[speaker001:] Well, we should be able to decide before the meeting and make the changes as we go along.
[Stella:] Yes, yes,.
[John:] Yes, just how quickly but, and the people that are used to the style of how they're gonna be done.
[Richard:] I think that's Stella's point. quite straight forward.
[John:] So we probably can get another lot well before the...
[Alan:] If we're just talking about the niceties of the way these things are laid out, previous set of procedures say things like page one-o-two, page one-o-three etc, and I think that is probably good practice if you can look at a page number and so you know exactly how many pages to expect so, we can probably do that when we re-issue these procedures as well. Okay, Q P2.
[speaker001:] . Erm, if there are any changes, however minor, if er, could we make a point of re-issuing the procedure, after we've decided a change.
[John:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Sorry, I haven't quite statement. If we decide er, at each point of the committee meeting I, I think we should be processing any and suggestion forms that procedure owners have received, in a reasonable time, in order for them to process it before that meeting. And any changes that we agree in that meeting, can we then re-issue those procedures immediately after the meeting, or as soon as possible after? In principal, yes.
[Rita:] I, the only problem I have
[John:] , it's not between, it's meant to be weeks.
[speaker001:] Yeah. Can you just explain how that would work though 'cos we're now erm, auditing by job, aren't we, and given I don't know the audit timetable I can't visualise the effect this would have but it seems that one could be making a change 'cos a particular, a job's been audited and it effects Q P1, or something one month, and therefore you make changes to it and another job's audited the second, another month, the second month and Q P1 needs changing again, and it, in terms of keeping our staff with us, it will be quite conf, I think it's not terribly practical to keep having constant change. Right, this is one, this is one of the things which I am not happy about, with the way in which you are running your system at the moment, and that is that you're being totally reactive. You're waiting for somebody to audit and find something wrong. If somebody comes up with a suggestion for a change to a procedure, at this meeting, yes you should be looking at what that suggestion for change is but all of you round the table should be thinking, well does that change adversely effect other jobs in our areas and it shouldn't happen that you will get change after change after change. You should be thinking beforehand, is this really right or isn't it? At the moment you're cre, you're cor, [cough], you're correcting your procedures on the basis of auditing and finding out what we're not doing instead of really thinking about them. Long term, what really...
[John:] Yes, but isn't that because we had a very, very, very long think about them and this is the first reaction to that long think. They were as good as we could make them, we felt, and we had a long think.
[speaker001:] which is first set of audits, first set of suggestion forms which have come through because a lot, standing order. I, I think what Richard, what Richard is suggesting is the very sensible way forward in the longer term, whether it makes sense right at this instant is, is another matter. I do think we've got to bear in mind that when you are looking at a change does it apply to everybody. Erm, like you had the discussion on the first one and said, well, yes, it's all very well for you and yes it's a great idea for you, but the rest of us don't want it, and I think you've got to do that. I think that so far as we've got. Money's our, we have the committee meeting, we agree changes procedures and as soon as possible we re-issue those procedures, monthly issues that. But there may be good reasons every now and then for not re-issuing er, even though it's agreed what the will be. I can't quite think what they are but... I think the other possibility to take Stella's point is that if there is a change that's come up because of an audit, where a particular job has been audited and you know that within the next week or so another similar job is being audited, it may make sense to refer it 'til the next meeting, providing you're not deferring it for a long period of time, to compar the results of the two jobs. And that means looking at the audit schedule out front so that you, you're not. All that means is a general every month that we'll re-issue some procedures.
[John:] Well, yes, but in the long run that it, that won't be, it will only be in the short term, when we're really honing out.
[speaker001:] Sorry, I meant monthly was an adequate frequency.
[John:] Oh right, no more frequently than monthly. Right.
[speaker001:] Yes. Could we have a copy of the audit time, please.. Have you got one there? Yeah. Good. Let's move on then to Q P2. Right. Were any of your extra's about Q P2, Si?
[John:] Yes, one of them is. Erm, start from the beginning. There's the quiff from Peter, which is pointing out that the letter of confirmation that we reference to because it was a repeat, so reasonably enough they're not going through all the assumptions, and he also is saying that the er, letters of confirmation that is a repeat of the previous job. Erm, a suggestion from Richard's attached. There's a suggestion here from Sarah. The application states that this procedure does not cover costings based on rate cards. We use rate cards in that excess but we still comply with the procedure which.
[speaker001:] It's perfectly reasonable to follow the procedure book and the procedure.
[John:] Are there any other rate cards that might be excluded?
[speaker001:] Well no, there's the T G I rate cards but then this doesn't apply to T G I. But that's on computer? Yeah, yeah. Perhaps there's no need to 'Cos the thing about rate cards is that if the rate card is there you don't have to go and get special authorisations or, you quote them the rate card. Well, we have the same guidelines as. Okay. You wanna remove it?
[John:] But you don't have a costing, you do have a costing quote form.
[speaker001:] Costing quote form.
[John:] Do you have all of these other things. It, it's a case of what she's letting herself in for if we strike this out. Maybe she's not covered by this in effect.
[speaker001:] Well, I mean, we have a different costing form but we have costing forms. Where else do we have rate, rate cards, to rate card printing? Yes, I'm trying to think. Have you got a separate procedure for. Yeah. knows the separate procedure. Well, I'll have the.
[John:] I'm not to keen on striking it out.
[speaker001:] if we leave it in, Sarah can still follow the procedures.
[John:] It's the same if we take it out, if we take heaven knows what.
[speaker001:] Well we just established that there are areas where we're using rate cards and where we don't follow the procedure. I think... Does printing follow? Printing. Printing has its own separate procedure. I think one of the problems is not taking out rate card, if you leave out, if you actually say this procedure does not cover full estimates and costs or costing based on rate cards. So, if you don't take that out, it means that effectively you're gonna have to have another procedure somewhere that's going to cover rate cards. And if they get, if they're happy to work to that.
[John:] Er, we're gonna need.
[speaker001:] Contact cover the procedure. So, if we don't take this out we have to do something about. . Yes. . Good, right. Now erm, most of this is about er, repeat projects rather than new, original ones. Erm, you can read the suggestion there, two point three, two point four. My only concern is two point four. We're quite clear we have to have provisional guidelines which say with, what level of seniority is required to authorise a quotation of the values. Do we have a list of authorised researchers, that is people who are authorised to give costed clearances. Yes, each division has erm,. Right, so when in two point four it says er, a copy of the quotation must be signed by an authorised researcher. Er, someone as authorised in the divisional guidelines, yes, authorised to, checked and authorised according to divisional guidelines. Signed by an authorised researcher. That may not be by name, John. Erm, I mean, our pres, our erm, guideline is by level. By level. I know we still say that is defining levels. Okay, I just wanted to be clear we weren't finding an additional list of names of people who are authorised to do this. No. 'Cos it, for example, in support when it came to the... I don't know how other people are doing the guidelines but by definition the divisional guidelines mustn't say, must define who the authorised people are, or those. Whether they do it by name or by status level or whatever else, really doesn't matter. Obviously it must define the... Right, it's just that we had this issue in support of other research a questionnaire and in support key divisions, sorry, key departments have lists of named individuals who can authorise questionnaires. That's in data, data processing and, and. So, I'm just thinking that the potential across the company if you look at our system broadly and an auditor says the phrase authorised researcher, where's the list of names, they'll get an answer in one part of the company and they'll get a list of job titles in another part. No problem. . So, we agree two point four. Erm, we haven't let anyone disagree with that either. I'm not clear about the, the sentence in case a repeat costing's copy of the quotation given to the client must be signed by an authorised researcher. Is that.
[John:] Copy of the letter.
[speaker001:] Oh, copy of the original letter, so if you didn't...
[John:] No, no, the new letter which says this' ll cost, the at this time will cost you three thousand five hundred, then you've got it signed by an.
[speaker001:] quotation probably based on your previous jobs, somewhere write that down. No, you haven't. In case we repeat. No, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't arrive at a costing based on the costing quoted before. Yeah, but you've got to come up with a cost somewhere, that's got to be. Yeah, well yeah you just do that times five percent. percent, or whatever. Yeah, that's what I mean. Yes, but. That's the figure that appears in the quotation to the client. That's the only place the cost goes. Yes. I don't see a need to have it repeated on a separate bit of paper anywhere else. Right. Just.
[John:] The only thing is, if in access they may never actually write this down.
[speaker001:] they always write it down.
[John:] Oh, they do.
[speaker001:] Mmm.
[John:] Oh, right. Well, that's all right.
[speaker001:] I mean, the difference is, I think, that if you, if the letter comes from the liaison point then the letter won't necessarily be signed by the authorised researcher but we're saying a copy of the letter is signed by the authorised researcher and put in the file. Right. Yeah. Yes.
[John:] Clearly, if the person is authorised himself, the letter on its own will do it.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[John:] Completes in the first sentence needs to be in upper case. In two three.
[speaker001:] Right.
[John:] .
[speaker001:] Okay two, two three, two four and two five are all accepted? Yep. Well done, good. Moving on to Q P4. . Any extras on Q P4 before we start? Erm, guidelines...
[John:] He's got that here.
[speaker001:] Oh, has he. Right, fine.
[John:] Oh no, he's got, hang on. None of the new ones. So.
[speaker001:] . Yeah, right. There were references in the last two meetings and two quiffs from Liz and Peter erm, which I can dig out if you want me to. It's erm, as you can see, it's divisional guidelines for authorising costing needs to be and referred to under related documents rather than just divisional policy. . Yes. I think this was one of the quiffs erm, arguing that er, a proposal er, will help prepare, the letter wasn't. a letter to the constitute. I mean, it's the same project.
[John:] No, that's okay.
[speaker001:] Erm, four nine, the research of formal question letter, order form or contract, to my mind, quite honestly, a purchase order form is a contract from the client but erm, the quiff seemed to think that it wasn't so, I don't know whether it's worth changing this, depends how the auditors form. The auditors picked up that we had a pink purchase order form which was neither a commissioning letter nor a contract. In my eyes it is a contract but do we need to make this change? .
[John:] as we're going to make other changes anyway so...
[speaker001:] Yep.
[John:] And we said that where a form referred to a procedure, the procedure would refer to the form so I've added that details are completed on the research approval form. Yeah. Erm.
[speaker001:] That's details of the...? Of four point nine the date of written confirmation from or to client. Yeah. We've also got client so, we've also the client contact record sheet which is. , you don't have a enquiry, do you. You only have it once at this point on, not at this scene of the. Yes, it does, I think. Yes, I think it does. Now once question I have got on this. As I've, I mean divisional guidelines forthrising costing I've added to the related documents and I'll produce those because they're a divisional thing. Er, I've now added the research approval form and it's become a related document here but in the original allocation of forms, the responsibility for keeping this up to date was not mine. Now, are we sticking with the allocation that we had in the past, peoples responsibility, or when we change them in this sort of way are we mucking them about? 'Cos I like to know what I am responsible for and what I'm not.
[John:] Yes, it decision. Presumably the original decision was, was based on the first time, it is now the first time.
[speaker001:] Yes, that's correct. Who is currently. Whoever. Jenny I think, is it? Yes. Jenny.
[John:] Both are going to be difficult. It's going, if you actually think of, about this, it is going to be difficult to me to remember to change the responsibility.
[speaker001:] I would prefer that we accepted that Stella's original notes defines the responsibility for forms literally for all the time. So do I. I mean, we just, we just don't have to keep changing it and talking about it.
[John:] It does mean it's no longer the case that the, that the owner of forms is the person who's first mentioned.
[speaker001:] . No, but that was just an easy way of. Yep. But we have all and we know what. Okay. Sorry, can I just. It may be me misunderstanding, but erm, are we therefore saying on this one, god which one are we on, Q P...? Four. Four. Where are we adding this bit about research approval form? At the end of four point nine. Right, so we only do it once we've got the formal, so we're not generating a research approval form for, unnecessarily? No. Right, sorry. I thought, we're only doing it once it's been commissioned. Right, okay, fine. Once it's been commissioned. Can I just make one suggestion, sorry, and that is er, in four point nine, where you've got your formal commissioning letter er, you put down order form or contract. If you take the word form out and just leave it as order, then it doesn't matter in what form it comes from the... Yes Yes. Form or a letter. Yes. I mean, just going back to your point, I mean to me an order form is a contract. If we're going to put something in then let's keep it as general as possible. Yes. Any other points on Q P4. four point six you've got quotation letter and actually a lot of our quotations are actually faxes. Would that,? It's, what it comes down to is an understanding. If we're talking about outside auditors, whether it's a letter, a fax or whatever won't make any difference as they won't quibble over things like order forms and stuff. They're looking for a written documents, full stop. But, internally, you need to make sure that your auditors and your, and everyone understands the same thing. i think it is fair in that case, because we do define a proposal as we've done elsewhere as a. Good, Q P4 done. Any. No? Good. [loud rustling next to microphone]. Q P5. Are any of you extras on Q P5? Yes,. Erm, oh this is the, this is the point that erm, had Stella wrought up earlier on. The quiff erm, was about these interim field reports, suggested that no such thing existed, interim should be taken out and the rest of it should be. Er, Stella was saying we are going to have interim field reports.
[Stella:] That's because I'm going to suggest, so we call them interim fieldwork re, interim fieldwork reports.
[speaker001:] What. And that'll be a related document.
[Stella:] No, it won't be a related document because we don't...
[speaker001:] Good.
[Stella:] They vary. You can't have a standard one.
[speaker001:] like job descriptions. They vary and job descriptions with them. So you want them to be called interim fieldwork reports.
[Stella:] Yes. Make sure.
[speaker001:] lower case. Does this apply to er, interim response reports... Postal surveys. Postal surveys? That wasn't quiff but it's parallel.
[Stella:] I've never done one. I don't know. I'm looking at Alan. You don't know either, presumably.
[speaker001:] Could we say... Yeah, I think it applies. Let's say it applies to postal in exactly the same way. So, all I've got to do is disembowel them. And you'll need to take on more, Stella. That, when it comes to postals.
[Stella:] Right, interim fieldwork report. Okay, fine, yep.
[speaker001:] Yeah. Right, so it's neither of those related documents. Yep. Five point ten. Five point ten. This was the thing that came up previously about er, dispatch of a report not being recorded anywhere, because of that was a compliment slip which a photocopy wasn't kept and so we erm, therefore have to have a note made on the client contact form to say it's gone. This is gonna have to be a general reminder to, a general point to all researchers because they won't know that, I'm sure. That wasn't the original, that was never briefed. No. But if we have to do that. a major new... It is a major new point that if we have to prove we've sent, sent things out then that means... But you make a note of that as part of your... I believe it's quite an important part. Well, well, well. Nothing about training should go on er, as training people procedure should go on the notice board, shouldn't it. I think maybe with this next issue of procedures we need a separate mode going round which says highlights the key things, yeah. highlighting the key points. 'Cos otherwise everyone... Everyone will. The reason for setting aside a through the request as researchers where we're actually going to go through all the procedures, highlighting, the changes are and why. Elizabeth, could you just sort of mark that in your minute, as something that if we do produce a highlight of changes, that is one that we.
[John:] the first thing which is re, a really major change to peoples behaviour.
[speaker001:] It, from the requirements of the standard it does only imply where you haven't got a covering letter or anything like that with it. Yeah, that's all the time though. 'Cos all our reports probably go out with compliment slips, all our. 'Cos if you've got copies of the reports and things in the file, then that's not a problem. Where the problem arose was when there was no record of anything having been sent or what had been sent or anything. Well, what do you mean, if there's a copy of the report in the file. I mean, if there's a copy in the information office is that good enough proof that it's gone? Well, this is up to you to decide what you actually proof if you need it.
[John:] This is a not unreasonable thing to have as one of our procedures remind you and ten, twenty.
[speaker001:] No, I know. Now let's move on to Q P9. I think this is the closest that we'll find. Well, I'm not quite sure that's what it's called. Is it called client contact form? Client contact record sheet. Sheet. Client contact... Record sheet. Record sheet. It's not a form, it's a sheet. Is that referred.
[John:] You take your, do you know that?
[speaker001:] What?
[John:] Advertising campaign, you probably don't know..
[speaker001:] Oh yes, I do. your sheet.
[John:] Have you changed your sheet.
[speaker001:] Is erm, set down as a related document form there or?
[John:] Kleenex
[speaker001:] Not yet, no. I was gonna say Andrex. . So, in this case I do inherit a new form, do I? No one else has got, has someone else got responsibility for client contact record sheet? No, I don't think they have. I think I have, 'cos I think it's on the erm, Q P whatever it is, document control policy records and I think that's one of mine. Oh yes, it will be and it's, it'll be in the list, the list of what should be in the master job file. . Yep. In the list. Yep. It'll be in that. Quality records? Yeah. Client contact record sheet. Now I've got a suggestion form from Sarah here with four points on it. Is this on Q P5?
[John:] Is that on Q P5?
[speaker001:] It's still on five, yep. Point one; er, for access the field element is pre-booked, it's only necessary to book additional days or shifts verbally in excess of that already reserved. Will that come under the erm, when they inact continuous or would it continue as a non-standard survey? No, Ros has already argued that in most cases access is covered by a standard procedure survey. Right. So, what if it says Simon, because I wasn't paying attention.
[John:] So point one does not apply to access, have to have.
[speaker001:] Yep. Well, let's carry on with, there are others here. Point two. Booking forms are used for access face to face. Erm, a schedule is used as a telephone omnibus detailing all the projects on that particular survey. So, there's an appropriate booking form for face to face which is actually in excess,. I'd say so.
[John:] Well, is it oh no, no, no. Come on. Can the term er, appropriate booking form cover this thing called the schedule.
[speaker001:] Oh yes, yes. Er, oh. Call it a booking form. Form? Yes. I was just saying that's what a booking form is, a schedule isn't it? No, I mean the, the others have actually got booking form written on them. Are we gonna be changing the name of the schedule to booking form. Yes.
[John:] Or booking schedule.
[speaker001:] Or booking sheet. Either that or we write a couple of variations on the end of this and we say the general access conforms to this but in their case, the other one is pre-booked, the extras and they have a booking schedule. 'Cos this says specifically in the applications, with the exception of continuous surveys. Therefore, and I think we'll all take access to something that we would.
[John:] Paul, point Q does not apply to access by telephone which is what we're for.
[speaker001:] Mmm, well we don't particularly want access to exempted from the procedure. No. Which, if we car, if we call it continuous survey then it would be. I've also got points at point three and point six now. This is when erm, we need to go back and look, look at your continuous survey procedure. Yes. Which we've already talked about and there's no reason why erm, you cannot have a one pager for access. It says it works in accordance with our normal procedures except and rather than put the exceptions for access in that procedure,.
[John:] This requires us going through these with toothcombs as we've frequently already got access as an exception in them.
[speaker001:] We had it on this procedure, already. It's not complete, is it? One point four. And it's coming, and from what Simon was saying, it's coming in, in other places as well. Yes, points three and point six. I think very good at going through with a toothcomb anyway and I'm sure that she could quite adequately. There's a fundamental problem in here that my definition of the continuous survey includes access. If said to me, what's a continuous survey I would put access in it. Aren't we going to. This procedure says the continuous surveys are excluded and then specifically says erm, what applies to access except this one. I think that's the aberration, isn't it? The oth, the other's don't say except continuous surveys anyway, do they? Most of them don't. Yeah, but we have got a problem with the other's, so far.
[John:] This is the first where we've got a lot of problems with access.
[speaker001:] I mean, my concern here is that if you've got a procedure that's got nine points in it, and effectively we're going to go through one, two, three, five of those nine points and say either this does not apply to access or access does it differently. They're not working in accordance with that procedure. None of this really applies, if you read each of these they don't apply to access, in the real sense, do they? In the full sense that them, we're talking about. . Well, five can't apply 'cos four... . it sounds to me as though we should let the, the application stand with the exception of continuous surveys. Delete this reference, point four does not apply to access by telephone, take up Carolines point that we need for access when we've got through the other continuous a brief statement which says, the project planning procedure doesn't totally apply until. If we leave... Project planning. It's not a separate procedure. It's, it's a document available within access. Oh, I see. It just says, it's different. But there's a continuous procedure that says. Right, so there'll be a statement here or would that be in. There'll be a statement in the procedure that Richard is going to write on behalf of Jenny. Oh, right. Which defines a list of things which will have their own er, statement exceptions. So, if we're leaving with the exception of continuous surveys in there, where do we say er,. I thought we were gonna write... So, we're going to write that in. Because those... That's gonna be in the individual master job file. They're gonna be in their master job files. Any differences. But they all follow this. Virtually, I think. Fine, in that case. Then they just have somebody who says, we follow procedure of Q P5. They don't even need to do that. If they are actually following a standard company procedure the project planning is very good monitoring. Yes, the continuous procedure only allows you the freedom to make changes if you need to. So, if you don't need to. I, I would suggest that any areas here at, as a overall statement where you said things don't apply to continuous, that those are actually taken out and that every procedure applies to everything, unless it is specifically removed and your continuous one allows you the... Yes, that is reasonable now we're creating a continuous one, isn't it. I mean, that was obviously put in here at the time that we didn't have anything that covered it. Oh, that's right, yes. So, I think perhaps if you take that out and write this continuous and non-standard one, it allows you the facility for using it or not using it, depending on the project you're working on. Presumably should we therefore have something that covers quality, oh sorry no this covers it doesn't it, yeah, o.k. Richard another point Erm the only reason this is an issue that I get a cooking for as Research Process Manager anyway, as Audit Manager I need to have other booking forms, and the only booking forms and additional booking forms I need are all jobs which then got to Mrs which are the so I ask please make amendment to put Audit Manager in and I don't think we need to specify. Erm can someone make it clear to me where we ended up with Q P5, I am not sure whether we are changing the application or deleting Yes the exception both doing both your doing both yes. Is this being appraised with the exception or continuous service with the application, and we are deleting that point 4 doesn't apply to access. We will have a new procedure called Continuous and Non-Standard Surveys which says that they will follow the basic procedures, except where this doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense the job will have in it's Master Job File a statement of how, it does comply with whatever it has to deal with. Now on that point, for access someone now needs to pick up and write effectively a simple this is how we project planning on access. And there may be one or two other things we work through over this meeting and the next meeting. We are close to the end of erm You should be lively signing this document. We might call it a day at the end of the assignments and take Jenny's away to recap, erm lets get to the end of the assignments first, Q P9. Where is Q P9? papers rustling This one I think we should give a little thought, because this is the one I think where oh yes this is going to get complicated because I have now been given a quiff and a few suggestion forms about it You said you didn't have the print of it, is that right? Yeah Richard's has given me... Your'e still missing two? This is also one where we chase our search approval forms, and procedure. we've got quite a lot of these reports together here. It's also the one that covers You should continue this as a staff meeting with The only change that I have got here are minor things that were references from a previous meeting all the difficult stuff comes from the Quiff and the suggestion forms that I have not looked at yet, and so if you want to do that around a table because I don't know whether thats right. Can you Erm, I I just hoped to dictate to you which would cover the changes of the research approval form Well there is a list of things, list of points here, 4C does not apply to scan 5, does not apply to scan T G I questionnaire. 9 Research approval forms for relevant to T G I space. 10 does not apply to T G I Survey. The reissued so that the reissued quantitated appro.. search approval form no longer has provision for B P questionnaire approval. Continue reading first continue reading. Company survey's will not go through data prep but D P approval is critical why has this been removed from the form? Because the only job we haven't capped, is continuous and there are no procedures for continued jobs yet, and we have not yet got an ad for Kathy job and therefore no procedures were a mythical thing. However. laughing However, as we write these continuous things which we are talking about, approval for Kathy clearly is an issue permanent restructuring for each I'd suggested to Sarah it might be covered by Q P10.5 which actually says that the research approval form is signed by the researcher which she felt wasn't really enough. That was my understanding of what might be meant to cover that point. That she felt that it was really something D P actually signed off.. Well there is not for Kathy but for Kathy she thought this would be. Well they keep a record now don't they D P keep a record anyway, there is a system where D P keep their own records perhaps it would be helpful they've authorised If I just read out what I was going to suggest Simon described the new system for approvals it goes something like erm, sorry it's 9.9, all approvals are recorded on research approval forms full stop. Erm in order to simplify the approvals from Support Division, field approval is recorded on the field review form, data preparation and D P approval is recorded on data preparation schedule the name of the person giving approval, the name of the person, the names of D P's approvals are recorded on the research approval form. So obviously you just write down that Rita did it on the 10th. But Rita in her own department has got the document that she sends so the researcher doesn't have to take the bit of paper round to everybody and get their research approval form signed. That's fair enough because you get action Sorry, There's not room on the form I don't think It doesn't matter cause Rita can't D P could authorise it. I said we haven't got a procedure for Kathy I thought you were reading out the bit to... All I have been saying is the things which aren't Kathy's everything else questionnaires. Now Kathy seems to me should be checked checking the assessor, just as if it was going over the telephone Well then... that's just what I was just trying to think through on Kathy. Well we don't have procedures for it, we haven't written them. Sorry if you take catty as the para now, then D P aren't actually, the reason D P sent the paper questionnaire is to just double check that all the columns and everything are laid out in the correct way aren't they and then checking it for that reason, whereas they are actually doing it on something like Kathy themselves so they, there isn't the same approval going on. Someone's got to check the filters are right... The does that on a Catty Questionnaire... Well he does that on every questionnaire, but he still has got to get someone to double check it. Mmm, it's that element of double checking that... But, I mean that D P team do a lot of work on the Catty questionnaires which doesn't really seem to be er sort of fully acknowledged at the moment. Yes, I think that as Richard said we need to agree if quality is to continue we have to write some Kathy procedures. That thats certainly... With a timetable to them we are in the best place to do it now cause we're still learning we have only done three jobs, four now haven't we? erm the Kathy procedure is definitely needed. We are grinding to a halt on those aren't we? yeah We got D P 9.16, 28.32 we've still got four to do. Are any of those other one simple, what you would consider simple ones to understand? Erm, I will have to look at them They are actually. As 9 is one that obviously needs a lot of work and a lot of thought on it. I am proposing to delay 9 as a question for the next meeting Qualitators, quality control rustling paper. Erm this was the suggestions from Rita All of them seem very sensible to me. Well I have accepted adding those research review meeting. Yep. Are you, what are you going to call this form now Si Is it the qualitative review form or... Erm it is an existing... It's called a Qualitative Data Review form... no it's called a Qualitative Research Review form so what's this in the something else. Oh I see as opposed to that which is how many groups they proceed to check. The qualitative research review form it's existed for sometime. So thats now reference and there is a project review meeting as there is a quantitative work. You have got four things sorry related documents. Four how have I got four? I've qualitative field review forms, yeah qualitative data review forms yeah qualitative research approval forms. It does exist, but it's not referenced here, but it does exist. And if it's not referenced here it may not be referenced anywhere else. Well, it needs to be Q P9 then doesn't it? Where we were just now with the research then talk about questionnaires. Called research approval forms. No there is a separate one for qualitative and it is different. Yes it has a lot it has a lot less on it, things like.. Is this document on that side do you know? What? No, I just have qualitative approvals... It's not mentioned anywhere I think it ought to come up first in Q P9 doesn't it? Well can I make a suggestion that you add it all to the list of the things to discuss it is. Authorisations. Did you get that one Simon? Erm Discussion of Q P9 we need to decide when we qualitative approval form or whether it gets, business procedure Q P16. In that case we can't finalise this one until we have decided that. So I think that should be bought up. No one owns this form what we are trying to do is make sure it's ready so therefore it has an owner. It seems sensible that it goes with wherever the... The qualitative procedure is aware of your design procedures. They may do a few they're not going to cut there, they will cut. Yeah but it doesn't really fit in here at all, I mean it's nothing to do with any of this. Nothing to do with any of this at all. It could come up under... You see my visions for qualitative are slightly different to the four months at the moment, and I feel perhaps could exchange Q P16 for the control procedures to be a longer procedure but to have everything covering the project plan in progress monitoring through to quality control procedures for just the quality. So if you look at something like Q P5 where you have got this point qualitated, in fact a lot of the points don't actually apply to qualitated because many of the points relate to erm, D P erm, qualitative field as opposed to survey. So I do just wonder if I couldn't pick out point say 1 and 2 of Q P5 and 6 which are about booking and booking forms and confirming the commission of qualitative through to whatever is required during the run off of it and then add the quality control check and finally you have got this, the final review. So in other words qualitative, the whole of qualitative between commissioning as merit checks has an er... Yes o.k. that a major review of the whole thing though. Do you want me to have a go at doing that Simon? because I have been difficult about it, if that helps you. Well that would be welcome but it's fine, and it should be down to me to do it, but you are all welcome. O.K. I'll try do a version, but it does effect on Q P 5 an Q P6 you see as well coughing. Can you and Simon liaise. coughing. Do you think that's a good idea? Yes I think it is. Could I explain one alteration on Q P16 Simon given our recent changes. We've got this erm, er, some one is going to monitor a proportion of work that you have recorded as transcripts anyway, and it will be a research director or A.D. I'm just wondering whether we can comply with this now. Er, well will you leave that to me in the re-writing of this. Sure absolutely. Q P16 we are going to move on from then, unless there are any other comments on Q P16, Rita is going to attempt to redraft and draw together material from previous procedures, and that means that adjustments of previous procedures you will be able to sign, and finalise them. Sorry, are you saying that erm we are going to delay doing anything about Q P5. I would, in that, in the light of well, actually no we don't have to. In actually physically up dating anything, I would suggest that at this point that Simon doesn't do of them until after the next meeting when we have got all the other's together as well because again they may attach things, just that you've got your information and know what's been decided and do the whole lot after the next meeting. Can't we get Monica to do the up dating? I think it would be easier to try and draw them together so that we have got this document with the position so far, as we have a lot. It's very hard, I am finding it hard to keep up with them at the moment. Certainly we shouldn't re-issue anything until after the next meeting but erm, having the procedures we have finished with so far, in their latest form probably helpful, even if it's only you whose has the master copy Simon right so when we need some reference, we have got that chapter and verse. Monica I am sure would be quite happy to. laughing She will be ecstatic... She certainly won't be. This is what worries me, if you have got too much stuff going through one person that. That's what will confuse her. But their always in version two. No there not, this is going to be an interim version between one and two, what Dot's just suggested. It's still typed as two. I it's she will type it in as two, and then you will give her the next draft and then two and then the next draft and then two, I mean there's no confusion there for her. That is extremely confusing for her, cause she has on her computer, she has various versions named in two, unless she destroys previous versions of M2 when she does this one Well she should she should overtype the correct one Which isn't what we did with M1 Well then one is a complete rewrite. But we had various versions of M1, but we didn't ever get rid of the first version, so we could, the one that Suzannah did and then the one that I changed, and then the one that the Committee changed, all exist so that we can back track what we actually did. Right. How did she... with this we just need to type over it No, we do, I mean you do this just the same as any normal report, you do the first one and then you edit it and make yeah, yeah. Monica will be alright she know's what she's doing, it's just whether she has the time to do it, she would liked it if we had done this before Christmas, so that while you were away John you could have done it she had plenty of time to do it. Would we be able to do erm, just a sort of support ones and D T P if we got the masters from Monica as a standard responsibility. Yah, now she's made them out, shall we say we will take that one to share the load. If Monica gives a brief one. Press on please to Q P 28. papers turning I don't think I've got anything new on this so all of this comes out of B T 7, and this is all to do with Stella's original paper about who had responsibility for forms and so on. Any problems with these proposals. Seem perfectly sensible to me. Accepted. Right then number 32, Q P32... Erm we are renumbering some points in that one, erm we were trying to avoid it before but I can't seem any way of avoiding it here because these are major new things. Then there's the new additions I'm sorry about that. papers turning The proposals on Q P 32 actually reflects erm, the decision we made earlier on my, my proposal about suggestion of whose responsible for. Sorry. Well I think points 6 to 7 are to the procedure owner who communicates what action and under responsibility both points it's actually procedure only and not divisional quality manager. That would be o.k. if the only suggestions allowed were suggestions about procedures. We have just agreed that we would allow suggestions about procedures and other suggestions about the way the Company is run. They are often the same person or principal it could be either in divisional quality manager or procedure Just a change of how we would suggestion box unless So maybe Simon a brief statement in the application yep would clarify. Well. we decided that we didn't need to change the application I suggested that. This procedure describes how suggestions for improvements to systems and procedures are generated. Well in that case how about on method point 1 suggestions for improvements we need the word "two procedures". yes yes suggestions for improvements yes suggested to for improvements to procedures. Well I suppose we've got to reissue it anyway so we might as well. Yeah, yeah. Good. I propose Elizabeth that you circulate Jenny's reprocedures to everyone but we don't know with them, that we will read them prior to the next meeting and agree them at the meeting papers turning I have got to assess papers turning take one. Take one of those, I've taken one, take loads of copies Three procedures coming out I thought I was getting it already anyway laughing scattering the whole process. Can we just agree one final bit of detail before we pack in, there are a number of procedures now either which we be re- prepared as the basis of today's discussions, we have only got two, have we, is there just two? three three 17 18 and 21 21, I've got 17 18 21 is choices, it was the first one to come round. Don't try to blame me. Bottom pile in choices if you can send it back. Are there any spares to erm... oh yeah thank you, Suggestions, in preparation for the next meeting, for those procedures that we still have to review, the procedure owners are going to put the information to us in one of two ways, if it is a minor modification procedure small changes of wording things need to be uncontroversial, we will resite the procedure with red line and strike out in the way that Jenny procedures have been prepared and circulate before the meeting. yep If the procedure owner thinks that more substantial discussions are needed then we prepare something based on model assignments paper which summarises the erm, in put so far making the proposal as a bases. Everyone happy with that? Just to confirm it is one O'clock next Monday working lunch. Is there any chance of a bigger airier room, or is it just... Whenever possible I try to get a Lecture Theatre, erm but I was told it was booked all day today we were originally in presentation room then came, so be grateful we're in the Board Room. [LAUGHTER] That was actually quite a productive meeting, although it took quite a time to get through it, I think we did the right thing on the continuous procedures. That will be bit of a break through as I was getting a bit despondent about them. Any note from me about progress will follow next Month's meeting not today. I agree, yep. O.K. before we pack up any other business. Erm there was I am sorry to be boring but there are all these action points from the previous meeting Oh yes I forgot the action points do you feel we have covered them. I don't know. Erm I don't think we can spend a long time considering them, it's just if people bear me whisking through them our brains. Could I also ask a question which you might be completely clear on, but I'm not, when we do back checks on files and make sure they are all up to date and so on, we come across maybe a research approval which hasn't been signed off in the right places, how far back in time do we need to get that signed off. We don't. We don't. If it's something like that erm, all will go back and check that erm the researcher in as a matter of course, a couple of months and make sure But when it comes up for the real audit, what job, is it going to encourage jobs that are audited. Old jobs you can't say don't know they will of course be... We will explain our procedure and how a system is developed to be assigned, they will decide. What will happen in fact is that you'll have a start date for your system, which was basically when N1 was, and what they will be looking for is that everything from that date forward is complying right so that a job that started before then, they won't look for the initial part of that job to comply right as of that date onwards they will look for it to comply. In practice if you are back checking files and such like, if you find something that is current word which should comply and you find something that hasn't been appropriately signed or whatever, if it's easy to get it done yes do it yes, if it's not easy to get it done erm, it may be, you've got to use your judgement because I don't want you to go into a lot of work, but it may make sense to make a final note we are aware that this wasn't done correctly this person has been reminded, or... In this case it's fine anyway so... Well that depends on whether you are actually doing it during an audit or doing it for other reasons, what they are looking for is that your system is getting better and that you have done the right things. Well thank you. I will run as quickly as I can through the minutes of the last meeting just raising those things which still have to be actioned. Erm missing procedures we have decided that Jenny is going to write T G I, Beety will write B T and we are going to write something on access and we may need to write something on erm Health and Finance and those documents we have got in the Master File. So that's under way. Er, costing for parallel, repeat jobs, that's been dealt with by Simon erm, Client contact record I think that's now been assimilated into new procedures yes we have just talked about that er sub- contracting you have probably dealt with that, although we haven't discussed it yes er, list of procedure owners I have prepared and reissued it, I don't how wide they have circulated it, it was meant to go into the Quality Manual, and the Quality Manual is not being re-circulated until March time. I will provide a copy to Elizabeth and we will circulate it to members of this committee, together with the Ministers' meeting. Julia's definitely got a copy Yar, I think I got a copy but I just sort of filed it with all the Quality Manual stuff, as there were various different things which needed. Alan D P P forms done. Yep. All forms weeded out, get things destroyed, quality divisional quality managers. I think we've reviewed that this morning, early and we are doing quite well on forms, but do we need any further action on that? Yes we really need to do this don't we. Do the weeding yes and sorting which is really going to come from our meeting. Well can the divisional quality managers be prepared to report back on this next Monday. Well wouldn't it be better to wrap it all up in the forms meeting. Rather than take the time of the quality committee? What's this forms meeting? It isn't yet It isn't John hasn't arranged it yet. That's why it's not in my diary. I'll organise that. O.K. All of that next bit relates to the form meeting. The form's meeting and I will take along to that. So that's down to me yep? O.K. well we have dealt with that, research approval is what has changed it. is that all that was? You've done that. laughing Every so often senior level people must go to files to check that things have been correctly, you need to continue to do it,, Action Divisional Quality Managers. I'd like Elizabeth to bring that forward yep for my benefit, as I know I haven't done it and I'd like it as a prompt. You want some spot checks, half an hour a week to go and do some spot checks on that. How about that? Was that meant to be that people like me should be doing spot checks, Richard should tell people like me to do spot checks or Richard was going to do spot checks? It should be that Richard does it, though he might choose to delegate it. But the i. . Richard is responsible for seeing that it is done. Yes. Yes. In one way or another. There are two things you're trying to achieve. One is the spot checks themselves to make sure that everything is right, the other is to show the commitment to people like you that this thing's important. Active staff. So, we need to make that happen. Yeah. T G I manuals, well Jenny's working on that. Sub- contracting work, Q P19. Rita. T G I production list.
[Rita:] Yes, to be fair Jenny came in er, on Friday to talk to me about it, but I just didn't have time, I was rushing off to a meeting so I've...
[speaker001:] You carried forward that.
[Rita:] Yeah, I, I couldn't, I just didn't have time.
[speaker001:] Er, okay, we'll carry forward Jenny...
[Rita:] .
[speaker001:] Probably in her procedure. Yes. , Q P17 changes. Yep. D T P printing need their quality manuals reference in presentation will of course be. Jenny did circulate to me, by way of saying, I've done something about this, copies of D T P quality manual and printing quality control manual. With good quality manual, one of quality control manual and and all these are is the old procedures, quite badly out, not written anything like. So really I, I thought they were a bit of a mess to be honest.
[John:] Is that a manual?
[speaker001:] That's a manual. Big manuals. I don't think they are any good for the purpose myself, but maybe you've got an old version of the. The procedure circulated them as the thing that's in place. Yeah. They've been retyped and they've been called erm, procedures. Erm... What? Guidelines, sorry. Guidelines. And er, they are actually a good description of what goes on in those departments and those that relate to these procedures. Could you make sure that Jenny is clearly briefed then, because she thinks, this is version N3, dated January '94. . There is some confusion there, I think, and er, I'm glad they've been retyped and issued. There's already more reason why and that's suggesting that you're saying January is inadequate. . You can have two issued in January, one is like N3 and one's N4, because you know that N4 is more reason for. So, we're going to follow up on that. Well, the issues of it. Alan, can you feed back to Jenny what the state of play is, but she also doesn't seem to have her document control particularly well organised and if you and D P, sorry D T P, re-issuing those guidelines, you shouldn't be. Jenny should be. If they are related documents to the procedures. They're controlled documents. Erm, they weren't controlled documents up until now. They weren't, okay. They're about to become. [LAUGHTER]. They came out of the audit, didn't it. And out of Carolines audit.
[Caroline:] Yes, they sort of crawled out of the woodwork.
[speaker001:] Thank you, Stella. We just raised an instance of the next point of the minute. It must have been reference for Jenny to be... No. They were originally procedures, you see, and then they disappeared as procedures and went nowhere. They were in, they're coming in in seven reports. Your suggestions? Like the last meeting, yes. [LAUGHTER] It's not fair. Can we use things like document. As things are revised we should try to harmonise names of third level documents. We've got the department quality manuals, working guideline, we've got the quality control manual, we've got the quality manual erm, it would be nice to see if we could harmonise them. But, we could only do that from procedure levels and. That was a, wasn't it. but not accurate enough to say at this stage. it, there's no point in re-issuing perfectly good documents just to change the name on them. No. But,. But, new documents that are being prepared. I, I would suggest you need a standard name for it. Quality guidelines or just guidelines. Guidelines. Wouldn't it be whatever it is, yes. Guidelines. Dot. Dot, dot, dot, dot, guidelines. Well, can everyone take on board the idea now, if there are new documents being prepared or we get to a major re-issue. We're talking about guidelines. Yeah, in the process of. Even if they're all about quality control. Yeah. . No, just thinking of data prep. Think about guidelines. Yeah, I mean, a document that is literally about levels of verification and. . I have one question about it though, and that is ar, if you're calling them guidelines are they guidelines or are they mandatory. We could use this procedure say according to the guidelines, then it becomes mandatory. Guidelines. No, no, it becomes mandatory to follow the guidelines which are not mandatory. . I think it's important that you know. They are in the sense that I think we believe they're mandatory, don't we? . But we don't want to make it a, a potential area to fail. It, it depends on just what these things are for, because if think about a third level document as being something like the T G I manual, that's got to be mandatory, you've got no choice in it because it's not covered in procedures, it's got to be that. There are other things that may not be, so you need to think very carefully about what name you're going to call them and whether all these documents are mandatory or are advisory. Could we put on the agenda for a future meeting something called review of guidelines where the, this is exactly the issue. Yeah, so what to call them if we're going to change the name, or what we will eventually change it to, we're not going to change them now and whether they're mandatory or not and whether we need to change them to say that. For a future meeting or the next meeting. Not the next meeting. Just... No, not the next meeting. February, March. February, is good. February. Training records, there is a committee in place meeting tomorrow to deal with that. Sorry, February, I think we'll be having feedback, won't we? Don't worry about it, we'll... Alright. February will be good, we should it before March. We should no the answer to this before comes. Right. Er, Stella, have you taken action on Q P24?
[Stella:] Erm, yes, we have. This is where we've come up with critical application software.
[speaker001:] Okay.
[Stella:] I mean, you'll see it in my procedures when we, when we get...
[speaker001:] See we've twice as divisional quality manager half an hour each week looking at.
[Stella:] It's now an hour.
[speaker001:] Did I say an hour? . Oh, is it. double dose. Erm, Richard to organise our auditors to accompany Caroline next time. Okay? Yep, fine. Er, divisional quality manager should give positive feedback on divisions about this pre-assessment, the one that happened. Anything to report back on that, divisional quality managers? One divisional quality manager didn't even get positive feedback. [LAUGHTER]. I think Richard gave me a copy of all. .
[John:] Mine, they haven't. No, I mean, the meeting wasn't that long ago. I'm having a division meeting on. So, I'll make sure that it's more general, I mean, I talk to the directors. I'll not call a formal divisional meeting, we had that on Wednesday.
[speaker001:] Well, I went round and talked to group, but I think there's a lot of er, about keeping everything fine and up to date at all times in all places and all the rest., it was almost the energy to manage to do it, a hundred percent of the time and a hundred percent of the occasions that they felt, I think, was a little daunting. There is still lots of goodwill and I'm sure er, they'll aim to do it but... We're getting, if we could be this time next week, given feedback and come back with some response and maybe John, you can take whatever comes out of that on board in your. Er, changing needs to get signatures, that is done. Thank you very much for your help, Susannah. Er, John went around to all staff is done.. Done that. Well, actually, wasn't a reminder about the need for suggestions, so perhaps that could be included in, in the next one. I included quite clearly in my re-issue of the research approvals form er, the covering letter that went with it, saying you know, here's an example of suggestion that makes your life easier, please keep them coming. That didn't go to everybody. That only went to the... It went to all procedure holders. ... only the nine. Call for more suggestions,, okay. Mid-January we're working on that, suggestion forms, three quality completers, I've put that in the revised list of people coming round in these minutes. Q P32, suggestions. Well, we've done that, haven't we Simon?
[John:] Yeah, I think so.
[speaker001:] Matters arising from previous meetings. Version dating related documents, task not yet complete. Still not complete, but we have reviewed that and we're making good progress. Mind if I have something with it. Roy is to check on receiving inspection of testing received in. Q P4 is amended now, Simon. Q P17, Jenny has drafted and circulated. Q P28, amendment still to be done. You've done those, Simon.
[John:] Yes.
[speaker001:] And issued them to date, that's fine. B M R B International reports, not yet issued. Yes, it is. Yeah, a manual. That Jenny has designed. Jenny T, don't know, 'cos it was down to Jenny D to... Jenny has given me notes on, on one issue here which I must admit I haven't had a chance to read yet and it's about house style, about both manual. I'll make sure that er, I've read that and talked to Jenny in time for the next meeting so we know where we stand. So that's a cross to bring that one forward please. John, still. And? Well, she knows she's going to do them. Good. Quality jobs isn't her favourite job. Is it anybody's favourite job? She does it well though. Er, next for job descriptions to go to the quality manual. I'm sure you've got the masters in place, haven't you Elizabeth? procedure review to start in September '94 in appropriate er, Richard. Yeah. Good. Dates for '94 meeting, blah, blah, blah. Next trial audit, that's it. What an awful, that did get ticked off actually, as we went through. Well done. Sorry it was another long hard meeting but we are making good progress and I think by the end of our next one when we've revised most of the procedures we'll be well placed. Good, thank you very much. [talk in background].