5 replies to this topic

[Mushrooms]

Hello team members,
need your advice here
how to structure your quality drive

can i please get some snip shots to clean up my folder

we are sqf certified food manufacturer

[GMO]

I don't think it's advisable to share that but if you're SQF certified, it probably makes sense to structure your drive by the top level sections of that standard.  It makes things easy to find in audits and even if you have different audit bodies auditing you as well, you normally end up thinking in those terms.  Or I did with BRCGS anyway.  So for me with BRCGS I'd have folders called:

 

1.  Senior Management Commitment

2. HACCP

 

etc.

 

If there were things which still made sense to be stored elsewhere I put in hyperlinks into a document or shortcuts in the folder.  Yes, sometimes links get broken if someone moves the original but you can normally find it from where the original path led.

 

Thank you for not storing it in Teams.  FFS why do people use Teams as a long term storage location for documents?  It's really not intended to be that.  It's why we all end up being part of 40+ teams.

[AZuzack]

I second GMO's response.  I worked an SQF plant.  All the folders were based on the Requirement with all the related Documentation immediately below.  

Below the main folder is the Current SOP, the Archive folder, the related form that gets filled out, a folder for the digital copies of the form.  If you have a Tracker, like for CAPA or Deviations or Complaints, then each item in that tracker gets its own subfolder to store related evidence like photos.  

 

Some people put the related training directly in that folder and others have a separate training folder system with subfolders that mirror the document system.  

 

Frankly, it has to make sense to the QA personnel that are using it.  So if you find it doesn't make sense, then change it.  Great thing about digital content is that it's easy to drag and drop it somewhere else.  

[TimG]

SO, the place I'm at now is the first time I've seen folders structured to match the SQF code. Both the sqf documents AND the sqf records follow 2.x.x. HEEERES my issue with that..there were some changes from older versions to 9.x that moved some code around, and now there are a few documents that sit in the file # of the older code.

Big deal? Not really, but a little annoying.

It is nice to have the auditor ask to see something and I can say 'well let's go to the records of that code.'

[G M]

SO, the place I'm at now is the first time I've seen folders structured to match the SQF code. Both the sqf documents AND the sqf records follow 2.x.x. HEEERES my issue with that..there were some changes from older versions to 9.x that moved some code around, and now there are a few documents that sit in the file # of the older code.

Big deal? Not really, but a little annoying.

It is nice to have the auditor ask to see something and I can say 'well let's go to the records of that code.'

 

Having to comply with many sets of regulations and certification standards made me move away from that kind of numbering.  Instead I make a simple outline document that lists the current SQF standard's sections and headings, then list which of my programs fulfil that requirement.  Same for the USDA, FDA, organic, non-GMO, allergen free, halal, etc. etc.

 

Most auditors just go down the list, so I can have the outline for their standard in front of me and be pulling up the next set of documents they're likely to want to see.  And when SQF edition 473 comes out I don't need to renumber hundreds of documents, just the outline.

[achyvi]

Having to comply with many sets of regulations and certification standards made me move away from that kind of numbering.  Instead I make a simple outline document that lists the current SQF standard's sections and headings, then list which of my programs fulfil that requirement.  Same for the USDA, FDA, organic, non-GMO, allergen free, halal, etc. etc.

 

Most auditors just go down the list, so I can have the outline for their standard in front of me and be pulling up the next set of documents they're likely to want to see.  And when SQF edition 473 comes out I don't need to renumber hundreds of documents, just the outline.

 

This is exactly the way that I have structured all of my documentation schemes to the letter. Hard-linking controlled documents to a code is just asking for a headache--not only do you not control updates, but which one do you choose to mirror? I suspect there are precious few facilities that only have to comply with one single overseeing body. Set up your docs in a way that is easy to understand and works for you, then correlate afterwards to literally whatever.

 

I also prefer to separate my files by department or work area, then document type, but that's because it's easy for me quickly to find stuff that way and fairly intuitive. So long as your have your document ID in the file name and your correlating document, it hypothetically doesn't even matter if you use subfolders at all (although that does mean you are a psychopath).

 

Also, for the love of god, only one file copy ever!!