Procedures v/s process + ISO 22000 v/s BRC , SQF
Hello,
I have 2 questions:
1. Differences between process and procedure? Why does an auditor always audit the process instead of all procedures in place.
2. I find the standard ISO 22000 not so explicit as compared to other food standards (though I am not fully aware of other standards, but I always hear of BRC which is more detailed). How far I am correct?
Rgds,
Shakti
Hello,
I have 2 questions:
1. Differences between process and procedure? Why does an auditor always audit the process instead of all procedures in place.
Seeing is believing.
2. I find the standard ISO 22000 not so explicit as compared to other food standards (though I am not fully aware of other standards, but I always hear of BRC which is more detailed). How far I am correct?
"Detailed" is maybe the wrong word, especially if you include the other ISO 2200Xs. BRC intentionally attempts to be explicit, ie prescriptive. ISO intentionally attempts to be generic, >> increased "vagueness".
Rgds,
Shakti
Rgds / Charles.C
"One Look Is Worth A Thousand Words" Piqua Leader-Dispatch (page 2). August 15, 1913.
When auditors see something was not done correctly, they will check whether there're no procedures in place or the employees were not trained properly or the worst is, they won't do what should be done
Sorry i'm not familiar with ISO22000
"Detailed" is maybe the wrong word, especially if you include the other ISO 2200Xs. BRC intentionally attempts to be explicit, ie prescriptive. ISO intentionally attempts to be generic, >> increased "vagueness".
Rgds / Charles.C
Absolutely Charles :spoton:
Which is why in order for the FSSC 22000 Certification scheme to be benchmarked by GFSI other technical documents* needed to be included as part of the scheme in addition to ISO 22000.
For food manufacturers ISO/Technical Specification (TS) 22002-1 Prerequisite programmes on food safety – Part 1: on food manufacturing was developed to specify requirements for prerequisite programs to assist in controlling food safety hazards within manufacturing processes. This document still does not go into the same level of detail as the BRC Food Safety Standard.
Regards,
Tony
Many thanks for this clarifications.
I am quite fustrated and discouraged these days as my head of department (who is a quality manager and I am a quality officer) doesnot seem to undertand ISO 22000 principles. She is stuck only to few clauses and doesnot progress (no continual improvement)!. We get many issues regarding this during audits. I can't reply because she always disagree with me.
I do a lot of research concerning different requirements for my knowledge and then try to apply them in context of feed safety:-)
Thanks guys for your support!
Rudra
Dear
Many thanks for this clarifications.
I am quite fustrated and discouraged these days as my head of department (who is a quality manager and I am a quality officer) doesnot seem to undertand ISO 22000 principles. She is stuck only to few clauses and doesnot progress (no continual improvement)!. We get many issues regarding this during audits. I can't reply because she always disagree with me.
I do a lot of research concerning different requirements for my knowledge and then try to apply them in context of feed safety:-)
Thanks guys for your support!
Rudra
Dear Rudra,
I daresay yr QM had limited iso background prior iso22000 which was same case for me. Result is a tendency while reading the standard to be continually thinking “what the heck does that mean ?”. If familiar with iso 9001, the basic approach is much easier to follow; from my experience anyway. (As illustrated in the cross-matrices within the iso22000 standard)
In comparison BRC/SQF’s format makes it easier (in principle) to pinpoint an omission, eg “you’ve forgotten to respond to para. A.x.y”. > less chance of argument. (I am generalizing a bit since BRC/SQF also have their ambiguities but they tend to be more well defined/workable around. And some official guidelines are available, albeit often at a cost for BRC).
On the other hand, people who persevere with ISO-FSSC22000, I think, find that (so far) less re-thinking/re-writing is involved over time, eg every 2 years. One benefit of ISO’s generic concept (+ ISO's own reluctance to change). And particularly so for FSSC22000 perhaps in view of its GFSI benchmarked capability.
Swings and roundabouts. :smile:
Rgds / Charles.C