8 replies to this topic

[Jan de Wit]

I am setting up a reference quality manual against different standards. Users may check which (combination of) standards they wish to comply with, and are consequently guided through the process of setting up their integrated manual.

One manual fits different standards.

I am starting with three quite different standards: BRC, Fairtrade and Organic, and step by step weaving in others like Rainforrest, Utz and others.

Now my question: I understand that some or all BRC inspectors will not restrict their evaluation of the companies manual to BRC requirements only. Suppose the manual also contains a policy on "equal opportunities for men and women", they will also check whether this policy is brought into practice.

To me that is outrageous, because another fairtrade inspector will want to evaluate the same policy again.
My position would be that the BRC inspector limits his scope of inspections to evaluating the BRC requirements.

But maybe I understand something wrong?

To avoid conflicts with inspectors, I will print different issues of the same manual. An issue that only contains all content related to BRC. An issue that only contains content related to fairtrade. Both manuals will share the same introduction, company profile, and overlapping requirements.
Would such be acceptable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Edited by Jan de Wit, 09 June 2010 - 01:26 PM.

[Tony-C]

I am setting up a reference quality manual against different standards. Users may check which (combination of) standards they wish to comply with, and are consequently guided through the process of setting up their integrated manual.

One manual fits different standards.

I am starting with three quite different standards: BRC, Fairtrade and Organic, and step by step weaving in others like Rainforrest, Utz and others.

Now my question: I understand that some or all BRC inspectors will not restrict their evaluation of the companies manual to BRC requirements only. Suppose the manual also contains a policy on "equal opportunities for men and women", they will also check whether this policy is brought into practice.

To me that is outrageous, because another fairtrade inspector will want to evaluate the same policy again.
My position would be that the BRC inspector limits his scope of inspections to evaluating the BRC requirements.

But maybe I understand something wrong?

To avoid conflicts with inspectors, I will print different issues of the same manual. An issue that only contains all content related to BRC. An issue that only contains content related to fairtrade. Both manuals will share the same introduction, company profile, and overlapping requirements.
Would such be acceptable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi Jan

Why don't you have a "BRC" manual and a "Fair Trade Manual" without the duplication?

Regards,

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 11 June 2010 - 06:15 AM.

[Charles.C]

Dear Jan de Wit,

I think I am agreeing with Tony in that i thought yr intention was admirable in principle but will be extremely difficult to achieve in practice. IMEX (but admittedly not with 2/3 of the standards you refer), different manual's requirements / details often tend to be too different to readily allow selective manipulations. I suppose it depends on how close the requirements are?

Regarding the auditor's involvement, I thought the usual approach is for an auditor to hv a checklist matched to his immediate standard of interest. Excess of such would then be uninteresting in practice unless it interacted / interfered with his own target material. Maybe it depends on the magnitude / visibility of the excess ?

Rgds / Charles.C

[smithyj]

Hi Jan De Wit
The BRC audit should only cover the requirements of the BRC standard - conformance can only be measured against the clauses in the standard, if there isn't a clause to cover an issue there isn't a non-conformance.
Some Certification Bodies will be able to undertake audits against more than one standard at any one time, for instance it wouldn't be unusual for a meat factory to be evaulated against a Assured Meat Scheme at the same time as BRC.
Remember, BRC auditors are looking for compliance, not non-compliance.
One manual will do just fine.

[Jan de Wit]

Thank you for your answers.


"conformance can only be measured against the clauses in the standard, if there isn't a clause to cover an issue there isn't a non-conformance".
Good one, I agree, and will keep this in mind.


Why not 2 or more manuals?
That happens in practice, orgnaisations having 2, or 3 or more manuals in place. I know one organisation in Guatemala that had 13 different systems in place!! Imagine what that costs in terms of man power? It is also very ineffective an inefficient, because time after time a full system has to be set up and thought through. And what to think about all the internal audits?

Most standards claim to support the management of the organisation. I don't think so, especially when organisations keep multi certifications. I often see systems that satisfy the standard, or rather the inspector, but which are meaningless in the daily activities.

If you have a closer look, it is amazing to see how much overlap there is between standards. Although the clause details may differ, quite often one procedure or working instruction may suit different requirements. The trick is to bring the different requirements from the different standards together in one screen. The user can than select the strictest one, and write a policy against, that also covers the lower requiring other clauses from other standards. Or if two clauses are on the same topic, but not exactely overlapping, the procedure can cover both.
I am using procedure as an example, the same counts for working instructions, policies etcetera.

[Jan van der Kuil]

"conformance can only be measured against the clauses in the standard, if there isn't a clause to cover an issue there isn't a non-conformance".
Good one, I agree, and will keep this in mind.

Yes, the BRC inspector should specify the audit criteria in the audit plan and should stick to them when assessing conformance even though the auditee claims compliance to other standards and regulation. However, if you claim conformance to a particular standard to as means to comply with the BRC requirements, then that standard is in scope.

Hoi Jan,

Why not 2 or more manuals?
...If you have a closer look, it is amazing to see how much overlap there is between standards. Although the clause details may differ, quite often one procedure or working instruction may suit different requirements. The trick is to bring the different requirements from the different standards together in one screen. The user can than select the strictest one, and write a policy against, that also covers the lower requiring other clauses from other standards. Or if two clauses are on the same topic, but not exactely overlapping, the procedure can cover both.
I am using procedure as an example, the same counts for working instructions, policies etcetera.

What you may consider is to generate a reference matrix between the standard and your companies quality manual and quality documents. For earch clause in the standard you refer to the policy, procedure, work instruction, etc that provides the evidence that your system complies with the requirements. You may do that for each standard to which you claim conformance. The inspector provided with this matrix can use it as a navigator through your quality system preventing him from getting lost. This reference list is also supportive when a standard gets updated, like the BRC standard currently is. You cn easily identify which parts of your quality system needs to be evaluated for compliance to the revised requirements.

Hopelijk helpt dit :-)

Jan

[Charles.C]

Dear Jan van der Kull,

Welcome to the forum !

Thks for yr input.

I think the "matrix" you refer to is a similar idea to the "cross-matrix" which is very popular for inter-comparison of various standards, particularly ISO.

Of course, many private systems use the ISO 9000 series + various of ISO's relation standards as (generic)"Quality/MS" guidances, even if the relationship is not always directly obvious.
Fortunately (IMO) ISO 22000 arrived too late to influence existing HACCP programs (so far, the reverse has been more the case ).

Rgds / Charles.C

[RICKG]

I am setting up a reference quality manual against different standards. Users may check which (combination of) standards they wish to comply with, and are consequently guided through the process of setting up their integrated manual.

One manual fits different standards.

I am starting with three quite different standards: BRC, Fairtrade and Organic, and step by step weaving in others like Rainforrest, Utz and others.

Now my question: I understand that some or all BRC inspectors will not restrict their evaluation of the companies manual to BRC requirements only. Suppose the manual also contains a policy on "equal opportunities for men and women", they will also check whether this policy is brought into practice.

To me that is outrageous, because another fairtrade inspector will want to evaluate the same policy again.
My position would be that the BRC inspector limits his scope of inspections to evaluating the BRC requirements.

But maybe I understand something wrong?

To avoid conflicts with inspectors, I will print different issues of the same manual. An issue that only contains all content related to BRC. An issue that only contains content related to fairtrade. Both manuals will share the same introduction, company profile, and overlapping requirements.
Would such be acceptable?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[RICKG]

Jan,

I feel your pain! Out own broad customer base is individually requiring SQF, BRC as well as the standard AIB compliancce. My own plan seems similar to your own. Create a matrix of all 3 Standards, and cross-reference to my own Quality Manual and supporting procedures. It should work just fine for all.

I would be very grateful if you'd consider sharing your matrix/index when completed. I've just only started such a matrix bewteen the SQF and BRC requirements. Anything you might offer would be just wonderful!