I have a bit of a disagreement with my supervisor about the definition and content of the Qualification vs Commissioning.
I’m writing the IQ/OQ protocols for the revamping of a pure steam generator (new PLC, HMI, electrical panel). The supplier provides very thorough IQ/QO protocol and I’m basically going to use those tests as attachments for my in-house protocol’s test sheets.
The disagreement is about which tests I should use from the supplier’s protocol. My supervisor wants me to ignore several IQ tests that he considers as “commissioning activities” and not part of the Qualification’s scope: electrical components verification (against electrical diagram), electrical wiring (10% sampling), electrical panel dimensions, hydraulic components verification (against PID), etc.
He justifies this by saying these tests do not have any direct impact on the system/product and any issue will be detected during OQ testing. “As long as the critical functions of the equipment were checked, we comply”.
I’ve always performed those tests as part of the IQ in the previous companies I worked for. I also think thorough IQ testing is necessary to avoid other issues down the line, during OQ testing. it’s about doing things in the right order to avoid having to fix things during testing.
I found this other topic that is related to this subject: Commissioning vs. Installation Qualification - What is the difference?
The definition of the Installation Qualification is quite simple: Documented verification that a system is installed per written and pre-approved specifications.
So it’s not only about the criticality regarding the equipment and product, right?
It probably looks like I’m answering my own question here.
I guess I mostly want to know who’s right. Your input is much appreciated.