10 replies to this topic

[Simao Monteiro]

I would like to know the opinion of colleagues in this forum about the difficulties in implementing the BRC and IFS. Which requirements are more complicated to implement? On what grounds?

Thank you all.

[Charles.C]

I would like to know the opinion of colleagues in this forum about the difficulties in implementing the BRC and IFS. Which requirements are more complicated to implement? On what grounds?

Thank you all.

Dear kamandru,

I may (hopefully) be proven wrong but your query is rather wide scope.

If no useful answers, you may have to narrow the question or do a little searching here perhaps.

Rgds / Charles.C

[Simao Monteiro]

My question seeks to ascertain what are BRC Global Standard requirements for Food Safety that more difficulty present at the time of their implementation. What resistance, difficulties, changes entail?

[mgourley]

My question seeks to ascertain what are BRC Global Standard requirements for Food Safety that more difficulty present at the time of their implementation. What resistance, difficulties, changes entail?

I would say the first fundamental.. Senior Management Commitment.
Especially in companies that have been around for a long time, and those with no "corporate" structure, it's the change in culture at the "top" that is difficult to implement.
I'm sure many already have meetings to discuss objectives and goals, etc. They are just not used to codifying them as the Standard requires.

Probably second would be the "formal" training out to staff of all the requirements, programs, procedures, etc.

I would think most companies seeking certification under BRC or another GFSI Standard probably are already audited by some third party such as AIB, etc. As such, they generally have a HACCP scheme in place, prerequisite programs, they already do self inspections and audits, more than likely have raw material receiving programs, supplier monitoring programs, and all the rest in place.

For that stuff, it's just a question of modifying what they have to meet the Standard.

I have no empirical evidence of any of this. Just my observation and experience.

Marshall

Edited by mgourley, 13 June 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[Simao Monteiro]

Thanks Marshall.

Anyone has some experience to share on this?



kamandru

[Cravin' Cajun?]

I agree with Marshall completely...Management Committment and Training are the hardest to implement if not already present! We just passed our first BRC audit last month and I worked many 14-16 hour days in the weeks preceeding the audit just to get all the required training complete, most of which was me trying to "wrangle" the managers into giving me 15 minutes of their time. Good Luck!

[mgourley]

The boss of my boss has been sitting on, or not doing the things required in the Senior Management Commitment area. My boss and I went around him to the big boss to make it plain that without Senior Management Commitment, there is no reason to even bother with BRC certification.
The top down email from the big boss seems to have stirred some "meeting requests" and "status updates".
Of course the substance of the meetings will be "what you have NOT done" to move the process forward.

I can write programs and procedures all day, make sure they are trained out and the staff understand WHY they are doing what we ask, and keep all kinds of pretty and useful documentation.

I can't write company policy though, as it relates to Section 1. I can't unilaterally change the Recall/Withdrawal Program.

As I said in the earlier post, it's difficult to get people that have thought a certain way for years, to think in another way.

Marshall

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

I see no mention of difficulties with IFS. Significant.? Or nobody using it ?

Personally, I found the hardest part of using BRC is to merely understand a large number of the text's requirements (too many to write down). And similarly SQF. And similarly ISO22000. The earlier versions of BRC were unquestionably more user-friendly IMO (and cheaper).

For BRC, I found the implementation, after understanding, relatively easy assuming that the primary objective is to match the auditor's objectives (a fairly heavy internal lever IMEX).

Whether this overall process (additionally) benefits the company in the context of food safety is perhaps a different question.?

Rgds / Charles.C

[mgourley]

Dear All,

I see no mention of difficulties with IFS. Significant.? Or nobody using it ?

Personally, I found the hardest part of using BRC is to merely understand a large number of the text's requirements (too many to write down). And similarly SQF. And similarly ISO22000. The earlier versions of BRC were unquestionably more user-friendly IMO (and cheaper).

For BRC, I found the implementation, after understanding, relatively easy assuming that the primary objective is to match the auditor's objectives (a fairly heavy internal lever IMEX).

Whether this overall process (additionally) benefits the company in the context of food safety is perhaps a different question.?

Rgds / Charles.C

I may be a rookie to BRC, but I thought the whole idea of the GFSI, in all of it's permutations, was to benefit the company in the context of food safety. Oh, wait, that's right... we have been actively trying not to kill the end consumer for years.....

Personally, I find BRC to be pretty straight forward. The requirements are plain. Whether or not you comply, of course, will never be known without a gap audit.

My biggest complaint is that the interpretation guidance for the current standard has yet to be published. A full year after the standard was published and six months after the standard was implemented for audits.

Marshall

[KTD]

Dear All:

I agree with Charles C - trying to interprete and understand intent is one of my greatest difficulties, especially in light of differing auditor interpretations...

I find it hard to swallow how BRC could issue a standard and then wait 6 months to publish a guidance document - did the standard owners have to figure out what they meant to say? I understand that there is a Q&A section on the BRC website, but I find that a poor substitute for an 'official' document. Of course, I then have to turn around and admit that siad guidance may well be out-of-date before it is published...I feel as silly as my dog looks chasing its tail!


Charles -

I do not consider mine a bench-mark company by any means, but I can honestly say that we have reaped little to no benefit from BRC audits over the last 3 years.
New ideas? - nope
Reduced number of other 2nd & 3rd party audits? - 1 actually
Rewriting policies, programs, & procedures, not because they did not work, but to meet the standard? - yup
Having to maintain separate HACCP supporting documentation because BRC wants additional information that is not required by USDA FSIS regulations, and I don't want to have to explain the additional material to regulatory officials ? - yup
Tripled auditing costs? - yup

I apologize, one of my facilities was just audited ('A' by the way), and the puppet-dancing-on-a-string activities leading up to the audit always leaves me grumpy...

[Charles.C]

Dear KTD,

I find it hard to swallow how BRC could issue a standard and then wait 6 months to publish a guidance document - did the standard owners have to figure out what they meant to say?

Well, based on some of the earlier threads here regarding interpretative difficulties, this appears quite possible. Or perhaps a question of avoiding putting auditors behind the eight-ball?. Or maybe the profit margin?

So many possibilities, so little time Presumably, it will soon be redundant anyway.

Rgds / Charles.C