7 replies to this topic

[QUALITY22]

All,

 

I recently started with a new company. We are a low risk flavor ingredient powder manufacturer under SQF 8.0 Level 2 (Manufacturing).

 

They have been under SQF for 3-4 years with no major concerns(97,98,97 scores). 

 

Our previous QA and Consultant had a goal of SQF Quality, however never started the process. Is SQF Quality Worth the Investment for a ingredient manufacturer?

 

Here are a few of my thoughts or questions:

1. We are a small ingredient manufacturer (25ppl), not consumable retail goods- while some of our suppliers may like the idea, its not a necessary requirement. Most companies in our industry are FSSC 22000.

 

2. SPC controls- We weigh all boxes individually and verify scales daily using Nist MaV standards. The need for trending is low risk due to have one box size and small quantity of orders, and a validated calibration program. We are not a retail manufacturer with high speed lines producing 1000/ bottles a minute at a juice manufacturing facility. The cost of a MT scale- for this purpose for a FIRE EXPLOSION ROOM is $10,000k plus.

 

3. QMS- I created a QMS based on our current FS plan. We are currently performing Quality checks but not to the level of SQF 3(QUALITY). If our program did exist-Our QCP is NaCL levels, which is important for our products. We do not ship with OOS NaCl, due to a major CP with our customers and end-use.

 

4. Personnel- Currently we do not have a large QA staff- would need to add another within 1 year for SQF Quality.

 

5. Continuous Improvement-Currently building a state of the art Biosafety 2 lab- for pathogens and a chemistry lab for all laboratory tests. All tests are outsourced currently.

 

In all, we are doing the right things and moving in the right direction, however we our unsure about SQF Quality. Anyone have any thoughts or opinions? I would personally rather go for a ISO cert to get our lab approved for Lab testing for all our 'sister sites' vs sqf level 3. I do not see a direct benefit of an additional audit/cost.

[The Food Scientist]

Hi! 

 

Quality Code is the most stringent and highest level certification awarded by SQFI. The only thing I see that as supplier may benefit from Quality is cost. Having a Quality system in place is cost effective. It eliminates defects, ineffectiveness and inefficiencies relating to process & product quality.  

[BillC]

I did SQF Quality for a year in a previous company, but then said Nah, no one is asking for it so why add the added risk of a lower score?  The upside to it is it forces you to look hard at the quality side of your program, and it's statistical process control underpinning, so if that's a goal (which is worthwhile) it's worth considering.  If the goal is customer acceptance, it's relevant. Why not start by adapting all of the principles for a year and see how you make out?

[QUALITY22]

Hi! 
 
Quality Code is the most stringent and highest level certification awarded by SQFI. The only thing I see that as supplier may benefit from Quality is cost. Having a Quality system in place is cost effective. It eliminates defects, ineffectiveness and inefficiencies relating to process & product quality.

Thanks-I worked at 3 companies using the old level 3, I did not really see any stringent issues or cost saving. If the company, have controls in place for quality than what is the advantage? another audit?

We could focus more on six sigma and 5s we have 99% efficiency on batches currently. I would rather spend money on this.

[QUALITY22]

I did SQF Quality for a year in a previous company, but then said Nah, no one is asking for it so why add the added risk of a lower score?  The upside to it is it forces you to look hard at the quality side of your program, and it's statistical process control underpinning, so if that's a goal (which is worthwhile) it's worth considering.  If the goal is customer acceptance, it's relevant. Why not start by adapting all of the principles for a year and see how you make out?

Bill I totally agreed, having been at multiple companies with sqf 3, I nv saw a large advantage even in retail products. We still have to do 5-6 customer audits(nestle, unilever, HeB, etc) and they had their on requirements. I have adopted most of the quality attributes now. We dont let anything out the door that does not meet our quality specifications. Have a strong top management that understands quality and fs is a huge strength here. I already started most of the the principles however looking for funds for Spc controls etc.

[The Food Scientist]

Thanks-I worked at 3 companies using the old level 3, I did not really see any stringent issues or cost saving. If the company, have controls in place for quality than what is the advantage? another audit?

We could focus more on six sigma and 5s we have 99% efficiency on batches currently. I would rather spend money on this.

 

I agree about the Six sigma & 5S part, that's exactly what I was trying to get at!  I do believe Level 2 is enough with a focus on SS & Lean. 

[Charles.C]

This thread seems somewhat living in the Past.

 

SQF lvl 3 no longer exists.

 

I am guessing QCP in OP = SQF (CQP).

 

Not quite sure how to compare lab certification with SQF Quality Code.

 

Personally I feel the concept of creating "risk" matrices for Quality by analogy to HACCP is a waste of (QA) time. However SQF are not unique in this respect.

[SQFconsultant]

As an SQF Consultant for the past 8 or so years I see no value in going to SQF Quality.

 

The only time I have seen the "need" with a client is becuase a large customer of our client wanted them to go for Level 3 (at the time it was levels.)

 

And even that one, after discussion with their customer decided to not to pursue what is now SQF Quality.

 

While there is most certainly value in being SQF certified, there really is not value in going to SQF Quality... so, save the company some money.