15 replies to this topic

[Martinblue]

Hi All,
I am currently writing Quality Manual for a food manufacturer as a part of BRC requirements.
In the manual i have touched almost each topic required by BRC standards but instead of adding actual SOP i have gave reference(Procedure name and number) e.g. SP090-Pest Control Procedure etc. All SOP referred in the manual are available in the relevant folders. Would it be enough or it is mandatory to add procedures in the Manual..

Please share your opinion and experience.

Regards

Martin Blue

[nitac]

If this is for an upcoming audit, I would add any that are related to any fundamental clause as these are likely to be asked for. It saves time in rooting them out of other folders ( I have this in my QMS and a note on the doc register stating that there are copies in the file of uncontrolled documents from other sources). My experience of any auditor is that they dont like to be kept waiting and like information to flow, they get tetchy if you keep leaving the room and reapearing with information. I have had an auditor ask me if I "just made that up quickly " before now!!!

This is just my thoughts and Im sure other people may do things differently, though have just passed BRC with no non conformances so must be doing something right

[Martinblue]

Hi Nitac,
Really appreciate your suggestion. Would not it make Manual too bulky. what's about putting all related SOP in same same folder as that of Manual. It can pretty much save the time.
And also shall i take it as it is not a BRC req. to put SOPs within the Manual?


regards

Martin

[Charles.C]

Dear Martinblue.

There is an auditor comment in another forum (SQF) that content is more important than format.
This IMEX aplies to BRC also (within reason ). I think many people still use the classic ISO style of Quality (Policy) Manual / Quality Procedure Manual / Others manual(s) (eg Work Instructions) which can be convenient if you have a pre-existing “collection” of methods. On the other hand, I have seen a “creative” Policy manual which had virtually no layout correlation to the BRC Standard and was equally acceptable. Took a significant time to see how (where) it covered some of the requirements though.

Any auditor usually prefers to not waste time hunting for everything. Integrating diverse items has attractions but IMO an effective, cross-referencing / documentation system can be equally user-friendly. (The natural tendency is to over-elaborate, KISS is a worthwhile principle IMO).

Plus you are paying for auditor time, not the reverse.

Just my Xp's worth.

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

Personally this is how I've approached writing a quality manual for BRC:

I've set it out in the same numbering as the clauses of BRC. This aids finding the documents.
I've then referenced the documents. I have not included version numbers in this as it will tie you up in knots and end up with an error somewhere.
Then I've had each document available in the same order in a file for the auditor. IMO it takes no longer to reference to these if you're organised.

I don't think it's a good idea to include the procedures / policies in your quality manual as these will be subject to frequent review and possible changes just due to the reviewing schedule, audit etc. Do you really want to have to reissue your quality manual and retrain the whole thing every time?

[Martinblue]

Hi GMO,

Really appreciate your comments. Thats what i am doing and thanks to all for thier valuable suggestions.

Best regards

Martin

[Charles.C]

Dear GMO,

I have not included version numbers

Maybe not mandatory but IMHO, that could be contentious for some auditors (cf 3.7.1.1 et seq).

Rgds / Charles.C

added - sorry, perhaps i misunderstood yr text. It is indeed conventional IMEX to not refer to version numbers in a (conventional)Q. manual main text, only in the specific documents / revisions. I assume you do have version numbers on the actual individual documents.

I don't think it's a good idea to include the procedures / policies in your quality manual as these will be subject to frequent review and possible changes just due to the reviewing schedule, audit etc. Do you really want to have to reissue your quality manual and retrain the whole thing every time?

IMEX, after a few initial trial revisions, a (conventional?) Quality Manual which contains the company policies with respect to meeting the standard plus a list of Quality Procedures hardly ever changes except for a significant reason which would perhaps justify a version number change anyway. if the system is fully electronic-based, any revision is simple, if otherwise it's a good reason to minimise the original paperwork.
Regardless, i agree that an almost infinite range of concept / presentation styles is acceptable. I've even seen one for ISO 9001 done entirely by flow charts.

[DChun2]

In setting up our Quality Manual, I took a look at the QMS that BRC offers for a chunk of money. But the preview they give you does show the table of contents of their QMS. I took a note from that and arranged our topics to almost match that one.

[GMO]

Dear GMO,



Maybe not mandatory but IMHO, that could be contentious for some auditors (cf 3.7.1.1 et seq).

Rgds / Charles.C

added - sorry, perhaps i misunderstood yr text. It is indeed conventional IMEX to not refer to version numbers in a (conventional)Q. manual main text, only in the specific documents / revisions. I assume you do have version numbers on the actual individual documents.

Yep the documents themselves have revision numbers, I was just meaning in the quality manual you might reference that there is a personal hygiene policy; however you would say "reference: Personal Hygiene Policy, issue 2, 09/12/10" etc. I have seen manuals like that and you just tie yourself up in knots and end up with non conformities because of it but the Personal Hygiene Policy itself would have this info on it.

[Madam A. D-tor]

Hi all,

What in your opinion is a Quality Manual?

IMO the quality manual includes all procedures, instructions, forms and HACCP-plans maintained by an organisation. I really do not care if this is digitally or physically available, or that it is in one file/folder or in more. As long as I can reach and verifiy it during the audit. I think it is OK.

From above text, I understand that you have a separate quality manual? At least separated from procedures etc. Can some one give an example for understanding.

[Madam A. D-tor]

Hello All,

I just find the answer to my own question in another thread.

In many companies the Quality Manual is the traditional high level document which is divided into different sections with generalised statements explaining your policies and intentions. Where there is a need for a more detailed method statement it is sometimes included within the text of the manual or there is a reference on to a detailed operating procedure. This can be as simple as saying "see procedure x" in the relevant section or embedding documents in the manual or other techniques depending upon your IT ability (and/or enthusiasm)

Referencing on to procedures is probably more common and it allows you to make changes to individual procedures without having to reissue the whole manual every time.

Most standards require that that the manual covers the scope of the individual standard (The wording varies but generally that is the meaning) If you are certified to or are working with different standards, be they ISO9000, BRC,IFS, ISO14000 etc, a useful tool is to work out a matrix which cross references the requirements of each standard. This enables you to integrate into a single manual so you don't have an ISO manual, a BRC manual etc. It also helps you to plan your internal audit schedule such that you cover all the standards without duplication

I now know that you mean a document what I actually hate.
During an audit I get only 2 hours to read all relevant documents and analyses.
So, I am used to just start to read at the beginning and then find all documents I need in the documented system.
Except when there is such a quality manual as is described above. To me such documents only includes some bla-bla-bla and no actual information. After reading this, I still have to read procedures and mostly when there is this QM, there is also a general procedure and a specific procedure and an instruction. So i have to read 4 documents, where it could also been 1 procedure.

Are there really auditors (BRC/IFS/SQF) asking for this document?

[Charles.C]

Dear Madam A.Dtor,

I’m not myself a specific user of ISO 9001 but the requirement of a Quality manual for BRC tends to automatically push people into borrowing from the classic ISO 9001 tradition. I’m sure you are familiar with the ISO triangle format of tiered items. This logically (but not AFAIK in the least mandatorily) leads to a Quality (Policy) manual, a Quality Procedures manual, a manual for Work Instructions + other “things”.

This para. in BRC also appears to require you to see "it" although it does not specify exactly what should be inside –

The company shall have a food safety and quality manual which describes how the requirements of the Global Standard for Food Safety are met

.

The food safety and quality manual shall be readily available to key staff.

I believe it’s as simple as that. Or not ?

Nonetheless, in practical terms, I agree with you, the "Procedures" are where it all happens. Also i believe as per ISO's esteemed wishes.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Madam A. D-tor]

Dear Charles C.,

I am not that young anymore, but maybe I just have too less work experience.
I have never worked with ISO 9001 earlier then the 2000 version. in that version, no reference to this triangle structure is made. However I do recall that I have learned something like this, back in school. I also know that there were a lot of procedure requirements in the 1994 version.

Well, in the beginning of Documented Quality Systems, we start to write everything down, cause that was asked from the system. ISO 9001 was often translated as: "write down what you do and do what you have written down". This resulted in documented systems, which today seems very strange and overdone.
Nine years ago I started to work at a company where they had 1253 documents in the system. Just like GMO in another thread I started to change the documents and skip the unnecessary documents, The most nonsencical document, was a procedure for the expedition. The procedure started with: introduction, goals, responsible person, related documents, etc. This took one whole page. The second page included the method:
1) if there is a failure, call the technical service;
2) If you have nothing to do: sweep the floor.
I understand where this comes from and even can imagine the hard work a previous Quality Officer had done to speak to all chiefs to document such procedures.
when I left the company 5 years ago. i had reduced the documents to 966. Today, I think this is still to many documents for a company that size.
I wonder how many they have left at the moment.

[Charles.C]

Dear Madame A.D-tor,

I have never worked with ISO 9001 earlier then the 2000 version.

Actually (from observation only) it still seems to be a current ISO concept philosophy. Perhaps i should have stated pyramid to be more officially correct , eg -

http://www.iso9000re...ion-pyramid.cfm

Nonetheless I have to agree with you over the opportunities subsequently presented / seized for paper consumption. But perhaps one should more blame the user, not the tool ?.

Rgds / Charles.C

[faisal rafique]

I think there in no need to add all forms and procedures in manual. It may be in separate file near to auditee to avoid late arrival of forms/procedures.

[GMO]

when I left the company 5 years ago. i had reduced the documents to 966. Today, I think this is still to many documents for a company that size.
I wonder how many they have left at the moment.

966!

I'm thinking "I'd never have that many" but then when you count up SOPs for each process and SOPs for cleaning I suppose there would be a lot but over 900?

Crikey!

Still, well done for getting rid of 300. It's so difficult once a system is established to change it. In the site I am on maternity leave from we tried to go paperless on production records but failed in the time I was there (because a system which was promised never materialised). We put in paperwork thinking "it will only be there for 3 months max" (never do this btw). It wasn't. It was still there 2 years down the line. I heard that in my absence they decided to remove one piece of paperwork (not understanding why it had been put in place) and ended up losing traceability.

Sometimes it's almost easier to start from scratch than change someone else's work but then practically that's very hard to do. It takes such a lot of man hours to produce a functioning FSQMS but in the meantime you still have to be making safe food so the existing, flawed system has to stay but maybe it can't wait till the new, improved FSQMS is written? So inevitably you end up adapting the one which is in place and then writing one from scratch seems like a waste of time... And so it goes on.

Of course it doesn't help that I am such a pedant. I want all documents to be in the same format, same typeface, same point size... It would irritate the hell out of me if they're not. So I end up spending as much time on formatting as content probably. I need a life.