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?