IT's really a flowchart approach anytime you make a change to the product. Starting with a "significant change" sort of thing where the parameters of the product are changing (e.g. new formulation wihout a 1 for 1 ingredient replacement).
Nightmare scenarios happen all the time where someone changes to an "equivalent" supplier ingredient, but the new supplier has egg or something in it, causing an allergen issue. Or alternatively R&D/marketing decided they wanted fresh diced tomatoes vs. canned, a HUGE FS risk change.
The issue tends to be that youre R&D groups or manufacturing groups may not have the knowledge necessary to tell when it's a minor vs a major change, hence the need for formal change management. What I've done to minimize the work involved is to have a form routed for every change, that way QA has eyes on it, but make it simple for QA to finalize the form with a quick "oh yeah this is no big deal, one canned tomato to another with the same spec, easy".
My form looks something like this:
Change initiator section:
-Date, implementation date
-Type of change (new equipment/construction, new ingredient, new process)
-Description of change
-Reason/justification for change
Sent to QA, QA Section:
-Does this change require a food safety plan update/review?
-Does this change require a food quality plan update/review?
-Does this change require a process validation?
-Doe sthis change affect a prerequisite program, procedure, or activity?
-Is any new construction/equipment compliant with our maintenance/equipment standards?
Attach supporting documentation to anyhthing that needed to be reviewed.
Route for approval, QA representative, maintenance or production representative.
With this method you're two signatures away from approving small changes, and QA can hold up if it ends up being substantial.