SQF Header/Footer Questions

Hello everyone,

I have searched this topic but have found conflicting results.

I wanted to verify if I am including the right information on the footer of the documents I have created.

Currently we have the following:

- Section #

- Page #

- Issue date:

- Revision #:

- Prepared by:

- Approved by:

Not sure if I need to omit or add things to the footer.

I am also wondering if the footer has to be present on records as well, for example: temperature, cleaning and sanitation.... records that are filled out by personnel.

Thank you!

Jenna

Hello everyone,

 

I have searched this topic but have found conflicting results.

 

I wanted to verify if I am including the right information on the footer of the documents I have created.

Currently we have the following:

- Section #

- Page #

- Issue date:

- Revision #:

- Prepared by:

- Approved by:

 

Not sure if I need to omit or add things to the footer.

 

I am also wondering if the footer has to be present on records as well, for example: temperature, cleaning and sanitation.... records that are filled out by personnel.

 

Thank you!

 

Jenna

Hi Jenna,

I think you will find that no GFSI-recognized FS Standard specifies a particular format.

The typical, minimum, requirement is to include any Code-specified, document "characteristics".

Hello everyone,

 

I have searched this topic but have found conflicting results.

 

I wanted to verify if I am including the right information on the footer of the documents I have created.

Currently we have the following:

- Section #

- Page #

- Issue date:

- Revision #:

- Prepared by:

- Approved by:

 

Not sure if I need to omit or add things to the footer.

 

I am also wondering if the footer has to be present on records as well, for example: temperature, cleaning and sanitation.... records that are filled out by personnel.

 

Thank you!

 

Jenna

That's more than enough! And yes you may add them on records. Just like Charles said, there is no required format for any GFSI scheme. I think it just makes navigation between documents a lot easier for you, your employees and auditor. 

Thank you for your responses! :spoton:

I appreciate it, I thought there was a certain requirement. 

Hi Jenna,

I highly recommend not including so much information in your header/footer format. I found maintaining all of that information to be too time consuming and clunky. Also, you may have some documents/forms that apply to more than one section, which makes including the section names messier.

We use document/form title, version number, effective date, and page count.

Another thing to consider is that having more information included in the header/footer opens you up to the possibility of there being more discrepancies between the information on your documents/forms and your document register. Minimizing the information contained in the header/footer also minimizes the possibility of document register-related audit non-conformances, which are my least favorite type!

Best of luck to you and your team!

Sincerely,

Erin

Hi Jenna,

 

I highly recommend not including so much information in your header/footer format. I found maintaining all of that information to be too time consuming and clunky. Also, you may have some documents/forms that apply to more than one section, which makes including the section names messier.

 

We use document/form title, version number, effective date, and page count.

 

Another thing to consider is that having more information included in the header/footer opens you up to the possibility of there being more discrepancies between the information on your documents/forms and your document register. Minimizing the information contained in the header/footer also minimizes the possibility of document register-related audit non-conformances, which are my least favorite type!

 

Best of luck to you and your team!

 

Sincerely,

 

Erin

Hi Erin,

Thanks for the feedback!!

I just edited my footer now, it looks a lot cleaner and I only included (what I found to be) the most important or useful information for tracking and organizing the records.

I only included that much information originally because (for some reason) I thought that was part of the code.

Jenna

Hi Erin,

 

Thanks for the feedback!!

 

I just edited my footer now, it looks a lot cleaner and I only included (what I found to be) the most important or useful information for tracking and organizing the records.

 

I only included that much information originally because (for some reason) I thought that was part of the code.

 

Jenna

I completely understand. I went through the same process. :-)

Hi Jenna,

 

I highly recommend not including so much information in your header/footer format. I found maintaining all of that information to be too time consuming and clunky. Also, you may have some documents/forms that apply to more than one section, which makes including the section names messier.

 

We use document/form title, version number, effective date, and page count.

 

Another thing to consider is that having more information included in the header/footer opens you up to the possibility of there being more discrepancies between the information on your documents/forms and your document register. Minimizing the information contained in the header/footer also minimizes the possibility of document register-related audit non-conformances, which are my least favorite type!

 

Best of luck to you and your team!

 

Sincerely,

 

Erin

Hi Erin, 

You bring up a very good point. Most of what is included in our header documents is from what our customer audits have suggested not SQF. Our documents just have a title, code number (that relates to the SQF code), revision date, created date, and page number. 

I have been toying around with getting rid of the created date just because I think some auditors get confused since we have documents that were created from 2016. Otherwise I would just change the created date to whenever there is a new SQF edition. That is why I have been thinking of just getting rid of a created date and leaving just the revision date. 

Wanted to see what your thoughts were on this. 

Thank you, 

Chris 

Hi Chris,

I agree that the created date is unnecessary. And the one time you slip and accidentally update the created date instead of the revision date, an auditor will catch the discrepancy. :-)

I would also think about removing the code number that relates to the SQF Code. We had that in the beginning, but as soon as there was a significant change to the Code and that information changed, it became a real pain to maintain. It is tedious and time-consuming to update. And it is not the best way of labeling things since some docs/forms apply to more than one part of the Code. Unless you are listing each one and if that's the case, I would just move that information into a cheat sheet that shows the doc/form title and then lists all of the parts of the Code it applies to. I have a list like that for each module and find it is super helpful during audits.

Best of luck,

Erin

My document template includes the following information. If you want minimal, you might be able to get away with just title, ID, and version.

• Title - friendly document name
• Section number - I'm thinking of either phasing it out or creating my own numbering system.
• Document name - actually the file name which automatically update.
• Document ID - Identifier for the document. I believe this would be the only thing absolutely required, except for the version number.
• Page number - automatically updates. Excluded if on one page forms
• Version number - active revision number
• Approved by - whoever signed off on it, which is basically me.
• Approval date/effective date - The date that this version was put into circulation.