WHAT WE OFFER
Everything you need to know about what makes MasterControl the right solution for you.
Take a look at our pricing plans and request an estimate that works for your business.
JOIN OUR TEAM
BECOME A PARTNER
For more than two decades MasterControl software has made it possible for hundreds of companies in an extensive array of industries across the globe to improve quality processes and get products to market more quickly. Companies doing business in regulatory environments in particular use MasterControl solutions to ensure sustained compliance and stay ahead of competitors.
If your company is regulated, then you know that it’s not enough to have your quality standards on paper. You have to implement and integrate them into your daily operations and prove to regulators that your standards and policies work.
Villains, like their heroic counterparts, have interesting and complex pasts. Their complexity can be strange at times and is often hard to comprehend. After all, they generally want to kill pretty much every living creature and that can be somewhat uncomfortable for “normal” humans to process. However, taking a look at a villain’s back story and his recurring behavior can help average human beings understand why villains are constantly trying to destroy love, joy, beauty and oh yes, that professional software you’re about to purchase.
Most companies establish standard operating procedures for compliance purposes, but that’s just the start and it doesn’t leverage the power of SOPs, according to Lillian Erickson, MasterControl’s global quality manager, in a recently published article in Fleet Maintenance magazine.
1979 was a pretty momentous year. The Sony Walkman made its debut, Michael Jackson released his breakthrough solo album, “Off the Wall,” and Margaret Thatcher became the first woman in history to be elected as the British prime minister (more on Thatcher in a minute). But anyone who works in quality will remember 1979 for another reason altogether: the introduction of the term “quality assurance” (QA) in FDA’s 21 CFR Part 58 (1), also recognized as the first Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) regulation.
When you think of countries as candidates for clinical trials, which ones come to mind? North America, Great Britain, France?
The current data show that an adult is likely to change employment at least a few times during his or her lifetime. Taylor Swift, on the contrary, is one of the rare individuals who most likely will never have to remake her career. However, surprises do happen, and would it be so far-fetched to imagine that at some point in the near future Taylor might take up auditing? And not just any auditing, but auditing for the FDA?
If you’ve ever received a 483 or warning letter, as I have, you know the chaos that can ensue. The clock is ticking; the FDA requires a response to most compliance notices within 15 business days!
With less than two months to go before the UDI compliance date for Class II devices, on July 26, 2016, FDA issued a draft guidance related to what would seem to be the most basic of concepts: the form and content of the UDI. More specifically, the draft guidance states that its intent is to “clarify” for industry and FDA-accredited issuing agencies the form and content of the UDI, and to “better ensure the UDIs developed under systems for the issuance of UDIs are in compliance with” the UDI rule.
Did you know that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) job opportunities in the United States are expected to grow 17 percent by 2018? Or that 39 percent of hiring managers believe science and clinical workers are in short supply?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This dilemma applies to automation and regulatory compliance. Did the FDA issue 21 CFR Part 11 to encourage technology use? Or did life science companies use technology first—prompting the FDA to develop corresponding regulations?
Fall is officially upon us, and we are settling into a new school year. As a child, I loved the beginning of school. It signified a fresh start
There are a number of spooky scenarios that quality managers face in their jobs, from unsupported initiatives and disengaged team members, to ineffective change management and inefficient QMS processes.
In psychology, people talk about knowledge and learning in terms of four levels: what we know, what we think we know, what we know we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t know. In the life sciences, the fourth level, what we don’t know we don’t know (or unknown unknowns, for short), carries the most risk in quality and compliance. If you are in a leadership position, the risks are even higher. After all, how can you provide the appropriate resources or strategic direction while operating in a knowledge void?
Our social sites: