Cleaning & maintenance records are here 🧹

Another quick one, I saved a cleaning process. Then when I have tried to edit it, the new version does not save. I am able to edit but then it keeps being overwritten by the original.

Hi Richard,

This is a great question. We didn’t specifically create this with casks in mind to be honest, but it could certainly be used. I suggest not creating a piece of equipment for each individual cask, but creating a single piece of equipment to represent all casks. You can then schedule a time-based (e.g. weekly) clean of all dirty casks, or skip the schedule creation and manually trigger a clean event each time you’ll be doing cask cleaning (I’m assuming you do them in batches). A cleaning record can be manually triggered from the equipment screen. You could record in the notes which casks were cleaned (if you wanted a record of this).

The clean wouldn’t be intrinsically linked back to the casks, so it wouldn’t result in the casks themselves having any cleanliness status or history against them. And for this reason, Breww wouldn’t be able to link this to any scheduled packaging.

When we built this feature, we linked cleaning records/schedules directly to brewing systems, vessels and other equipment (as per Breww’s definition), but we left the door open for them to be able to be linked to other things in the future, so we could certainly explore linking them to tracked/returnable casks/kegs. Would this be useful for you? Would you want Breww to track the cleanliness of casks and need the cleaning process to be updated with the individual casks cleaned, or would this additional admin time not be worth the benefit, over simply recording that all dirty casks has been cleaned?

Whoops :man_facepalming: I’m not quite sure how that slipped through the net, but thanks for pointing it out! We’ve patched this up now, so you should find that edits to processes are saved properly now. Sorry about this!

Thanks for tying out this new feature so quickly :grinning:

Brilliant thanks Luke. It is a great new feature.
In answer to the other question on cask washing. I have uploaded a new bit of equipment called ‘bulk casks’. Then added in the readings ‘number of casks washed’ etc etc. It is great to have the ability track the cleaning material usage from the inventory. Is ‘other equipment’ the right place for casks or should they be within vessels?

Having to scan every cask that is going to be washed might add on a bit too much complexity and time to the process? But as one key critical control points on a HACCP it might be worth thinking about?

Thanks Richard,

‘Other equipment’ will be best for casks as if they go in as Vessels, they’ll appear alongside fermenters and brite tanks as options when making transfers and racking beer batches.

What you’ve suggested for now, with a reading of “number of casks washed”, is an excellent idea! I’ll have a chat with the others internally about how we can best improve the handling of casks for the future.

Cheers

1 Like

this is a great feature, and will cut out even more folders of paperwork I have laying around the brewery!

As Richard mentioned, it would be great to have the ability to add casks to this as an actual recorded cleaning step, as this is also a critical part of our HACCP too. However agreed that scanning each cask being washed may be a bit of a faff, but again, it still keeps a traceable cleaning record.

Thanks all!

Thanks Rob, great to hear that you’d benefit from better cask cleaning records too.

We’ve had a couple of different ideas on how this could be implemented, so I’ve created a new thread where we can all work out the best solution for this together, see:

We’d appreciate everyone’s feedback on this, so we can build the solution that will work best for everyone.

Hi

Just wondering if it is possible to link other equipment to a cleaning record, for example if I was doing a Fermenter CIP, could I easily add a pump and some flexible hoses to the clean, so I could could see when they were last cleaned, who by and during which process?
If I set up a separate cleaning process for them, I cant use the usage based schedule for them as they don’t get ‘used’ during any tasks on Breww, and I want to clean them after every use.
Hope this makes sense.

Thanks
Tim

Hi Tim,

This is a great idea, thanks for posting it here on the Breww Community! I think we can build something to support this for you.

Do you ever expect to add equipment to a cleaning process (like the pump/hose in your example) which doesn’t need to be cleaned after every clean of the primary cleaning process (Fermenter CIP in your example)? As in, would you ever choose to add, say, a pump, which should be cleaned after ever 3 completions of a fermenter CIP?

The reason that I ask, is that adding usage based schedules to other types of equipment, could lead to situations like:

  • Create Fermenter CIP process which uses a pump.
  • Create schedule for every X uses of the pump (which Breww could allow as it knows it is part of the Fermenter CIP process and thus has “uses” recorded).
  • You modify your Fermenter CIP process to no longer use the pump.
  • Now, what do we do with the pump schedule? Remove this schedule as no cleaning processes use it? Or keep it, but its uses will never be incremented, so a clean will never be triggered? Or even prevent you removing it from the Fermenter CIP process until you’ve manually removed the schedule too?

If you’d expect the clean for this “ancillary equipment”, like the pump, to always be needed after every primary cleaning process, we could let you add ancillary equipment used to a cleaning process directly and effectively “bake in” the requirement for it to be cleaned after every competition of the primary cleaning process - and then Breww could more simply trigger the cleaning record for the pump which would then appear on your list of cleans due for recording who did it and when. This feels to me like the simpler solution for both us to build and for you to configure in your account, but it would lack support for “clean every 3 uses” and only support “clean every use”. How does this sound to you?

Thanks,

Luke

Hi

In our case the pumps and hoses will always need to be cleaned after every use.
But they are being used prior to a fermented cip, for example we would use the pump and hoses to transfer beer from a fermenter to a racking tank, or from the brewhouse to a fermenter, and it is at this stage they would become dirty. But there is nowhere in Breww to ‘use’ these pieces of equipment so it won’t trigger the usage schedule.
We use these pumps and hoses as part of the fermenter cip process, so they would be getting cleaned at the same time as the fermenter, and wouldn’t need to be cleaned after, in our case.

We have multiple pumps and hoses that we use. So we would need some way of selecting which hoses/pumps have been used, and we couldn’t tie one pump to a particular process.

The alternative would be to be able to ‘use’ this equipment when doing a beer transfer, and then trigger the usage schedule?

But yes something that supports a ‘clean every use’ would work for us.

Hope this helps!

Thanks
Tim

Thanks Tim!

Yes, that’s very helpful. I like the “use equipment in transfer” concept, this could then work well with usage based schedules for any equipment. We could do the same with racking to record equipment used in a racking process.

I’ll talk this though with the rest of the team and see what we can come up with.

Thanks for your input and advice on this!

Luke

Hi,
Would it be possible to have an option to allow due cleaning schedules to flag as a task on the dashboard?

Thanks,

Rob

Hi Rob,

Absolutely - that shouldn’t be an issue at all. Tasks have been designed to include the ability to be “auto-completed” by completing some other action in Breww, so Breww would be able to tick off the task for you as well once the cleaning record had been completed.

I’ll schedule this into the roadmap and give you an update here once it’s ready!

Max

1 Like

Hi Max,

Just wondered if any update on the cleaning records flagging as tasks at all

Cheers!

Rob

Hi Rob,

Thanks for checking in. I’m afraid we’ve not got to this yet, it has been an extremely busy last few weeks, and we’ve had a number of unexpected things come our way!

I’d hope that we can get to this in the new couple of weeks :crossed_fingers: Don’t worry, it’s not been forgotten :blush:

Cheers

1 Like

Hi,
On the maintenance side, would it/is it be possible to add other stock items to the Cleaning/Maintenance records?
The issue I have run into is I wanted to manage my water filter maintenance through breww; I’ve added the filter as a Stock Item (Other, Custom), but I don’t seem to be able to add this stock item in the general maintenance process?

Hi Steve,

Originally, we thought only chemicals would be added to C&M records, but we have now added the option to add ‘Other’ stock items to C&M records as well.
I hope this helps!

Thanks,
Matt

1 Like

Sorry to revive an old thread - related to this where we require ‘signed off’ records - would these be able to appear in tasks? I envisage it would involve a member of staff cleaning the vessel, and completing the record, awaiting a (physical & digital) sign-off - could a task be issued to a particular user to sign-off (e.g. a supervisor) as a prompt. I guess in the Production Settings you could designate who would receive those notifications?

Also - off topic, but could the same sort of feature be added to packaging approvals?

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the suggestions here.
Yes, we can definitely add task creation for C&M sign offs - good idea.
For packaging approvals, what would be most helpful for you as the trigger for the creation of the task?

Thanks,
Matt

Good question, I’m not 100% sure, some sort of tiers of ‘requires packaging approval’?
Maybe using the user groups tags, and the ‘Approve Packaging Approvals’ that can be assigned to the User. Then the Production Tab Setting could be an option for Packaging Approval with choices such as ‘All’, ‘Users with Packaging Approval Access Only’.etc

Then a staff member could carry out the necessary checks, fill in the data and if the additional/supervisor approval was turned on, the ‘Approve’ button would just become ‘Request Approval’, which would generate the task to the tagged users & maybe add a different coloured tag to the production screen? So essentially the task would be generated at the point the user tried to approve the packaging and is denied.

Hope that makes sense?

1 Like

Hi Steve,

Yes, that makes sense. I like the idea of a request approval button triggering the task. I’ll discuss this further with the team and add the feature to our development list.

Thanks for the feedback.
Matt

1 Like