Suggested Preventive Control HA Form - Please comment

Preventive Controls Hazard Analysis form

Please critique and provide feedback. My thinking is to add a 3rd level of risk assessment.

1. greater or equal to 9: Most critical level = traditional CCP(process control)

2. greater or equal to 5: Regulatory Preventive Controls to control "Significant Hazards"

3. Less than or equal to 4: PRP's/GMP's control potential hazardsPreventive Control Hazard Analysis 8 22 16.rtf   152.79KB   97 downloads

Jason

Hi Jason,

I am a beginner in Food safety and my comment may be silly; so apologies in advance. 

In the risk assessment, I believe multiplying "likelihood" and "consequence" to assess the" risk" (risk matrix) is more appropriate than adding them. 

As per this system, likelihood and consequence has to be 5 and 4 (or vice versa) to treat it as a CCP which I believe is not appropriate. 

Regards,

Syju

Syju,

Yes, I agree, using multiplication vs. addition may create a better risk assessment.  Multiplication should make the values /assessment more sensitive to the extent of likelihood or consequence.

I like the addition approach because it is simpler.  I am attaching the risk matrix that I use.  You can find many similar risk matrix online.  Some add and others multiply.

Hi syju,

As per previous post, both additive/multiplicative/hybrid methods for estimating risk  are in substantial use for both non-matrix and matrix purposes.

Yr question is a relevant one but afaik a consensus of preference does not exist.  I daresay this is because a very large range of different types of applications/probability distributions (eg discrete/continuous)  are involved. Plus a reluctance to complicate what has been considered an effective methodology.

In fact, over last 10-20 years,  a number of specific criticisms regarding matrix use have arisen in the literature. However these have mostly been ignored by the user communities since the risk matrix has provided an unusually convenient, pictorial, readily explainable tool for a  non-simple subject like risk assessment/risk ranking.

One potentially significant factor in the choice of  (x or +) calculation of risk is the nature of the (x,y) scales used for the risk matrix, eg linear vs logarithmic, the two options favoring multiplicative/additive respectively (most textbooks avoid such scale nuances). This is discussed in detail in this recent review -

Recommendations_on_the_use_and_design_of_risk_matrices.pdf   612.44KB   56 downloads

A practical example of a (claimed) justified preference (multiplication) is here –

Risk matrix methodology.pdf   1.24MB   55 downloads

(Pgs C37-C39)

Other publications seem relatively unconcerned, eg –

semi-quantitative (multi-criteria) analysis: scores for each scenario to be evaluated are combined with the appropriate weights and are combined to produce a final risk estimate using simple additive or multiplicative models.

Risk assessment for control.pdf   1.25MB   56 downloads

(pg 30)

Personally, I would guesstimate that the majority of FS literature uses multiplication although exceptions certainly exist.

PS - One more useful discussion on risk matrix, particularly scales. Similar content to first above but maybe little more easily readable/explained.

Risk assessment,challenges and recommendations.pdf   619.83KB   49 downloads

Charles,

Thanks - excellent information and support for the use of the risk matrix methodology.  I have had processors and auditors request support for the risk matrix, this will be very useful.

Thanks!

Jason

I just started at a new, small company and am working on ensuring our HACCP plans are FSMA compliant and have found the significant risks/PC/CCP determination a little confusing. Jason, I like what you did with >5 is a PC, >9 is a CCP/Process CP. Did you decide to keep the format, have any auditors looked at it?

Sarah