22 replies to this topic

[will w.]

First time entry, sorry if covered before.
I have worked with food haccp many years but new to the iso systems in brc standards. I am currently setting up QMS for global brc standard but I think the queries I post below may apply to brc/iop also so maybe relevant to this forum -
(1) all IT information I can find demands centralised document control systems but this is resisted by my company culture. Does anyone know any sources of workable decentralised systems? (or, in the limit, even centralised systems which do not involve multiple documents detailing every step of a process)
(2) The global brc standard requires one to document items which are 'critical' to safety/legality/quality. Safety items are well covered in haccp references but I have not seen any text interpretations for food or packaging discussing more or less 'critical' quality parameters. Has anyone met this problem??
thanks for this amazingly informative site

[Simon]

Hi Will, and welcome to the forum.

(1) all IT information I can find demands centralised document control systems but this is resisted by my company culture. Does anyone know any sources of workable decentralised systems? (or, in the limit, even centralised systems which do not involve multiple documents detailing every step of a process)

I'm not sure I get what you mean entirely - can you provide a little more detail?

(2) The global brc standard requires one to document items which are 'critical' to safety/legality/quality. Safety items are well covered in haccp references but I have not seen any text interpretations for food or packaging discussing more or less 'critical' quality parameters. Has anyone met this problem??

In The BRC/IoP Packaging Standard there is a requirement to identify and control "packaging defects critical to consumer safety" in addition to foreign objects, chemical and microbiological contaminants. And we have discussed this issue briefly here...

thanks for this amazingly informative site

Your welcome, thanks for your kind comments I appreciate them.

Regards,
Simon

[will w.]

Dear Simon / Regarding your request for clarification of my question 1 posting, I hope this helps.
- By 'company culture' I meant that in my opinion most naturally developed company documentation systems are typically decentralised due perhaps initially to localised requirements and subsequently to the human tendency of empire building, that is production have their set of procedures, qc theirs, etc etc, all guarded with some watchfulness. This operational style does promote some communication blunders but generates relatively small quantities of paperwork.
- The majority of documentation control requirements in the brc standard seem to be borowed from iso2k9001. In the case of iso their rigorousness (and apparently the high auditorial failure rate from this section) seem to have driven most experts to abandon the above option and propose centralised systems. Here all new/revised procedures/work instructions/forms from anywhere touching on quality issues must be channeled/documented through a specific designated controller or group who will also have to organise the associated paperwork. And the paperwork is substantial and it grows.
-
- I have looked at some typical centralised methods, the quantity of paper likely to be generated is discouraging (I will probably be restricted to hard copy procedures for distribution etc unless I can propose a freeware database procedure to hook into a LAN network) plus the probable resistance of the existing decentralised network makes me hesitate.
- In contrast I have well seen the practical limitations of decentralised systems with respect to communication and I wonder if this is almost a guarantee of auditorial problems.
- What is the experience of people who have been audited ? Any suggestions of published systems ?

Briefly if I may be allowed a slight digression to clarify question 2 posting - it seems that the brc/iop standard only uses critical in terms of items with potential safety issues unlike (I think) the global brc which appears to have an intention to link 'critical' to non - safety items also. I think this is analogous to the comments of Monseigneur horsenailbucket in the parallel forum. Originally (from memory) the US regulatory bodies were proposing that haccp be applied to 3 food aspects - safety, wholesomeness and economic fraud. For various reasons,eg priority, safety became the focussed item although some sample haccp analyses were issued including items such as net weight of product (e.fraud), percentages of meat in coated seafood products (e.fraud), proper contaminants such as shell in peeled shrimp (wholesomeness). Here critical was equated to compliance with standard, this is potentially a very wide net hence my original query as to brc intention/interpretation. Comments? Maybe this aspect will soon be added to the brc/iop standard ?!
Hope not too long.
Regards will w.

[Simon]

I think I'm with you now on document control.

Control is the operative word. I'm not sure…but in my experience I don't think you can expect every department to have the same levels of skill or indeed diligence in maintaining the important documents - so that's why I have tended to centralise. It may be different for your organisation.

It is an art developing an efficient, effective and non-bureaucratic document control system. I can tell you what we do, it may not be perfect but it works OK.

All computers are networked and there is a shared global drive on the computer that everyone has access to. I have all the procedures, forms, work instructions etc. set up in folders by departments on the drive. If anyone requests a change or a new doc then I do it and simply resave into the relevant folder and immediately send an email template detailing the document, current revision number, the change made, who requested it etc. The email also requests that all obsolete copies are removed from use and destroyed apart from one hard copy which is sent back to me attached to the signed email confirming that all obsolete docs have been removed. I don't even have to get off my butt!

You have to be quick with amendments, developing new documents etc. as people get annoyed. With this method it is still the responsibility of the department head to inform employees of the changes and make sure current issues are in use.

It's a bit of a culture change but if it is simple and effective then you will find most people will be happy with it.

The alternative like you say is an auditor's nightmare.

Hope this is the sort of info you are after. I will get back to you on your other point later.

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

With regard to question 2:

In section 3 of The BRC/IoP Packaging Standard 'Hazard and Risk Management System', the top level statement reads:

"A formal Hazard and Risk Management system shall be in place to ensure that all hazards to consumer safety and product integrity are identified and appropriate controls established"

'Integrity' Hmm! interesting - in my thesaurus integrity is given as honesty, virtue, honour, morality, principle, righteousness, uprightness, goodness...

As said previously the BRC/IoP Packaging Standard requires the control of P,C,M safety hazards but in addition there is a clear requirement contained within the standard to control "packaging defects critical to consumer safety" and these packaging defects I take to mean Quality Defects.

Most Food Packaging Processes will have maybe one or two of these - examples in printed aluminium lidding manufacturer:

Example 1: Printing errors / omissions of ingredients on printed packaging

Control measure:
Printer to ensure that the first-off print matches 100% all elements of the approved standard -'including text' before starting the print run.

Example 2: Holes in packaging that is supposed to provide a total barrier to oxygen, water, light and aroma - maybe caused by embossing.

Control measure:
Controlled by the operator who must carry out a leak test at the start of the reel and after reel joins.

Neither of the above are PC or M but are Critical Quality Controls necessary to assure not just Safety but also the Quality and or Integrity of the consumer product.

To safety, legality, quality, wholesomeness, economic fraud add the BRC/IoP's 'integrity'

How about perfection?

Are the above the types of 'quality parameters' you talk about?

Regards,
Simon

[will w.]

Dear Simon
Re Qu1, Totally agree your comments on varying skill levels and your distribution check procedure looks good. Not quite so sure about one man doing all the documents for all departments (over-centralised?) but if you can make it work, so be it (it certainly simplifies who to blame for errors / delays !). When you initiated this system did you have to renumber / reformat all the existing procedures / work instructions /forms to achieve a uniform style ?

Re Qu2. Yes, your comments are exactly to the point, thanks.
Seems 'integrity' in the packaging standard has sort of replaced 'critical' in global food standard. I wonder if the auditor's checklist contains (or will eventually contain) a list of characteristics whose inclusion/treatment represent a minimum requirement for compliance with such aspects (Haccp food safety plans have followed such a route in that early works had a multitude of critical points which tended to blur the picture, modern treatments usually attempt to be more analytical/discriminating so as to limit the critical points and best use the available resources).
thanks again
Will w.

[Simon]

Hi Will,

Q1 - Yes I had to renumber first. I allocated each department with a number, used a different prefix for the type of document e.g. Procedures - QP, Work instructions - QW, General forms and documents - QD. And then numbered each document sequentially within the hierarchy.

Some examples showing how the numbering worked:

If:

Sales = 01
Purchasing = 02
Print = 03

Then:

Sales Order Processing Procedure QP01.01
Supplier Approval Questionnaire QD02.07
Print Checklist QW03.04

Once they are numbered you can leave consistency of format of the documents to when the opportunity arises like for example when they are amended.

I simply kept a list cross referencing the document number with the title. It's very sad but eventually I knew most of them off-by-heart.

Regarding the time it takes for one man - it very much depends on how adept you are on software like word and excel.

Regards,
Simon

[Ken]

Will

Simon asked me to post a reply but have been away for a week.

You've covered question one well but as for question 2 it is a bit more difficult to be specific.

I think that your earlier e-mail gave some good examples. Critical quality requirements for say a coated fish fillet would include the organoleptic quality of the fish (for white fish there is an industry recognised method and criteria for assessing this), the ratio of coating to fish would be a critical quality requirement and this will also be critical for legality as the percentage of fish will be declared on the packaging.

BRC auditors have to have experience of the industry sector they are auditing and therfore have a good idea of critical requirements for a particular industry sector. Certification companies do have guidelines for interpreation of the brc standard but these are internal training documents only - I've not seen any interpretation documents for purchase.

Without knowing the type of product it is difficult to be more specific.

Regards

Ken

[Franco]

All computers are networked and there is a shared global drive on the computer that everyone has access to. I have all the procedures, forms, work instructions etc. set up in folders by departments on the drive. If anyone requests a change or a new doc then I do it and simply resave into the relevant folder and immediately send an email template detailing the document, current revision number, the change made, who requested it etc. The email also requests that all obsolete copies are removed from use and destroyed

Our documentation is controlled in the same way Simon. It works.

Apart from one hard copy which is sent back to me attached to the signed email confirming that all obsolete docs have been removed

Thank you for helpful suggestion Simon. We're not ensuring that obsolete docs are removed and sometimes they reappear. Where have they been in the meantime ? Who knows ?

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon
Apologise for length of following but was not easy to concisely describe. I hope content is understandable and relevant.
I am presently setting up doc.control procedure for brc food standard. Two requirements are that it is necessary to demonstrate proper authorization routines and record all revisions made to documents requiring to be controlled. (I expect BRC packaging reqs are similar).
These requirements seem to be frequently answered in ISO (by checking the net) by attaching a 'revisions' sheet to every document , the sheet containing an updated list of all revisions pertaining to that document. The result is a very large number of additional sheets to be added to all related existing (and future) system documents (ISO type-levels 1-3 presumably). I am trying to avoid this paper proliferation if it can be done in an auditor acceptable way since although I can probably justify centralised electronic control, there will be considerable requirement for hard copies in the work area.
I am unsure if every document must have its own revision list or it is sufficient that there is a record maintained elsewhere (preferably not as a master documentation list due to the amount of work involved). I don't have access to database type systems or the use of computer trained assistants.

I am most impressed by your generously downloadable 'Hygiene Management System' which combines a large number of procedures (I think containing some items from all levels 1-3) together to create a one-document manual which you seem to have then given a global name and revision level/date. I am considering the combining of groups of, say 20-30, existing word/excel documents (these all have file names/dates) using pdf methods and adding a common 'manual' header to produce a similar result.

I noted your statement that the download presentation was brc-acceptable which leads me to ask -

(1) I presume the hygiene manual front page represents the 'authorisation', was it not necessary to have any authorisation statement on individual items within the manual (also see (2)?

(2) Does this manual method allow (to an auditor) the use of a single front 'Revisions' sheet to cover all the enclosed items since it is likely that individual items will be printed separately and these will not contain an attached revision list of their own? (in other words, is a single sheet which can be shown to exist with the complete manual acceptable (maybe individual items could have a comment that revisions are given on manual front sheet?)

(3) Where is the 'Revisions' list for Hygiene document (I note doc. is Rev1 but I assume you still need some kind of formal 'Revisions' sheet somewhere to state that this is the initial issue?)

(4) If you have to revise any of the items included within Hygiene manual, do you then have to reissue the whole manual under a new revision level? I have seen some examples of long documents (on a single main issue) where individual sheets are revised and the whole document is given a new sub-revision level although this is only specifically attached to the actual revised pages therby saving reprinting the whole document.(the front 'revisions' page specifies which pages (or sections) were changed and has an approval with it).

Grateful for any comments
Best Regards
Charles

[Simon]

Hi Charles,

I've put your questions in blue and my answers in black.

These requirements seem to be frequently answered in ISO (by checking the net) by attaching a 'revisions' sheet to every document , the sheet containing an updated list of all revisions pertaining to that document. The result is a very large number of additional sheets to be added to all related existing (and future) system documents (ISO type-levels 1-3 presumably). I am trying to avoid this paper proliferation if it can be done in an auditor acceptable way since although I can probably justify centralised electronic control, there will be considerable requirement for hard copies in the work area. I am unsure if every document must have its own revision list or it is sufficient that there is a record maintained elsewhere (preferably not as a master documentation list due to the amount of work involved). I don't have access to database type systems or the use of computer trained assistants.

Rather than having a change history sheet attached to each document you could just keep a single sheet or spreadsheet and log all of the document changes on it. I've attached a simple example spreadsheet so you can get the idea.

This covers the requirement in the BRC/IOP 4.2.5 'All changes and amendments to documents critical to product safety, legality or quality system procedure covered by the standards requirements shall be recorded.' I'm sure the requirements in the BRC Food standard will be very similar.

I presume the hygiene manual front page represents the 'authorisation', was it not necessary to have any authorisation statement on individual items within the manual?

It's not necessary to have every single document authorised by for example a signature - I choose not to as the manual is not amended very often and it is just as easy to reissue the entire thing. Equally one could argue that as the document has controls at all (e.g. document number, revision number and issue date) it has been deemed to be part of the controlled management system documentation and therfore has been authorised. I have seen ‘a signature on every document page footer' elsewhere but I wouldn't recommend it - it's bureaucratic.

Does this manual method allow (to an auditor) the use of a single front 'Revisions' sheet to cover all the enclosed items since it is likely that individual items will be printed separately and these will not contain an attached revision list of their own? (in other words, is a single sheet which can be shown to exist with the complete manual acceptable (maybe individual items could have a comment that revisions are given on manual front sheet?)

Again I would use the spreadsheet which can be manipulated (sorted) by for example document reference this would allow you to see the history of any document, procedure, work instruction etc. The date requested and completed could also be a performance indicator.

Where is the 'Revisions' list for Hygiene document (I note doc. is Rev1 but I assume you still need some kind of formal 'Revisions' sheet somewhere to state that this is the initial issue?)

Yes you would - again see spreadsheet for history.

If you have to revise any of the items included within Hygiene manual, do you then have to reissue the whole manual under a new revision level? I have seen some examples of long documents (on a single main issue) where individual sheets are revised and the whole document is given a new sub-revision level although this is only specifically attached to the actual revised pages therby saving reprinting the whole document.(the front 'revisions' page specifies which pages (or sections) were changed and has an approval with it).

This is very much determined by how often ithe hygiene manual will be amended and how many holders there are. At the end of the day you have to ensure that documents are available, correctly referenced, current and legible. How you do it is entirely up to you Charles.

Control the documents effectively but efficently.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Simon

Attached Files

•  doc_changelog.xls   14.5KB   150 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

Many thanks your very helpful response.
Your comments re revisions record encourage me to proceed as per your spreadsheet example.

I have realized after reading your comments on 'authorization' that I may have misunderstood the meaning/intention of this term as used in BRC standard. (Interestingly although a lot of the BRC doc.section has clearly derived from ISO I could not find any mention of this word in ISO9001 which tends to stick to 'control'.) I suspect the existence of two interpretive variations -

(1) I had understood 'authorization' to mean that a document in use (electronic or hardcopy) possessing,say, an 'authorized' box plus an appended, approved, signature denoted that the document was a 'controlled' specimen (= should be the most recent issue) as against an empty box (or unapproved signature) where the document was some arbitrary copy, ie an 'uncontrolled' specimen (I appreciate that if one is referring solely to the electronic version this may be defined to automatically be current assuming it is in the current folder but this may not follow for the hard copy version).
The particular objective here would be that some hardcopy user in the work area would know if he was using a 'guaranteed' current revision or some definitely unguaranteed copy which was possibly not of current revision ( and also might be his own responsibility to verify as being the current revision). The responsibility of ensuring removal of obsoleted revisions is with the receiver of any such 'authorized' item.


(2) I think from your comments that you are interpreting 'authorization' in a different way as meaning that where used on a document it confirms that the document has been approved (by an authorized person if you like) to meet the basic documentation requirements of the quality management system but is not intended to make any assertion that the document itself is the current revision. I presume that you trust your reclamation system (as referred in previous email) to ensure documents in use are all of current revision.
This interpretation would seem to imply that you consider that the BRC auditor expects to find that any hardcopy documents in use are indeed of current revision but not that they possess some specific marking claimed to demonstrate this per se.

Queries -

(3) Have I understood your comments correctly that your interpretation of authorization follows (2) rather than (1)? (if so maybe I will update to match assuming I can install your system for ensuring removal of obsolete documents, otherwise perhaps I will have to retain [1] for self-protection)
(4) Even with your system of reclamation of old documents do you find it necessary to inform designated users that they should periodically check against electronic version? (Presumably the internal audit should reveal something of the operational result).
Thanks again

Best Regards
Charles

[Simon]

Hello again Charles,

My response in black.

I have realized after reading your comments on 'authorization' that I may have misunderstood the meaning/intention of this term as used in BRC standard. (Interestingly although a lot of the BRC doc.section has clearly derived from ISO I could not find any mention of this word in ISO9001 which tends to stick to 'control'.) I suspect the existence of two interpretive variations.

Yes Charles, although the requirements for document control contained in The BRC/IOP Packaging Standard are obviously based on ISO 9001:2000 and have the same intent they have sought to make them just that little bit different in order to cause the desired level of confusion.

I've attached a resume of the document control requirements contained in both ISO 9001:2000 and The BRC/IOP Packaging Standard for interest.

1. I had understood 'authorization' to mean that a document in use (electronic or hardcopy) possessing,say, an 'authorized' box plus an appended, approved, signature denoted that the document was a 'controlled' specimen (= should be the most recent issue) as against an empty box (or unapproved signature) where the document was some arbitrary copy, ie an 'uncontrolled' specimen (I appreciate that if one is referring solely to the electronic version this may be defined to automatically be current assuming it is in the current folder but this may not follow for the hard copy version). The particular objective here would be that some hardcopy user in the work area would know if he was using a 'guaranteed' current revision or some definitely unguaranteed copy which was possibly not of current revision ( and also might be his own responsibility to verify as being the current revision). The responsibility of ensuring removal of obsoleted revisions is with the receiver of any such 'authorized' item.

If the document control system is robust in design this will ensure that ONLY the current and approved versions of the documents are available at ‘point of use.' The user doesn't need to worry - the document control system works.

It is good practise for the document controller to hold a central documents register (electronic or hard copy) that contains one specimen copy of all of the latest versions of controlled documents. The documents regsiter should have a front sheet including

- doc ref no
- document title
- current revision no.

2. I think from your comments that you are interpreting 'authorization' in a different way as meaning that where used on a document it confirms that the document has been approved (by an authorized person if you like) to meet the basic documentation requirements of the quality management system but is not intended to make any assertion that the document itself is the current revision. I presume that you trust your reclamation system (as referred in previous email) to ensure documents in use are all of current revision.

This is critical. When amended documents are issued all obsolete documentation must be removed from use and where appropriate the changes should be communicated to the users. This has to be the responsibility of the process owner.

This interpretation would seem to imply that you consider that the BRC auditor expects to find that any hardcopy documents in use are indeed of current revision but not that they possess some specific marking claimed to demonstrate this per se.

Yes - they could check against the specimen copy held in the documents register if they wanted to.

Have I understood your comments correctly that your interpretation of authorization follows (2) rather than (1)? (if so maybe I will update to match assuming I can install your system for ensuring removal of obsolete documents, otherwise perhaps I will have to retain [1] for self-protection)

Yes 2 is my position. Based on risk assessment there is nothing to prevent you from controlling one or two ‘high risk' documents as per (1) if you though it nescessary.

Even with your system of reclamation of old documents do you find it necessary to inform designated users that they should periodically check against electronic version?

No.

Presumably the internal audit should reveal something of the operational result.

Yes definitley - I would have a quick check during audits.

It's not easy explaining detail this way - if you have any further questions please let me know.

Regards,
Simon

Attached Files

•  doc_control_comparison.doc   23.5KB   115 downloads

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,

I appreciate your patience with the details. Your download is most informative and illuminating.
I recently saw an auditor's comment that the most frequent reason for an applicant's initial failure to 'pass' ISO9001 resulted from flaws in the Document Control section, I now begin to see why. I also presume BRC is not too different.

I understand and agree with your sentiments regarding the originator's responsibility for being involved in maintaining a flow of current documentation at the user's end. (I have seen opposite views expressed where total responsibility is placed on the user to verify the current status of any downloaded docs in use - this seemed a bit of a cop-out to me despite having some obvious attraction.)

I dare to summarise from recent dialog that a starting (minimalist) package to meet the doc.control reqs could be based on -

(a) a multi-manual based compilation format as per your Hygiene Management System (HMS)
(B) each page in manuals having a minimum of revision level documentation as illustrated in HMS
© a spreadsheet document containing revisions history (including description of changes) for each manual based on style of doc.changelog,
(d) a procedure for producing/distributing new revisions/ moving obsoletes comparable to that described yr email of 13/8/03 ,
(e) a minimum of 1 hardcopy and/or1 electronic controlled specimen of each manual in the quality system (= yr document register in last email)
(f) Luck

Would appreciate your opinion if you can see any major omissions/errors.
Thanks again for all your generous input

Best Regards
Charles

[Simon]

Hi Charles,

We must be a lttle crazy or worse to be discussing the finer points of document control at this time of day. It's almost 10.30 p.m. here in Manchester, England. Anyway I think we got there in the end - your summary is spot on.

Regards,
Simon

[Puzzle]

My 2p.

Note we are not in the food industry!! so this is just iso 9k2k and TS16949, one site, 3 shifts, one process, and 44 staff.

Document control in the standards refer to 'approve'. This used to be interpreted as a signature, but after many arguements in the past this is not necessary. (but I do see a problem looming with a change of registration body due to TS2)

I have a master copy of all procedures and work instructions, manual, forms etc. This seems a bit silly but is not too bad.

We then have a master copy of procedures and work instructions in the QC office.This is a central area in the building. All departments/areas have copies of the relevant instructions.

All of the copies are on green paper. This denotes a controlled copy! Although the issue details etc are page notified a master list is held and controlled by me.

Yes, we have a network of pC's (who does not these days) and all staff have access to the shared drive where all of the docs and forms are stored. I am the only person to have the correct authorities to change them!

All of the WI's and procedures have the owner clearly stated, and they request or approve changes by prior review.

With our wonderful new software system, we shall soon be totally electronic, and that will need a little more management, however each folder in the shared drive has its own 'draft', 'obsolete' and 'inactive' folders, plus I hold a paper copy obsolete file to show any auditors (or colleagues when they forget they have made a revision !!)

I have probably missed something but my advice is to think simpli (KISS) and not go overboard, as is the temptation.

Also read the standard, many times over many days and weeks, then question what others have done, question what you have decided. Then decide!! This does seem a rather silly statement, but if I had 'followed the masses' when sorting our 14001 certification I would still be doing it now and probably need more staff!!

Chris

[Simon]

I have probably missed something but my advice is to think simple (KISS) and not go overboard, as is the temptation.

Agreed. The right document, in the right place, at the right time - with a smidgen of traceability.

Simon

[Puzzle]

Simon,

We advocate KISS but if you look at all of our suggestions they appear to be 'complex'

However we have all been in the real complex controls.

And as part of the chaos theory, the more controls - the more chance of failure and lack of control. :D

[Charles.C]

Dear Simon,
The follow-up from Puzzle slightly pre-empted this post and indeed mirrored my first reaction to his last submission which was nonetheless very interesting. Chaos theory - hmmm. Also I apologise if long-winded, it's the age you know.

I just happened to find the ISO page by accident and was gratified to see the many negative opinions therein. I had believed I was a thought in the wilderness.
I am only in the initial BRC stages but, to me, the word 'simple' appears misplaced in these discussions. OK, maybe the requirements are relatively simple compared to what exists in the general management system field but I find this of limited consolation.
To me, the greatest lack in both BRC/ISO is practical EXAMPLES of installed systems which you don't have to be a systems analyst to understand (try browsing through the ISO net handout on processes/PDCA loops and start to whimper). OK, so this is a commercial field and I'm no Albert E. but really, it should be more understandable than a book on calculus. I work mainly with people whose first language is not English and their automatic reaction to a new procedure is to demand a worked example showing all the steps and this is usually where the real effort starts.

In comparison to the management systems content, I think that HACCP where I have more experience is much better served. I feel that more of an effort has been made to make the HACCP principles accessible and less like rocket science. Some of the generic models available are very well explained from the ground up however even here, if you are looking for a quick, plug-in / how-to solution, it tends to become a consultant's area again.

I would like to say that it is the non-judgemental acceptance of people's struggles plus the practical advice/generous titbits which is making this forum work for me. Plus the humour. Kudos to all.
Post length 1911+ characters,too long?
Charles

[Simon]

Hi Charles,

You'll find that we are all pretty simple here.

Perhaps our motto should be:

SaferPak - We make molehills out of management system mountains.

I really appreciate your comments Charles and I would add to your ‘Kudos to all' my own big thank you to all members of this forum who freely contribute their time, energy and knowledge to help others.

Post length 1911+ characters,too long?

No way!

Regards,
Simon

[Kay Begum]

Hi Simon,

I had numbered my documents based on BRC version 5 sections and sub-sections. But those changed quite a bit with version 6. Do you think I should re-number them according to version 6 or move away from it and number them differently lest BRC comes up with another version with lots of changes? I would appreciate any feedback at all.

Thank you,

Kay Begum

Hi Will,

Q1 - Yes I had to renumber first. I allocated each department with a number, used a different prefix for the type of document e.g. Procedures - QP, Work instructions - QW, General forms and documents - QD. And then numbered each document sequentially within the hierarchy.

Some examples showing how the numbering worked:

If:

Sales = 01
Purchasing = 02
Print = 03

Then:

Sales Order Processing Procedure QP01.01
Supplier Approval Questionnaire QD02.07
Print Checklist QW03.04

Once they are numbered you can leave consistency of format of the documents to when the opportunity arises like for example when they are amended.

I simply kept a list cross referencing the document number with the title. It's very sad but eventually I knew most of them off-by-heart.

Regarding the time it takes for one man - it very much depends on how adept you are on software like word and excel.

Regards,
Simon

[Charles.C]

Hi Simon,

I had numbered my documents based on BRC version 5 sections and sub-sections. But those changed quite a bit with version 6. Do you think I should re-number them according to version 6 or move away from it and number them differently lest BRC comes up with another version with lots of changes? I would appreciate any feedback at all.

Thank you,

Kay Begum

Dear Kay,

Congratulations on locating a thread last active in 2004.

No doubt Simon will also advise however in most cases it's entirely up-to-you although auditors usually prefer a 1:1 situation for obvious reasons. I rarely give them such satisfaction but i know a lot of people here do.

Rgds / Charles.C

[tshiakhathooj@gmail.com]

Hi Simon

 

Firstly, thank you for addressing the questions in this trend. I am also working on setting up a QMS for BRC, this trend gave me a lot of insights about document control.

 

may you kindly reshare the  "doc_changelog" spreadsheet on this trend, it seems it is no longer available and believe I'll need it for guidance, thank you.

 

 

regards

Justice