Section 4 of Draft Annex 11: Quality Risk Management—The Scientific Foundation That Transforms Validation

If there is one section that serves as the philosophical and operational backbone for everything else in the new regulation, it’s Section 4: Risk Management. This section embodies current regulatory thinking on how risk management, in light of the recent ICH Q9 (R1) is the scientific methodology that transforms how we think about, design, validate, and operate s in GMP environments.

Section 4 represents the regulatory codification of what quality professionals have long advocated: that every decision about computerized systems, from initial selection through operational oversight to eventual decommissioning, must be grounded in rigorous, documented, and scientifically defensible risk assessment. But more than that, it establishes quality risk management as the living nervous system of digital compliance, continuously sensing, evaluating, and responding to threats and opportunities throughout the system lifecycle.

For organizations that have treated risk management as a checkbox exercise or a justification for doing less validation, Section 4 delivers a harsh wake-up call. The new requirements don’t just elevate risk management to regulatory mandate—they transform it into the primary lens through which all computerized system activities must be viewed, planned, executed, and continuously improved.

The Philosophical Revolution: From Optional Framework to Mandatory Foundation

The transformation between the current Annex 11’s brief mention of risk management and Section 4’s comprehensive requirements represents more than regulatory updating—it reflects a fundamental shift in how regulators view the relationship between risk assessment and system control. Where the 2011 version offered generic guidance about applying risk management “throughout the lifecycle,” Section 4 establishes specific, measurable, and auditable requirements that make risk management the definitive basis for all computerized system decisions.

Section 4.1 opens with an unambiguous statement that positions quality risk management as the foundation of system lifecycle management: “Quality Risk Management (QRM) should be applied throughout the lifecycle of a computerised system considering any possible impact on product quality, patient safety or data integrity.” This language moves beyond the permissive “should consider” of the old regulation to establish QRM as the mandatory framework through which all system activities must be filtered.

The explicit connection to ICH Q9(R1) in Section 4.2 represents a crucial evolution. By requiring that “risks associated with the use of computerised systems in GMP activities should be identified and analysed according to an established procedure” and specifically referencing “examples of risk management methods and tools can be found in ICH Q9 (R1),” the regulation transforms ICH Q9 from guidance into regulatory requirement. Organizations can no longer treat ICH Q9 principles as aspirational best practices—they become the enforceable standard for pharmaceutical risk management.

This integration creates powerful synergies between pharmaceutical quality system requirements and computerized system validation. Risk assessments conducted under Section 4 must align with broader ICH Q9 principles while addressing the specific challenges of digital systems, cloud services, and automated processes. The result is a comprehensive risk management framework that bridges traditional pharmaceutical operations with modern digital infrastructure.

The requirement in Section 4.3 that “validation strategy and effort should be determined based on the intended use of the system and potential risks to product quality, patient safety and data integrity” establishes risk assessment as the definitive driver of validation scope and approach. This eliminates the historical practice of using standardized validation templates regardless of system characteristics or applying uniform validation approaches across diverse system types.

Under Section 4, every validation decision—from the depth of testing required to the frequency of periodic reviews—must be traceable to specific risk assessments that consider the unique characteristics of each system and its role in GMP operations. This approach rewards organizations that invest in comprehensive risk assessment while penalizing those that rely on generic, one-size-fits-all validation approaches.

Risk-Based System Design: Architecture Driven by Assessment

Perhaps the most transformative aspect of Section 4 is found in Section 4.4, which requires that “risks associated with the use of computerised systems in GMP activities should be mitigated and brought down to an acceptable level, if possible, by modifying processes or system design.” This requirement positions risk assessment as a primary driver of system architecture rather than simply a validation planning tool.

The language “modifying processes or system design” establishes a hierarchy of risk control that prioritizes prevention over detection. Rather than accepting inherent system risks and compensating through enhanced testing or operational controls, Section 4 requires organizations to redesign systems and processes to eliminate or minimize risks at their source. This approach aligns with fundamental safety engineering principles while ensuring that risk mitigation is built into system architecture rather than layered on top.

The requirement that “the outcome of the risk management process should result in the choice of an appropriate computerised system architecture and functionality” makes risk assessment the primary criterion for system selection and configuration. Organizations can no longer choose systems based purely on cost, vendor relationships, or technical preferences—they must demonstrate that system architecture aligns with risk assessment outcomes and provides appropriate risk mitigation capabilities.

This approach particularly impacts cloud system implementations, SaaS platform selections, and integrated system architectures where risk assessment must consider not only individual system capabilities but also the risk implications of system interactions, data flows, and shared infrastructure. Organizations must demonstrate that their chosen architecture provides adequate risk control across the entire integrated environment.

The emphasis on system design modification as the preferred risk mitigation approach will drive significant changes in vendor selection criteria and system specification processes. Vendors that can demonstrate built-in risk controls and flexible architecture will gain competitive advantages over those that rely on customers to implement risk mitigation through operational procedures or additional validation activities.

Data Integrity Risk Assessment: Scientific Rigor Applied to Information Management

Section 4.5 introduces one of the most sophisticated requirements in the entire draft regulation: “Quality risk management principles should be used to assess the criticality of data to product quality, patient safety and data integrity, the vulnerability of data to deliberate or indeliberate alteration, deletion or loss, and the likelihood of detection of such actions.”

This requirement transforms data integrity from a compliance concept into a systematic risk management discipline. Organizations must assess not only what data is critical but also how vulnerable that data is to compromise and how likely they are to detect integrity failures. This three-dimensional risk assessment approach—criticality, vulnerability, and detectability—provides a scientific framework for prioritizing data protection efforts and designing appropriate controls.

The distinction between “deliberate or indeliberate” data compromise acknowledges that modern data integrity threats encompass both malicious attacks and innocent errors. Risk assessments must consider both categories and design controls that address the full spectrum of potential data integrity failures. This approach requires organizations to move beyond traditional access control and audit trail requirements to consider the full range of technical, procedural, and human factors that could compromise data integrity.

The requirement to assess “likelihood of detection” introduces a crucial element often missing from traditional data integrity approaches. Organizations must evaluate not only how to prevent data integrity failures but also how quickly and reliably they can detect failures that occur despite preventive controls. This assessment drives requirements for monitoring systems, audit trail analysis capabilities, and incident detection procedures that can identify data integrity compromises before they impact product quality or patient safety.

This risk-based approach to data integrity creates direct connections between Section 4 and other draft Annex 11 requirements, particularly Section 10 (Handling of Data), Section 11 (Identity and Access Management), and Section 12 (Audit Trails). Risk assessments conducted under Section 4 drive the specific requirements for data input verification, access controls, and audit trail monitoring implemented through other sections.

Lifecycle Risk Management: Dynamic Assessment in Digital Environments

The lifecycle approach required by Section 4 acknowledges that computerized systems exist in dynamic environments where risks evolve continuously due to technology changes, process modifications, security threats, and operational experience. Unlike traditional validation approaches that treat risk assessment as a one-time activity during system implementation, Section 4 requires ongoing risk evaluation and response throughout the system lifecycle.

This dynamic approach particularly impacts cloud-based systems and SaaS platforms where underlying infrastructure, security controls, and functional capabilities change regularly without direct customer involvement. Organizations must establish procedures for evaluating the risk implications of vendor-initiated changes and updating their risk assessments and control strategies accordingly.

The lifecycle risk management approach also requires integration with change control processes, periodic review activities, and incident management procedures. Every significant system change must trigger risk reassessment to ensure that new risks are identified and appropriate controls are implemented. This creates a feedback loop where operational experience informs risk assessment updates, which in turn drive control system improvements and validation strategy modifications.

Organizations implementing Section 4 requirements must develop capabilities for continuous risk monitoring that can detect emerging threats, changing system characteristics, and evolving operational patterns that might impact risk assessments. This requires investment in risk management tools, monitoring systems, and analytical capabilities that extend beyond traditional validation and quality assurance functions.

Integration with Modern Risk Management Methodologies

The explicit reference to ICH Q9(R1) in Section 4.2 creates direct alignment between computerized system risk management and the broader pharmaceutical quality risk management framework. This integration ensures that computerized system risk assessments contribute to overall product and process risk understanding while benefiting from the sophisticated risk management methodologies developed for pharmaceutical operations.

ICH Q9(R1)’s emphasis on managing and minimizing subjectivity in risk assessment becomes particularly important for computerized system applications where technical complexity can obscure risk evaluation. Organizations must implement risk assessment procedures that rely on objective data, established methodologies, and cross-functional expertise rather than individual opinions or vendor assertions.

The ICH Q9(R1) toolkit—including Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)—provides proven methodologies for systematic risk identification and assessment that can be applied to computerized system environments. Section 4’s reference to these tools establishes them as acceptable approaches for meeting regulatory requirements while providing flexibility for organizations to choose methodologies appropriate to their specific circumstances.

The integration with ICH Q9(R1) also emphasizes the importance of risk communication throughout the organization and with external stakeholders including suppliers, regulators, and business partners. Risk assessment results must be communicated effectively to drive appropriate decision-making at all organizational levels and ensure that risk mitigation strategies are understood and implemented consistently.

Operational Implementation: Transforming Risk Assessment from Theory to Practice

Implementing Section 4 requirements effectively requires organizations to develop sophisticated risk management capabilities that extend far beyond traditional validation and quality assurance functions. The requirement for “established procedures” means that risk assessment cannot be ad hoc or inconsistent—organizations must develop repeatable, documented methodologies that produce reliable and auditable results.

The procedures must address risk identification methods that can systematically evaluate the full range of potential threats to computerized systems including technical failures, security breaches, data integrity compromises, supplier issues, and operational errors. Risk identification must consider both current system states and future scenarios including planned changes, emerging threats, and evolving operational requirements.

Risk analysis procedures must provide quantitative or semi-quantitative methods for evaluating risk likelihood and impact across the three critical dimensions specified in Section 4.1: product quality, patient safety, and data integrity. This analysis must consider the interconnected nature of modern computerized systems where risks in one system or component can cascade through integrated environments to impact multiple processes and outcomes.

Risk evaluation procedures must establish criteria for determining acceptable risk levels and identifying risks that require mitigation. These criteria must align with organizational risk tolerance, regulatory expectations, and business objectives while providing clear guidance for risk-based decision making throughout the system lifecycle.

Risk mitigation procedures must prioritize design and process modifications over operational controls while ensuring that all risk mitigation strategies are evaluated for effectiveness and maintained throughout the system lifecycle. Organizations must develop capabilities for implementing system architecture changes, process redesign, and operational control enhancements based on risk assessment outcomes.

Technology and Tool Requirements for Effective Risk Management

Section 4’s emphasis on systematic, documented, and traceable risk management creates significant requirements for technology tools and platforms that can support sophisticated risk assessment and management processes. Organizations must invest in risk management systems that can capture, analyze, and track risks throughout complex system lifecycles while maintaining traceability to validation activities, change control processes, and operational decisions.

Risk assessment tools must support the multi-dimensional analysis required by Section 4, including product quality impacts, patient safety implications, and data integrity vulnerabilities. These tools must accommodate the dynamic nature of computerized system environments where risks evolve continuously due to technology changes, process modifications, and operational experience.

Integration with existing quality management systems, validation platforms, and operational monitoring tools becomes essential for maintaining consistency between risk assessments and other quality activities. Organizations must ensure that risk assessment results drive validation planning, change control decisions, and operational monitoring strategies while receiving feedback from these activities to update and improve risk assessments.

Documentation and traceability requirements create needs for sophisticated document management and workflow systems that can maintain relationships between risk assessments, system specifications, validation protocols, and operational procedures. Organizations must demonstrate clear traceability from risk identification through mitigation implementation and effectiveness verification.

Regulatory Expectations and Inspection Implications

Section 4’s comprehensive risk management requirements fundamentally change regulatory inspection dynamics by establishing risk assessment as the foundation for evaluating all computerized system compliance activities. Inspectors will expect to see documented, systematic, and scientifically defensible risk assessments that drive all system-related decisions from initial selection through ongoing operation.

The integration with ICH Q9(R1) provides inspectors with established criteria for evaluating risk management effectiveness including assessment methodology adequacy, stakeholder involvement appropriateness, and decision-making transparency. Organizations must demonstrate that their risk management processes meet ICH Q9(R1) standards while addressing the specific challenges of computerized system environments.

Risk-based validation approaches will receive increased scrutiny as inspectors evaluate whether validation scope and depth align appropriately with documented risk assessments. Organizations that cannot demonstrate clear traceability between risk assessments and validation activities will face significant compliance challenges regardless of validation execution quality.

The emphasis on system design and process modification as preferred risk mitigation strategies means that inspectors will evaluate whether organizations have adequately considered architectural and procedural alternatives to operational controls. Simply implementing extensive operational procedures to manage inherent system risks may no longer be considered adequate risk mitigation.

Ongoing risk management throughout the system lifecycle will become a key inspection focus as regulators evaluate whether organizations maintain current risk assessments and adjust control strategies based on operational experience, technology changes, and emerging threats. Static risk assessments that remain unchanged throughout system operation will be viewed as inadequate regardless of initial quality.

Strategic Implications for Pharmaceutical Operations

Section 4’s requirements represent a strategic inflection point for pharmaceutical organizations as they transition from compliance-driven computerized system approaches to risk-based digital strategies. Organizations that excel at implementing Section 4 requirements will gain competitive advantages through more effective system selection, optimized validation strategies, and superior operational risk management.

The emphasis on risk-driven system architecture creates opportunities for organizations to differentiate themselves through superior system design and integration strategies. Organizations that can demonstrate sophisticated risk assessment capabilities and implement appropriate system architectures will achieve better operational outcomes while reducing compliance costs and regulatory risks.

Risk-based validation approaches enabled by Section 4 provide opportunities for more efficient resource allocation and faster system implementation timelines. Organizations that invest in comprehensive risk assessment capabilities can focus validation efforts on areas of highest risk while reducing unnecessary validation activities for lower-risk system components and functions.

The integration with ICH Q9(R1) creates opportunities for pharmaceutical organizations to leverage their existing quality risk management capabilities for computerized system applications while enhancing overall organizational risk management maturity. Organizations can achieve synergies between product quality risk management and system risk management that improve both operational effectiveness and regulatory compliance.

Future Evolution and Continuous Improvement

Section 4’s lifecycle approach to risk management positions organizations for continuous improvement in risk assessment and mitigation capabilities as they gain operational experience and encounter new challenges. The requirement for ongoing risk evaluation creates feedback loops that enable organizations to refine their risk management approaches based on real-world performance and emerging best practices.

The dynamic nature of computerized system environments means that risk management capabilities must evolve continuously to address new technologies, changing threats, and evolving operational requirements. Organizations that establish robust risk management foundations under Section 4 will be better positioned to adapt to future regulatory changes and technology developments.

The integration with broader pharmaceutical quality systems creates opportunities for organizations to develop comprehensive risk management capabilities that span traditional manufacturing operations and modern digital infrastructure. This integration enables more sophisticated risk assessment and mitigation strategies that consider the full range of factors affecting product quality, patient safety, and data integrity.

Organizations that embrace Section 4’s requirements as strategic capabilities rather than compliance obligations will build sustainable competitive advantages through superior risk management that enables more effective system selection, optimized operational strategies, and enhanced regulatory relationships.

The Foundation for Digital Transformation

Section 4 ultimately serves as the scientific foundation for pharmaceutical digital transformation by providing the risk management framework necessary to evaluate, implement, and operate sophisticated computerized systems with appropriate confidence and control. The requirement for systematic, documented, and traceable risk assessment provides the methodology necessary to navigate the complex risk landscapes of modern pharmaceutical operations.

The emphasis on risk-driven system design creates the foundation for implementing advanced technologies including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automated process control with appropriate risk understanding and mitigation. Organizations that master Section 4’s requirements will be positioned to leverage these technologies effectively while maintaining regulatory compliance and operational control.

The lifecycle approach to risk management provides the framework necessary to manage the continuous evolution of computerized systems in dynamic business and regulatory environments. Organizations that implement Section 4 requirements effectively will build the capabilities necessary to adapt continuously to changing circumstances while maintaining consistent risk management standards.

Section 4 represents more than regulatory compliance—it establishes the scientific methodology that enables pharmaceutical organizations to harness the full potential of digital technologies while maintaining the rigorous risk management standards essential for protecting product quality, patient safety, and data integrity. Organizations that embrace this transformation will lead the industry’s evolution toward more sophisticated, efficient, and effective pharmaceutical operations.

Requirement Area	Draft Annex 11 Section 4 (2025)	Current Annex 11 (2011)	ICH Q9(R1) 2023	Implementation Impact
Lifecycle Application	QRM applied throughout entire lifecycle considering product quality, patient safety, data integrity	Risk management throughout lifecycle considering patient safety, data integrity, product quality	Quality risk management throughout product lifecycle	Requires continuous risk assessment processes rather than one-time validation activities
Risk Assessment Focus	Risks identified and analyzed per established procedure with ICH Q9(R1) methods	Risk assessment should consider patient safety, data integrity, product quality	Systematic risk identification, analysis, and evaluation	Mandates systematic procedures using proven methodologies rather than ad hoc approaches
Validation Strategy	Validation strategy and effort determined based on intended use and potential risks	Validation extent based on justified and documented risk assessment	Risk-based approach to validation and control strategies	Links validation scope directly to risk assessment outcomes, potentially reducing or increasing validation burden
Risk Mitigation	Risks mitigated to acceptable level through process/system design modifications	Risk mitigation not explicitly detailed	Risk control through reduction and acceptance strategies	Prioritizes system design changes over operational controls, potentially requiring architecture modifications
Data Integrity Risk	QRM principles assess data criticality, vulnerability, detection likelihood	Data integrity risk mentioned but not detailed	Data integrity risks as part of overall quality risk assessment	Requires sophisticated three-dimensional risk assessment for all data management activities
Documentation Requirements	Documented risk assessments required for all computerized systems	Risk assessment should be justified and documented	Documented, transparent, and reproducible risk management processes	Elevates documentation standards and requires traceability throughout system lifecycle
Integration with QRM	Fully integrated with ICH Q9(R1) quality risk management principles	General risk management principles	Core principle of pharmaceutical quality system	Creates mandatory alignment between system and product risk management activities
Ongoing Risk Review	Risk review required for changes and incidents throughout lifecycle	Risk review not explicitly required	Regular risk review based on new knowledge and experience	Establishes continuous risk monitoring as operational requirement rather than periodic activity

ASTM E2500 Validation and Risk

Draft Annex 11 Section 6: System Requirements—When Regulatory Guidance Becomes Validation Foundation

The pharmaceutical industry has operated for over a decade under the comfortable assumption that GAMP 5’s risk-based guidance for system requirements represented industry best practice—helpful, comprehensive, but ultimately voluntary. Section 6 of the draft Annex 11 moves many things from recommended to mandated. What GAMP 5 suggested as scalable guidance, Annex 11 codifies as enforceable regulation. For computer system validation professionals, this isn’t just an update—it’s a fundamental shift from “how we should do it” to “how we must do it.”

This transformation carries profound implications that extend far beyond documentation requirements. Section 6 represents the regulatory codification of modern system engineering practices, forcing organizations to abandon the shortcuts, compromises, and “good enough” approaches that have persisted despite GAMP 5’s guidance. More significantly, it establishes system requirements as the immutable foundation of validation rather than merely an input to the process.

For CSV experts who have spent years evangelizing GAMP 5 principles within organizations that treated requirements as optional documentation, Section 6 provides regulatory teeth that will finally compel comprehensive implementation. However, it also raises the stakes dramatically—what was once best practice guidance subject to interpretation becomes regulatory obligation subject to inspection.

The Mandatory Transformation: From Guidance to Regulation

6.1: GMP Functionality—The End of Requirements Optionality

The opening requirement of Section 6 eliminates any ambiguity about system requirements documentation: “A regulated user should establish and approve a set of system requirements (e.g. a User Requirements Specification, URS), which accurately describe the functionality the regulated user has automated and is relying on when performing GMP activities.”

This language transforms what GAMP 5 positioned as risk-based guidance into regulatory mandate. The phrase “should establish and approve” in regulatory context carries the force of “must“—there is no longer discretion about whether to document system requirements. Every computerized system touching GMP activities requires formal requirements documentation, regardless of system complexity, development approach, or organizational preference.

The scope is deliberately comprehensive, explicitly covering “whether a system is developed in-house, is a commercial off-the-shelf product, or is provided as-a-service” and “independently on whether it is developed following a linear or iterative software development process.” This eliminates common industry escapes: cloud services can’t claim exemption because they’re external; agile development can’t avoid documentation because it’s iterative; COTS systems can’t rely solely on vendor documentation because they’re pre-built.

The requirement for accuracy in describing “functionality the regulated user has automated and is relying on” establishes a direct link between system capabilities and GMP dependencies. Organizations must explicitly identify and document what GMP activities depend on system functionality, creating traceability between business processes and technical capabilities that many current validation approaches lack.

Major Strike Against the Concept of “Indirect”

The new draft Annex 11 explicitly broadens the scope of requirements for user requirements specifications (URS) and validation to cover all computerized systems with GMP relevance—not just those with direct product or decision-making impact, but also indirect GMP systems. This means systems that play a supporting or enabling role in GMP activities (such as underlying IT infrastructure, databases, cloud services, SaaS platforms, integrated interfaces, and any outsourced or vendor-managed digital environments) are fully in scope.

Section 6 of the draft states that user requirements must “accurately describe the functionality the regulated user has automated and is relying on when performing GMP activities,” with no exemption or narrower definition for indirect systems. It emphasizes that this principle applies “regardless of whether a system is developed in-house, is a commercial off-the-shelf product, or is provided as-a-service, and independently of whether it is developed following a linear or iterative software development process.” The regulated user is responsible for approving, controlling, and maintaining these requirements over the system’s lifecycle—even if the system is managed by a third party or only indirectly involved in GMP data or decision workflows.

Importantly, the language and supporting commentaries make it clear that traceability of user requirements throughout the lifecycle is mandatory for all systems with GMP impact—direct or indirect. There is no explicit exemption in the draft for indirect GMP systems. Regulatory and industry analyses confirm that the burden of documented, risk-assessed, and lifecycle-maintained user requirements sits equally with indirect systems as with direct ones, as long as they play a role in assuring product quality, patient safety, or data integrity.

In practice, this means organizations must extend their URS, specification, and validation controls to any computerized system that through integration, support, or data processing could influence GMP compliance. The regulated company remains responsible for oversight, traceability, and quality management of those systems, whether or not they are operated by a vendor or IT provider. This is a significant expansion from previous regulatory expectations and must be factored into computerized system inventories, risk assessments, and validation strategies going forward.

9 Pillars of a User Requirements

Pillar	Description	Practical Examples
Operational	Requirements describing how users will operate the system for GMP tasks.	Workflow steps, user roles, batch record creation.
Functional	Features and functions the system must perform to support GMP processes.	Electronic signatures, calculation logic, alarm triggers.
Data Integrity	Controls to ensure data is complete, consistent, correct, and secure.	Audit trails, ALCOA+ requirements, data record locking.
Technical	Technical characteristics or constraints of the system.	Platform compatibility, failover/recovery, scalability.
Interface	How the system interacts with other systems, hardware, or users.	Equipment integration, API requirements, data lakes
Performance	Speed, capacity, or throughput relevant to GMP operations.	Batch processing times, max concurrent users, volume limits.
Availability	System uptime, backup, and disaster recovery necessary for GMP.	99.9% uptime, scheduled downtime windows, backup frequency.
Security	How access is controlled and how data is protected against threats.	Password policy, MFA, role-based access, encryption.
Regulatory	Explicit requirements imposed by GMP regulations and standards.	Part 11/Annex 11 compliance, data retention, auditability.

6.2: Extent and Detail—Risk-Based Rigor, Not Risk-Based Avoidance

Section 6.2 appears to maintain GAMP 5’s risk-based philosophy by requiring that “extent and detail of defined requirements should be commensurate with the risk, complexity and novelty of a system.” However, the subsequent specifications reveal a much more prescriptive approach than traditional risk-based frameworks.

The requirement that descriptions be “sufficient to support subsequent risk analysis, specification, design, purchase, configuration, qualification and validation” establishes requirements documentation as the foundation for the entire system lifecycle. This moves beyond GAMP 5’s emphasis on requirements as input to validation toward positioning requirements as the definitive specification against which all downstream activities are measured.

The explicit enumeration of requirement types—”operational, functional, data integrity, technical, interface, performance, availability, security, and regulatory requirements”—represents a significant departure from GAMP 5’s more flexible categorization. Where GAMP 5 allows organizations to define requirement categories based on system characteristics and business needs, Annex 11 mandates coverage of nine specific areas regardless of system type or risk level.

This prescriptive approach reflects regulatory recognition that organizations have historically used “risk-based” as justification for inadequate requirements documentation. By specifying minimum coverage areas, Section 6 establishes a floor below which requirements documentation cannot fall, regardless of risk assessment outcomes.

The inclusion of “process maps and data flow diagrams” as recommended content acknowledges the reality that modern pharmaceutical operations involve complex, interconnected systems where understanding data flows and process dependencies is essential for effective validation. This requirement will force organizations to develop system-level understanding rather than treating validation as isolated technical testing.

6.3: Ownership—User Accountability in the Cloud Era

Perhaps the most significant departure from traditional industry practice, Section 6.3 addresses the growing trend toward cloud services and vendor-supplied systems by establishing unambiguous user accountability for requirements documentation. The requirement that “the regulated user should take ownership of the document covering the implemented version of the system and formally approve and control it” eliminates common practices where organizations rely entirely on vendor-provided documentation.

This requirement acknowledges that vendor-supplied requirements specifications rarely align perfectly with specific organizational needs, GMP processes, or regulatory expectations. While vendors may provide generic requirements documentation suitable for broad market applications, pharmaceutical organizations must customize, supplement, and formally adopt these requirements to reflect their specific implementation and GMP dependencies.

The language “carefully review and approve the document and consider whether the system fulfils GMP requirements and company processes as is, or whether it should be configured or customised” requires active evaluation rather than passive acceptance. Organizations cannot simply accept vendor documentation as sufficient—they must demonstrate that they have evaluated system capabilities against their specific GMP needs and either confirmed alignment or documented necessary modifications.

This ownership requirement will prove challenging for organizations using large cloud platforms or SaaS solutions where vendors resist customization of standard documentation. However, the regulatory expectation is clear: pharmaceutical companies cannot outsource responsibility for demonstrating that system capabilities meet their specific GMP requirements.

A horizontal or looping chain that visually demonstrates the lifecycle of system requirements from initial definition to sustained validation:

User Requirements → Design Specifications → Configuration/Customization Records → Qualification/Validation Test Cases → Traceability Matrix → Ongoing Updates

6.4: Update—Living Documentation, Not Static Archives

Section 6.4 addresses one of the most persistent failures in current validation practice: requirements documentation that becomes obsolete immediately after initial validation. The requirement that “requirements should be updated and maintained throughout the lifecycle of a system” and that “updated requirements should form the very basis for qualification and validation” establishes requirements as living documentation rather than historical artifacts.

This approach reflects the reality that modern computerized systems undergo continuous change through software updates, configuration modifications, hardware refreshes, and process improvements. Traditional validation approaches that treat requirements as fixed specifications become increasingly disconnected from operational reality as systems evolve.

The phrase “form the very basis for qualification and validation” positions requirements documentation as the definitive specification against which system performance is measured throughout the lifecycle. This means that any system change must be evaluated against current requirements, and any requirements change must trigger appropriate validation activities.

This requirement will force organizations to establish requirements management processes that rival those used in traditional software development organizations. Requirements changes must be controlled, evaluated for impact, and reflected in validation documentation—capabilities that many pharmaceutical organizations currently lack.

6.5: Traceability—Engineering Discipline for Validation

The traceability requirement in Section 6.5 codifies what GAMP 5 has long recommended: “Documented traceability between individual requirements, underlaying design specifications and corresponding qualification and validation test cases should be established and maintained.” However, the regulatory context transforms this from validation best practice to compliance obligation.

The emphasis on “effective tools to capture and hold requirements and facilitate the traceability” acknowledges that manual traceability management becomes impractical for complex systems with hundreds or thousands of requirements. This requirement will drive adoption of requirements management tools and validation platforms that can maintain automated traceability throughout the system lifecycle.

Traceability serves multiple purposes in the validation context: ensuring comprehensive test coverage, supporting impact assessment for changes, and providing evidence of validation completeness. Section 6 positions traceability as fundamental validation infrastructure rather than optional documentation enhancement.

For organizations accustomed to simplified validation approaches where test cases are developed independently of detailed requirements, this traceability requirement represents a significant process change requiring tool investment and training.

6.6: Configuration—Separating Standard from Custom

The final subsection addresses configuration management by requiring clear documentation of “what functionality, if any, is modified or added by configuration of a system.” This requirement recognizes that most modern pharmaceutical systems involve significant configuration rather than custom development, and that configuration decisions have direct impact on validation scope and approaches.

The distinction between standard system functionality and configured functionality is crucial for validation planning. Standard functionality may be covered by vendor testing and certification, while configured functionality requires user validation. Section 6 requires this distinction to be explicit and documented.

The requirement for “controlled configuration specification” separate from requirements documentation reflects recognition that configuration details require different management approaches than functional requirements. Configuration specifications must reflect the actual system implementation rather than desired capabilities.

Comparison with GAMP 5: Evolution Becomes Revolution

Philosophical Alignment with Practical Divergence

Section 6 maintains GAMP 5’s fundamental philosophy—risk-based validation supported by comprehensive requirements documentation—while dramatically changing implementation expectations. Both frameworks emphasize user ownership of requirements, lifecycle management, and traceability as essential validation elements. However, the regulatory context of Annex 11 transforms voluntary guidance into enforceable obligation.

GAMP 5’s flexibility in requirements categorization and documentation approaches reflects its role as guidance suitable for diverse organizational contexts and system types. Section 6’s prescriptive approach reflects regulatory recognition that flexibility has often been interpreted as optionality, leading to inadequate requirements documentation that fails to support effective validation.

The risk-based approach remains central to both frameworks, but Section 6 establishes minimum standards that apply regardless of risk assessment outcomes. While GAMP 5 might suggest that low-risk systems require minimal requirements documentation, Section 6 mandates coverage of nine requirement areas for all GMP systems.

Documentation Structure and Content

GAMP 5’s traditional document hierarchy—URS, Functional Specification, Design Specification—becomes more fluid under Section 6, which focuses on ensuring comprehensive coverage rather than prescribing specific document structures. This reflects recognition that modern development approaches, including agile and DevOps practices, may not align with traditional waterfall documentation models.

However, Section 6’s explicit enumeration of requirement types provides more prescriptive guidance than GAMP 5’s flexible approach. Where GAMP 5 might allow organizations to define requirement categories based on system characteristics, Section 6 mandates coverage of operational, functional, data integrity, technical, interface, performance, availability, security, and regulatory requirements.

The emphasis on process maps, data flow diagrams, and use cases reflects modern system complexity where understanding interactions and dependencies is essential for effective validation. GAMP 5 recommends these approaches for complex systems; Section 6 suggests their use “where relevant” for all systems.

Vendor and Service Provider Management

Both frameworks emphasize user responsibility for requirements even when vendors provide initial documentation. However, Section 6 uses stronger language about user ownership and control, reflecting increased regulatory concern about organizations that delegate requirements definition to vendors without adequate oversight.

GAMP 5’s guidance on supplier assessment and leveraging vendor documentation remains relevant under Section 6, but the regulatory requirement for user ownership and approval creates higher barriers for simply accepting vendor-provided documentation as sufficient.

Implementation Challenges for CSV Professionals

Organizational Capability Development

Most pharmaceutical organizations will require significant capability development to meet Section 6 requirements effectively. Traditional validation teams focused on testing and documentation must develop requirements engineering capabilities comparable to those found in software development organizations.

This transformation requires investment in requirements management tools, training for validation professionals, and establishment of requirements governance processes. Organizations must develop capabilities for requirements elicitation, analysis, specification, validation, and change management throughout the system lifecycle.

The traceability requirement particularly challenges organizations accustomed to informal relationships between requirements and test cases. Automated traceability management requires tool investments and process changes that many validation teams are unprepared to implement.

Integration with Existing Validation Approaches

Section 6 requirements must be integrated with existing validation methodologies and documentation structures. Organizations following traditional IQ/OQ/PQ approaches must ensure that requirements documentation supports and guides qualification activities rather than existing as parallel documentation.

The requirement for requirements to “form the very basis for qualification and validation” means that test cases must be explicitly derived from and traceable to documented requirements. This may require significant changes to existing qualification protocols and test scripts.

Organizations using risk-based validation approaches aligned with GAMP 5 guidance will find philosophical alignment with Section 6 but must adapt to more prescriptive requirements for documentation content and structure.

Technology and Tool Requirements

Effective implementation of Section 6 requirements typically requires requirements management tools capable of supporting specification, traceability, change control, and lifecycle management. Many pharmaceutical validation teams currently lack access to such tools or experience in their use.

Tool selection must consider integration with existing validation platforms, support for regulated environments, and capabilities for automated traceability maintenance. Organizations may need to invest in new validation platforms or significantly upgrade existing capabilities.

The emphasis on maintaining requirements throughout the system lifecycle requires tools that support ongoing requirements management rather than just initial documentation. This may conflict with validation approaches that treat requirements as static inputs to qualification activities.

Strategic Implications for the Industry

Convergence of Software Engineering and Pharmaceutical Validation

Section 6 represents convergence between pharmaceutical validation practices and mainstream software engineering approaches. Requirements engineering, long established in software development, becomes mandatory for pharmaceutical computerized systems regardless of development approach or vendor involvement.

This convergence benefits the industry by leveraging proven practices from software engineering while maintaining the rigor and documentation requirements essential for regulated environments. However, it requires pharmaceutical organizations to develop capabilities traditionally associated with software development rather than manufacturing and quality assurance.

The result should be more robust validation practices better aligned with modern system development approaches and capable of supporting the complex, interconnected systems that characterize contemporary pharmaceutical operations.

Vendor Relationship Evolution

Section 6 requirements will reshape relationships between pharmaceutical companies and system vendors. The requirement for user ownership of requirements documentation means that vendors must support more sophisticated requirements management processes rather than simply providing generic specifications.

Vendors that can demonstrate alignment with Section 6 requirements through comprehensive documentation, traceability tools, and support for user customization will gain competitive advantages. Those that resist pharmaceutical-specific requirements management approaches may find their market opportunities limited.

The emphasis on configuration management will drive vendors to provide clearer distinctions between standard functionality and customer-specific configurations, supporting more effective validation planning and execution.

The Regulatory Codification of Modern Validation

Section 6 of the draft Annex 11 represents the regulatory codification of modern computerized system validation practices. What GAMP 5 recommended through guidance, Annex 11 mandates through regulation. What was optional becomes obligatory; what was flexible becomes prescriptive; what was best practice becomes compliance requirement.

For CSV professionals, Section 6 provides regulatory support for comprehensive validation approaches while raising the stakes for inadequate implementation. Organizations that have struggled to implement effective requirements management now face regulatory obligation rather than just professional guidance.

The transformation from guidance to regulation eliminates organizational discretion about requirements documentation quality and comprehensiveness. While risk-based approaches remain valid for scaling validation effort, minimum standards now apply regardless of risk assessment outcomes.

Success under Section 6 requires pharmaceutical organizations to embrace software engineering practices for requirements management while maintaining the documentation rigor and process control essential for regulated environments. This convergence benefits the industry by improving validation effectiveness while ensuring compliance with evolving regulatory expectations.

The industry faces a choice: proactively develop capabilities to meet Section 6 requirements or reactively respond to inspection findings and enforcement actions. For organizations serious about digital transformation and validation excellence, Section 6 provides a roadmap for regulatory-compliant modernization of validation practices.

Requirement Area	Draft Annex 11 Section 6	GAMP 5 Requirements	Key Implementation Considerations
System Requirements Documentation	Mandatory – Must establish and approve system requirements (URS)	Recommended – URS should be developed based on system category and complexity	Organizations must document requirements for ALL GMP systems, regardless of size or complexity
Risk-Based Approach	Extent and detail must be commensurate with risk, complexity, and novelty	Risk-based approach fundamental – validation effort scaled to risk	Risk assessment determines documentation detail but cannot eliminate requirement categories
Functional Requirements	Must include 9 specific requirement types: operational, functional, data integrity, technical, interface, performance, availability, security, regulatory	Functional requirements should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Testable)	All 9 areas must be addressed; risk determines depth, not coverage
Traceability Requirements	Documented traceability between requirements, design specs, and test cases required	Traceability matrix recommended – requirements linked through design to testing	Requires investment in traceability tools and processes for complex systems
Requirement Ownership	Regulated user must take ownership even if vendor provides initial requirements	User ownership emphasized, even for purchased systems	Cannot simply accept vendor documentation; must customize and formally approve
Lifecycle Management	Requirements must be updated and maintained throughout system lifecycle	Requirements managed through change control throughout lifecycle	Requires ongoing requirements management process, not just initial documentation
Configuration Management	Configuration options must be described in requirements; chosen configuration documented in controlled spec	Configuration specifications separate from URS	Must clearly distinguish between standard functionality and configured features
Vendor-Supplied Requirements	Vendor requirements must be reviewed, approved, and owned by regulated user	Supplier assessment required – leverage supplier documentation where appropriate	Higher burden on users to customize vendor documentation for specific GMP needs
Validation Basis	Updated requirements must form basis for system qualification and validation	Requirements drive validation strategy and testing scope	Requirements become definitive specification against which system performance is measured

Applying a Layers of Controls Analysis to Contamination Control

Layers of Controls Analysis (LOCA)

Layers of Controls Analysis (LOCA) provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating multiple layers of protection to reduce and manage operational risks. By examining both preventive and mitigative control measures simultaneously, LOCA allows organizations to gain a holistic view of their risk management strategy. This approach is particularly valuable in complex operational environments where multiple safeguards and protective systems are in place.

One of the key strengths of LOCA is its ability to identify gaps in protection. By systematically analyzing each layer of control, from basic process design to emergency response procedures, LOCA can reveal areas where additional safeguards may be necessary. This insight is crucial for guiding decisions on implementing new risk reduction measures or enhancing existing ones. The analysis helps organizations prioritize their risk management efforts and allocate resources more effectively.

Furthermore, LOCA provides a structured way to document and justify risk reduction measures. This documentation is invaluable for regulatory compliance, internal audits, and continuous improvement initiatives. By clearly outlining the rationale behind each protective layer and its contribution to overall risk reduction, organizations can demonstrate due diligence in their safety and risk management practices.

Another significant advantage of LOCA is its promotion of a holistic view of risk control. Rather than evaluating individual safeguards in isolation, LOCA considers the cumulative effect of multiple protective layers. This approach recognizes that risk reduction is often achieved through the interaction of various control measures, ranging from engineered systems to administrative procedures and emergency response capabilities.

By building on other risk assessment techniques, such as Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) studies and Fault Tree Analysis, LOCA provides a more complete picture of protection systems. It allows organizations to assess the effectiveness of their entire risk management strategy, from prevention to mitigation, and ensures that risks are reduced to an acceptable level. This comprehensive approach is particularly valuable in high-hazard industries where the consequences of failures can be severe.

LOCA combines elements of two other methods – Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) and Layers of Mitigation Analysis (LOMA).

Layers of Protection Analysis

To execute a Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), follow these key steps:

Define the hazardous scenario and consequences:

Clearly identify the hazardous event being analyzed
Determine the potential consequences if all protection layers fail

Identify initiating events:

List events that could trigger the hazardous scenario
Estimate the frequency of each initiating event

Identify Independent Protection Layers (IPLs):

Determine existing safeguards that can prevent the scenario
Evaluate if each safeguard qualifies as an IPL (independent, auditable, effective)
Estimate the Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD) for each IPL

Identify Conditional Modifiers:

Determine factors that impact scenario probability (e.g. occupancy, ignition probability)
Estimate probability for each modifier

Calculate scenario frequency:

Multiply initiating event frequency by PFDs of IPLs and conditional modifiers

Compare to risk tolerance criteria:

Determine if calculated frequency meets acceptable risk level
If not, identify need for additional IPLs

Document results:

Record all assumptions, data sources, and calculations
Summarize findings and recommendations

Review and validate:

Have results reviewed by subject matter experts
Validate key assumptions and data inputs

Key aspects for successful LOPA execution

Use a multidisciplinary team
Ensure independence between IPLs
Be conservative in estimates
Focus on prevention rather than mitigation
Consider human factors in IPL reliability
Use consistent data sources and methods

Layers of Mitigation Analysis

LOMA focuses on analyzing reactionary or mitigative measures, as opposed to preventive measures.

A LOCA as part of Contamination Control

A Layers of Controls Analysis (LOCA) can be effectively applied to contamination control in biotech manufacturing by systematically evaluating multiple layers of protection against contamination risks.

To determine potential hazards when conducting a Layer of Controls Analysis (LOCA) for contamination control in biotech, follow these steps:

Form a multidisciplinary team: Include members from manufacturing, quality control, microbiology, engineering, and environmental health & safety to gain diverse perspectives.
Review existing processes and procedures: Examine standard operating procedures, experimental protocols, and equipment manuals to identify potential risks associated with each step.
Consider different hazard types. Focus on categories like:
- Biological hazards (e.g., microorganisms, cell lines)
- Chemical hazards (e.g., toxic substances, flammable materials)
- Physical hazards (e.g., equipment-related risks)
- Radiological hazards (if applicable)
Analyze specific contamination hazard types for biotech settings:
- Mix-up: Materials used for the wrong product
- Mechanical transfer: Cross-contamination via personnel, supplies, or equipment
- Airborne transfer: Contaminant movement through air/HVAC systems
- Retention: Inadequate removal of materials from surfaces
- Proliferation: Potential growth of biological agents
Conduct a process analysis: Break down each laboratory activity into steps and identify potential hazards at each stage.
Consider human factors: Evaluate potential for human error, such as incorrect handling of materials or improper use of equipment.
Assess facility and equipment: Examine the layout, containment measures, and equipment condition for potential hazards.
Review past incidents and near-misses: Analyze previous safety incidents or close calls to identify recurring or potential hazards.
Consult relevant guidelines and regulations: Reference industry standards, biosafety guidelines, and regulatory requirements to ensure comprehensive hazard identification.
Use brainstorming techniques: Encourage team members to think creatively about potential hazards that may not be immediately obvious.
Evaluate hazards at different scales: Consider how hazards might change as processes scale up from research to production levels.

Facility Design and Engineering Controls
- Cleanroom design and classification
- HVAC systems with HEPA filtration
- Airlocks and pressure cascades
- Segregated manufacturing areas
Equipment and Process Design
- Closed processing systems
- Single-use technologies
- Sterilization and sanitization systems
- In-line filtration
Operational Controls
- Aseptic techniques and procedures
- Environmental monitoring programs
- Cleaning and disinfection protocols
- Personnel gowning and hygiene practices
Quality Control Measures
- In-process testing (e.g., bioburden, endotoxin)
- Final product sterility testing
- Environmental monitoring data review
- Batch record review
Organizational Controls
- Training programs
- Standard operating procedures (SOPs)
- Quality management systems
- Change control processes

Evaluate reliability and capability of each control:
- Review historical performance data for each control measure
- Assess the control’s ability to prevent or detect contamination
- Consider the control’s consistency in different operating conditions
Consider potential failure modes:
- Conduct a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for each control
- Identify potential ways the control could fail or be compromised
- Assess the likelihood and impact of each failure mode
Evaluate human factors:
- Assess the complexity and potential for human error in each control
- Review training effectiveness and compliance with procedures
- Consider ergonomics and usability of equipment and systems
Analyze technology effectiveness:
- Evaluate the performance of automated systems and equipment
- Assess the reliability of monitoring and detection technologies
- Consider the integration of different technological controls

Quantify risk reduction:
- Assign risk reduction factors to each layer based on its effectiveness
- Use a consistent scale (e.g., 1-10) to rate each control’s risk reduction capability
- Calculate the cumulative risk reduction across all layers
Assess interdependencies between layers:
- Identify any controls that rely on or affect other controls
- Evaluate how failures in one layer might impact the effectiveness of others
- Consider potential common mode failures across multiple layers
Review control performance metrics:
- Analyze trends in environmental monitoring data
- Examine out-of-specification results and their root causes
- Assess the frequency and severity of contamination events

Determine acceptable risk levels:
- Define your organization’s risk tolerance for contamination events
- Compare current risk levels against these thresholds
Identify gaps:
- Highlight areas where current controls fall short of required protection
- Note processes or areas with insufficient redundancy
Propose improvements:
- Suggest enhancements to existing controls
- Recommend new control measures to address identified gaps
Prioritize actions:
- Rank proposed improvements based on risk reduction potential and feasibility
- Consider cost-benefit analysis for major changes
Seek expert input:
- Consult with subject matter experts on proposed improvements
- Consider third-party assessments for critical areas
Plan for implementation:
- Develop action plans for addressing identified gaps
- Assign responsibilities and timelines for improvements

Document and review:

Create a comprehensive LOCA document
Regularly review and update the analysis. This is a living risk assessment.
Incorporate lessons learned from any contamination events

Implement continuous monitoring and review:
- Establish key performance indicators (KPIs)
- Conduct regular audits and inspections
- Review environmental monitoring data trends
Develop a holistic CCS document:
- Describe overall contamination control approach
- Detail how different controls work together
- Include risk assessments and rationales
Establish governance and oversight:
- Create a cross-functional CCS team
- Define roles and responsibilities
- Implement a regular review process
Integrate with quality systems:
- Align CCS with existing quality management processes
- Ensure change control procedures consider CCS impact
Provide comprehensive training:
- Train all personnel on CCS principles and practices
- Implement contamination control ambassador program

Implement regular review cycles:
- Schedule periodic reviews of the LOCA (e.g., annually or bi-annually)
- Involve a cross-functional team including quality, manufacturing, and engineering
Analyze trends and data:
- Review environmental monitoring data
- Examine out-of-specification results and their root causes
- Assess the frequency and severity of contamination events
Identify improvement opportunities:
- Use gap analysis to compare current controls against industry best practices
- Evaluate new technologies and methodologies for contamination control
- Consider feedback from contamination control ambassadors and staff
Prioritize improvements:
- Rank proposed enhancements based on risk reduction potential and feasibility
- Consider cost-benefit analysis for major changes
Implement changes:
- Update standard operating procedures (SOPs) as needed
- Provide training on new or modified control measures
- Validate changes to ensure effectiveness
Monitor and measure impact:
- Establish key performance indicators (KPIs) for each layer of control
- Track improvements in contamination rates and overall control effectiveness
Foster a culture of continuous improvement:
- Encourage proactive reporting of potential issues
- Recognize and reward staff contributions to contamination control
Stay updated on regulatory requirements:
- Regularly review and incorporate changes in regulations (e.g., EU GMP Annex 1)
- Attend industry conferences and workshops on contamination control
Integrate with overall quality systems:
- Ensure LOCA improvements align with the site’s Quality Management System
- Update the Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) document as needed
Leverage technology:
- Implement digital solutions for environmental monitoring and data analysis
- Consider advanced technologies like rapid microbial detection methods
Conduct periodic audits:
- Perform surprise audits to ensure adherence to protocols
- Use findings to further refine the LOCA and control measures

Subject Matter Expert in Validation

In ASTM E2500, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) is an individual with specialized knowledge and technical understanding of critical aspects of manufacturing systems and equipment. The SME plays a crucial role throughout the project lifecycle, from defining needs to verifying and accepting systems. They are responsible for identifying critical aspects, reviewing system designs, developing verification strategies, and leading quality risk management efforts. SMEs ensure manufacturing systems are designed and verified to meet product quality and patient safety requirements.

In the ASTM E2500 process, the Subject Matter Experts (SME) has several key responsibilities critical to successfully implementing the standard. These responsibilities include:

Definition of Needs: SMEs define the system’s needs and identify critical aspects that impact product quality and patient safety.
Risk Management: SMEs participate in risk management activities, helping to identify, assess, and manage risks throughout the project lifecycle. This includes conducting quality risk analyses and consistently applying risk management principles.
Verification Strategy Development: SMEs are responsible for planning and defining verification strategies. This involves selecting appropriate test methods, defining acceptance criteria, and ensuring that verification activities are aligned with the project’s critical aspects.
System Design Review: SMEs review system designs to ensure they meet specified requirements and address identified risks. This includes participating in design reviews and providing technical input to optimize system functionality and compliance.
Execution of Verification Tests: SMEs lead the execution of verification tests, ensuring that tests are conducted accurately and that results are thoroughly reviewed. They may also leverage vendor documentation and test results as part of the verification process, provided the vendor’s quality system and technical capabilities are deemed acceptable.
Change Management: SMEs play a crucial role in change management, ensuring that any modifications to the system are properly evaluated, documented, and implemented. This helps maintain the system’s validated state and ensures continuous compliance with regulatory requirements.
Continuous Improvement: SMEs are involved in continuous process improvement efforts, using operational and performance data to identify opportunities for enhancements. They also conduct root-cause analyses of failures and implement technically sound improvements based on gained product knowledge and understanding.

These responsibilities highlight the SME’s integral role in ensuring that manufacturing systems are designed, verified, and maintained to meet the highest standards of quality and safety, as outlined in ASTM E2500.

The ASTM E2500 SME is a Process Owner

ASTM E2500 uses the term SME in the same way we discuss process owners, or what is sometimes called product or molecule stewards. The term should probably be changed to reflect the special role of the SME and the relationship with other stakeholders.

A Molecule Steward has a specialized role within pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and oversees the lifecycle of a specific molecule or drug product. This role involves a range of responsibilities, including:

Technical Expertise: Acting as the subject matter expert per ASTM E2500.
Product Control Strategies: Implementing appropriate product control strategies across development and manufacturing sites based on anticipated needs.
Lifecycle Management: Providing end-to-end accountability for a given molecule, from development to late-stage lifecycle management.

A Molecule Steward ensures a drug product’s successful development, manufacturing, and lifecycle management, maintaining high standards of quality and compliance throughout the process.

The ASTM E2500 SME (Molecule Steward) and Stakeholders

In the ASTM E2500 approach, the Subject Matter Expert (Molecule Steward) collaborates closely with various project players to ensure the successful implementation of manufacturing systems.

Definition of Needs and Requirements

Collaboration with Project Teams: SMEs work with project teams from the beginning to define the system’s needs and requirements. This involves identifying critical aspects that impact product quality and patient safety.
Input from Multiple Departments: SMEs gather input from different departments, including product/process development, engineering, automation, and validation, to ensure that all critical quality attributes (CQAs) and critical process parameters (CPPs) are considered.

Risk Management

Quality Risk Analysis: SMEs lead the quality risk analysis process, collaborating with QA and other stakeholders to identify and assess risks. This helps focus on critical aspects and consistently apply risk management principles.
Vendor Collaboration: SMEs often work with vendors to leverage their expertise in conducting risk assessments and ensuring that vendor documentation meets quality requirements.

System Design Review

Design Review Meetings: SMEs participate in design review meetings with suppliers and project teams to ensure the system design meets the defined needs and critical aspects. This collaborative effort helps in reducing the need for modifications and repeat tests.
Supplier Engagement: SMEs engage with suppliers to ensure their design solutions are understood and integrated into the project. This includes reviewing supplier documentation and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.

Verification Strategy Development

Developing Verification Plans: SMEs collaborate with QA and engineering teams to develop verification strategies and plans. This involves selecting appropriate test methods, defining acceptance criteria, and ensuring verification activities align with project goals.
Execution of Verification Tests: SMEs may work with suppliers to conduct verification tests at the supplier’s site, ensuring that tests are performed accurately and efficiently. This collaboration helps achieve the “right test” at the “right time” objective.

Change Management

Managing Changes: SMEs play a crucial role in the change management process, working with project teams to evaluate, document, and implement changes. This ensures that the system remains in a validated state and continues to meet regulatory requirements.
Continuous Improvement: SMEs collaborate with other stakeholders to identify opportunities for process improvements and implement changes based on operational and performance data.

Documentation and Communication

Clear Communication: SMEs ensure clear communication and documentation of all verification activities and acceptance criteria. This involves working closely with QA to validate all critical aspects and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Risk Management is a Living Process

ISO 31000-2018 “Risk Management Guidelines” discusses on-going monitoring and review of risk management activities. We see a similar requirement in ICH Q9(r1) for the pharmaceutical industry. In many organizations we can take a lot of time on the performance of risk assessments (hopefully effectively) and a lot of time mitigating risks (again, hopefully effectively) but many organizations struggle in maintaining a lifecycle approach.

To do appropriate lifecycle management we should ensure three things:

Planned review
Continuous Monitoring
Incorporate through governance, improvement and knowledge management activities.

Reviews are a critical part of our risk management process framework.

This living risk management approach effectively drives work in Control Environment, Response and Stress Testing.

At heart lies the ongoing connection between risk management and knowledge management.