Risk Assessment AGAIN

Well I know that Risk Assessment has been discussed so many times and especially in the BRC section.

My main goal in this thread is trying to figure out how to develop and establish a practical risk assessment, not only for me but for future questionnaires along this subject addressing the majority of the BRC requirements. I went through the entire audit and their is a total of 20 clauses that mention risk assessment (WOW). Below is a list of clauses and their sections:

3.6.1 Supplier Approval
4.2.3 Security
4.4.2 Utilites
4.6.2 Maintenance
4.7.1 Staff facilities
4.8.1 Chemical and physical control
4.8.4.1 Glass Brittle and Hard Plastic
4.11.2 Pest Control
4.12.1 Storage and Transportation
5.2.1.1 Material Containing Allergens
5.2.1.3 Material Containing Allergens
5.2.1.6 Material Containing Allergens
5.2.2.1 Identity and Preserved materials
5.5.11 Product Inspection
5.7.1 Product Release
6.3.2 Calibration and control of Monitering devices
7.3.2 Personnel and hygiene
7.3.4 Personnel and hygiene
7.5.4 Protective Clothing
7.5.7 Protective Clothing

I have four documented risk assessments in place already glass and brittle, supplier approval, and security (food defense) and HACCP. At first I wanted to make ONE risk assesment to complete the rest of the clauses in the BRC. But the more I think of it the more it seems difficult and not a good idea.

At the beginning I was also thinking of taking our company map(s) and assessing each area (wall to walls) at our plant. And within each area I would address all the clauses above.
For example: Packaging, I would perform a risk assessment on all of the clauses mentioned above (with the exception of supplier approval and HACCP) with respect to the packaging location. Then I will proceed to the processing areas and perform the same procedure.

Or as I mentioned before.... do I just complete the rest of the risk assessment by clauses (TOPICS / PROGRAMS). Technically I allready have four risk assesments based by program.

Post #5 by Charles has on the link below, "risk assesment student activities doc". has a good form example

http://www.ifsqn.com...showtopic=10905

Would this be a good idea to set the hazard analysis this way? I would have a section for Pest Control, Utelities, Maintence, Staff Facilites, protective clothing ...... so on and so forth.

Yes I am a quality manager but I hate paperwork. My idea is practicality and with all this requirements the way you document things has to be simple and practicle.

Thanks in Advance!

How do other BRC users manage the requirement for all of these risk assessments whilst maintaining the KISS acronym? KISS = Keep it Simple Stupid.

See attached for how I've done it.

Dear Jarve -

Many thks for this. Not entirely sure if it's KISS though. Must be some very sizeable databases to support the risk evaluations / interpretations somewhere ??

Yr interpretation of the risk result "25" looks questionable to me ?? Would hv thought something like "temporary shut-down pending results of immediate investigation" would hv been more appropriate. ?

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Bets,

IMO the decision as to whether to seek a general solution for risk assessment depends on yr objective. This in turn relates to the constraints being applied to you (ie by the standard) and yr own process-product. As an example, see the impressive VITAL system for risk assessment of allergens which Simon refers to in this thread - http://www.ifsqn.com...showtopic=12861 .there is no way you can call this “simple” I think. I also doubt whether BRC will give you any bonus points for going to this detail (probably because they won’t understand it anyway) so the decision comes back to you. In contrast, if you offer something which simply does not include obvious (visually or otherwise) basic risk possibilities, this will presumably be criticised by the auditor.

As you commented, some of the things on yr list like supplier approval will probably already hv a form of risk assessment running, eg a scoring system with associated corrective actions because these were required as a fundamental part of the basic HACCP setup. If ok (ie meeting the standard’s minimum requirements), seems no reason to tamper with them to me.

Personally for many of the others, I would go for the simplest 3x3 qualitative risk matrix approach and align the particular (standard) required “corrective/control action” against the risk result, similar concept to Jarve’s post but less ambitious. The old and new versions of the Dutch HACCP system linked in my post of this thread http://www.ifsqn.com...showtopic=12801 give very nice presentations / layouts of this type of option although for their own specific application. The material is very flexible and the explanations very understandable IMO (perhaps more so in the first version). If required in the simplest form, could even further simplify the result numbers to low/medium/high as, I think, illustrated in the jumbo risk analysis / matrix thread somewhere else in the forum without causing a major change in the conclusions. The vast majority of results will be “low” or “medium”of course. (Got nothing against using numbers [look more scientific] but letters are more easy to explain [away] IMO, particularly for small matrices).
It’s true that any such procedure as above tends to be laboriously repetitive to some extent (particularly the first time) but it is easy to adjust within excel or word.

My 5 cents worth. Maybe next week will change.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Bets,

For the last 15 years I only used the simple 3x3 matrix, some times with additional clauses.
For production areas fi only low, medium, high risks.
Based on the posebility to contact the product and to contact the product on the final food contact side.
Keep it simple, if you can explain the risk model that you are using to ordinairy people with no knowledge of food safety risk management you are on track.

Have a nice day, Okido

Thanks you very much!!! I was gone for a week and no chance to reply. I will post soon on questions and or my progress!!!

How do other BRC users manage the requirement for all of these risk assessments whilst maintaining the KISS acronym? KISS = Keep it Simple Stupid.

Might I humbly suggest "keep it simple and short?"

Might I humbly suggest "keep it simple and short?"

You may and I'm happy to substitute Stupid for Short. You've just demonstrated your point very well Jon.

KISS - Keep It Simple and Short

Regards,
Simon

Hi Caz

Where I come from 1 x 1 = 1

Rosie

Dear Caz,

I remember you generously posted this matrix in another thread some time ago. It is even more generous of you to extend the data provided.

There is probably very little effect on most of yr conclusions and I appreciate only too well that this is a highly subjective area however some of the initial logics are perhaps a little unconventional in comparison to, say, Codex (only taken as an example). eg the text around the definition of “Risk”.
The terminology of this whole subject is well-known to be confusing of course and, pragmatically speaking, it probably makes no difference at all to the results but if anyone is interested, this paper attempts to clarify some of it.

http://www.scielo.br...m/v31n1/001.pdf

Similarly some of the allocations in the table are a bit odd, eg critical x improbable = red. I know, it’s subjective, just happens to differ from that often seen IMEX (specially designed for allergen assessment maybe .)

Do all PRPs require a risk assessment (eg Wellington Boots). I guess it's better to be Listeria safe than sorry. Is water classified as an ingredient (No.62), perhaps Impact level 3 again? .

Sorry, didn't mean to nit-pick, it’s a terrific post for people to study and utilise.

Charles.C

You know what...it was only a template, something to assist people and not an "Off the shelf solution"

But seeing as it's so contentios i have now removed it (and a little bit of my good will!)

Hi Caz

I was just confused why sometimes an impact of 1 and liklihood of 1 gave a risk of 1 and sometimes it gave 2. However it has been extremely generous of you to provide the info as it has helped me a lot so please don't be cross. When I have finished mine I will post it and it will probabably be shredded - mine is for a packaging company.

Dear Bets,

Although I remain a supporter of the minimalist 3x3 type solution, I should mention one caveat which I hv met in practice. For some situations, the narrow range of decision options can be a problem particularly where the severity aspect is high.

For example, compare the matrices – [3x3, 5x5] in attachments below. Can see the increased flexibility as the matrix size increases.

dutch_currrent_haccp_risk_matrix.jpg   416.54KB   136 downloads

risk_assesment_matrices.jpg   303.32KB   143 downloads

The second one also illustrates the “cold-bloodedness” factors involved (= cost effectiveness ).

So the exact situation could force an “upgrade” in some circumstances although my guess is that there are very few cases where an auditor would hv a problem with 3x3. Maybe someone has a more elegant solution to work around the above-noted limitation ?? (preferably without changing to a full number based system )

Rgds / Charles.C

You know what...it was only a template, something to assist people and not an "Off the shelf solution"

But seeing as it's so contentios i have now removed it (and a little bit of my good will!)

Caz I can understand your annoyance at reading the pure text of some of the posts but I'm sure the comments were meant only to clarify, extend discussion etc. and not to provoke and be rude. It is a great resource that is probably near perfect. I hope you reconsider posting it again as will many future members here looking for a great risk assessment template to get them started. That's what it's all about.

Thanks for usuful information

Regards,
Dr Alaa

I found the HSE website and example risk assesment matrix very useful and relatively simple so i use that http://www.hse.gov.u.../riskassess.htm