8 replies to this topic

[acarver]

I have been working diligently to get ready for our certification audit next month...I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (with the knowledge that the tunnel never really ends!) 

 

Anyway, one of the things I have done consistently in my policies, when appropriate, is direct to another policy that is necessary to complete a task. For example, if I were to have glass breakage, in that policy I refer my hold, release, destruction policy. I am being told that this practice is not acceptable and that I need to write into the glass breakage policy the hold, release, destruction policy.

 

This seems like extreme redundancy to me, especially in some cases...and could become a real headache when one needs to update a policy that is located within several other policies.

 

Does anyone else have thoughts or experience with this?

[Charles.C]

I have been working diligently to get ready for our certification audit next month...I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (with the knowledge that the tunnel never really ends!) 

 

Anyway, one of the things I have done consistently in my policies, when appropriate, is direct to another policy that is necessary to complete a task. For example, if I were to have glass breakage, in that policy I refer my hold, release, destruction policy. I am being told that this practice is not acceptable and that I need to write into the glass breakage policy the hold, release, destruction policy.

 

This seems like extreme redundancy to me, especially in some cases...and could become a real headache when one needs to update a policy that is located within several other policies.

 

Does anyone else have thoughts or experience with this?

Hi acarver,

 

Which SQF Clause(s) are involved ?

 

There is possibly some confusion between Policy and Procedure.

[OrRedFood]

I agree with Charles - I have many policies and programs which need an SOP (procedure) to carry them out. 

 

I will often put a hyperlink to the SOP, which is a separate, "how to" document, in the policy.   This makes it easy to update both at the same time if necessary, and easy to show the auditor without searching around, since they are linked together.  

[SQFconsultant]

Nothing wrong with the refference to another or multiple docs as long as you have them right behind the key doc or readily available. Not sure who is telling you that was wrong, it is not.

[Scotty_SQF]

Agree with SQFconsultant on this one.  I have my SOP's set up similar to what you are saying and haven't had any issues.  Just know where they are to be able to provide quickly if the auditor wishes to reference them.

[Scampi]

Agree with SQF consultant as well

 

However told you that is wrong

 

Just need to ensure the reference docs are up to date in the procedure(s)

[acarver]

Thank you all. This clarifies my thought process. Yes, Charles, procedures are what I am speaking of...used the wrong term. 

[Miss Frankie]

I have all my written procedures in one binder.  All 'working' papers in separate binders.  In the written binder, where the 'working' papers would be, I'll put a note "These documents are found in xxxxxx binder" so I know exactly where to find them.

[jfrey123]

I've never had someone push back on me for referring to different procedures within a program.  Just thinking of my foreign material procedures, all of them reference placing material on non-conforming material on hold per the prescribed hold procedures.  If you detail how to put items on hold in every single policy that might require a hold, that would require a massive library rewrite any time the hold policy changed.