardware, computer hardware for instance, when we have no sub-system operating there. Purchases are up more than I thought people purchasing all the time is, that's fine, they've got a system, we can describe that in a paragraph here and that'll satisfy them but there's more of a problem when we're buying in the software, more than a one off thing. If you order one copy of a programme, you get a copy of the programme, you put it in the machine, if it works, it works, if it doesn't. In this... . Erm, on software we said we said we had to add that into our procedures anyhow, last, on our last year view meeting, didn't we, which is what we've done and we've also as of today set up a system of logging new software coming in and signing it. But Oh right That's only for the banks though isn't it? Erm, we've called it Critical Application Software. Erm, but I do, I mean if we were hogging another, I mean, if we got in the new, like you just got in the new software for the Mac... Yeah... I mean you're not really, you put it through it's paces to see if it would do what we wanted it to do but that's not actually. Although I haven't, well I haven't marked up anywhere that I've got it. Erm, put into the that it was the right packet. What I, one of the things that I, I think you must have somewhere, and that is that at some stage you order something, you get it in and somehow someone has to tell accounts that yes, they can pay that invoice. Well, you sign the invoice. Is that a sensible way of doing it? Does that mean that you've got it and that it's what you wanted. Yeah, it's practical way of doing it. To cover the ad, to cover the ad-hoc things. I mean, I think that when people are purchasing all the time the, particularly the order book, is not sensible, but the ad-hoc stuff is hiding the invoices. Yep. Very sensible. [LAUGHTER]. Well, I just can't see how your accounts would let you get away with not saying if it's okay. What we've, so what it means is we have to make it clear to those people who are authorised to sign off invoices that their signature not only authorises accounts to pay it but also signifies that the delivery has been checked and is erm, is adequate. So. So should we have a phrase in this procedure? What procedure would it make sense for something like that to go in though? That, that's my qu, query on that. Well, the selection of suppliers. There you go, think of two different answers. Well no, it won't mean sub-contracting [talk in background]. 'Cos this could be just stuff that we're just buying in? It wouldn't be in here, quotations are only normally the question from a pre-suppliers? Q P twenty. That's on your page. Yes,, I just said sub-contracting work is where you put something about size of the invoices. I mean, you have to buy from a supplier that's on. Right, well that's, that's about the managements erm, erm, management, the management generation of those. I think that Q P nineteen is about sub-contracting of work and how that happens. Q P twenty is about suppliers more generally. Yes, I believe that's about getting pe, getting the lists of order, keeping them up to date erm. Well, actually there's a phrase for already in here, about sub-contracting. Upon, upon completion of work int, invoices from sub-contractors of checked coded..., by a director and sent to accounts. . Or maybe it's sensible for a, an expansion on that, on. Phrase added on. Let's just say that the invoice is checked, coded and authorised and you'll tell me if he says,. So then you could actually say something like that, the item purchased is, check that it's suffice to your requirements. The record of this is the authorising of the... The signing of the actual invoice. ... invoice. Do we have to say sub-contractors? I think it would be better 'cos in fact, sub-contractors to an outside person, to you sub-contracting meant absolutely everything that we bought that we didn't er, provide ourselves, didn't it. Whereas... Erm, only thing is of working with the standard yes, 'cos that isn't what sub-contracting means. I was going to say, sub-contracting to us at, and I don't know whether we're all thinking the same way, at one stage sub-contracting very much meant, to me anyhow, that er, buying out work which you couldn't do your, from your own resources. That, that's what most people understand by sub- contracting and they don't see that it, the standard uses it, in my, in my opinion in the wrong way, because it does, it's standard does require everything that you buy that affects you. Because the way that I erm, I've been working on this procedure and in fact I sense this too, and I have most of what was currently there for research project, project related sub-contracting, in other words sub-contracting with B P or if necessary, which I felt that more or less covered and what it wasn't covering was when a Marie type situation on software, where I was going to put a different section, which is where the report, when it's on research project related company facts, then I pay for the software. Now that may not be the best way to have structured it, but some of the checks that we're imposing at the moment are not necessary to put on paper. Could I draw this one to a close by suggesting that the procedure owners, who own the procedures identified in the take on board the need to make a minor adjustment to set the principle in place and the. In your work on procedures nineteen and twenty you recorporate the sort of suggestion you've had here that general purchases are checked and a record of their checking is the formal authorisation invoice. Do I, for general purposes, have to carry on going through all the cost estimates and and stuff like that? Er, no you shouldn't. It's where you draw the line as to when you need, and that I'm not sure about. If you're using ordinary photocopy paper for internals, stuff like that makes no difference at all. Erm, quality of print paper down the print shop does have to be checked so they may well use as a guide but they won't necessarily go thorough all the cost estimates. Have a go, I'll if you've got problems, then you come back to Richard and Alan. But does that structure seem sensible as well, for research. Just a general. And then a general. I put general. I would call it general purchasing, something that makes sense to everybody. Right, general purchasing. Third time of asking, any other general suggestions, not specifically related to a particular procedure? Okay, well we will come back and we'll go through all the proposed because our last item is our longest item. We're gonna move on now to feedback on progress of virtually every and related document. You also have, I'm gonna set up a sub-committee called the Form sub-committee to meet after Christmas er, to review this work, once it's been done and decide what to do with the, all the other forms that aren't versions. Er, Stella, could you take us through how you're getting on in terms of your forms and related documents.
[Stella:] I believe all of the forms in the procedures that I'm responsible for have, and are the one that are mentioned in those procedures are now versioned and dated. Some of them are on N two, that erm, not necessarily, in fact the majority of the forms in the supporting guidelines on manuals are not versioned yet but they, we followed the advice of Roy there and we have listed them in each of the guidelines with a statement of erm, we've just, I mean, a clear listing there of each form and when we actually go to introduce the next time, reprint, we will then put version codes on them.
[speaker003:] The process of collecting together all of the other forms is a one off operation, the forms that are not referenced.
[Stella:] I haven't yet done.
[speaker003:] To date.
[Stella:] No.
[speaker003:] Okay. I can report back from Jenny and she's in the same position. She's versioned the things that should be versioned and has put out a request to others in the division for copies of any other forms that we use that don't feature in procedures. Simon, how's progress on your side?
[John:] Er, as far as I know all the forms that were allocated to me have been versioned and distributed out to everybody, so I should have lots of version forms. Since then I've discovered there's a qualitating cost form which I've and er, qualitative data of uniform, not to mention any other, so there's a couple I've got to chase up.
[speaker003:] Okay. Rita, on your side?
[Rita:] I all the forms I've before are version numbered and dated. At the first of last week however, I didn't have a copy of the for the data processing forms out of D P. Er, that's totalled up three weeks. Er, we haven't received a copy of them.
[speaker003:] The reason for that is it was done on the old viewing system.
[Rita:] Oh, right. Because I, people have requested copies.
[speaker003:] What are these forms? Which forms are these? Data, sorry and I'm quite happy that they're called Data Processing. I all those forms on my Mac seven years ago, are they still on my Mac. [loud coughing next to microphone]. But the one we're using is done on the Xerox.
[John:] Can you not just take John's now?
[speaker003:] If you don't get to the end of it within a couple of days, come to me and I'm sure I've got somewhere on my old Mac. Okay. What did. Visited the research researcher shows. Yeah, okay. Well, that's been dragging on now for three or four weeks erm. That currently isn't a document that's controlled is it? But it should be. It should be is what we've agreed in one of our suggestions, that unless you're talking about something different. Er, I, well, they're referred to as instruction in one place and then processing specification in another. They were on your original list anyway. Data Processing procedures version N one is master copy of all the forms, analysis requirement form, erm, breakdown form etc, etc, etc and they're all there. There not involved in these documents though, are they, currently? I believe they are, unless I'm going. Feedback, please. In Q fifteen, data processing has definitely changed. Erm, yeah. They were listed in your original list on fifteen. Right, and then in Q fourteen instructions are in capitals but not in bold. I think that must be the same thing. It is, and that point we're gonna amend when we re-write the procedures. Right, so they are these things known as data processing specification? Is that what we call it now? Is that so forward? Yeah. There are four different ones, aren't there? Yep. Write down to the staff. Form A, form B, form C and form D. Form E is worse and form F. That's what I, I, I banging my head against a brick wall about. I can't get... They're all versioned. said they're all versioned but what I still can't get hold of is, is a copy of. . The job is interview, taped. That's what this is about. It won't take that long. Okay, good. It sounds to me as though we're sort of ninety-five percent of the way towards getting the basic forms in place, versioned and distributed. But, we've still got some way to go towards collecting together all of the other things around the place, so that this extra committee can have a look at it and decide whether these forms are relevant, necessary, should be controlled or not. I'm missing some, I'm supposed to have this master list of related documents and I haven't got them from from Jenny, or has everybody. The reason is that I, I've got them all, yeah. You haven't got them all? So I need to with Jenny then. And there was one point on my form note which er, was because I'm responsible for recruitment and training procedures, a lot of the documents which, related forms which I should hold as a decision, I should think more sensible for Elizabeth to hold masters of. So I'd like... It doesn't seem sensible for Rita to have masters of contracts of employment. So, The way we set up this system management, the procedure owner has the master copy of related forms. What does, what does the.
[John:] Er, Simon's got copies of some, yeah, but they're the bizarre things as well. Yes, I have but that's er, some more.
[speaker003:] Training Erm, twenty-eight. It doesn't seem to me sensible that I have the masters of the quality manual, master lists of procedure holders and so on because... What, what does your procedure actually say about. Well, in the case of Q P twenty-eight, the procedure says that, I think that Elizabeth is responsible for these forms. The reason why I'm asking the question is that if for example, Richard's responsible for a form and perhaps for the master of it, that doesn't mean to say that you've actually got the folders in your office. You can be responsible for the master of it but ask Elizabeth to hold the master for you Delegate, safe keeping. . And you take the time sheets perhaps as well. And the appraisal? And the appraisal. Yeah, it's all in the one twenty to Q P twenty-six and twenty seven. Well, it's similar for twenty-eight, as well. I mean in says in twenty-eight that, that the quality co-ordinator's responsible for maintaining for example, master lists of procedures, so. So, Q P twenty. You're about to put a proposition to us, later on, about how we change documents in the process form, authorising the change and the re-issuing. Er, am I, yes. We'll return to it when we get there in that case. So, the procedure owner is responsible but can delegate the responsibility for the [plane overhead] physical possession of document to someone else. Does that have to be quality? As long as you know you're responsible for it and as long as Elizabeth knows that she's gonna do it, that's not a problem. Okay, I will then, outside this meeting, take on this task of setting up the forms view the output from all this gathering and decide what, whether we can make a sensible rationing from some of the forms. Probably try and get that in before the end of the month. Well, will that extend things like expenses forms and so on. Yeah. Ultimately, if this, yes, it's an idea. From all the forms we can. They haven't been reviewed for about fifteen years. My be on it. It's alright, don't worry. . Because company, the first line is company, throughout your company name. That's right. Accounts forms, yes. Elizabeth, do you think on behalf of the forms committee you could do a tour around accounts and dig out the forms.
[Elizabeth:] Well, I could come up with, I'm sure. Every form that accounts use.
[speaker003:] No, not forms that are just totally in term.
[John:] Which only, yes, which are in term with accounts.
[speaker003:] But all them forms which are around the company which...
[John:] The relationship between accounts and clients are on accounts and.
[speaker003:] No, well, what I'd be collecting. If you extend that to other divisions, I mean, there are forms circulating...
[John:] Yes, but accounts aren't in.
[speaker003:] I think they are. I wonder if.
[John:] No, I don't think so either. Sorry, that's not my understanding to date. That the accounts department is not part of B S 5750 except in its relationship with er, researchers.
[speaker003:] And clients.
[John:] And clients over jobs. So, how it deals with the payroll is absolutely nothing to do with B S 5750, how it erm, deals with the bank is nothing to do with B S 5750, its computer systems or anything. It's not in, it's not in this scope.
[speaker003:] But, but how with the bank to pay our clients.
[John:] no, we have opted. You can opt to include it and we have so far opted to exclude. That's nothing in here about it.
[speaker003:] The requirements of the standard itself does not ask you to look at accounts er, specifically, which is why you can choose to include them or choose not to include them. Where you do need to include them is where they have an interface with the rest of the organisation and where they're keeping records of things for the rest of the information. And it just defines on how much you've decided to include. Most people prefer to keep the actual accounting outside. Yes, you're right. In our scope of registration I'd first of all we show the accounts department as part of the company. We say we registry for all market research services supplied by the company including long list. Erm, the scope also includes group index, boom, boom, boom. Choices, in addition to research activity being on behalf of some printing firms to external clients. So that's what we've said is the scope of our registration. So, you don't need to include your accounts. Now, coming back to the point you were making about them paying your suppliers and such like, erm, all the standard is looking for is that you use proof suppliers, that you get what you want, when you want it. Now, if you find that you are not getting, yeah that's right, if you find you are not getting things when you want them, and that is because accounts have not paid them, then you need to put in some collective action to resolve that problem. Do we need to put anything in the front of our, our quality manual, in the scope of registration, which'll make it clear that the day to day of our accounts department are. No. You will only need to put something in if you want to include them. Okay, good. So, what forms did we say that Elizabeth was collecting?
[John:] The, this is nothing to do with B S 5750 now, it's to do with your review of forms, those forms which are to do with the relationship between accounts and er, researchers, I know will be en ooh, sorry, research and other staff. You don't even really need to look at the forms er, between thing and clients, do you. I mean, their, what their invoices look like and all that sort of thing. Unless you want to. Could form a sub committee.
[speaker003:] No, no. Yep. Yeah, we'll collect all of those forms, yeah. Okay, I say, I will try and find a day to suit everyone..
[John:] It's time sheets and expenses forms.
[speaker003:] Who was on the form sub committee? It figures er, that the four, the sort of quality managers plus er, Richard and Elizabeth.
[Richard:] I'm not on it.
[speaker003:] Richard, no you got. Elizabeth then. Oh. There's five, possibly six. Right, we hope it's not necessarily, we could delegate this. Well, not for the first meeting. We looking at the first meeting to make sure. If you delegate it, then the authority need to get these forms in, get to actually doing what they've been asked to do. But is this, is this minute, is this action still the same? Is it that we're bringing the forms to this form meeting? Yes.. It might be fun to be there. I should think it might be quite amusing because it'll be old forms that nobody has seen before. Yes, I was just thinking it'll be hilarious. Some of them might be sixty year old, John. We're booking the town hall As the last said, it does not have to be, 'cos you felt that someone else had some more energy, 'cos you're praying for energy performs and you sited some examples. I will name some of D Q M's prior to setting up the meeting. . I've also discovered you've got a, a in here as well. We've got an R A F now. A Ludwig? Research have proven. Okay, progress on forms doing well, some way to go though. New continued survey procedures, this is the one area of our activity about which I am concerned. I have expressed my concern to Jenny and to Richard. They both appreciate it. They assure me that er, preparatory work has started on this erm, and that when Jenny gets back from Dublin this will become top priority for her. Because it, in a job that can't be done in isolation, to complete this procedure or procedures, we may have been plural, needs er, consultation with er, certainly with Simon's division in quite a substantial way. Erm. . So, er, of all the things that we still have to do before erm, er, our proper external audit, this to me seems the most critical and if we don't complete the task, it seems to me, in the next week or two, the likelihood of it being in place and auditable in our next trial is very limited. Erm, so what would you do? I think that.
[John:] I would like to make an observation. If, as I understand it from what you have just said, you're relying on Jenny to write a procedure, which is gonna cover all of the other continuous things and you're gonna get that ready by this particular date if you, the suseption was that it simply won't occur. It may occur that Jenny write, writes something that is appropriate to T G I. There's no chance of it being right, any good for B T.
[speaker003:] That was what was going to happen. No, no, she was going to write for T G I and then we were going to see whether it was appropriate.
[John:] Well, if you write a procedure for T G I then you know it won't be.
[speaker003:] No, I mean...
[John:] You absolutely know it won't be, the other people may as well start work already.
[speaker003:] Well this is, yeah, although that's what was all agreed at the last minute.
[John:] Yes, no. But now there has been the lapse of time and Jenny has not met that timetable.
[speaker003:] However. Richard has sent a note erm, based on the audit of health monitor to Simon, Susannah, myself and John, talking about health er, monitor audit and how we possibly should be treating that. Erm, his view, why are you all laughing? I'm just saying it did jolly well. Yes, it did. Sorry, there was noth, nothing to suggest crit, any, I'm not criticizing it, it's just an illustration of the continuous job. Erm, Richards view having seen some of these reports now, for the continuous surveys, is that we actually really do need a T G I procedure and then another procedure, very simple, just stating how the continuous surveys are different for Access, B T, health. Those types of operation. I think all it, well, the only things that are different with the continuous pro er, surveys that we've got, from ad-hoc surveys is actually the content of the questionnaire and when it was analysed, really. Everything else flows through. Does the costing impair. Well, costing's okay, it's done throughout, you can refer back to it. Erm, it's also concepts like what is the job, when is it finished and there are. So, that's what Richard means by analysis period. by analysis period and so you just need something that says, a health monitor you need something that says, we do analysis on this every four weeks, we get a filled review form for every list that we do and this is the filing system and everything else follows. No, it doesn't. There's a a core monthly. No, I know, but we better that and then we specify they're our modules. Yeah, but then, yeah, the modules then don't follow the same time periods. It doesn't matter. As long as we say they're our modules and these are... As long as it says how it operates... Yeah,. . Why do we need these? Why don't you just. I mean it actually follows through. Doesn't it follow through the procedure? Why do we need to change the time period? It does follow through, it's just not very clear if you're going to audit it, you looking at it and you don't know what week. Yeah, and as far as health monitor is concerned, I think it follows those procedures. Right, things like when the data review form gets generated and that's, because there isn't a planning meeting then it doesn't follow procedures. There is a planning meeting. Bits of it but not for the standard stuff. All I thought was that health monitor basically follows it but it just needs a, a little bit of clarification so that everybody knows exactly when forms are supposed to be produced. But does that need to be in procedures or does that just need to be in the master job file. I think it's contracted for about two more months. [LAUGHTER]
[John:] Well, yes but then.
[speaker003:] Yes, there's a principle, yes, that wag and there's other things going on. B T now are developing a whole set of procedures, well, a whole set of activity around controlling their work which is completely different from the way B T used to work and different from, I suppose, most other bits of the company. It's got a whole sequence of job numbers which cover the data collection and all the admin forms get, arise out of the data collection vehicle. It's got a whole completely separate sequence of project numbers which are reporting in analysis classes which are the, the things that research team manage through on, which reports are repaired. And there's no relationship at all between those projects and any other part of the system in terms of, costings and all the other things that happen, and the project review will happen on the monthly data collection and not on individual projects. I mean, it does need to be thought through and written down. And it's not going to, I mean John is right, it, the T G I one that Jenny writes, what is, it will not cover the other continuous jobs. It can't, it just so difficult. . No, it wouldn't. These are more relevant, isn't it? Yeah. It seems that we need one possibly for B T given what's been said, John. B T, possibly as well. I don't know whether generalised T G I proceedings will still apply to all of those. No, not all of them. I think we're basically alright, a lot of the continuous jobs, 'cos they do, they are virtually the same. Erm, all we need to make sure is that the filing system we've got is clear and is understandable and we've got it written down somewhere how works. It doesn't necessary make the procedure. Can I make a suggestion about, probably not relevant to B T but might be relevant to the other continuous jobs, if like health care it nearly follows the procedure that you've got at the moment and that is that in that procedure you have somewhere a line that says that your continuous jobs at the beginning of the job, or early on in the job, in the master job file there is put a note of which parts of the procedure apply and which parts don't, or how filing is done, or whatever bit is different, which allows you the flexibility for each job to have it's own, to have it's own small procedure that forms part of the master job file, that says this is how this one is done, if those differences are very small. To have it's own manual. We need that, we'd need that little extra line on lots and lots of procedures... Well. Not necessarily. Erm, I'd need to have a look through. There should be one point at which we can put it and put it in just that one place.
[John:] Would we have a procedure which was called er, continuous surveys, which as paragraph one dealt with this and as paragraphs two onwards dealt with T G I?
[speaker003:] Yes, it could be incorporated into...
[John:] T G I one saying by being called, continuous including T G I, the first paragraph could get rid of continuous surveys which, and I think what would be required there would be to say that continuous survey follow ad-hoc, all the continuous surveys except T G I follow ad-hoc procedures where appropriate. Where systems specific to that survey are set up they are er, documented er, in the master job file. Would that do?
[speaker003:] And then could one's T G I statement. Does that seem sensible Susannah? But this thing we're always saying about continuous jobs, isn't it. That you've got to have it written down somewhere for when someone takes over. When Susannah, when. [LAUGHTER] Yeah. I will make that feedback to Jenny so that she's clear, I think that's a good way to handle it. It still means, however, to be up and running and organised at the erm... Three continuous projects, or four... Have the, their equivalent the erm, thing. I'm, I don't [loud coughing] but with this T G I they have got a manual for T G, T G I and it may be that the procedure for T G I only needs to reference that manual if that manual is and it may be that if B T need a similar thing they will obviously have one specifically for B T. That is reference in the procedure and everything else is referenced on either using the ad-hoc one or the ad-hoc one with the exceptions in the master job files, and it may be as simple as that. Just says. They will then have a manual. Yes, good idea. So it's really a case of just ensuring that the T G I manual does cover all a, it, it needs to state where it takes over from the procedure and then it needs to ensure that it covers everything from there on about T G I, because erm, just from thinking through some of the other procedures, I mean, it doesn't, T G I doesn't come into the costing, or at least it's got it's own costings. Yes, it's got it's own... Costings procedure. Yeah. Erm, and providing the T G I manual takes over from that point and covers all the requirements. Effectively I suppose, what the best thing to do is to check the T G I manual against the, against the erm ad-hoc procedure and providing it covered all the things which are in the ad-hoc procedure, it should be okay. It sounds as though the continuous procedure has now come to be, really very short. It says, in general continuous quality and company procedures, where they go a specific er, manual for the survey is lodged in the master job file and I suppose the only final thing they need is that, well Simon, you continue the surveys in their set up period, there may be a time when that manual does not exist, during the time we keep deciding.
[John:] Your wording was not quite good enough John, because there isn't going to be a manual for finance monitor or a manual for health monitor. So, there's only gonna be a manual for T G I and B T. The other.
[speaker003:] Can I play with and see if that is the case. Yes. The continuous surveys procedure will state at the beginning that continuous surveys will contain in the master job file details of the extent to which that survey will follow the standard procedures. And what it does, where it doesn't. And alternatives where they won't follow the procedure. And then that continuous procedure would also say something like T G I... And B T. Erm, and B T have a manual that describes their the detail. in de, the detail of the operation, yes. There's not a of manuals? No, I think what it was all covered adequately in, with exception to the procedures there, I think we, we felt that it, all the points were covered. All of them, yeah. With, you know, various suggestions that er, Sarah also made. Yeah. We were hoping to be able to work with the, that. Are you alright, taking that in place of Jenny or would you like No, no, that's fine. I mean, she may wish to speak to you as well, but I can explain it to her. Fine, okay. It should make. That's 'cos pin on it. So, let me, Simon, when we get back to, to your division we've really got to sit down with Graham and Peter now and erm, get it as part of their work to produce.
[John:] Will you find it easier than me to say, what their.
[speaker003:] Er, yeah. When we're writing this... But I would still like your responsibility as division quality manager to make sure it gets done. There's no escape, Simon. When we're writing the, the things that don't apply in the job file we have to, presumably we have to reference procedure, say we're not following this Q P five point five but we are doing. This is a general facility we might like to write in which we would allow us to work like that on any job there isn't for some reason a job, a good reason why a kick-in procedure can't be followed, that we deal with it by having em, in the master job file which states that, states the deliberate erm, position rather than an accident. I think you need to think about your title for this procedure and it's best title may not be continuous. It may be continuous and non-standard project, yes. Something like that. I know that they are all non-standard. The idea, the idea of it though and from an auditor's point of view one of the things they will be looking at is that every one where you wrote when we are not doing this must have a valid reason and a new methodology must be met on how you are going to cover that particular aspect and that must be authorised. In practice it should be easier to do it the standard way...
[John:] Yes.
[speaker003:] ... than to raise this document for doing.
[John:] and indeed it ought to state something like rarely.
[speaker003:] Yes. So that's another point for looking at, the drafting of everything needs authorisation. Yes. . Good. drafting. Drafting right, all of it including. I feel better about that.
[John:] It is probably true, its probably the case that every single person in the room is better placed to write this procedure then Jenny. Because we've been here for the discussion.
[speaker003:] I think that if any one else could, because I do know that she has got an amazing amount of work on her plate at the moment...
[John:] But she's still got to do the manual.
[speaker003:] She'll have to do the manual but if anyone could do the general...
[John:] The trouble is that we don't know erm, whether the manual will meet the standard.
[speaker003:] I think from the work load point of view from Jenny the thing she needs to do is to write the little bit on T G I that references the manual to make sure that the manual is okay. The first paragraph that effectively has been drafted for her give it to B T is likely to be a repeat of what she said about T G I and I think that will be it then so I don't think that there is any large amount of work other than her work with T G I itself. Indeed in briefing her you may just write out, yeah and just write it. In briefing her, you may just well, take this minute, write it out and say Jenny put your opinion there, and you'll probably find it quicker than actually telling her. .
[John:] Yes.
[speaker003:] Will you take it home Richard. Richard will take up pulling this together. Well, Jenny needs to give him in writing what she wants to say. You will set up the old, the basic procedure, Okay, great. the discussion. However, we still have to do the other bit to go in the, yes.
[John:] Yes, yes, so we then have to, now who is that erm, sorry what are the ones that now have to have this thing in the front of its master job file.
[speaker003:] Health, Wag, and Wag might be alright and be discontinuous and therefore I should imagine it follows through.
[John:] Health and Finance and possibly National Power.
[speaker003:] They need to put that in anyway to see whether they are doing anything. We have done one on erm, which, which gardening audit which is by our definition a continuous job because it happens all the time, but it follows procedures a hundred percent. But that changes its difference every week. Yeah, every month. It's not, it doesn't hap, it doesn't happen every consecutive week does it. If each one, is, each wave of fieldwork is a job in itself which is where these other ones are different, I think that Wag will more than likely be alright. But we need to get. But we need to check it.
[John:] You ought to do an audit of Wag, didn't you.
[speaker003:] We are going to, but this is, you've got a classification of continuous service so as part of your audit if it fails, then our corrective action in the future may be to put in this new erm, procedure and write the. . Would also? .
[John:] There could be several C S M's.
[speaker003:] . I think, well I should know okay. Well, that's a very creative fifteen minutes. We resolved our fees problem. Hopefully. It all went like that then. Before you pass on that could I just ask one question, which is how far are B T with it? Erm, they have had internal discussion and I believe they are not going to do anything until they get a prompt from Jenny, 'cos that's what they're expecting.
[John:] Now they don't need it.
[speaker003:] I think we are have got to go back down again. Because that I think is the, because that's such a large part of the,T, T G I, even if the manual's not absolutely correct is a long way there. B T was the one really big hole, erm, and others like Health Care, as you say are quite close to the procedure that it's not an enormous hole. Peter has got the task of the B T. He's a trained auditor erm,... [LAUGHTER]. . And now we change yellow to red. Simon ha. Simon will take this up after the meeting with B T T and move that on forward. Erm, now we move on to point seven eight of auditing trial audit, now for the next trial audit, the point you raised, Richard.
[Richard:] Erm, it's just that I had, I'd told the auditors about but I don't think that anybody's and I was unsure we should do that with.
[speaker003:] We are prepared to wait until around now like, let Christmas pass and we see what progress we have made, before absolutely finalising both. We have dates in the diary, Karen's got them booked, erm, I see no reason we shouldn't.
[John:] Er, well, following this meeting, a little update to keep the whole issue nice and hot.
[speaker003:] Mmm. Mmm. Would you take on this job?
[John:] Can do.
[speaker003:] Thank you very much.
[John:] I would like to know what's to be in it, when is the trial audit going to be, I suppose it's in my diary, em. Of.
[speaker003:] Fifteenth and Sixteenth February. In a months time. I presume the, the update will also say something about our finalising when we re- issue procedures. What does it say about. Richard we have now conducted some more audits, would you like to give us some feedback?
[Richard:] Erm, has everybody got this written out.
[speaker003:] Er, hmm.
[John:] Probably, Roz hasn't, although Jenny and er, Richard have had it.
[speaker003:] Yes, I could do with a copy. Unclear. No, I haven't got it. I'll be quick and ask whether you have also had a debriefing session with the auditors, two sources of feed back.
[Richard:] I think mostly erm, I think that the audits have gone erm, very well actually erm, people are following the procedures and they are at times, they are a little bit slipping up erm, enquiries seem to be an area and filling in the enquiry form properly and making sure that it is copied to the divisional enquiry file erm, a few people fell down on that erm, but in most cases the procedures were followed virtually to a letter. There are only minor things erm, Chris suggested changes to the procedures, just tidying them up as we might have expected at this stage really erm. A few areas where people have just got to make sure that they do things, people are mostly clear about what they have to do, erm they seem very, very positive.
[speaker003:] Good. So no particular things which at the moment you would like divisional quality managers to take on. Erm. Can I just ask about the enquiry form. Does that, does a copy of that go into the divisional file only when some conclusion of that, whether it is going to happen or not, that side. We'll cover that in the next bit of the agenda. I, I, often come across the need to have continuation pages for enquiry forms. I don't know if that's come up at any point.. It seems rather wasteful, well. Does that mean your eleven thing's wrong? Yeah. Yes. Well, no I mean non-conformances, but some of them are quite... Some were like. ... minor. Minor, yeah. Yeah. Some of them were procedural rather than, it doesn't mean that there is eleven things wrong with or the actual survey, it means that some of the things were raised during that, I think that there was a couple of things raised by accounts in that, the fact you don't send a budget form. Right. Things like that which are also covered elsewhere. This is giving you information in three different ways. So those are the jobs that are audited and they are generated by these number of quests, of those.. Lets finish with Roz's point. Enquiry forms, I think if there is too much go on one... Well, that's, that's what we're doing, but I mean, it's just a lot of its wasted as there is just one little bit on the second page that is a continuation of the client contact. Just stick a bit of paper on the back. . Let's now come back to this quiff analysis where John was confused and everyone was explaining to each other. Would you just like to make a brief statement of clarification. Okay, in terms of the first bit, all it's completed is the number of quiffs that were raised on each of these audits. You can see the first ones where er, our project base. Now, the number of quiffs raised is not an indication of how well that job went through the companies or erm, because quiffs could be raised quite minor things like one person forgetting to put something on a form or a form not being photocopied, or procedure changes or others... Somebody getting a purchase order form or a letter of confirmation. Yeah, they're, they are really very little, there are lots of really little issues rather than any bigger major issues. Maybe in the future you should perhaps adopt the style of Caroline, when speaking to major non-conformists, things are real. . There was another column which said major things erm, there might be a couple of things which... I think you need to be a little bit careful with what is your definition of the major non-conformists. Yes. Mine, as an auditor, will mean one thing. I think that within the Company you need to look at major, major non- conformances in two ways, one is the major performance that will give you problems over getting a registration pass over five oh, but in another one a major non- conformance i.e, there's a problem with the job, which is it might only be a minor non-conformance in relation to five seven five oh, but is a big problem for you as a company. So I think you need to be clear on what you are going to use them for. Can I ask something about, as an example the er, the Which work, because it's repeat surveys rather than continuous surveys and we don't therefore have enquiry forms each month. That's alright as long as she. What did you, what was the size of that. As long as it is referenced, as long as you say, on your check list, you say enquiry form is in this other file. That's all you need to do and that's fine then. As in the original file the enquiry form has been copied. Back from February this year or something. What I will do, is I'll split, there are two erm, has got to comply with the procedure or there is a procedure change and I'll split that into two columns so that it's a bit more clear... Request for the procedural change has been circulated and should be general item. So that takes on board suggestions that they are attributed to them. Are there any other points in the audit that you would want to bring to my attention. Erm, no, I don't think so. Well that is really quite positive feedback. Good. How many audits do you have scheduled to? I've got erm, I've got these things called audit time table one, two, three, four, five, six, er, eleven. So before our next trial audit we'll have done about another dozen internal either job or procedure orders. Maybe, no you won't have finished those, but yes we will have done all our. Yeah. How many procedures have we actually audited so far Richard?
[Richard:] How many procedures?
[speaker003:] Yeah. . No, I know they don't but is there anything that we haven't audited then. Yes Of all the things that are project based, they have been audited on those projects, all the other procedures... Only three of them.
[John:] Only three of them have been audited.
[speaker003:] Right so we haven't yet done the T G I costing for example? There are some... Should there, were you expecting to be lots of quiffs on those... No no, not in any way, it's just that. One of these down here.. It would appear, I can understand yeah. We've made the decision to audit these erm, the procedure, the ones where the procedures on their own, once a year. Now at the moment I have decided that some things like suggestions erm, will not actually get an audit before the external audit by erm, B S I. I don't know whether people feel that should be changed. What I didn't want to do at times was to overload, I wanted to start off with a time limit as we mean to go on and spread it out through the year and so I have put the important things which are to do with the quality system like internal quality audit erm, non- conformances, the corrective action, training and all stuff like that with an audit before and then things like contract print erm, I don't think we are going to have any problems with I put those for after. Most of those ones you can audit, they really are procedures we've had in place for a year but have been audited before and have had minor changes to erm, the wording. Ones we're really changing are all the quality ones those are the ones we actually audited so that doesn't give me any problems. Not unless B S I we to were to exs, expect to see that we have audited everything before they came. They will not expect you to have audited everything necessarily. Where I have a little concern and that's only 'cos I don't know the of all of it, is that you are picking up, yes very minor non-conformances but in practice fairly large numbers in a fairly short time scale what I would be concerned about is when you get your B S I audit that these other areas that you haven't looked at have got equally this lack of attention to detail, that you end up with not only major break down in your system, but sufficient minor breakdowns in your system, to cause them to say that they won't give you registration. It depends on your level of confidence in those in areas. Could we ask you when you are making your plan of your next trial audit to consider that issue on our behalf and it may well be there are one or two areas which haven't featured... certain things which haven't been audited at all, I will get together with Richard before the audit, plan it accordingly. Good, thank you very much. Okay.
[John:] The other thing that we ought to perhaps consider is whether you should change the timetable at all Richard to look at jobs that people expect will be taught. At the moment we have done it by chance when jobs have come up, there isn't one here for Jeff. He did really ought to be audited, and sorry there are other people as well, he is by far the most extreme person, but then there will be other people as well. [noseblow].
[speaker003:] Selective adjustment of the probability. I, I, well I am afraid that the people who have been audited are exactly the people, I mean you would expect Ian and Tanya certainly to be good, you'd expect Philip to be good wouldn't you and Susannah, and Lyn, perhaps less so. Who was audited. Aren't they? Oh. I thought Mark was audited. It was Mark and I and Helen. It was my project, yes all of it.
[John:] Oh right, so then this isn't of course the.
[speaker003:] They give you a very good indication. Being audited [LAUGHTER]. But if there are, but if there are other people who. Divisions would like because they are worried about... yeah Because B P have asked me to turn up on people. Well I think that it is a reasonable point to make to the divisional policy manager to consider on. Absolutely. The whole point of investing this money on auditing is to give us possible feed back..
[John:] I was, by the way, when I was audited I was very impressed indeed with the auditor.
[speaker003:] Did you have the auditor.
[John:] Yes. To come and talk about something she knew nothing about, all of her questions were exceptionally well thought through.
[speaker003:] Sandra. [LAUGHTER] She's always, she has had compliments paid to her in the past, hasn't she. I think so. Yes, yes. . Anything else on auditing then before we move onto the meeting. Can we talk about job description, because I am not clear about those, I mean to the end of the audit, I, I rang up to day and asked about whether the, who should be signing them. Because I couldn't find anything under procedures about signing the job descriptions and indeed this persons specification total, I don't think but I mean is that something like you audit it on, its that I am not clear who should award job specifications. Should I have a job specification for everyone in my team, so if I am asked where is it, I can say here it is, and make sure that they are all signed off. I think correct. Well, my understanding is that the individual should have a job description as that's what they are working too, and I thought at one time that it should be the individual who would sign the job description but apparently not, it should be the manager, who signs it to say yes, I confirm that this is the job I want the person to do. I think that this is the actual conversation with Roy, I think. Somebody needs to authorise, like job description, that is what they are to do, and that really needs to be a manager rather than the individual, erm, but there is no reason why the individual can't sign it to say yes this is the job I do. Depends on how you want to work it. But at the very least it should be signed by the manager, and should I full, I've got a full set for everybody in my team or doesn't that matter. Well, this is an issue which is sort of under debate and it's all part of the training thing, 'cause we are going to talk about it at the Training Committee tomorrow. There should be, everybody should be clear what their responsibilities are and a good way of doing that is through a job description, their own, I just wondered about that complete sets only with personnel. . Yes, every as a central record so that you are in a position to say we need another researcher. And for everybody whose joined after, I think it was last January, we make sure that there is a job description, and that they are given one when they join, and we keep on file erm, but I know that there are loads of people who have been here longer than that some people have got them and they are out of date. I thought that there was something at the appraisal though there was supposed to. Oh. Referred to it. You mean, you mean that's not happening. No. People are supposed to fill in the job description on the first page of the appraisal form but don't, in a lot of cases. Mean write it all out again, wonderful.. . Did you use to have to be able to say refer to job descriptions. Yes, it says on the thing that you can attach a job description to the back, but I should say that probably they want it appraisals that you get back, there isn't a job description attached and there's nothing written on the board. You have two options, you either accept that or you reject it, and send back to the people involved saying this is not completed. Or, we drop the requirement to have it. Certainly, we explore this as an avenue towards getting a job specification in place for everybody in the Company. [LAUGHTER] I don't know whether we, have we ever taken that decision? Er, I think it came out at a Trial Audit and we should have a job specification, even if it's a generic job specification for every member of staff. Right. Is this under the training as part of the general relevance to personnel issue. We haven't actually mentioned it, one of the things have to fulfil the training requirement there. We are doing that tomorrow. We are doing that tomorrow. Whose on the committee? Janine, me, John, erm. Ian. Yeah, Lyn, Sarah. I hope she is yes. Linda's training to be a. Sorry. Lyn's in charge of training. Could Richard join that Committee? Would love to have him. No, he's got some very strong views on the issues to do with computer literacy training and requirements and possibly a way of managing that together with all the other things. So that Committee is not determining what training people should have in the companies. It is only looking at capturing the record of what training people have. The resource necessary to manage it. To manage. Don't slip it's little phrase, what's that little phrase, [LAUGHTER], that the resolves necessary to manage it. To manage the collection of the data. To know whose had what training and whose due to have training. I didn't know about that last bit. You don't, that's why I asked whether Richard could join your committee so that he could voice to you the things he tried to explain to me which I think are... What we are trying to do is ensure that our training records meet the requirements of B S 5750. That's what we are trying to do in that sub-committee which will meet for once perhaps and maybe twice. Not a standing committee of any kind. No, but you will have to consider... But there is Company Standing Training Committee, which comprises people from divisions which looks at those issues, run by Jenny. I'm still thinking about B S 5750 where we have to make sure that not only we know what training we have given people, that we also continue to give them, future appropriate training so that they can do their jobs, and so compliance by B S 5750 is not just trapping history it is also making sensible plans about the present and the future. But, we believe that that is made in er,... Performance evaluation. Performance evaluation, yes. Again, currently there is no way, official way, of saying what plan has been made and whether the plan was met and then logging it into whatever system that you guys are going to dream up for recording what training you have given. As once you have dealt with history, you have to put in place something that keeps it up to date, without too much labour and without erm, a major hole there where things fall into the middle cover and come out. If you are talking of a system which will marry the time sheets with the performance appraisal, this is not a small thing and I bet you we don't have it in place by the end of April. If that's what you are talking about. These two things indepen, exist independently of one another, if they are to be checked one against the other, that is a major task which we better start attacking now if that is what required. Make absolutely independent of one another the record of what has happened and the record of what is required are never married. Except as, when the two individuals get together again and they may choose to marry. Exactly, we may make it the performance evaluation and the documentation attached to it that provides you your training record. You could do that and it would be easy to do it that way then to do it with time sheets. The manager and the members of staff sit down and they agree over the last twelve months which of these bits of training have you had either on the job or as forward training they are ticked off, what do you need over the next six months, let's make a programme. Sorry, we shouldn't have the committee meeting now, Richard I know has some got some interesting ideas. He's very welcome, is it two O'clock? Two O'clock in here. Lovely. So which brings along now to our final and most important general item which is reconsideration of proposals. [LAUGHTER]. The last item. So if we take five minutes. Whichever... Is anybody else going to want any sandwiches or sausage rolls, as if not we will give them to people outside. . Is that possible? Simon has drafted and circulated a very clear guide of his proposals, Jenny has prepared and Elizabeth can circulate three redrafts of the proposals for discussion, and Rita and Stella are not quite sure where you got to in terms of redrafting your procedures. I have done mine, erm, I will send one of these round, but the majority of them I feel are so very small that I don't feel that we need to discuss filling in the because I know the intention was that we sent the document well in advance of what's being done otherwise we are just going to get bogged down in er, this meeting in terms of all of the decisions. However, having been off last week, I haven't been able to do that, but I have made all the amendments and I was only going to talk us through those that needed everybody to know about them. Rita.
[Rita:] I have made all the amendments that I wished to make to the procedures and I have done it in pencil with a copy to circulate. There are a couple of the procedures now that in the light of this morning's discussion that I think I can certainly circulate what are done, but they won't in, by any means now be final, and I also received this morning from Richard some discussions.
[speaker003:] Likewise. And I just I, I, I just came into the meeting this morning just half and hour before this meeting I saw them there, but I really don't know what the implications are of them there. Similarly, similarly I have prepared all this but just shortly before the meeting I have had a whole wodge of suggestion forms going back to November which I have obviously not taken into account yet. [cough]. Okay. Look we have got another meeting... And we call it a day on these things. We've got another meeting in place for this day week haven't we? Monday this week. Would it be sensible for us to agree that on Monday of next week, we finalise, authorise and reissue procedures, that we discuss whatever Simon's put to us now, and give feed back so that you can actually take the final documents next week and that Rita and Stella you take... I haven't taken into account the suggestion forms that I had this morning and some quiffs that I haven't had. Until I... Okay, we can agree what I have said so far but then I'm going to have to look at other things once I've made further changes. Yep. So is it worth doing that now or is it worth waiting until I have taken account of both amendments again. Er, I am prepared to, that you make the decision on that. I know what the three quiffs are They are all to do with the erm, to the. It might make our meeting next week easier if we have at least got part way through your the suggestions aren't. I don't know. It is not, I don't think it is worthwhile discussing anything if you think that what you are going to discuss may not be what you then do. Have you actually been through this process at all in one of these meetings. May I suggest to you at least it makes sense to start to see what problems you are going to come up against... To see how we actually operate. Not necessarily using time which are a lot more something where they're completed. Well I think Simon for doing it is a really excellent way of doing it, it states the source of items, suggestions or quiffs, and makes a proposal erm, which we can debate agreed, and then it's for clear instructions to what needs to be changed on the procedure. Seems to be a very straightforward and sensible way of dealing with it. Whereas I haven't yet seen Jenny's procedures. They are just procedures. She has redlined and strike out. Yes, yes. I didn't feel it was sensible to er, get Monica going through that too many stages, it would seem to me it would better to agree the changes and then we'd all agreed what the changes are going to be get Monica to do it, rather than go through lots of drafts, drafts with Monica. Well, can I suggest that we look at Simon's document and go through it and respond that we take the three proposals that Jenny has tabled, review and agree or decide to adjust and ask Stella and Rita to prepare for the next meeting documents then as assignments? Except that you've got the procedure where... I could do it on each of these. No for each procedure. To create trivia is there any point? Well that's what I feel... two words does anyone want to plough through them? I need, at the moment in terms of corrective action on quiffs, I am sending quiffs out to procedure owners, and I need to know whether suggestive procedure changes or not, and it's better for me if it is out in that order then I can go through and mark the quiffs off as being erm the changes or not. And it's you that needs to know that procedures owners don't get that from the auditors? No. Me, because I keep copies of all the original works. . We will deal with Simon's agenda. Simon but amendment C. Hang on lets get, in terms of Stella, has an awful lot of relatively small trivial changes which she will put through and none of us are going to disagree with. Is that right? You're being very autocratic. Sorry I am just trying. No I don't think that's, sorry, I think it is perfectly possible for Stella to make this assumption to get them changed and to come with the revised version which says, which is apparently what Jenny has done here, this looks to me, in a not unreasonable way, it looks, she is saying something is there, this must be an example of what Stella means, data can be stored in three different ways where clearly previously that said four different ways. So once crossed out that is perfectly reasonable, but I don't think you should just say somebody is delegated to change the procedure and it happens. We must do a formal vote as it were. Can I make a suggestion to you, that I think that if you go through these you will come to the conclusion that there are two ways for doing this and one is that for example the majority of the ones that Stella's got where she feels she can make the decision it is only going to affect her you come in with it already done, redlined new where you think there is going to be some discussion, you go through, you put together in the same way as Simon has done reasoning around it. Well I have done it this way even for trivial things, because I understood that the committee had to approve the changes and if as I said it seem to me erm, wasteful to get er, Monica to make the changes when they might not be accepted. I think if we go through and have a look at these other ones that Jenny has done and you make a decision at that point as to whether. Okay. How to do it. I'll get with Jim . When we do it, what do we do? We're not proposing that N two will look like this, are we? Well, that is an issue we can debate. That is what has been recommended so far. Is it? Yes. So that when you re-issue a procedure you, it's clear. You highlighted you strike out. And is that clear, is that. something which is no longer in the procedure you'd leave it in crossed out. Yes, so people know what has changed. You don't have to re-read the whole of the procedure... Yes, it makes sense. ... in order to see what... What happens when N three goes wrong? That'll be in the new, in the red line and you go on the other stuff. That'll go, 'cos you should have looked at them in between. Of course you should have read them in between, so you're now up to date. Right, okay. Yeah, it does work. It does work. So, we're gonna use red lining to strike out for re- issues, to highlight the things that are different. Good. Proce, changing procedures. I don't think it does. Well, it used to. No, I don't think it does. Can I suggest as, as we, we start the document, that we have a copy of the procedure we're discussing open, because I think most of us in debate and discussion proper if we made our own procedures, things that we hear about. I certainly know [loud rustling next to microphone] erm, reading quotes and audits and things and even just reading the procedures myself I've made notes against certain things that. So, we should take on board when we look at Simon's suggestions for Q P one, not only at things he's but any other note that anyone else has got appropriate to that procedure. Is it possible, this is quite a bit of work we're just about to enter into, which we may have to repeat. Is it possible that erm, this doc, this wad of stuff that you've had... Yeah. ... if any of them relate to a procedure we take it at the same time so that we don't have to do it again, or not? Is it easy to tell when you get the suggestion form what it's relating to? Yes. So try to take on board. So we can take all the points and we can then here what, what Richard's got to say, Simon can form a view and... Yeah. Yeah. Yes, we can or if it was. Can. [talk in background]. Well, is it, is it only T G I division that's delayed? Yes. Has Rosalyn gone? She's just gone to photocopy Simon's document. She's coming back. Oh. Well, it's because Richard's is the divisional quality manager. They aren't as efficient, they are not as other people. That is the answer. Pardon? And, I'd say it if they were here. The is they haven't got round to doing it. about this meeting and realise. No, the issue has been raised why, if suggestions are dated November, they're only now coming up? Stella? Erm, and it turns out they're all from T G I and it is because we got Richard as manager. It's not the sort of thing you should be doi, well, it could be the sort of thing, but he's not the right person to do it, is he? But now it's there,. Why not? [LAUGHTER]. He, so he thinks... I hope nothing went on the tape then. And there's a very good reason why he is. says a lot though. He is very good, because he is most likely to drive. Simon, are you That's why you would want to. No, John? delegated the thing to. [cough] We should get Pam to collect. Get collecting As far as I'm concerned I think Sarah has put in a lot of objections and all to do with and I don't know whether there is any answer at all, I've just got two in my bunch. I've haven't got any. I've got a couple. Yes, I got erm, six or seven Well do we have a once, is it once a month. It does say that they are collected on a monthly basis, so you could say that okay they are. They are alright virtually. November you can't. November you couldn't no. Any you've got some November ones have you? Right. Shall we start with Q P one? Simon would you like to lead us through on your document? Right erm, I had... Who wants a coffee? I'll drink one if it's spare, I thought under. As I said I had one quiff from Jane that was erm because somebody hadn't filled in the date by which it was agreed that the Client should get a reply and suggestion was that the procedure should be changed should be non compliance, erm and then the rest of this is based on a suggestion from Rita, and I have several here now, erm.... at least three of the suggestion forms are about erm enquiries, and... Is that T G I, is that T G I or our enquiries or Sarah says that point eight in access the Sales Manager remains in contact with the client until a final decision is reached, that's the difference there. Most of the Research are here. Well, the Sales Manager surely is. Researcher. Research staff includes the Sales Manager. I think so. I don't think we need to say that do you? No, otherwise we just get... We need to tell... You need to tell Sarah The researcher Right point ten. Comment is that access researchers take out a job number via their own job numbering system and don't use accounts. Ah... We just take out from accounts, just take such a job number. So can we say that point nine and ten does not apply to access? But then do we. No. Why don't we take out from access, so takes out a job number, sorry from accounts and just say take out a job number. Yes that would also deal with Rita's answer... Just take those two words out and it's fine. Yes. Because we want, I think we want the job number is a part of our process, and part of access process as well. Okay? I've got to keep note of what I'm doing here. Fortunately you are not re-numbering any of the points Right, so those were Sarah's points. Right. Joanne one point twelve can this be changed to read if a client does not respond within one month the enquiry is considered closed, a copy of the enquiry form is filed in the divisional enquiry file, the client master job file is applicable. This only applies to teaching so surely we should change it to whatever they want basically. Response from client which records within the divisional enquiry record. Yes, super. Well if this only applies to T G I. Then we may as well do it. Now points eleven and twelve are just T G I so we'll just plonk in what. It sounds like Jenny has tried to draft something there which applies to everyone. No, but haven't they had to call their client files, client master job files and if you get an enquiry from an existing client they will probably want to put that enquiry back in that folder. Okay? Well let her have what she wants. Absolutely. Right so I have accepted From Ian I don't understand this applicant [LAUGHTER] Yellow plastic wallets. Are we still on this one Si... Yes, Yellow plastic wallets including the enquiry form do not come in master job files but are supplied separately. The wallets contain all the documents whilst the enquiry proceeds i.e. blah blah blah, which are then transferred to a master file... Ah, are you suggesting that, that you have a system of requesting a yellow plastic wallet from, sorry this is not a suggestion to do with the procedures anyway. It's a suggestion for Marie that she has a set of yellow whatsits and when you get one you get them all. Isn't it, doesn't that what he means? The problems is that you don't know what documents you need for your enquiry. I could do about six different costing forms, so it's not like you could have a yellow wallet, because, presumably he's saying we want a yellow wallet with enquiry form, a costing form, and that is as far as you could have it anyway. But if the enquiry doesn't come to anything you've not got a master job file. No. I think we've got enough difficulty getting out a master job file. Well exactly. In order, size Because you don't get require a constant set of documents. No. There's only one constant document out... Alright so those were the three new ones. Do you want to add a new one? Er... Yes this is Rita's suggestion which is attached erm, suggesting one point ten as worded there is added simply to say if the job isn't commissioned a contents enquiry form is filed by the researcher with related documents. I'm not saying how that is organised. It's not commissioned so it means that you add this to ten.. Or after ten. It becomes ten. And what happens to ten. Ten becomes eleven. Right. Can I make a suggestion rather than re-numbering all those, its going to be quite a long job, is that from what I can see at the moment there is no reason why that can't be added on as a last sentence to nine anyway, cause nine says you records the outcome of the enquiry,. Yes, it could be the first sentence of ten. It could be the first sentence. I have two points to make by suggestion:-one is that I think that the final of these related documents should be discretionary I don't see why you should have to keep the file. If you have lodged the proposals on her, you've got your divisional enquiry and you've got a load of bumf that came with it, it's never going to come up again. We should be able to hoover that up. That's what Simon is doing, my original suggestion was to put into archives, but Simon. I agree what Rita asked for which was that it should all be archived in a central divisional higher, and I am taking it that they I think that the way we generally go about it that when we don't get an enquiry erm, or when we don't get a commission we keep a copy of it with the documents for a reasonable period of time. Yep. discretion. Only one year, it does if you only keep it in as only point nine. Exactly. That's divisional enquiry records, that's just the enquiry form.. I'm just thinking you have written proposing you've got the file in front of the client, the job is dead and gone and never going to come back, do you have to file that lot away somewhere?... Er, we said something about for a, we don't want to set a time period on it do we? No. No, I agree with your John I mean it should be at the researcher's discretion to dump it if necessary. What can't can't, do we really need this because it doesn't say you have to throw it away after a year. Are we taking about the form on the related documents... We are taking about the related documents now, basic form has to be finalised. Well as it stands the related documents you have the option of keeping them or not. Mmm. We as a division, we pick them, and we file them in our filing cabinets. Can I make a suggestion then that on this we change the suggested [cough] If you just put down that the enquiry form is farmed by the researchers full stop, and leave any related documents entirely up to the discretion of each and file under nine you see. But that's in the central record John? Yes, and it stays there unless you, it's get commissioned is that right? No it... It stays there anyhow. Rita wanted to cover the filing of the stuff... What happens to the documents of the jobs that we don't get? Where quite often you would want to keep the stuff and quite often you wouldn't. Well you need to be. For Margaret to type... You'd keep them anyway. Your division keeps them anyway. But seems to me that's silly is that we didn't keep with that correspondence a copy of the enquiry form, which, the original is gone to the central record. Well I think that most of us feel that it's absolutely up to you, the individuals whether they keep any of this or not. There would be a few instances where a client may come back a year later and say erm, or not nearly six months later, that thing I told you was not in fact now going to be on. We find it's also useful back information, because they will be able to act on one client and has applications for proposal we are writing for another client later on so we can use as references refer to this information. That's what we are doing. Er. I think they will refer to it as no change. No change. To the procedure at all. I'm happy for not to have a change. But is it harming anyone to leave it as it is? Of course it isn't. No? As long as you do this. Anything you do over and above that is up to you.. Likewise when you think I don't really agree with that. I thought we'd just agreed? You're talking about the next. No the first, the job is not commissioned, that I copies the enquiry. You can do that. Happily carrying on doing that it's not going to be every enquiry has to do that. So they do have to put it in the individual enquiry? Yup. Could I just top and tail that by saying proposals formal proposals, are meant to be sent to the information office... writes very few found therefore we have no record in the limelight. that's why the archive... Yes you could see it would be much more important to you. But what we can't, it's absolutely but if you write it in all the other divisions have got to do it as well. I just thought that something like that it would be very good practice but if you have a related documents to have a record of the enquiry with it would make sense of the enquiry, even if our situation was different to the other divisions. Where do we say by the proposal. Somewhere else, I don't quite know where. I think it is. Unclear [pages turning] four point seven copy of any of our proposals sent to. Right, no sorry I just wondered is we want, are we happy with the decision we've just made, or do we want. You could say something here at the top of Rita's point that. Absolutely not we do not want the. I should say that if there is no bound copy of the proposal. . It doesn't stop the S G doing what they're doing and we are happy about what we're doing and are happy about what they're doing. What's the difference between except for the paper. No How do you decide whether to bind it or not? Your client's going to be very suitably impressed. We often ask the client would you like this bound? and they say oh, in our case, they normally say a letter will be fine. The net result of all of this is that we are deleting two words from point ten the rest of the procedure stands. No, erm well [cough] as written by. Yes, Yes with Jenny comments. master job file. Is that your foot? Point ten. And now a point we have now done that, we have now done one, right that is now going to be dealt with by Simon and introduced by Monica are they going to be dated the day she produces them or what are going to be dated? Yes, one, one thing has occurred to me about this in trying to deal with forms, it seems to me that trying to put a date on a day on it, is absolutely hopeless. You can't put date on erm, two weeks later or three weeks later it gets out can we just stick with a month You can stick with months, erm, you have got several choices where you have got a version number here, you don't need any date on at all if you don't want any date it's just there for your information, it you are putting a date on months are fine until you start to issue two or three in one month which I would hope is unlikely erm... Super this are we going to say into January or are we going to say into February? I think. January, January. [cough]. Well it depends how many how many we can get together to issue at once, but I would like to have.... We must have a target. Can, can I make a suggestion to you on this point and that is that rather than worrying about the date of the document itself which makes sense just to put January or something like that, what you actually keep a careful record of and this can be with the issue and such like, is the date from which that procedure is required to be worked to, which would be the issue date as opposed to any date that it was typed or agreed or anything like that. So, this may be typed up in January but it will be issued as effective from twenty third February. About the last day of January we could issue it. Right. So that herewith procedures, revised procedures Q P one, Q P seven, Q P thirty-two effective, which will take effect from.. And that. Oh yes, yes. I'll put it, there'll be a distribution list that will go out, advice procedures and I'll put that across the top saying which procedures have been re-issued. Yeah, effective from when they're issued. What happens. . What happens if you issue one to, you manage to get it to this department today but can't get it to that department 'til tomorrow and. , have we got to have an issue date for every procedure holder then? No, what makes sense is the date on which, what, what a lot of companies do to... [talking and drinks being poured].