Poll Results on Failed GFSI Audit

Poll Question:

"Should any company that fails an audit to the BRC, SQF or any other GFSI standard stop producing and selling any food product until an audit pass is achieved?"

This poll has been posted to several discussion forums and groups. The charts below show the vote counts and comparative percentage to date:

This voting trend was expected. It  appears to indicate that failing a Global FOOD SAFETY Initiative audit (or failing to achieve certification) does not necessarily have a significant bearing on the safety of products. In other words there are aspects of the audits that may lead to an operation failing a GFSI audit without significant consequences to food safety.

Some other questions have been raised in the discussions of this poll question in various groups. They include the following:

1. Should an operation fail a GFSI audit if there is no significant food safety concern found?

2. Can snapshot audits that may or may not detect significant food safety concerns be relied upon for the assurance of food safety?

3. Are the audit reports giving the right impressions about the food safety performance of operations, and are they leading to the right courses of action in the assurance of food safety on the parts of the users?

4. Are the GFSI audits merely trade negotiation and agreement audits with some food safety considerations? 

From the poll results to date, it appears that the Global FOOD SAFETY Initiative audits do not consequentially pertain to, or address, FOOD SAFETY in significant respects.

Perhaps a name change is warranted or it has become necessary to re-assess the idea of these being Global FOOD SAFETY Initiative audits. What do you think?

While you are here, and if you have not already done so, you may take this quiz to find out how your product safety and quality audit programs rate: http://gcse-food-health-protection.blogspot.ca/2012/08/product-safety-and-quality-assurance.html

A score of 80% or higher indicates that your audit program may be sufficiently useful and effective. A score of less than 60% indicates your audit program may need to be reviewed for its usefulness.

Advertising Expenditures and the Return on Investment

One of the most challenging things for a business is to measure the return on investment in advertising.

Product safety and quality management certification forms part of the business promotion campaigns of many companies. Some customers also require their suppliers to be certified by third parties.

I have found that many operations gain some improvements in their product safety and quality management systems through the certification process. There is often an infused consistency of implementing and maintaining the measures for ensuring product safety and quality. At the same time, it is apparent that some certified operations may not necessarily have poor safety and quality standards prior to the certification process. For example, I have received direct comments from operators that they have always produced and will continue to produce safe and high quality products even without certification. They have also said that the added expenses of additional personnel, required construction if applicable, and paperwork management expenses associated with the certification process are not directly recoverable as customers do not necessarily accept increased pricing to compensate for the added expenses.

Product safety and quality management certification expenses are often described as the cost of doing business with anticipated returns. As such, it is only prudent for these investments to be measured against the returns.

From my experience and observation as a food safety specialist I have calculated and I strongly believe that current spending for food safety and quality management and certification programs can be reduced across the board (i.e. for all companies). Even something as small as a reassessment of the focus, administration, effectiveness and utility of voluntary or imposed third party certification could lead to a substantial operating cost reduction for companies. Up to 50% or greater cost reduction can be achieved without jeopardizing the safety and quality of the products under the SSQA Concept.

Posted By Felix Amiri

____________________________________

Felix Amiri is the current Food Sector Chair of GCSE-Food & Health Protection

Adopting the GCSE-Food & Health Protection SSQA - Safety, Security and Quality Assurance Model

Various concepts for product safety and quality management have evolved over the years. Adopted systems have progressed from periods of complete absence of formal approaches to the adoption of various quality and product safety management models by different companies in different industries. We have: TQM (Total Quality Management); the Six Sigma; the 5-S or 6-S systems (Sorting, Stabilizing or Straightening, Sweeping or Shining, Standardizing, Sustaining the Practice); the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis and the FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) models, Statistical Process Control, Statistical Quality Control, etc. We also have Lean Manufacturing approaches, ISO (International Standards Organization) system, HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) system, GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative) Benchmarking system, and many more.

The evolution continues with the Safety, Security and Quality Assurance (SSQA) concept. Why do we need this concept and where does it fit in the scheme of things? Several areas of key differences are listed: GCSE-Food & Health Protection SSQA.

Here are some of the significant differences:

Many of the current approaches force operations to adopt them exclusively and in isolation. In contrast, the SSQA model is an open-minded yet focused approach to product safety and quality management. The adoption of the SSQA concept by an operation means that the operation actively encourages its personnel to search, investigate, recognize, adopt and expand upon winning ideas. Such ideas could come from current and future excellence-producing management approaches. The SSQA model is didactic, eclectic, organic and progressive in producing continuous improvement in any operation. The SSQA concept brings together the theory and reality of product safety and quality assurance. 

There is another salient difference. GCSE-FHP SSQA does not only require continuing, and direct contributions from all parties; it also directly and actively drives the engagement of all parties. Through its Participatory Alliance Principles, the SSQA concept actively engages the entire material supply and utilization chain. It drives continuous improvement processes and loss mitigation  actions with strategies for measuring and expanding successful achievements.

Other Differentiating Key Concepts and Strategies:

The SSQA system involves strategies that ensure resource-efficient and effective implementation of programs, procedures and actions.These strategies can be represented in this short instructive phrase: "Entice team-mates who care about facts". A brief explanation of the specific strategies is  provided as follows:

Entire Chain Engagement – otherwise known as “ENTI-CE”

Through the ENTI-CE strategy, SSQA drives the active engagement of the entire material supply, processing, distribution, product utilization, regulators and assessors chain in the continuous improvement process with measurable success. ENTI-CE is one of the primary strategies in the SSQA concept.

Team Mobilization to Action through Tracking of Exceptional Success – “Team-MATES”      

Engaging the entire team with the incorporated Extra Pay Incentive in the tracking of successes (positive internal achievements and positive consumer feedback) and the contributing factors as part of the strategy for maintaining continuous improvement action. 

Continuing Analysis of Realized Effectiveness and Efficiencies – “CARE”

CARE involves a review of implemented actions (identified), expended resources (quantified) and realized benefits (quantified) as part of the Continuous Improvement Accounting. The CARE strategy drives a continuing commitment to ensuring resource efficiencies and optimization.

Failure Analysis and Control Tracking System – “FACTS”

This SSQA strategy ensures the ongoing failure elimination process through the tracking and prevention of real time quality control incidents, as well as the tracking and prevention of the causes of consumer complaints. Note: Positive feedback from consumers or customers are considered under Team-MATES

DMS-HACCP (HACCP with consideration given to DMS - Difficult to Manage Situations). A DMS-HACCP  program incorporates FACTS that are real to the operation.

Key SSQA Roles

In the SSQA model, there are some key universal roles of Assessor (Auditor), Facilitator and Consultant. The general definitions and differentiation are provided briefly as follows:

The Assessor:

This is not a consultant's role but the assessor serves as a provider of technical evaluation of implemented programs. The Assessor evaluates operations against identified effectiveness standard in order to establish the level of effectiveness achieved. Where effectiveness is deemed to have been achieved, the assessment process is expected to conclude until another scheduled assessment. Where the satisfactory effectiveness is not deemed to have been achieved, the program is noted as having failed that requirement. The Auditor submits a corrective action request and awaits the corrective action response in order to determine if a satisfactory level of effectiveness  has been achieved.

Under the SSQA model, the emphasis is always on the validity and effectiveness of implemented programs. In other words, the Assessor’s conclusions about implemented programs are not based merely on the wordings of a written standard. The persistent frame of reference is the effectiveness of what is evaluated to mitigate real concerns that are associated with the evaluated item.   

The Facilitator:

This is an implementation level consultation role. The Facilitator serves as a technical assessment and solution implementation resource. This is in addition to performing the Assessor’s role. Where systems are found to be effective the process does not conclude. It loops into the continuous improvement cycle. Where systems are found to be ineffective, the operation is noted as having failed in that aspect. The Facilitator conducts the root cause analysis investigation (with the facility's full involvement) and works with the facility to assess different available and effective solution options. The Facilitator assists in the solution implementation & re-assessment through the continuous improvement loop.

Consultant:

This is the expert level consultation role. The consultant serves as the technical solution finding and implementation resource. This is in addition to the Facilitator’s role. The Consultant is expected to recommend best solution options and assist the facility in the implementation of recommended solutions. The Consultant also assists the facility in its continuous improvement initiatives.

SSQA is for food businesses that no longer wish to continue with food safety cat and mouse games:

Write your story - leave a lasting legacy - Join the SSQADevelopment (SSQA-D) Community – "the SQUAD": 

If you wish to receive updates about the SSQA concept and programs you may:
 REGISTER HERE:
OR
Visit the Updates Page

Cost of Quality - Simple Calculation Chart

Free Download Termination Notice:

With the release of the SSQA Implementation Manual, we regret to say that the free download of the following tools has ended:

• The Quality Cost Calculation Chart
• Paperwork Reduction Guide
• Detailed Procedure Writing Guide
• Paperwork Importance Determination Scale (MUD Scale)
• Partner Prioritization Chart
• Change Management Control and Tracking Chart
• Operation Function and Department Organization Guide; etc. 

These tools and updates will now be available only to enrolled SSQA Participants. Information about enrolling in the SSQA Program is provided on the Program Enrolment page.

It is always a good thing to stop once in a while to take stock. This also applies to operations that are working hard to establish and maintain effective product safety and quality management systems. Taking stock of how much is spent and how much is gained in return is an essential activity for any business. It provides the picture that guides an operation to more efficiently allocate and utilize its resources. 

The simple calculation chart that is currently provided with the SSQA program serves as a minimum starting point in quality system management ROI determinations. Business owners, quality systems managers, etc. may find it helpful. It can be used to determine how much is spent, what system effectiveness is derived in return, what expenses can be dropped without affecting effectiveness, etc.

It is possible that you already have a tool for determining investment expenses and the returns they generate. The simple calculation chart provided with the SSQA program includes a cost trend graph. A Paperwork Reduction Guide and other tools are also provided with the SSQA program.

 

It is the aim of Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection (GCSE-FHP)  to provide these kinds of assistance and drive initiatives that are beneficial to the food and health industry.  Membership in the Coalition is free and open to anyone and any organization.
 You may JOIN the coalition and participate in its voluntary projects and programs.