The Elusive 2nd Signature

InfinityQS Blog
By InfinityQS Blog | November 16, 2011
Blog Author

We’ve all experienced it from time to time-- one of your test results fails and you need to have your supervisor sign off on the subgroup. Or once you complete your setup, you need to have another operator or your supervisor sign off on the results. Essentially, you need to take the data you've captured in ProFicient to a higher level for approval.

While there are several ways you could accomplish this goal, like printing out a View Data chart with spaces in the header so someone can sign it, the easiest way is for the signature process to automatically occurr. Let’s take a look how each of these cases can be accomplished using ProFicient and Dynamic Scheduler.

For both cases you will need to create a sampling requirement in ProFicient that looks at your test results. In the first case, you get a failure that your supervisor needs to acknowledge. You set up a sampling requirement that evaluates the test results against its specification limits. Your conditional statement will look to see if any of your results fall either above the upper specification limit or below the lower specification limit. If either of those items happens, you set up the sampling requirement to force a subgroup comment on the subgroup that had the failure.

In addition to the sampling requirement, you also need to set your security policy for the database to require a user that enters subgroup comments to sign into the database whenever they wish to save a subgroup comment.

Lastly, you need to create specific roles for your supervisors that allow them to add and edit items into the subgroup comment table. By doing this, the subgroup comment box will appear whenever your conditional statement has been met, and only the supervisor can add and then save the subgroup comment. This, in effect, provides you with the first type of your 2nd signature requirement.

The second case, while employing some of the same steps, is slightly different in that you create a start-up requirement that monitors whether all of your pre-production setup steps have been completed. In this case, you set up a series of yes/no questions and assign a value of 1 to the desired answer and a value of 0 to an undesirable result. Once you've answered all of these questions, you add up all the values you've obtained. If the result meets the total number of questions you've posed with the desirable result, it will again prompt a user for a subgroup comment.

As noted in the failure case above, you've set up your security policy to require the user to sign in to save the subgroup comment and will only allow certain users to have the role that can add subgroup comments to the database. Once the user saves the subgroup comment, you then change your process state to run normally with the assurance that all of your setup steps have been completed and that someone has reviewed and approved the setup via subgroup comments. If the sum doesn’t meet the desirable total, you have numerous options which may include having the supervisor sign off that the line will not be running as planned.

InfinityQS Fact Checking Standards

InfinityQS is committed to delivering content that adheres to the highest editorial standards for objective analysis, accuracy, and sourcing.

  • We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding any level of plagiarism or malicious intent from our writers and contributors.
  • All referenced articles, research, and studies must be from reputable publications, relevant organizations, or government agencies.
  • Where possible, studies, quotes, and statistics used in a blog article contain a reference to the original source. The article must also clearly indicate why any statistics presented are relevant.
  • We confirm the accuracy of all original insights, whether our opinion, a source’s comment, or a third-party source so as not to perpetuate myth or false statements.



Never miss a post. Sign up to receive a weekly roundup of the latest Quality Check blogs.


Take the Next Step