8 replies to this topic

[vavave]

Hi,

I am looking for a template to help us to put a score on our risks to quality to determine if we have Critical Quality Points.

Thanks a lot

[esquef]

vavava,

Here's a Quality Risk Analysis that I'm fairly sure SQF would approve of :

(sorry, can't post spreadsheet. Feel free to email me if you like to see a risk analysis matrix for quality (SQF Level 3))

Edited by esquef, 15 February 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Simon]

([/b]sorry, can't post spreadsheet. Feel free to email me if you like to see a risk analysis matrix for quality (SQF Level 3))

Esquef, is it the forum software preventing you? If so let me know the file extension and size and I'll take a look.

Thanks,
Simon

[GMO]

I've generally taken quality out of HACCP plans where I've seen it used. I think it gets confusing and misses the point. IMO if you are going to use HACCP for quality, you're better off using a different HACCP hazard analysis so you don't get distracted when considering food safety.

If you do want to come up with a score, I'd suggest a matrix with likelihood on one side with up to 5 terms (3 would be fine though, e.g. rare, occasional, frequent - it's important to designate what these mean though, e.g. rare = unknown or less frequent than once per year, occasional 6 monthly - 1 year, frequent, < 6 monthly)

Then on the other side you could have impact / severity. Again between 3 and 5 terms (use the same number as you use for the frequency.)

So you could have (with appropriate descriptions):

Mild - isolated customer complaint or customer dissatisfaction
Moderate - widespread customer dissatisfaction, small uplift in complaints (chose a number appropriate to your business, e.g. increase by 5 in 1 month might be suitable for one company, increase of 2 would probably be suitable for mine.)
Severe - Significant numbers of customer complaints (again chose a number), product withdrawal etc etc.

Then you can give a score to each. E.g. if:

Rare = 1
Occasional = 2
Frequent = 3

Mild = 1
Moderate = 2
Severe = 3

You then multiply the two factors in your matrix. Then anything on your matrix over 4 you might decide is a significant issue which requires control. I.e. on this matrix this would exclude anything which was a rare occurance or mild but everything else would require some kind of control (you can chose your terms and what number you chose so don't feel restricted by my example. Sometimes 5 terms matrices can be a bit easier and allow more grey areas so that might suit you better.)

[hchristopher]

im interested in seeing this excel file if we can get it to upload

[soa]

vavava,

Here's a Quality Risk Analysis that I'm fairly sure SQF would approve of :

(sorry, can't post spreadsheet. Feel free to email me if you like to see a risk analysis matrix for quality (SQF Level 3))

Hi
really I get hard time to do my risk analysis matrix for quality if you could help me it will be great thanks

Edited by Charles.C, 03 April 2012 - 02:01 AM.
email address removed

[mgourley]

You could use something like this, swapping out quality issues for food safety ones.

Marshall

Attached Files

•  Hazard significance asessment matrix.xls   18.5KB   129 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear vavave,

SQF query ?(If so there is another similar thread running to this at moment).

In addition to GMO's suggestions, minor / moderate / major could be based on nature of complaint, eg intrinsic / extrinsic (ie contaminant),

eg intrinsic such as - not delicious (non-gourmet/cheap item ) < too tough to eat < off-odour

eg contaminants - piece of wrapping paper < fly < rat hair, or (from memory none of these are specifically classified as safety complaints (???) although in reality they could well be.

Obviously the possibilities are endless (and subjective), and from an auditor point of view probably a large overkill. A 3x3 matrix may well exceed typical expectations. Some typical conclusions for 3x3 up to 5x5 matrices are documented in many threads on this forum.

If sufficiently interested, some idea of professional ranking ideas can also be seen in the numerous official US product standards and also, I think, in some Codex evaluation publications. But it's probably un-necessary labour.

IMEX, a minor (eg small volume) recall is already severe to reputation/financially, a substantial (eg international or multiply distributed) recall can easily be catastrophic.

Charles.C

[DocGra]

Hello Chaps, Hello Vavave & Mr Charles

A quick thought - a matrix where one axis is based on the number and type of complaints you get for your products (with respect - well - we all get them from time to time) - that would link your 'quality index' to real customer perception ... and it would show you influencing your products / processes according to consumer reactions - got to be good for BRC at least ...


I think a matrix of some sort is the way to go ....

regards,

Graham