Best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program"?

Does anyone have suggestions for the best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program".


Currently the company has a lot of SOPs and Checklists in place, but they are not organized into distinct "programs". Eg SOPs are curently all in one big "SOP Binder". I am going through them, deciding which PP they belong, and putting them in a separate binder for each PP. With this approach, each PP will be a bunch of SOPs and checklists. Is there another way to do this or anything else needed?


Thanks,

Does anyone have suggestions for the best way to organize a "Pre-Requisite Program".

Thanks,

Is it required to have document numbers? We discussed this in house, and prefered just to have unique titles and not to use numbers.

Dear HNG,

IMO this is equivalent to the proverbial decision on how to organise documents. Books hv been written on this, eg Mr Dewey.

Depending on how many, start "stamping" from 01 (or 001) and continue upwards. (maybe add a letter if separated by manuals).

Rgds / Charles.C

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall

Similar to Mgourley, I have broken programs into groups, especially tied to regulatory compliance: those associated with Sanitation Performance Standards (SPS - USDA FSIS requirement), SSOP, HACCP, Food Defense (FD), Quality (QA), etc. I also use the 'dot' extension to identify associated documentation and procedures.

Dear HNG,

Allow me to respond in another way - How big is yr system ? And how many slave assistants ? eg How much of your time are you prepared to allocate for this activity ?
(I previously, briefly, attempted to match some of the beautiful multiply sub-classified examples on the IT such as those issued by NASA / Automobile Manufacturers for iso-type quality manuals / procedures. Fine if you have an army of resources to do the heavy lifting or are a workaholic, otherwise far easier to follow KISS IMHO).

Regarding non-use of numbers, I hv seen a few examples of such quality manuals however they can get extremely laborious when items like cross-links are involved. I guess once again it may depend on yr system, eg how complex / how much sub-divided. Definitely in the minority IMO.

Nonetheless, I do admire the systems described in the previous posts, and the people who maintain it.

Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles,

Are you saying its better to leave off the numbers? Sorry I'm new to all these documentation systems and not familiar with the lingo (also have no idea what KISS means....). We have about 100 seasonal employees. My concern is if we start a numbering system then want to add an SOP or something that logically falls 'in between" two documents, it will mess up the numbering system.


I'd like to know if the numbering is a an absolute must for SQF and/or FSSM, ISO, BRC, or any other certification programs. If not a requirement for SQF we won't do it, at least for now. If required for any other programs, I'd like to know so we can be prepared to add numbers in future.

Thanks,

Dear HNG,

Allow me to respond in another way - How big is yr system ? And how many slave assistants ? eg How much of your time are you prepared to allocate for this activity ?
(I previously, briefly, attempted to match some of the beautiful multiply sub-classified examples on the IT such as those issued by NASA / Automobile Manufacturers for iso-type quality manuals / procedures. Fine if you have an army of resources to do the heavy lifting or are a workaholic, otherwise far easier to follow KISS IMHO).

Regarding non-use of numbers, I hv seen a few examples of such quality manuals however they can get extremely laborious when items like cross-links are involved. I guess once again it may depend on yr system, eg how complex / how much sub-divided. Definitely in the minority IMO.

Nonetheless, I do admire the systems described in the previous posts, and the people who maintain it.

Rgds / Charles.C

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall

Dear HNG,

To summarise my post, IMEX most people use numbers. many use numbers + letters also. In my humble opinion, if you choose not to use any numbers, be prepared to regret it later.
(I had a bunch of SOPs just like you, I simply started at 001 and kept adding numbers as i went through the text, yes the order can indeed become illogical but, at least IMEX, the payoff comes later on. eg when you want to find something or make a concise list of xlinks.)

KISS has a variety of definitions.
One popular one although somewhat impolite - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Another, more polite - Keep It Short and Simple.
http://en.wikipedia..../KISS_principle

Rgds / Charles.C

(also have no idea what KISS means....). ,

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!

I'm not doing SQF, so things are a little different.
My "Food Safety and Quality Manual" is basically just a restatement of the BRC Standards clause by clause. For example "The company shall ensure that all documents in use are complete and legible" Becomes "My Company" ensures that all documents in use are complete and legible. See FSQM 6.1 for details.

FSQM 6.1 contains the Document Completion Policy which addresses all the requirements of the clause relating to document completion. So rather than restating the policy in the FSQM, it refers to the actual policy. I maintain an HTML version of the Food Safety and Quality manual, so the auditor could just click on the link and the referenced document would pop up.

Marshall

I can't speak for Charles, but based on my experience some kind of numbering system is definitely helpful, especially when cross referencing SOP's and SSOP's in policy and procedure documents that make up the backbone of your food safety management system.

But is a numbering system or scheme a SQF requirement in SQF? No, not at all. But the company I work for has 30 processing / packaging areas, about 1200 SKU's, over 3500 raw materials and 6 HACCP plans so a well thought out document numbering system is a necessity both in day to day operations, but also in audits where you need to find specific docs quickly.

Hi Charles,

Are you saying its better to leave off the numbers? Sorry I'm new to all these documentation systems and not familiar with the lingo (also have no idea what KISS means....). We have about 100 seasonal employees. My concern is if we start a numbering system then want to add an SOP or something that logically falls 'in between" two documents, it will mess up the numbering system.


I'd like to know if the numbering is a an absolute must for SQF and/or FSSM, ISO, BRC, or any other certification programs. If not a requirement for SQF we won't do it, at least for now. If required for any other programs, I'd like to know so we can be prepared to add numbers in future.

Thanks,

Hi Marshall, thanks that is very helpful. I may do something similar only leave off the numbers until a future time. I like your numbering system but don't have time to develop it for this year. We have already written a bunch of SOPs and put them into the "program" binder (one binder for each program) but what is lacking is something to tie them all together.


One more question, how do you avoid duplication between the "PreRequisite Program", the SOPs themselves, and the "Food Safety Policy Manual" that is also required for SQF? Since the Policy Manual also gives an overview of each program and links it to SOPs.... wouldn't that mean writing everything out twice??

Thanks!!

I really like your system, and want to have something similar, but the problem I'm having is this. The "program" has a specific number, per your eg below FSQM 7.0 The linked docs such as SOPs, etc could use FSQM 7.1, FSQM 7.2, etc. However the "program" itself is also broken up into "sections" that are also logically numbers 7.1, 7.2, 7.3..... so we end up confusing individual documents with sections within the main document. Grrrr

I may be a little anal about this, but when I see the word "Program" this means to me a document that states the purpose of the program, the contents of the program, the description of what the program does in order to meet the intent of the program, how the program is validated to ensure you are getting the desired results from the program. Any ancillary SOP's, documents or forms that are required should be referenced in the program.

To me, this requires that the "Program" have a specific document number and any associated documentation have a "dot number". For example FSQM 8 Raw Material Receiving Program. FSQM 8.1 Bulk Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.2 Minor Ingredient Acceptance Criteria. FSQM 8.3 Raw Material Rejection Report etc...

Your mileage, may of course, vary.

Marshall

I really like your system, and want to have something similar, but the problem I'm having is this. The "program" has a specific number, per your eg below FSQM 7.0 The linked docs such as SOPs, etc could use FSQM 7.1, FSQM 7.2, etc. However the "program" itself is also broken up into "sections" that are also logically numbers 7.1, 7.2, 7.3..... so we end up confusing individual documents with sections within the main document. Grrrr