Unsere Lösungen

Wir haben für alles eine Lösung – und die entsprechende Erfahrung. In unseren derzeit sieben Kompetenzbereichen stehen wir Ihnen mit unserem umfassenden Know-how mit Rat und Tat zur Seite.

Alle Lösungen

Willkommen in unserem virtuellen Showroom!

In unserem virtuellen Showroom präsentieren wir Ihnen unser umfangreiches Portfolio und Innovationen – rund um die Uhr!



Mit unserem Werum PAS-X MES – vor Ort oder in der Cloud installiert – und unseren Softwarelösungen für Datenanalyse, Track & Trace, vernetzte Fabriken und intelligente Verpackungen sind wir der weltweit führende Anbieter und Partner der Pharma- und Biotechindustrie.

Übersicht Software



Wir sind Spezialisten für komplette Transportsysteme im Bereich Pharma- und Medizinprodukte. Unsere Lösungen sind maßgebend im Bereich des kontaktlosen und sicheren Transports von z.B. Glasspritzen.

Übersicht Transportsysteme



Als weltweit führender Inspektionsexperte entwicklen wir Lösungen für die Pharma und Biotechindustrie. Unser Angebot reicht von Hochleistungsmaschinen und Halbautomaten über Laboreinheiten bis Inspektionsapplikationen für die Inprozesskontrolle.

Übersicht Inspektion




Wir sind führender Anbieter von Verpackungsmaschinen für flüssige und feste pharmazeutische- sowie für medizinische Produkte. Mit unseren Blister-, Sachet- und Stickpackmaschinen bieten wir Lösungen für Primärverpackungen. Unsere Side- und Topload-Kartonierer setzen weltweit Standards für die Sekundärverpackung.

Übersicht Verpackungsmaschinen

K.Pak Topload Case Packer

Introducing our latest solution from Körber; the K.Pak Topload Case Packer! Created specifically for the pharmaceutical industry, the K.Pak solution provides operator-friendly machines to complete any production line. Our solution focuses on innovative technology, high-quality design and expert handling and packaging of your product. It’s time to start connecting the dots with Körber!



Als langjährige Spezialisten entwickeln wir Verpackungslösungen für innovative und hochwertige Pharma-Sekundärverpackungen aus Karton. Wir bieten Ihnen Lösungen für Fälschungssicherheit, Standard- Faltschachteln und vieles mehr.

Übersicht Verpackungslösungen



Unsere Experten beraten Sie nach der Analyse Ihrer Anforderungen, zeigen Ihnen Optimierungspotenziale auf und unterstützen Sie bei der Implementierung von Projekten in allen Bereichen der Pharma-, Biotech- und Medizinproduktindustrie.

Übersicht Beratung


CSA – fad or trend?

CSA vs CSV: And the winner is ... Quality!

A former colleague who was soon to retire once told me: “Old doesn’t mean bad.” While this certainly holds true for human beings, does it also apply to technology and methodology? Are the concepts of Computerized System Validation (CSV) and scalable life cycle activities outdated? Will they be washed away soon by Computer Software Assurance (CSA) – the new star on the horizon? This blog provides a critical review of the current hype about CSA. It sheds light on the common elements of CSV and CSA, eyes their differences, explains the main focus of CSA, and highlights how to achieve both, quality and compliance. As this is not a tutorial, we assume readers are already familiar with concepts like CSV and data integrity.

lRead in less than 10 minutes why CSA is not a replacement for CSV!r

Stefan Münch, Director Validation & QM

The history of CSA

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) started the “Case for Quality” initiative. It originated in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). After some time, it was embraced by the pharmaceutical community and today is often being portrayed as a silver bullet for all kind of compliance problems. More specifically, CSA claims to address the following ‘CSV Pain Points’:

  • hampers automation
  • focus on evidence (for auditors), not on quality (“compliance culture”)
  • requires duplication of supplier activities
  • increases complexity of risk assessments
  • majority of test issues related to tester or quality of test script
  • leads to bad quality and many corrective and preventive action (CAPA)

Ten years after, CSA is still promoted as ‘FDA’s upcoming guidance’, being on CDRH’s A-list for 2021. Although no draft is available for download and no concrete publication date is known, you find statements like “Do not wait!”, “Start your pilot now!”, and “Digitize!” Well, the latter seems to be a good recommendation in general, especially in the light of
the pandemic, isn’t it? And the temperature is rising, even the ISPE has dedicated an appendix (S2) in its recent (Oct. 2020) Good Practice Guide (GPG) on Data Integrity by Design.

Let’s compare CSA to CSV, and verify if the new promises pass a reality check!

Same, but different

It is true that some view CSV as a burden, a formal activity to satisfy auditors, but not focusing on quality. Sometimes CSV is even regarded as a compulsory documentation exercise only, that does not add value, but introduces delay to a project.

Many still experience CSV as an impediment for innovation, and a regulatory burden that hinders progress. This is not how I have experienced validation in my career. And this is certainly not how we see and apply Validation Services at Körber Pharma! Instead of examining the pain points one by one, let’s review the arguments and ‘solutions’ provided by CSA ambassadors:


The second assessment leads to the same conclusion: Most aspects of CSA are well-known and non-unique.

Reality check

The arguments for CSA are often not specific and are either unclear or can be applied to CSV as well. So is the CSA approach to validation really new? Let’s review the statements and check if they withstand reality.


What’s new?

It should have become clear by now that the ‘CSV Pain Points’ listed above are a mixture of valid criticism, wrong accusations, and arguments intentionally linked to CSV, though they are unrelated. Truth be told, many arguments are not CSV- or CSA-specific, but relate to agility, quality, digitalization, automation, lean, etc.

All the promises that come with CSA (“better quality products”, “faster time to market”, “higher profitability” etc.) have yet to be proven, and the line of argument lacks a rationale why this cannot be achieved through CSV.

As a patient and consumer of medical treatment, I’d rather see the product, the process, and the system rigorously tested. I want a minimum of evidence (i.e. documentation) to be provided, and the validation process reviewed to minimize risk, and to increase my level of confidence.

Do I dislike or disapprove CSA? No, I do not! However I do not agree to the messages that strive to discredit CSV or portray CSA as a silver bullet for validation or compliance.

Let’s put things in perspective: CSA is a new term for a slightly different concept of ‘CSV 2.0’, emphasizing existing approaches like risk management, agility, automation, and digitalization. I fully support these trends and specifically like the shift towards more (upfront) thinking and less documentation, as shown in the following picture.

Finally, CSA is often used to promote digital tools for product lifecycle management (PLM), application lifecycle management (ALM), regulatory information management (RIM) etc. While the benefits of these tools may be attractive and the statements may be true, the tools do not relate to CSA in any way.

Let’s put things in perspective: CSA is a new term for a slightly different concept of ‘CSV 2.0’, emphasizing existing approaches like risk management, agility, automation, and digitalization.

Test documentation

In another blog on this topic, I found the following quote: “While testing all aspects of the software and validating its effectiveness were primary objectives of the CSV guidelines, it became more intrinsically focused on documentation and as a result was perceived as a deterrent to investing in more automated solutions.” And many webinars continue to use diagrams that show that with CSV 80 % of the time is spent on documentation, but only 20 % on testing, whereas it would be vice versa with CSA.

I could not be clearer: If you ever spent 80 % of your time on documentation in CSV, you simply misunderstood the concept and methodology! While the criticism to CSV may be applicable to a time when risk manage­ment was not mandatory (i. e. about 15 years ago), it is defeatism today.

Source: Mohamed Benkirane,
VP Medical Device Practice at Critical Manufacturing

First things first

The shift towards more (upfront) thinking and less documentation. While it’s more clear and certainly true, it’s not a paradigm shift.


It’s a match! Achieving both, quality and compliance

Beware of a common mistake: “Good, better, best – never let it rest!” sounds tempting. However, while the best approach cannot be perfect, CSA is not the opposite of CSV.

Some publications even come with wrong statements and accusations like “CSV does not allow for automation” (e.g. automated testing), but this is simply wrong. The same goes true for flexibility and agility, two paradigms already applied for more than a decade. Overall, regulatory guidance supports and GAMP is consistent with all of the concepts now labelled as ‘CSA’.

So how to start (or continue) with your validation activities? The already mentioned appendix in the GPG on Data Integrity by Design certainly is not a promotion, but useful material describing CSA as an evolution of CSV, not a revolution. The shift towards critical thinking, less documentation, more agility etc. is clear and true, but it is not a paradigm shift. As an example, you already find the following statement in Appendix D5 of GAMP: “Unnecessary supporting documentation that does not add value to the normal test results should be avoided.” And GAMP 5 was published back in 2008 …

Instead of making a big fuss out of CSA, focus on real issues in the overall validation process, e.g.

  • misinterpretation/over-interpretation of regulations
  • risk-adverse compliance culture
  • lack of knowledge and expertise
  • wrong usage of risk-based approach

If you identify one of these, a ‘real’ solution that may help you to improve your approach would be the combination of the well-established GAMP 5 key concepts, critical thinking, and a focus on the intended use of your system.

Want to know more?

Let us discuss your CSA or CSV questions!

Get in touch

While the best approach cannot be perfect, CSA is not the opposite of CSV.



Lesen Sie in weniger als 10 Minuten, warum CSA kein Ersatz für CSV ist! (Englisch)

Download (Sprache: Englisch)


Keine Kommentare

Kommentar schreiben

* Diese Felder sind erforderlich

nach oben
nach oben