Is this a valid format for verification clause 7.8?

Dear friend

i make a format for verification plan


and i hope if you correct it and me

if there are a wrong

Any comments for the member on the attached Verification Plan?

Your verification plan didn't define the puropse and methods for the verification activities.

you must define detailedly the verifcation plan for each PPR(s), for example, the disinfecting effect of the ultraviolet radiation shall be verified one season per, and so on!

yes the review of PRPs will conduct by the PRP procedure so i will include all item of PRPs

i think teach4arab mean this

yes mr msaad2040

we review all item in the prp under " review of PRP "

Your verification plan didn't define the puropse and methods for the verification activities.

I do agree with Rex!

But, dear msh3egy, if you write the method of verification in the column of description or your referenced document contain the method, it will cover the requirement of ISO 22K. Defining purpose is important as you must be clear about the objectives and outcomes of each verification activity.

One thing more. IMO, the frequency of each verification activity should realistically be different depending upon the optimum blend of importance of activity and convenience of the responsible person.

I am currently redesigning our format of Verification Plan. Comments are welcome on same.

Sample_Verification_Plan.xls   22.5KB   419 downloads

Dear msh3egy

As well said by Zeeshan you need to find out what, when, how, who for verification planning. All things can not be verified by QA manager, few of the points you mentioned in your verification planning need to be done by FSMS team also.
In that respect you can refer the Zeeshan's model of Verification planning that is well lined to serves the purpose.

Regards

Dear Zeeshan,

Could offer a couple of comments on yr excel sheet -

1. Quarterly review of corrective actions seems rather infrequent unlesss you hv very rare occurrences and particularly if you hv a high risk product.

2. The responsibility column looks slightly over-generic perhaps .

I can see the overall layout is well-aligned to the standard

@ msh3egy, ISO 22005 is, IMO, rather "brief" in explaining the fundamental objectives of verification although generously prescriptive in stating ISO's expectations. As a slightly off-topic illustration, I can offer this general comment -

Exact interpretations of verification vary somewhat. The US often overlap it with validation. One description (not ISO) I saw for HACCP verification is -

Verification is a confirmation process. It confirms that the HACCP system follows the HACCP plan, ie that the HACCP plan has been accurately implemented. It confirms that the HACCP plan identifies and sets appropriate CCPs and critical limits, ie that the HACCP plan is accurate. Verification also confirms that the HACCP system established as a result of the HACCP plan is effective for producing safe food.

There are more detailed practical expansions of this in the HACCP literature and on the net. No doubt CODEX offers something somewhere also.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles

Thank you for your valuable comments!

But, would you please elaborate your following points:

1. Quarterly review of corrective actions seems rather infrequent unlesss you hv very rare occurrences and particularly if you hv a high risk product.

2. The responsibility column looks slightly over-generic perhaps .

1- We are producing ready-to-eat (ambient stable hermetically sealed packs, low acid foods packed through retort technology). Is it a high risk product or not?

2- Would you please further explain, what do you mean by "over-generic"? What should be IYO it looks like ?

Regards:
M.Zeeshan Zaki

Dear Zeeshan,

No.1 - Yes, RTE foods are usually classified as high risk AFAIK (this aspect would normally be evident from the initial details / risk analysis of the HACCP plan .)

No.2. I noticed yr terminology "fst" was an exact copy of standard whereas most factories (IMEX) use other names like QA. Perhaps you don't in which case my comment was redundant. (hence my original "perhaps" )

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles!

Thank you for reply. Sorry I have seen your post today. Its strange for me for missing it. Actually I use to see new posts by simply clicking the "View New Posts" link whenever I log on to IFSQN. If the search results are quite less or none, then I search the individual forums of my interest. This "miss" has marked a on my current practice as neither filters of "today's post" nor "one week posts" finds your reply.

By the way, we have a QA department. In fact our Manager QA is FSTL (Food Safety Team Leader). Also, active members of FST (Food Safety Team) are contibuting a lot to implement many activities including those related to Verification Pan and to make it practically effective.

Regards:

Dear friend

i make a format for verification plan


and i hope if you correct it and me

if there are a wrong

Hi there

 

once I have all the information needed to complete the document I will send to you as an attachment

 

thank you very much for the information sent, I will make the necessary  adjustments