BRC Procedure Writing

Is it recommended that all company procedures are in the same format? Also, would it be a good idea to have the BRC requirements that the procedure refers to on the actual procedure?

I am doing both of these at this point in time, but I was just wondering if I am wasting a lot of time or not.

Jaredkkrischel,


Would you please explain what do you mean by format(if you mean word/ excel) then it is. Just it looks professional.
Not necessary BRC requirements implies on all your operations e.g if you don’t have any workshop on site you don’t need to establish procedure for workshop etc.
But its good idea to establish you procedure keeping in mind BRC requirements.

regards

Martin Blue

Good Evening Jaredkkrischel,.

I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are referring to, but I assume it is in relation to BRC clause 3.2.1

" The food safety and quality manual shall contain an outline of working methods and practices or references to where such an outline is documented"

There is no right or wrong way to design a Quality Manual.

In many companies the Quality Manual is the traditional high level document which is divided into different sections with generalised statements explaining your policies and intentions. Where there is a need for a more detailed method statement it is sometimes included within the text of the manual or there is a reference on to a detailed operating procedure. This can be as simple as saying "see procedure x" in the relevant section or embedding documents in the manual or other techniques depending upon your IT ability (and/or enthusiasm)

Referencing on to procedures is probably more common and it allows you to make changes to individual procedures without having to reissue the whole manual every time.

Most standards require that that the manual covers the scope of the individual standard (The wording varies but generally that is the meaning) If you are certified to or are working with different standards, be they ISO9000, BRC,IFS, ISO14000 etc, a useful tool is to work out a matrix which cross references the requirements of each standard. This enables you to integrate into a single manual so you don't have an ISO manual, a BRC manual etc. It also helps you to plan your internal audit schedule such that you cover all the standards without duplication

Martinblue,

What I mean by format is using a template for all the policies and procedures so they all look the same. My reasoning behind this is so once you've seen one you know where everything is going to be on every other policy or procedure you look at because the title, revision number, etc will be in the same spot on every one.

For the BRC requirement question, if the procedure specifically pertains to one of the requirements, should this be in the procedure/policy somewhere? For example "Documented cleaning procedures shall be in place and maintained for the building, utilities, plant and all equipment"

Martinblue,

What I mean by format is using a template for all the policies and procedures so they all look the same. My reasoning behind this is so once you've seen one you know where everything is going to be on every other policy or procedure you look at because the title, revision number, etc will be in the same spot on every one.

For the BRC requirement question, if the procedure specifically pertains to one of the requirements, should this be in the procedure/policy somewhere? For example "Documented cleaning procedures shall be in place and maintained for the building, utilities, plant and all equipment"

As much as I'd like policies and procedures to all have the same "look and feel", I don't think it's really necessary. As long as the required information is contained in the policy/procedure, that's all that really matters. Of course, you "can" re-write or re-format all the existing policies/procedures you have, but unless you really like to type, I don't see that there is a requirement in the standards for uniformity in the "appearance" of the required documents.

As for the second part of your question, I'd recommend against that. I think it adds to much to the procedure, which really should just be about the procedure. In addition, if and when a standard, or a revision to that standard changes, you would have to update the procedure to reference the latest revision of the standard.

Keep your paperwork simple and user friendly.

I am in the process of doing the same thing. I made a template, and have been writing procedures for 6 months to prepare for BRC. What I've found is that as you go along you find ways to improve the formatting and the way you tie forms, policies and procedures together. But like they said previously, keep in mind the BRC requirements. In writing the policies the and procedures I had my BRC book next to me so I made sure I covered what they were asking for.

When I started a FSQMS I had templates. Although it's unnecessary, I think it inspires confidence in an auditor.

Also I'm a bit anally retentive. I know I will be doing the same in my new company but because someone else has been there first I will be gradually adapting documents for months. I possibly need to get a life.

Also I'm a bit anally retentive. I know I will be doing the same in my new company but because someone else has been there first I will be gradually adapting documents for months. I possibly need to get a life.

Dear GMO,

I can tell from experience that all quality people, do this when they changes their jobs. It is probably just the way we are.

Dear GMO,

I can tell from experience that all quality people, do this when they changes their jobs. It is probably just the way we are.

It's like when we move house we have to 'make it our own' even if it's perfectly liveable.

How would this work from a BRC standpoint?
It's in the format presented in the Interpretation Guideline.
Please comment

How would this work from a BRC standpoint?
It's in the format presented in the Interpretation Guideline.
Please comment

I suppose I should attach the file

Dear mgourley,

Strictly, this is not a procedure, it is a work instruction

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - it is also helpful but not in the least mandatory to -
(a) give it a logical number (perhaps SCC is to you)
(b) add a list of cross-links to where reference is made to the WI elsewhere, typically in a main "procedure". (sorry, correction - actually it is more common to do the reverse, ie descend the ISO pyramid)

added - of course, BRC may not agree with me, or ISO.

added (2) - version number ? date ? approval ?

Dear mgourley,

Strictly, this is not a procedure, it is a work instruction

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - it is also helpful but not in the least mandatory to -
(a) give it a logical number (perhaps SCC is to you)
(b) add a list of cross-links to where reference is made to the WI elsewhere, typically in a main "procedure".

Really? Then why does this format appear in the Issue 5 Implementation Guideline in Appendix 1 as an "Example of a Documented Procedure and Record?
I would assume, from that, it is a "procedure". We can parse English here, but a procedure could also be called a "work instruction"
SCC is an example... I shall call it Sanitation Chemical Control
Maintenance Chemical Control would be MCC, etc. All in the genre of "Chemical Control"
I suppose I could include a line that references applicable standards. Such as BRC standard x.x.x and HACCP pre-req program x, etc..but as you said, it's not mandatory.
If it's not mandatory, I'm not going there

Marshall

Dear Mgourley,

No problem. Good luck with the audit.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Mgourley,

No problem. Good luck with the audit.

Rgds / Charles.C

Oh, I'm far away from an audit. Which is the reason I am here.
Please explain why the format I posted is incorrect. Especially since it is right out of the Interpretation Guidelines?
The approval and dates are in the footer of the spreadsheet, BTW.

Dear mgourley,

I meant that IMEX of BRC audits the chosen format simply doesn’t matter as long as it covers the standards requirements. Haven’t seen the Interpretation Guideline but I anticipate it represents one suggested acceptable style. If you like it, fine by me.

I was referring to an ubiquitous, classic, ISO 9001 documentation layout methodology. An example of its implementation which demonstrates the conceptual difference between policy/procedure/WI for “cleaning” is in attachment below.

implementation example for PO-PROC-WI .pdf   254.39KB   157 downloads

The drawback to this generic method is that can take “time” to organise if unused to the style and you have a lot of “procedures”. Two advantages are (theoretically) consistency and existence of many analogous ready-to-use examples on the net for ISO (and other standards) procedures/WIs etc.

The BRC comments made by Madame A.Dtor in a parallel thread (and following posts) are typical IMEX of the actual situation, eg see http://www.ifsqn.com...dpost__p__42331

Similarly for numbering. There are some amazingly creative alphanumeric systems in use but they can take time to organise. One popular recommendation is KISS (eg see the method in above attachment, possibly over-simple ). But again, AFAIK, it is a totally free choice.

Rgds / Charles.C

Charles,

It wasn't my intent to get sidetracked about numbering of documents. AFAIK there is no requirement for identification of documents. I was simply asking if the format and content of the procedure would be/is acceptable from an audit standpoint.

Marshall