Approval is easy. Implementation is where change control fails. Track every affected document, training requirement, and validation until the change is truly complete.

CC-2024-047 was approved on January 15th. R&D signed off. QA signed off. Operations signed off. Approval workflow completed in three days.
Six months later, an auditor asked to see the SOP that was supposed to be updated. It still showed the old process. The training that was supposed to happen? Never happened. The validation protocol? Never executed.
The change was approved. It was never implemented.
Most change control systems end at approval. They tell you a change was approved, but not whether it was implemented. Implementation is where organizations fail.
Initiation → Impact assessment → Approval → Implementation → Effectiveness review.
The change doesn't close until every implementation task is complete with documented evidence. If an SOP update is assigned to someone who goes on leave, the system escalates.
When you propose a change, the system identifies affected items automatically:
This isn't a checklist. It's computed from your actual data relationships.
Major changes: cross-functional review, extensive implementation. Minor changes: streamlined review. Administrative changes: minimal review.
Classification drives workflow automatically.
Equipment fails. A supplier discontinues a material. Designated personnel can authorize emergency implementation while formal approval proceeds in parallel. The change happens first; the documentation catches up.
Three months after implementation: did it work? Seal schedules automatic effectiveness reviews. If the change didn't achieve its purpose, that's captured. If it created new problems, those need addressing.
