Does anyone have comprehensive Verification & Validation Template/Example they can share? I want to get everything possible on one form.
Posted 17 May 2019 - 05:22 PM
Does anyone have comprehensive Verification & Validation Template/Example they can share? I want to get everything possible on one form.
Posted 17 May 2019 - 07:09 PM
Can't find the thread but this document was provided by I'm almost positive Scampi.
Edited by KfromIA, 17 May 2019 - 07:11 PM.
Thanked by 1 Member:
|
|
Posted 17 May 2019 - 08:42 PM
Can't find the thread but this document was provided by I'm almost positive Scampi.
Yes I have and use the same form... cannot remember where it came from, but a likely source!
Posted 18 May 2019 - 03:15 PM
Yes I have and use the same form... cannot remember where it came from, but a likely source!
The document seems to be rather devoid of methodology.
@ Tavish - it would have been helpful if yr query had mentioned Ve/Va for who/ what ?
Kind Regards,
Charles.C
Posted 18 May 2019 - 03:37 PM
It is for dry blending. Do/Can you put the Prerequiste Programs and Management systems on the Verification & Validation.
Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:34 AM
It is for dry blending. Do/Can you put the Prerequiste Programs and Management systems on the Verification & Validation.
Hi Tavish,
Thks for info but you omitted the "who", eg BRC, SQF, ISO22000 ??? They all have their own "Validations/Applications"
Eg -
BRC require validation of PRPs. And probably "risk-based".
ISO22000, SQF do not require validation of PRPs.(at least for SQF7,iso22000[2005] anyway., haven't checked latest editions.)
Kind Regards,
Charles.C
Posted 19 May 2019 - 01:46 PM
Opps for SQF .
Posted 19 May 2019 - 01:48 PM
Here is what I have
Program Goals
Owner
Monitoring
Verification
Validation
Posted 19 May 2019 - 01:52 PM
Should I be including the repsponsibilities of the management system on here?
Complaints, Regulatory, Trace, Supplier Approval.
Posted 19 May 2019 - 09:19 PM
Should I be including the repsponsibilities of the management system on here?
Complaints, Regulatory, Trace, Supplier Approval.
Hi Tavish,
Thks yr replies. I sympathise with yr difficulties. This is a generically complicated topic and particularly so for SQF
Which SQF clause are you responding to ?
eg
2.5.1.1 ?
2.5.2.1 ?
2.8.1.5 ?
eg SQF8 Guidance 2.5.1 -
The SQF practitioner is responsible for documenting and implementing the methods, responsibility and criteria for
confirming the effectiveness of pre-requisite programs and validating critical food safety limits to ensure they achieve
their intended purpose. The supplier must demonstrate how the validation methods ensure that the selected critical
limits achieve the level of control required for the targeted food safety hazard. The supplier must also have
documentation showing that the methods and control measures provide the level of control needed.
Some potential methods for confirming the effectiveness of specific pre-requisite programs are listed below. The
implementation of these specific methods is not necessarily required, but confirmation of the effectiveness of the
program is required. This is not an exhaustive list, but provides some examples:
etc etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So no PRP validation specifically required. IIRC the Code's text changed upon release SQF 7.2
(afaik the current Codex distinction regarding Va/Ve particularly involves chronology).
(Also see Post 24 in 1st linked thread below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This (2018) SQF8 thread illustrates some of the SQF/Va-Ve story's interpretive twists and turns. ( + various SQF7.2 threads also).
https://www.ifsqn.co...ion-activities/
The example quoted previously in this current thread/Post 2 is in Post 9 (> Brendan Triplett) and also see Post 11.
The (non) PRP validation is re-iterated in Post 21 (also note the preceding posts' continuing confusion). + Also note the caveats in 3F's Post 22 so do not be surprised if some SQF auditors may disagree these interpretations, SQF (and their auditors) particular interpretations/expectations for "validation" are deeply entrenched.
(Note that SQF auditors' "earlier" interpretation of validation is not necessarily incorrect since many variations exist, however SQF Code's claim to be in line with Codex is "debatable")
If you still want a SQF example for when Ve/Va for many PRPs was mandated (and I suspect other users may also), this older SQF layout has afaik been much borrowed -
Kind Regards,
Charles.C
Posted 20 May 2019 - 12:52 PM
Yes 2.5.1 & 2.5.2 - last time my auditor suggested one form. I guess I am confused - should I add methods on here? Can I combine with Monitoring? I AM CONFUSED - haha.
Thank you for any help.
Program
Owner
Monitoring
Verification
Validation
Water
Monthly Inspection of Backflow devices
Annual water test - external lab
Annual Plan Review of Customer Complaints, CAR, Nonconforming, FSIR’s
Foreign Material Prevention
Pre-op Inspection,
Per batch metal detection
Pre-op Inspection,
Per batch metal detection
Annual Plan Review of Customer Complaints, CAR, Nonconforming, FSIR’s
Supplier Approval
Monthly HACCP Meetings
Monthly HACCP Meetings/7 days if bringing in high risk ingredients (preventative control)
Annual review of receiving records, Annual review of Customer Complaints, FSIR, Nonconforming & SCARS
Posted 20 May 2019 - 12:57 PM
That table didn't print correctly. Here it is.
Posted 20 May 2019 - 02:09 PM
Second time :)
Thanked by 1 Member:
|
|
Posted 20 May 2019 - 03:51 PM
Second time :)
Hi Tavish,
I suggest you study the Guidance although some portions of it look self-contradictory to me, eg the Audit Guidance for 2.5.1
IMO most of the entries in the Validation column of yr attachment are redundant, ie all except the critical limits.
IMO, in a Codex haccp context, "confirming the effectiveness" and "Verification" for PRPs is essentially the same activity. However SQF seems to think they are not so i cannot offer any suggestion for distinguishing them.
I am not a SQF user but Interested to hear what SQF users think.
PS - Previous discussions on this SQF topic (Va/Ve) have mostly concluded that it is ultimately necessary to submit what yr auditor interprets as the Code's requirements regardless as to whether you agree with their interpretation or not.
PPS - I suspect one primary source of continuing confusion in this section is that SQF have still not accepted the later Codex viewpoints on Validation. Particularly chronological aspects. This is illustrated in their Glossary definitions, eg -
Validation
As defined in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s CODEX Alimentarius
Commission. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and
Guidelines for its Application – Annex to CAC/RCP 1 – 1969, Rev. 4-2003), – “A
system, which identifies, evaluates and controls hazards which are significant for food
safety. Essentially validation as applied to control limits seeks to prove that the
intended result was achieved and that it actually worked.
I believe most current HACCP viewpoints would be that the red ^^^ would either be classified as "Verification" or perhaps (IMO less preferably) "on-going Validation" as per FSIS (2015)
For example see this interpretation -
Validation-Verification,Techni-K (2016).PNG 46.96KB
0 downloads
Edited by Charles.C, 21 May 2019 - 02:39 AM.
added
Kind Regards,
Charles.C
Posted 21 May 2019 - 03:08 AM
Hi Tavish,
After some more searching, I suggest you have a study of this thread (will take some time) -
https://www.ifsqn.co...m-verification/
The above thread (2016) was pre-SQF8 but I anticipate that most of it is SQF8-compatible. (I noted one sample which looks to have inspired Brendan Triplett's SQF8 attachment)
Note the innovatory use of "Validation and Effectiveness" Caption.
Note the volume of effort involved. As per the link's Post 10, an Excel Document would probably simplify things.
As would be predicted, I find some of the manouevring of what I would call Verification into Validation bewildering but if that's what it takes to satisfy SQF, ..........
PS - Also see these relatively recent threads (and probably more) -
https://www.ifsqn.co...isite-programs/
https://www.ifsqn.co...ion-activities/
It's truly scary how much confusion/headaches/Forum posts SQF have achieved over the years with this topic(s).
Edited by Charles.C, 21 May 2019 - 03:52 AM.
expanded
Kind Regards,
Charles.C
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users