Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program"?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:04 PM

Does anyone have suggestions for the best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program".


Currently the company has a lot of SOPs and Checklists in place, but they are not organized into distinct "programs". Eg SOPs are curently all in one big "SOP Binder". I am going through them, deciding which PP they belong, and putting them in a separate binder for each PP. With this approach, each PP will be a bunch of SOPs and checklists. Is there another way to do this or anything else needed?


Thanks,



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,378 posts
  • 4836 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:23 PM

Does anyone have suggestions for the best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program".

Thanks,


Dear HNG,

IMO this is equivalent to the proverbial decision on how to organise documents. Books hv been written on this, eg Mr Dewey.

Depending on how many, start "stamping" from 01 (or 001) and continue upwards. :smile: (maybe add a letter if separated by manuals).

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 30 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

Is it required to have document numbers? We discussed this in house, and prefered just to have unique titles and not to use numbers.





Dear HNG,

IMO this is equivalent to the proverbial decision on how to organise documents. Books hv been written on this, eg Mr Dewey.

Depending on how many, start "stamping" from 01 (or 001) and continue upwards. :smile: (maybe add a letter if separated by manuals).

Rgds / Charles.C



#4 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,228 posts
  • 907 thanks
185
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:17 PM

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall



Thanked by 1 Member:
HNG

#5 KTD

KTD

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 237 posts
  • 87 thanks
9
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

Similar to Mgourley, I have broken programs into groups, especially tied to regulatory compliance: those associated with Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS - USDA FSIS requirement), SSOP, HACCP, Food Defense (FD), Quality (QA), etc. I also use the 'dot' extension to identify associated documentation and procedures.



#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,378 posts
  • 4836 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:55 AM

Dear HNG,

Allow me to respond in another way - How big is yr system ? And how many slave assistants ? eg How much of your time are you prepared to allocate for this activity ? :biggrin:
(I previously, briefly, attempted to match some of the beautiful multiply sub-classified examples on the IT such as those issued by NASA / Automobile Manufacturers for iso-type quality manuals / procedures. Fine if you have an army of resources to do the heavy lifting or are a workaholic, otherwise far easier to follow KISS IMHO).

Regarding non-use of numbers, I hv seen a few examples of such quality manuals however they can get extremely laborious when items like cross-links are involved. I guess once again it may depend on yr system, eg how complex / how much sub-divided. Definitely in the minority IMO.

Nonetheless, I do admire the systems described in the previous posts, and the people who maintain it.

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:29 PM

Hi Charles,

Are you saying its better to leave off the numbers? Sorry I'm new to all these documentation systems and not familiar with the lingo (also have no idea what KISS means....). We have about 100 seasonal employees. My concern is if we start a numbering system then want to add an SOP or something that logically falls 'in between" two documents, it will mess up the numbering system.


I'd like to know if the numbering is a an absolute must for SQF and/or FSSM, ISO, BRC, or any other certification programs. If not a requirement for SQF we won't do it, at least for now. If required for any other programs, I'd like to know so we can be prepared to add numbers in future.

Thanks,






Dear HNG,

Allow me to respond in another way - How big is yr system ? And how many slave assistants ? eg How much of your time are you prepared to allocate for this activity ? :biggrin:
(I previously, briefly, attempted to match some of the beautiful multiply sub-classified examples on the IT such as those issued by NASA / Automobile Manufacturers for iso-type quality manuals / procedures. Fine if you have an army of resources to do the heavy lifting or are a workaholic, otherwise far easier to follow KISS IMHO).

Regarding non-use of numbers, I hv seen a few examples of such quality manuals however they can get extremely laborious when items like cross-links are involved. I guess once again it may depend on yr system, eg how complex / how much sub-divided. Definitely in the minority IMO.

Nonetheless, I do admire the systems described in the previous posts, and the people who maintain it.

Rgds / Charles.C



#8 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall



#9 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:39 PM

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!





I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall



#10 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,378 posts
  • 4836 thanks
943
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

Dear HNG,

To summarise my post, IMEX most people use numbers. many use numbers + letters also. In my humble opinion, if you choose not to use any numbers, be prepared to regret it later. :smile:
(I had a bunch of SOPs just like you, I simply started at 001 and kept adding numbers as i went through the text, yes the order can indeed become illogical but, at least IMEX, the payoff comes later on. eg when you want to find something or make a concise list of xlinks.)

KISS has a variety of definitions. :smile:
One popular one although somewhat impolite - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Another, more polite - Keep It Short and Simple.
http://en.wikipedia..../KISS_principle

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#11 KDuf

KDuf

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 24 posts
  • 8 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

(also have no idea what KISS means....). ,




If I am not sorely mistaken, KISS = "Keep It Simple Stupid." Basically, don't go into more trouble than you need to if it won't help anyone.

Do what seems right to you, then learn and adjust as necessary.


Cheers,

KDuf

Edited by KDuf, 12 December 2012 - 02:41 PM.


#12 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,228 posts
  • 907 thanks
185
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:48 PM

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!

I'm not doing SQF, so things are a little different.
My "Food Safety and Quality Manual" is basically just a restatement of the BRC Standards clause by clause. For example "The company shall ensure that all documents in use are complete and legible" Becomes "My Company" ensures that all documents in use are complete and legible. See FSQM 6.1 for details.

FSQM 6.1 contains the Document Completion Policy which addresses all the requirements of the clause relating to document completion. So rather than restating the policy in the FSQM, it refers to the actual policy. I maintain an HTML version of the Food Safety and Quality manual, so the auditor could just click on the link and the referenced document would pop up.

Marshall




#13 esquef

esquef

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 374 posts
  • 232 thanks
40
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:49 PM

I can't speak for Charles, but based on my experience some kind of numbering system is definitely helpful, especially when cross referencing SOP's and SSOP's in policy and procedure documents that make up the backbone of your food safety management system.

But is a numbering system or scheme a SQF requirement in SQF? No, not at all. But the company I work for has 30 processing / packaging areas, about 1200 SKU's, over 3500 raw materials and 6 HACCP plans so a well thought out document numbering system is a necessity both in day to day operations, but also in audits where you need to find specific docs quickly.



Hi Charles,

Are you saying its better to leave off the numbers? Sorry I'm new to all these documentation systems and not familiar with the lingo (also have no idea what KISS means....). We have about 100 seasonal employees. My concern is if we start a numbering system then want to add an SOP or something that logically falls 'in between" two documents, it will mess up the numbering system.


I'd like to know if the numbering is a an absolute must for SQF and/or FSSM, ISO, BRC, or any other certification programs. If not a requirement for SQF we won't do it, at least for now. If required for any other programs, I'd like to know so we can be prepared to add numbers in future.

Thanks,









#14 machinejmo

machinejmo

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!







Good afternoon,

I will keep this fairly simple. Whether your company is using paper based copies of documents or digitized versions the below practices should be applied:

Numbering System:
This is a necessary evil when attempting to adhere to a Global Food Safety System. Brainstorm with a group of your associates for a feasable method for creation and maintenance of the system. Don't forget to include an index to record revision data i.e. revision date, issue date, revision notes, etc... This can be simply a spreadsheet with the number-name-revision data. Tip: if using a spreadsheet to record this data: create new "rows" as documents are revised entering new document numbers, dates and other necessary revision data. This will result in a document revision log that is fairly simple to maintain and history trails are easily accessed if needed.

Food Safety Policy Manual-->PRP's-->Procedures (SOP's, Policies, Work Instructions, Specifications): Reference, Reference, Reference
Hopefully the title speaks for itself. There are several ways to tackle this integrated animal, but remember this;

FS Manual=Explanation of your companies adherence to the Certification Scheme
PRP's (Food Safety/Quality Programs)=Document that encompasses SOPs, Policies, Work Instructions
Procedures=How to physically complete the task

In a paper based or digitized system you can follow this same method;
Create a Food Safety Manual that summarizes how your company meets the codex requirements of your certification scheme. List the requirement as a heading, and include a brief description/summary. Include references to Programs that explain in further detail how you meet this requirement. If you are organized properly (Documented Index-explained above), referencing the document number/name should suffice. Your ability to pull this "separate" document is vital.

PRP's/Programs should follow the same principle. Create a summary (this summary will be more detailed) and/or flow chart of your companies program guidelines, referencing appropriate documents throughout. Again, you will need to be organized and be able to pull the document as your going through the program.

No duplication-(other than the scope and purpose summaries in your FS manual)

But you need to number and name your documents in order to organize.. that simple

Good luck!


Thanked by 1 Member:
HNG

#15 HNG

HNG

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 10 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:13 AM

I really like your system, and want to have something similar, but the problem I'm having is this. The "program" has a specific number, per your eg below FSQM 7.0 The linked docs such as SOPs, etc could use FSQM 7.1, FSQM 7.2, etc. However the "program" itself is also broken up into "sections" that are also logically numbers 7.1, 7.2, 7.3..... so we end up confusing individual documents with sections within the main document. Grrrr



I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall



#16 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,228 posts
  • 907 thanks
185
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:30 AM

I really like your system, and want to have something similar, but the problem I'm having is this. The "program" has a specific number, per your eg below FSQM 7.0 The linked docs such as SOPs, etc could use FSQM 7.1, FSQM 7.2, etc. However the "program" itself is also broken up into "sections" that are also logically numbers 7.1, 7.2, 7.3..... so we end up confusing individual documents with sections within the main document. Grrrr





I'm not sure where the confusion would come in. When I reference "FSQM 7.1" for example, I am referencing a separate document, not a paragraph within an existing document.
For SOP's associated with a program, perhaps you could use something like SOP 7.1, SOP 7.2 etc.

It's really all up to you and your team to come up with a logical system that a) makes linking like stuff together and b) is not confusing. Easier said than done, I'm sure.

Marshall

Thanked by 1 Member:
HNG



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate