Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Which non-conformances do you get most?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Poll: Which non-conformances do you get most? (128 member(s) have cast votes)

Which non-conformances do you get most?

  1. Personal Hygiene (10 votes [4.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.83%

  2. Good Manufacturing Practice (46 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  3. Building Standards (34 votes [16.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.43%

  4. Gaps in Procedures (26 votes [12.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.56%

  5. Pest Control (14 votes [6.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.76%

  6. Document Control (31 votes [14.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.98%

  7. Record Keeping (18 votes [8.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

  8. Internal Audit (8 votes [3.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.86%

  9. CAPA Management (9 votes [4.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.35%

  10. Other (11 votes [5.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.31%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,402 posts
  • 1026 thanks
226
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 08 March 2016 - 10:09 PM

Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone. 

 

Let's be honest we all get them, so I thought it would be interesting to start a poll to see if there are any commonalities with the NC’s we get and hopefully it will also lead to some ideas on how we can get rid of them.

 

Please vote in the poll and comment.

 

Regards,

Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


Thanked by 2 Members:

#2 Watanka

Watanka

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 85 posts
  • 39 thanks
4
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 08 March 2016 - 11:33 PM

Simon,

 

Voted for GMP's and building standards.  An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass.  Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible.  Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions.  Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair.  In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution.  Not optimum but in our sights for improvement.  Be interested to see what others vote for.

 

Thanks,

Watanka


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 QAGB

QAGB

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 267 posts
  • 105 thanks
13
Good

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 09 March 2016 - 01:38 PM

It seems like no matter what, we always get a pest control infraction. This last time it was because someone moved an external bait station (so that it wouldn't get broken) a few feet away due to snow removal. They also commented on a few zapped bugs being inside ILTs (which is where they are supposed to be and not flying around) in the warehouse. We've had an auditor looking up EPA Registration Numbers and trying to match them up with CAS numbers on SDS sheets.

 

Granted we have had some reasonable non-conformances in the past -- the technician's scanner malfunctioned and stopped recording data and didn't realize it -- it does seem like auditors will dig and dig until they can find a non-conformance somewhere in pest control.

 

 

QAGB


  • 2

Thanked by 2 Members:

#4 JohnWheat

JohnWheat

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 165 posts
  • 58 thanks
12
Good

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk UK
  • Interests:My Children, Motorsports, Film, Rita Ora and Mila Kunis :)

Posted 09 March 2016 - 03:54 PM

We have reasonable systems with little in the way of ammunition to give them. However, its quite an old site that's creaking at the seams so always a target of opportunity :roflmao: I'll take that anytime over procedure issues etc. The occasional form not signed or dated has now died off now, as I introduced a system where all documents are checked again and checked against a list of expected documents (so none are missing!). Not fool proof, but has highlighted issues with previous poor standards. Engineering is my biggest issue but there wasn't box for that :secret:   


  • 0

#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,402 posts
  • 1026 thanks
226
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 09 March 2016 - 08:22 PM

Simon,

 

Voted for GMP's and building standards.  An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass.  Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible.  Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions.  Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair.  In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution.  Not optimum but in our sights for improvement.  Be interested to see what others vote for.

 

Thanks,

Watanka

 

Hi Watanka, when I set the poll I expected personal hygiene issues to be the big one; it is so difficult to get everyone onside all of the time.  The only way to get on top of it is through continued education, monitoring and when necessary getting the big stick out.

 

It seems like no matter what, we always get a pest control infraction. This last time it was because someone moved an external bait station (so that it wouldn't get broken) a few feet away due to snow removal. They also commented on a few zapped bugs being inside ILTs (which is where they are supposed to be and not flying around) in the warehouse. We've had an auditor looking up EPA Registration Numbers and trying to match them up with CAS numbers on SDS sheets.

 

Granted we have had some reasonable non-conformances in the past -- the technician's scanner malfunctioned and stopped recording data and didn't realize it -- it does seem like auditors will dig and dig until they can find a non-conformance somewhere in pest control.

 

 

QAGB

 

Hi QAGB, I've know auditors thumb through the pest control book for a couple of hours...a great read. :yeahrite: It is important and can tell you a lot about the organization and pest control contractor, just gets a bit boring sometimes. :yawn:

 

We have reasonable systems with little in the way of ammunition to give them. However, its quite an old site that's creaking at the seams so always a target of opportunity :roflmao: I'll take that anytime over procedure issues etc. The occasional form not signed or dated has now died off now, as I introduced a system where all documents are checked again and checked against a list of expected documents (so none are missing!). Not fool proof, but has highlighted issues with previous poor standards. Engineering is my biggest issue but there wasn't box for that :secret:   

 

Hi John, Ahh engineering, but what are they doing or not doing?

 

I didn't make it clear on the poll that I meant all audits customer, third part and internal. 

 

Regards,

Simon


  • 1

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 sandra_

sandra_

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 09 March 2016 - 11:57 PM

supplier NCs.


  • 0

#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,581 posts
  • 3275 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 10 March 2016 - 02:45 AM

Hi Simon,

 

JFI, afaik BRC have published (2012, 2015), for BRC Food, 2 global surveys of their audit NCs. -

http://www.ifsqn.com...indpost&p=98134

The first one is more revealing from a country POV, the 2nd for food categories.

Whether the "top" defects (which i occasionally found rather unbelievable)  are considered by BRC to reflect actual   FS capabilities is unclear to me.

 

The "Other" category might include  topics such as "HACCP-related", "Traceability", "Suppliers" and "Food Fraud" (and many more of course).


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#8 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,402 posts
  • 1026 thanks
226
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 10 March 2016 - 07:11 AM

Hi Simon,

 

JFI, , afaik BRC have published (2012, 2015), for BRC Food, 2 global surveys of their audit NCs. -

http://www.ifsqn.com...indpost&p=98134

The first one is more revealing from a country POV, the 2nd for food categories.

Whether the "top" defects (which i occasionally found rather unbelievable)  are considered by BRC to reflect actual   FS capabilities is unclear to me.

 

The "Other" category might include  topics such as "HACCP-related", "Traceability", "Suppliers" and "Food Fraud" (and many more of course).

 

Hi Charles and sorry I didn't see that topic before (too many new topics). I will take a proper look.

 

It will be interesting to see what our member survey shows in comparison.  Though I didn't add an option for some of the areas you mention.

 

Regards,

Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#9 Big Wally

Big Wally

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 58 posts
  • 20 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 March 2016 - 08:56 PM

Pest Control and Document Control here. Seems to me Pest Control has been a "go to" for the last couple of years to find something. No matter how tight we think we have it wrapped up, there's always something.

 

Document Control in regards to the auditor(s) and magical abilities. Somehow they can request to see a form, and a T wasn't crossed or an I wasn't dotted. Trying to move most forms to digital format, just tons of work left on that project.


  • 0

#10 ChristinaG

ChristinaG

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 126 posts
  • 52 thanks
12
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Midwest
  • Interests:Art, Video Games, Gardening, Kayaking, Costuming, Public Health, Writing

Posted 11 March 2016 - 04:25 PM

GMP's and Document Control.  

 

GMP's: Men not wearing their beardnets properly or women not keeping all of their hair in the hairnet.

 

Document Control: People not signing off on the occasional form, which is the form the auditor finds, of course. Our management is very attached to paper check sheets, so the problem is bound to happen. Like Wally above, we're trying to move more items into an electronic system, but it's a difficult journey.


  • 0

-Christina

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."- Albert Einstein 


#11 Anika

Anika

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 86 posts
  • 27 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 11 March 2016 - 09:17 PM

I voted for building, gaps in procedures and record keeping but every year there is at least one new that we absolutely didn't think we would be getting...murphy's law :headhurts:

wooden pallets is a regular occurrence too.


  • 0

#12 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,581 posts
  • 3275 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 14 March 2016 - 10:34 PM

Hi All,

 

Not one direct mention of hazard analysis and other likely haccp argumentatives such as traceability. Hard to believe unless the respondents are all old-hands.

 

Or perhaps the votes reflect more on auditor capabilities than auditee. A secondary Poll ?  :smile:


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#13 JohnWheat

JohnWheat

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 165 posts
  • 58 thanks
12
Good

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norfolk UK
  • Interests:My Children, Motorsports, Film, Rita Ora and Mila Kunis :)

Posted 15 March 2016 - 10:33 AM

Hi John, Ahh engineering, but what are they doing or not doing?

 

I didn't make it clear on the poll that I meant all audits customer, third part and internal. 

 

Regards,

Simon

 Everything :)  How they've got away with stuff so long baffles me. Not helped by site Manager who was the Engineering Manager, so seem to have been given a bullet proof shield ! In the grand scheme of things they would seem petty, however as I have pointed out that having half your non-conformances on BRC from engineering isn't good.......we got 7 this year and 4 were engineering!! 


  • 0

#14 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,217 posts
  • 471 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 March 2016 - 05:14 PM

Not really building standards for us, more general engineering control and bloody PPM completion.  :angry2:


  • 0

#15 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,217 posts
  • 471 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 22 March 2016 - 05:15 PM

Simon,

 

Voted for GMP's and building standards.  An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass.  Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible.  Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions.  Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair.  In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution.  Not optimum but in our sights for improvement.  Be interested to see what others vote for.

 

Thanks,

Watanka

 

I went into a factory as a visitor the other day with the TM.  As soon as a guy saw us, he turned round and put his beard snood on properly.  It made me laugh as this was a very highly rated site by retailer audit but everyone has the same issues!


  • 0

#16 anna898

anna898

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 11 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:41 AM

HI 

I voted for GMP and gaps in procedures.Every auditor looking for something else, over few years working in the meat and seafood industry I've met a lot of auditors from different awarding bodies. And I can say sometimes it was a nightmare cos what was fine for one wasn't for another :(


  • 0

#17 CaliforniaFS

CaliforniaFS

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 102 posts
  • 12 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Sunny Side

Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:33 PM

Hi everyone,

 

One I always get is packaging stored outside but shrouded... This has been for a few company's I've worked with now. I wish I could changes this.


  • 0

#18 Anika

Anika

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 86 posts
  • 27 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 08 April 2016 - 02:01 PM

I'm surprised(hopeful too) that not many has reported on Supplier Approval.


  • 0

#19 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 804 posts
  • 648 thanks
81
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 08 April 2016 - 10:58 PM

Anika, see my post here

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...onconformances/

 

Marshall


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#20 joseangp

joseangp

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 11 April 2016 - 03:28 PM

Our focus is on GMPs: Cleaning and Sanitation, as well as Preventive Maintenance.

 

We're struggling with monitoring activities to ensure that SOPS and Maintenance work has been finished properly.

Now we're developing visual aids to show people and quality personnel what the standard is and where are critical cleanness points.


  • 0

#21 Anika

Anika

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 86 posts
  • 27 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 12 April 2016 - 08:46 PM

Anika, see my post here

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...onconformances/

 

Marshall

:headhurts: 2 more weeks to go for us


  • 0

#22 yas

yas

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 25 posts
  • 7 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 13 April 2016 - 07:56 AM

We got picked up on BRC V7 section 4.11.1 - New requirement.....'The premises and equipment shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic manner' - So no surprises there! Was expecting this as the auditors struggle to find anything in the factory usually. They had a thorough look around each machine and found build up of debris under one of the machine motors..


  • 0

#23 mgourley

mgourley

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 804 posts
  • 648 thanks
81
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Plant City, FL
  • Interests:Cooking, golf, firearms, food safety and sanitation.

Posted 14 April 2016 - 10:20 PM

My interpretation of this clause is "if the facility is not completely dirty" it's ok.

I do not think the interpretation of this clause would be if the auditor found a dust bunny under something it should be a minor NC.

 

Unless you working in a clean room, there is always going to be something that is not "clean".

 

Marshall


  • 0

#24 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,217 posts
  • 471 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 27 April 2016 - 11:16 AM

My interpretation of this clause is "if the facility is not completely dirty" it's ok.

I do not think the interpretation of this clause would be if the auditor found a dust bunny under something it should be a minor NC.

 

Unless you working in a clean room, there is always going to be something that is not "clean".

 

Marshall

 

I think a "build up of debris" though is different.  If that debris looks old it could become a microbiological issue or a pest issue, a bit more than a dust bunny.  That clause was explained to me as the fact that they were always raising issues on this but in multiple different areas of the standard e.g. walls, floors etc and it varied by auditor so stats were a bit off.  When actually the root causes are likely to the same so it seemed sensible to have one overarching clause.  The other thing was so that if you had multiple failures against it it's more likely to be upweighted to a major.

 

You should experience M&S auditors Marshall.  They literally audit to that level of detail.


  • 0

#25 Chris DeV

Chris DeV

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 13 posts
  • 5 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 27 April 2016 - 11:33 AM

Hi All,

 

Not one direct mention of hazard analysis and other likely haccp argumentatives such as traceability. Hard to believe unless the respondents are all old-hands.

 

Or perhaps the votes reflect more on auditor capabilities than auditee. A secondary Poll ?  :smile:

Charles,

 

I haven't once had a deviation for anything related to HACCP. Whether that is because our HACCP plans and PRPs are well buttoned-up, or because the auditors give them cursory reviews, I do not know. But I will go with the former. :spoton:

 

The last three years it seems like auditors are spending a lot more time and attention on facilities and grounds. My last audit was maybe 6-8 hours of documents and program review, and the rest was spent in the plant. The auditor went to the floor 10 separate times during the 2.5 days. I generally undergo one big walk through, and then maybe one more to check on anything seen during the first walk or to cover missing areas. But never that many.

 

I think industry has finally caught on that CCPs control what they control, and are generally in good shape, while the bulk of the problems come from the facility or the people.

 

Chris


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users