Decision tree for the selection and categorization of control measures?

Hi! Good evening...

Can anyone help me with a Decision tree for the selection and categorization of control measure?

Also, may I also ask help for a sample of a Hazard Control Plan?

We recently had our FSSC 22000 version 5 Audit, and we have several findings with the said topics.

Can anyone send me a template or an example for these?

Thank you so much!

I think the attached document might help you in documenting the decision , its also a hazard analysis work sheet . 

As far as plan is concerned , you could just make a list of what it to be controlled , by whom , frequency , CA , etc.. 

I think the attached document might help you in documenting the decision , its also a hazard analysis work sheet . 

 

As far as plan is concerned , you could just make a list of what it to be controlled , by whom , frequency , CA , etc.. 

Hi ganeshkashinath,

Thanks for taking time to read and reply to my post. But it seems that the document you attached was not uploaded. It would be a very big help to me. Thanks

Hi! Good evening...

 

Can anyone help me with a Decision tree for the selection and categorization of control measure?

 

Also, may I also ask help for a sample of a Hazard Control Plan?

 

We recently had our FSSC 22000 version 5 Audit, and we have several findings with the said topics.

 

Can anyone send me a template or an example for these?

 

Thank you so much!

Hi JBN,

^^^^(red) - It might have been useful if you mentioned yr specific requirements.

Here is a model fssc22000 hazard analysis but designed for the previous fssc version -

https://www.ifsqn.co...ge-4#entry50671

I anticipate that it would probably be updateable simply by applying the Categorization Procedure shown in the excel here -

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry138153

I also anticipate that the conclusions previously shown would likely be unchanged.

Hi ganeshkashinath,

We also had findings regarding Hazard Control Plan. The stated corrective actions were not aligned with ISO 22000:2018 requirements (Clause 8.9.3 a-f).

I hope you could help me. We are supposed to submit evidences next week already. Thanks in advance...

Hi JBN,

 

^^^^(red) - It might have been useful if you mentioned yr specific requirements.

 

 

Here is a model fssc22000 hazard analysis but designed for the previous fssc version -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ge-4#entry50671

 

I anticipate that it would probably be updateable simply by applying the Categorization Procedure shown in the excel here -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...18/#entry138153

 

I also anticipate that the conclusions previously shown would likely be unchanged.

Hi Mr. Charles C.

Thank you for taking time to read and reply to my post. I will look into the attachments that you've sent. Thanks

Hi ganeshkashinath,

 

We also had findings regarding Hazard Control Plan. The stated corrective actions were not aligned with ISO 22000:2018 requirements (Clause 8.9.3 a-f).

I hope you could help me. We are supposed to submit evidences next week already. Thanks in advance...

Hi JBN,

Clause 8.9.3 a-f is generic.

Probably need some context regarding the specific cause(s) of the finding(s) to be able to suggest a response.

Hi Charles,

The corrective action that was stated in our hazard control plan is somehow just a scenario. The auditor said that it should be aligned with Clause 8.9.3 which I don't have idea how to do it. I have attached a sample. Kindly see and and will greatly appreciate your comment. Thanks a lot Sir.

Hi Charles,

 

The corrective action that was stated in our hazard control plan is somehow just a scenario. The auditor said that it should be aligned with Clause 8.9.3 which I don't have idea how to do it. Kindly see and greatly appreciate your comment. Thanks a lot Sir.

Hi Charles,

 

The corrective action that was stated in our hazard control plan is somehow just a scenario. The auditor said that it should be aligned with Clause 8.9.3 which I don't have idea how to do it. I have attached a sample. Kindly see and and will greatly appreciate your comment. Thanks a lot Sir.

Hi JBN,

Thks for the sample.

I deduce this is a cheese manufacturing process ?.

I don't use iso22000 so the following is somewhat speculative and other users are welcome to correct me.

TBH I also don't use a column format for corrective actions as in yr document since I find it too restrictive.

I have never encountered yr "scenario"  terminology.

The standard has -
 

The  organization  shall  establish  and  maintain  documented  information  that  specifies   appropriate actions to identify and eliminate the cause of detected nonconformities,  to prevent recurrence, and  to return the process to control after a nonconformity is identified.

 

These actions shall include:

 

a)  reviewing nonconformities identified by customer and/or consumer complaints and/or regulatory inspection reports;
b)  reviewing trends in monitoring results that can indicate loss of control;
c)  determining the cause(s) of nonconformities

d)  determining and implementing actions to ensure that nonconformities do not recur;
e)  documenting the results of corrective actions taken;
f)  verifying corrective actions taken to ensure that they are effective.

The organization shall retain documented information on all corrective actions.

As I read it, the above text, in the event of a nonconformance, sort of  covers "Immediate" control actions, root cause analysis, verification, review.

Currently yr document's Red no.1  implies an indirect  answer to "e" (which I don't technically understand :smile: ).  Your red  "2" seems basically superfluous to me.

So IMO you are minimally lacking  input for a, b, c, d, f

Just as an example, here is a (Corrective Action) section I extracted from elsewhere -

4.5.3. Ripening (CCP 3)
When  parameters  such  as  pH  and  temperature,  checked  during  monitoring procedures are out of the defined critical limits, evaluation of the product microbiological safety must be conducted by sampling and application of microbiological techniques.  Temperature  is  adjusted  to  the  appropriate  degree  and  maturation time may, if necessary, be prolonged. Finally, a thorough optical observation must take place. If optical observation and microbiological analysis reveals a danger to consumer health, the foodstuff has to be rejected.

 

As you can see, the above is a mixture of immediate actions and "evaluated/delayed" ones, ie (e,f). It does not cover RCA which IMO can only be initially included generically (or expanded generically), eg  <<< RCA is carried out to answer "c,d" >>>>  It obviously also does not cover (a,b)  which (rightly or wrongly)  IMEX tend to be retrospective (the amount of effort required for ongoing or prospective responses looks prodigious to me unless you only have 1-2 CCPs or a team.). I would suggest a "token" response, eg Nil if nothing relevant readily observed.

Hope the above is intelligible.

PS - Yr hazards column seems questionable, eg plate counts, yeast, generic E.coli are not specifically FS-related.

Hi JBN,

 

Thks for the sample.

 

I deduce this is a cheese manufacturing process ?.

 

I don't use iso22000 so the following is somewhat speculative and other users are welcome to correct me.

 

TBH I also don't use a column format for corrective actions as in yr document since I find it too restrictive.

 

I have never encountered yr "scenario"  terminology.

 

The standard has -
 

 

As I read it, the above text, in the event of a nonconformance, sort of  covers "Immediate" control actions, root cause analysis, verification, review.

 

Currently yr document's Red no.1  implies an indirect  answer to "e" (which I don't technically understand :smile: ).  Your red  "2" seems basically superfluous to me.

 

So IMO you are minimally lacking  input for a, b, c, d, f

 

Just as an example, here is a (Corrective Action) section I extracted from elsewhere -

 

 

As you can see, the above is a mixture of immediate actions and "evaluated/delayed" ones, ie (e,f). It does not cover RCA which IMO can only be initially included generically (or expanded generically), eg  <<< RCA is carried out to answer "c,d" >>>>  It obviously also does not cover (a,b)  which (rightly or wrongly)  IMEX tend to be retrospective (the amount of effort required for ongoing or prospective responses looks prodigious to me unless you only have 1-2 CCPs or a team.). I would suggest a "token" response, eg Nil if nothing relevant readily observed.

 

Hope the above is intelligible.

 

PS - Yr hazards column seems questionable, eg plate counts, yeast, generic E.coli are not specifically FS-related.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your replying to my posts. This is for manufacturing fermented papaya food supplement. I will look further to your suggestion.

By the way, I have downloaded a decision tree from other members posts last week but I can't remember from whom. May I ask for help what is the specific reference from where it came? Because the auditor may ask us from where did it came from ? I will attach the file of the decision tree I am talking about. Thanks...

Hi Charles,

 

Thanks for your replying to my posts. This is for manufacturing fermented papaya food supplement. I will look further to your suggestion.

By the way, I have downloaded a decision tree from other members posts last week but I can't remember from whom. May I ask for help what is the specific reference from where it came? Because the auditor may ask us from where did it came from ? I will attach the file of the decision tree I am talking about. Thanks...

Hi JBN,

Yr attachment is a copy of the one given in Post 16 of the thread linked in my 2nd link of Post 4 in this current thread.

You can see my comments in Post 17.

Hi ganeshkashinath,

 

Thanks for taking time to read and reply to my post. But it seems that the document you attached was not uploaded. It would be a very big help to me. Thanks

 Please find the attachment 

Hi Charles,

 

Thanks for your replying to my posts. This is for manufacturing fermented papaya food supplement. I will look further to your suggestion.

By the way, I have downloaded a decision tree from other members posts last week but I can't remember from whom. May I ask for help what is the specific reference from where it came? Because the auditor may ask us from where did it came from ? I will attach the file of the decision tree I am talking about. Thanks...

I would definitely ensure this is entirely appropriate for your process and edit it accordingly. I don't recommend taking something and just applying it directly to your site, it is likely that steps will be different and the outcomes will be different, e.g. something resulting in a CCP at one site probably won't at another site.

Hope this makes sense!