Service · CSV

Computerised System
Validation.

Risk-based CSV strategy and assurance for modern regulated environments, with clear decisions, proportionate evidence and traceability you can defend under inspection scrutiny.

Intended use first.
Evidence that follows.

The objective is not more documentation. It is a coherent, defensible validation narrative with evidence proportionate to risk and system criticality.


Delivery is aligned to GAMP 5 and CSA principles. Where electronic records and signatures apply, controls are mapped to 21 CFR Part 11 and EU Annex 11 expectations.

01
Intended use and GxP impactDefine process boundaries, data criticality and where integrity risk is highest before anything else.
02
Risk-based strategyCalibrate assurance depth to patient and product impact. Not every system needs the same approach.
03
Supplier and SaaS realityIncorporate vendor evidence, shared responsibilities and operational governance for cloud and configurable platforms.
04
Inspection-ready outputDecisions recorded so evidence is explainable and retrievable, not just filed and forgotten.

A complete,
defensible evidence pack.

A
Lifecycle Strategy & Plan

Explicit scope, decision rationale, deliverables and evidence expectations, agreed before work begins.

B
Risk Assessments

Recorded assumptions, criticality ratings and acceptance criteria aligned to intended use.

C
Requirements & Traceability

Testable requirements and RTM aligned to intended use, traceable from design through to release.

D
Test Strategy & Evidence

IQ/OQ/PQ as appropriate to risk and technology, with execution oversight and deviation handling.

E
Supplier Governance

Supplier assessment, shared responsibility records and release evidence pack structure.

F
Validation Summary Report

Final reporting aligned to inspection expectations, with a clear residual risk statement and BAU handover.

Experience across the full
GxP system landscape.

If your system type is listed here, the regulatory context and assurance expectations are already understood, with no learning curve at your expense.

LIMS CDS ELN eQMS LMS ERP (Oracle & SAP) Veeva Vault Veeva Registrations eBMR SCADA MES DNC Systems Data Loggers Bespoke GxP Applications SaaS & Cloud Platforms

Frequently asked.

What's the difference between CSV and CSA?
CSA is a risk-based emphasis within the CSV lifecycle, not a separate framework.
Computer Software Assurance shifts emphasis toward critical thinking and risk-based test rigour rather than exhaustive scripted testing. Delivery here is aligned to GAMP 5 and CSA principles: proportionate evidence, not less evidence.
Do all systems need the same level of validation?
No. Assurance depth is calibrated to GxP impact.
A system with high patient or product impact receives correspondingly deeper testing and documentation; a low-impact system does not need the same rigour. This is decided and recorded at the risk assessment stage, not assumed.
Can a validated SaaS or cloud system still be your responsibility?
Yes. The regulated organisation stays accountable.
Moving a system to a vendor-hosted or SaaS platform does not transfer validation responsibility. Supplier evidence, shared responsibility boundaries and change governance all need to be defined and evidenced on your side.

A validation programme,
not a hypothetical.

Based on a genuine engagement. Details are anonymised, and in some cases composited, to protect client confidentiality.

Situation

A mid-size biologics manufacturer was preparing for commercial site readiness and needed to validate a new LIMS implementation within a compressed timeline, alongside an existing backlog of partially-validated legacy systems. Multiple contractors had contributed deliverables over several years without a unifying strategy or risk framework.

Challenge

The validation programme had no coherent master plan. Traceability between requirements, risk decisions and test evidence was incomplete across several systems, leaving gaps that would have been visible immediately to an inspector. A consolidated view of the CSV programme simply did not exist.

Approach

A master validation plan was established covering all in-scope GxP systems. The evidence backlog was rationalised against a risk-based prioritisation model, legacy gaps were formally remediated with documented rationale, and IQ/OQ/PQ documentation for the new LIMS was delivered to GAMP 5 and CSA-aligned standards with a complete traceability matrix.

Outcome

The LIMS was validated and released to production on schedule. The legacy remediation programme was closed with a formal summary record. At a subsequent MHRA inspection, no observations were raised relating to computerised systems.

Implementing, upgrading
or remediating a system?

Book a call to discuss your environment. Fixed scope, senior delivery, inspection-ready output.

Book a Call