Okay, I am new to the food manufacturing piece of SQF. I have done distributing and Food Packaging materials but in my new company we process oils. The problem I am seeing here is they have so many SOP's to me it is just overkill. For example GMP's have over ten individual SOP's. I have never seen this before, I have always just had one GMP policy for the facility that was inclusive. Am I missing something that would be different in a food production plant to have so many. I know they have passed past audits but barely and the auditor always had comments about the confusion and lack of organization of the system. Please help. Here is just a short list of the GMP's they have individual SOP's for: GMP overview, GMP attire, GMP color coding,GMP facility, GMP Hand washing, GMP illiness, GMP levels, GMP Staff amenities.......
It's a good question. I am also directly familiar BRC only and would echo Post 3.
Theoretically I think SQF adheres to the system levels in the ISO structure of Policies/Procedures/Work instructions although the exact implementation is afaik optional as long as compliant to the Standard's text. eg this post/thread -
Actually "SOP" is not used in SQF Standard per se however it (arbitrarily) often equates to any of "Procedure, Work Instruction, etc".
Nonetheless, for convenience purposes, SQF users do often seem to prefer many "Procedures" aligned to the Standard's text , eg see this post/thread -
Seems like yr own hierarchy have simply "maximised" convenience by defining every conceivable level as an "SOP", eg -
SOP = (Procedures/Work Instructions/sub-Work Instructions),
ie a "lot" of SOPs
Maybe you could (minimally) suggest incorporating some of the "subs" into the next layer(s) up ?
(For BRC I did initially use the ISO "Top" level Procedural Concept but then simply started numerically (001,002 etc) defining "Procedures" as required by (a) Standard and (b) own HACCP/Process Interpretation(s). "Subs" such as you mention in OP were thereby, documentarily, "uplifted").