6 replies to this topic

[LaurenH]

Hi all!

 

I am looking for some help/guidance/clarity. I started a position at a new company that is in the early stages of creating its QMS and SQF implementation. The company has a contract with a food safety consultant to help. The food safety consultant created a document control process that I am not familiar with which is making it hard for me to take control of. I have much experience with document control in the food industry and dietary supplements. In my experience, the document number/revision, supersedes date, effective date, written by, reviewed/approved by, and revision history were always located on the document. The only differences that I have seen is using either a wet signature/date or a typed name/date on every page to indicate reviewal/effective date. 

 

The food safety consultant implemented a document control system that is Master Log Based through excel. The Master Log lists all of the issued SOPs and the Revision Log, has the document number, date updated, revision number, initiated by, document type, reason for change, approved by and date completed (as in date document was retrained on). All of the information is filled in by the document control administrator including who approved the document. The document itself has the company logo, document number, revision number, issued date, and manual number where its located.

 

I understand replacing the revision history in every document with a master log, but I am struggling at understanding where the control is if the document itself doesn't indicate who approved it/effective. I could easily add a signature section at the end of the document or on the header of every page but I do not want to shoot myself in the foot and make life harder if it isn't needed. I also know that certain SQF documents require signatures. Thank you for any and all help! I am loosing sleep over this! 

[SQFconsultant]

We've always developed a master log with the SQF code numbers down the one side in sequence and the rest of the info as your consultant has set it up - it makes it real easy for the Auditor because it acts as an index as well instead of having each piece of paper with a header and all the info on it - however I have several folks that have both, that's up to you.

 

Your consultant should be working in cooperation with everyone - it is afterall a co-build (hopefully, at least that is what we do) and that why when the Auditor asks who it was that put the doc system together you don't say that a consultant did it - but that you worked with a consultant on it.

 

You can this either way or both - for our own food company I prefer the single master document/index.

 

It's strictly up to you - now get some sleep!

[Tony-C]

Hi LaurenH,

 

 

Welcome to the IFSN forums.

 

SQF requirements for document control are fairly basic:

 

The SQF Food Safety Code: Food Manufacturing – System Elements

2.2.2 Document Control (Mandatory)

2.2.2.1 The methods and responsibility for maintaining document control and ensuring staff have access to current requirements and instructions shall be documented and implemented.

Current SQF System documents and amendments to documents shall be maintained.

 

I don’t see a problem with adding a signature or identification of an owner’/’approval’ on your documents, in fact I like to do that.

 

It is your system and you should go with what you are comfortable with.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

Edited by Tony-C, 23 January 2024 - 04:19 AM.

[LaurenH]

We've always developed a master log with the SQF code numbers down the one side in sequence and the rest of the info as your consultant has set it up - it makes it real easy for the Auditor because it acts as an index as well instead of having each piece of paper with a header and all the info on it - however I have several folks that have both, that's up to you.

 

Your consultant should be working in cooperation with everyone - it is afterall a co-build (hopefully, at least that is what we do) and that why when the Auditor asks who it was that put the doc system together you don't say that a consultant did it - but that you worked with a consultant on it.

 

You can this either way or both - for our own food company I prefer the single master document/index.

 

It's strictly up to you - now get some sleep!

 

Thank you. I am ok with having the master log but I just want to make sure that I cover all aspects of control. As for new documents, the only log information is the document number and issued date. Is that sufficient amount of information? The issuer/writer and approver identification aren't needed?

[LaurenH]

Hi LaurenH,

 

 

Welcome to the IFSN forums.

 

SQF requirements for document control are fairly basic:

 

The SQF Food Safety Code: Food Manufacturing – System Elements

2.2.2 Document Control (Mandatory)

2.2.2.1 The methods and responsibility for maintaining document control and ensuring staff have access to current requirements and instructions shall be documented and implemented.

Current SQF System documents and amendments to documents shall be maintained.

 

I don’t see a problem with adding a signature or identification of an owner’/’approval’ on your documents, in fact I like to do that.

 

It is your system and you should go with what you are comfortable with.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

 

Thank you.

 

If the identification of the owner/approval and effective date isn't made clear on the document, how would one verify that the document is in fact effective and the current revision? Just by referring to the log? That seems less easily accessible to me. However, I obviously would want the easiest most streamlined process so I just want to make sure that I can justify the control here.

[kingstudruler1]

I think past version of sqf required a register.   Might be why they did this.   I agree with Glenn that they shouldnt be creating things that make sense to you.  Because a register was required in the past, i've used them and still do.   However i much prefer everything on the document itself.  I'm not sure how a register reduces any risk, etc.    

 

If the identification of the owner/approval and effective date isn't made clear on the document, how would one verify that the document is in fact effective and the current revision? Just by referring to the log? That seems less easily accessible to me. However, I obviously would want the easiest most streamlined process so I just want to make sure that I can justify the control here.

 

SQF gives you a lot of runway on how to accomplish doc control how to ensure the current version is available.    It could be a date or a version number.   The approver may matter if there are multiple approvers and not using document system that tracks changes.    A simplistic way of doing it is that the electronic document is locked. only the approver has the password.   when changes are made, the approver changes the version, date, etc, locks the document, places it in its proper location, updates register, discards / archives old version.  

[G M]

Thank you. I am ok with having the master log but I just want to make sure that I cover all aspects of control. As for new documents, the only log information is the document number and issued date. Is that sufficient amount of information? The issuer/writer and approver identification aren't needed?

 

There are other ways to exert control over the documents that don't require hundreds of signatures, or bulky headers on every document.  Password protecting or other electronic rights restrictions are just as, if not more, effective.

 

The majority of my documents don't carry a section detailing what was changed from version to version or who approved it, just version numbers and dates.  The master log for the HACCP or SQF program will contain those details for most forms and work instructions that people interact with in large volumes daily (they don't need that info or care about it, and it saves on printing).  In contrast, policy documents that no one but myself and the auditors or inspectors ever look at usually contain all that boring detail built right in.