How do you complete a supplier risk assessment?

How do you complete a supplier risk assessment and do you need to justify your outcomes?? Advice anyone??

Thanks.

standard / product (if any) ?

Rgds / Charles.C

A supplier risk analysis would be first based on how critical the ingredient or packaging is to the food safety/safety of your product. Second is what do you have to mitigate the risk. Do you have a (COA, CoC, LoG, customer spec, supplier questionnaire, GFSI certificate that proves their traceability, recall, allergen, GMP, etc. programs) from the supplier? Use a general risk assessment matrix using this criteria.

standard / product (if any) ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles, 

Its meat products i.e. raw cuts, - mainly BRC std and tesco. 

Do you need to put a justification for the risk rating and on what basis would you assess the risk. 

Thanks for the help. 

Hi Charles, 

 

Its meat products i.e. raw cuts, - mainly BRC std and tesco. 

Do you need to put a justification for the risk rating and on what basis would you assess the risk. 

 

Thanks for the help. 

For brc6 i assume you refer to 3.5.1.1 > .3

There area variety of options used, some of which are previously posted in this forum.

The method for establishing approved suppliers is in 3512.

For approved suppliers I set them initially at an arbitrary "medium"  risk status and then adjust up or down depending on monthly average results for incoming lots, eg defect percentages.

(some people use combined rating methods including additional items like delivery-on-time, etc. )

Sampling levels are adjusted upward if ranking drops below a minimum level. Similarly for safety-related defects. This is a methodology vaguely based on the MIL. Std as detailed  in sampling textbooks.

tesco no experience but other people here will have.

Rgds / Charles.C

Thats great 

Thanks Charles.

How do you complete a supplier risk assessment and do you need to justify your outcomes?? Advice anyone??

Thanks.

Hi Tom,

You need to assess the risk of the material/service provided taking into consideration the controls you have on site and this will help you determine appropriate risk and supplier assurance measures. See examples attached where we have categorized a final ingredient (chocolate) that is not further processed on site as high risk.

Supplier Risk Calculator.png   484.09KB   94 downloads

Controls on Site.png   300.93KB   39 downloads

Supplier Controls.png   353.69KB   43 downloads

Regards,

Tony

Hi Tony,

Thks for the attachments.

I’m a little confused by the captions -  for the top picture, top right box,  is the scoring matrix intended to generate a risk rating for an ingredient/service  or a  supplier .?( i guess the former).

The lower example seems to imply that flour as used in baking is a high risk ingredient due to salmonella. Is that correct or have i misinterpreted the intention ? (from a haccp POV I would have guessed the opposite due downstream thermal operations but i appreciate it may be a question of reference points).

Rgds / Charles

PS (added) -

I deduce that the key brc raw material “risk” statements (other than outsourced) are –

The company shall undertake a documented risk assessment of each raw material ...........................

 

The risk assessment [raw material] shall form the basis for the raw material acceptance and testing procedure and for the processes adopted for supplier approval and monitoring.

 

The company shall have a documented procedure for the acceptance of raw materials and

packaging on receipt based upon the risk assessment (3.5.1). Raw material acceptance and

its release for use shall be based on one or a combination of: .........................

(AFAI can see, the only texted RA within "3.5.1 - 3.5.2" are the ones mentioned above)

Above seems to imply that (ignoring outsourcing) the only specific risk assessment required  is regarding the "raw material" itself. But, knowing BRC, that should be a "maybe".

 

 

The lower example seems to imply that flour as used in baking is a high risk ingredient due to salmonella. Is that correct or have i misinterpreted the intention ? (from a haccp POV I would have guessed the opposite due downstream thermal operations but i appreciate it may be a question of reference points).

 

 

I don't think it helps that (it seems that) with that system a raw material supplier (no matter what they are supplying) can only have a supplier rating of 4?

Mike

I don't think it helps that (it seems that) with that system a raw material supplier (no matter what they are supplying) can only have a supplier rating of 4?

 

Mike

Mike,

Don't get hung up on numbers.

Given the categories in the attachments, is it unreasonable to categorize a raw material as 4 and a material that is in the final product without any processing as 5?

Have a think and let me know!

Regards,

Tony

Hi Tony,

Did you see post #8 ?

And in regard to previous post,  there is possibly a shortage of definitions rather than numbers. :smile:

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Tony,

 

Did you see post #8 ?

 

And in regard to previous post,  there is possibly a shortage of definitions rather than numbers. :smile:

 

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

I think you answered the question yourself in your 'addition'

From BRC:

‘The company shall have an effective supplier approval and monitoring system to ensure that any potential risks from raw materials ... are understood and managed.

The company shall undertake a documented risk assessment of each raw material or group.

Consideration shall also be given to the significance of the raw material to the quality of the final product.

The risk assessment shall form the basis for the raw material acceptance and testing procedure and for the process adopted for supplier approval and monitoring.’

Regards,

Tony

Hi Tony,

At the moment I have to admit that I'm not getting it (though I'm not too bright, so I'm sure I soon will! :helpplease: )

Maybe it is just seeing 'flour' & 'high risk' in the same sentence (given that it is going to be heat processed & the only 'significant' outbreaks of salmonelosis from flour I have seen, seem to relate to comsumers playing 'russian roulette' with raw cookie dough!)

Am i right in assuming that every 'raw ingredient for further processing' in the system would get a 4 in the Supplier Catagory Rating?  (ie it is not linked to likelihood)

Kind Regards

Mike

Hi Tony,

Thks yr comment.

After re-scutinising the attachments, I realised that my original interpretation was in error.

I guess the scheme presented, as per its title, is not intended to (intrinsically) risk assess raw materials, the latter being pre-determined at values ranging from 1-5 (presumably, arbitrarily, very non-linearly related).

I deduce from the example that a supplier of flour for baking is (implicitly) categorised as a "High Risk" Supplier albeit,  from a HACCP POV,  of a Low Risk Ingredient. Interesting stuff.

Rgds / Charles

Hi Mike,

I'm sure that you are bright enough.

Yes all raw ingredients for further processing are 4 or high risk although they may not be considered high risk ingredients.

Ingredients that are not further processed on site are scored 5 because any hazards present would not be eliminated by the processes on site.

Lower risk materials/services are packaging/contract services such as cleaning/maintenance/pest control. Then secondary packaging.

So that is the basics of the system, once familiar with it you may choose to categories based on knowledge/history of the ingredient.

Kind regards,

Tony

Yes that's right, thank you Charles

Regards,

Tony

 

 

Yes all raw ingredients for further processing are 4 or high risk although they may not be considered high risk ingredients.

 

 

 

Hi Tony

Thanks for the clarification- much appreciated... can I ask one more, what might sound like a really obvious question (I like obvious questions!)

The question is ..................Why? 

What are the advantages of this 'blanket' approach over a (more traditional) assessment based on (actual) likelihood vs severity?

Kind Regards

Mike

Hi Tony, 

Thanks a million, that really helps. One last question, where do you justify your scoring as this is something I have heard been mentioned before. 

Thanks, 

Tom. 

Here is a possible variation of the front end in Tony’s ingenious attachment  if a traditional haccp input analysis is of interest.

Auxiliary Input.xls   17KB   1382 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

Thanks Charles,

That was the kind of thing I was expecting to see ( It's a very nice variation IMO- i must be a bit of a traditionalist!-lol)

Kind Regards

Mike

Hi Tony, 

 

Thanks a million, that really helps. One last question, where do you justify your scoring as this is something I have heard been mentioned before. 

 

Thanks, 

Tom. 

In this particular case, my guess is that the justification resided in  "Grey Matter". :smile:

I have never been asked in an audit to "validate" a risk matrix or a specific methodology for a risk ranking.

Some possible reasons -

(a) auditors do not have  time to study the details of most  risk assessments unless it is a famous one like cooking time/temperature. For random RA's, they need to see that there is, minimally, a stated, not patently illogical, reason for higher/lower risk rankings/decisions.

(b) auditors are well aware that the originators of the standard have often included "risk-based" to  cover their *** , knowing full well that there are an infinity of  "correct" answers, and that it is a perpetual  PITA to new respondents.

© auditors know that many people make them up as they go along (= based on experience / OJT / Proprietary) and that it doesn't matter anyway due to (b)

A few official published examples of risk matrices do exist, often 5x5, and often including the magic word "subjective". i usually keep one of these as an emergency reserve JIC and mentally load  the global get-out - "based on ".

Here is an auditory example analysing  the existing  "official" subjectivity relating to risk evaluation of  foods/ingredients  -

rf1 - High Risk Foods.pdf   150.98KB   1290 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Tony, 

 

Thanks a million, that really helps. One last question, where do you justify your scoring as this is something I have heard been mentioned before. 

 

Thanks, 

Tom. 

Scoring risk assessments tends to use 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 matrices to assess risk. The higher numbers indicate more risk.

In this we are looking at supplier and how we are going to manage them.

Suppliers are categorized in the following risk groups as per the materials/services supplied:

Score    Supplier Category Rating    
5    Final Ingredient/Contract Packer    
4    Raw Ingredient/High Risk Service    
3    Contact Packaging    
2    Non Contact Packaging    
1    Low Risk Service

Alone this would form the simplest of assessments.

Hi Tony

 

What are the advantages of this 'blanket' approach over a (more traditional) assessment based on (actual) likelihood vs severity?

 

Kind Regards

 

Mike

Simplicity and focus.

Regards,

Tony

 

 

 

Simplicity and focus.

 

 

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the reply- sorry to be a pain with more questions, 

Simplicity.... I can see & understand how that would be beneficial (risk assessment can be a pain!)... but doesn't catagorising all raw ingredients as 'high risk' widen the focus of your activities (potentially at least) rather than narrowing it? (which I presume is more desirable)

Kind Regards

Mike

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for the reply- sorry to be a pain with more questions, 

 

Simplicity.... I can see & understand how that would be beneficial (risk assessment can be a pain!)... but doesn't catagorising all raw ingredients as 'high risk' widen the focus of your activities (potentially at least) rather than narrowing it? (which I presume is more desirable)

 

Kind Regards

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

All raw ingredients aren't categorized as high risk, Suppliers of raw materials are categorized as high risk for supplier assurance purposes because the material they supply is going into the product.

Regards,

Tony

Hi Mike,

 

All raw ingredients aren't categorized as high risk, Suppliers of raw materials are categorized as high risk for supplier assurance purposes because the material they supply is going into the product.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

Hi Tony - sorry ( I  know you had already clarified that)  I meant suppliers (but should  proof read my posts before hitting send!!)

 Maybe I'm reading too much into this but.. (not withstanding keeping it simple etc)....to me it still seems that having an 'actual rating' rather than the 'blanket rating' would help with the focus? (ie highlighting & concentrating your monitoring, supplier audit etc  resources on the biggest risk suppliers rather than treating them all the same)

I would appreciate your insight on this

Thanks again

Mike