Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Internal Non Conformances and Root Causes

non conformance root cause deviations

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

cgarces

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 January 2022 - 05:05 PM

Hi all, 

 

I  am a bit perplexed about internal non conformances. my boss likes to see all  deviations from norm opened as a non conformance  EX: if the metal detector found metal ,  if  we found a positive of listeria ssp. in a transition zone  during environmental monitoring, paperwork errors, production errors. etc.   I sometimes don't know what to writer as a  root causes for items like these....

 

 Normally I write an internal non-conformity resolution for minor NC  which  is how we resolve the issue immediately. it is only after 3 of the same minor NC that we do root cause analysis.  my understanding is for edition 9 you must do  a Root Cause Analysis for  all Major NCs. what do you guys consider a major NC besides CCP deviations? 

 

How do you respond to typical production  minor NC's ?

 

thank you! 

 



olenazh

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 833 posts
  • 250 thanks
239
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:My job, church, reading, gym, horror movies

Posted 10 January 2022 - 05:29 PM

Maybe your boss is concerned about repetitive NCs? (like you mentioned: 3 of the same minor NCs) In this case, all root cause analyses are useless as your solutions haven't solved the problem...



cgarces

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 2 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 January 2022 - 06:44 PM

yes I agree i think its a way she set it up in order not to do root cause analysis for errors that don't happen often ( we  don't really have repetitive NC)   but  we do have a lot of NC due to human error data entry which the root cause  seems so simple?( human error)  and the resolution difficult as  we can re-train and monitor more closely but is that it?  open to suggestions for change as  I feel with the new SQF edition 9 it has to change anyways. 



olenazh

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 833 posts
  • 250 thanks
239
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:My job, church, reading, gym, horror movies

Posted 10 January 2022 - 06:55 PM

Let's see what other forum members would suggest (I'm not with SQF, my scheme is FSSC). However, re-training seems a good solution...



MDaleDDF

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 160 posts
  • 28 thanks
112
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 January 2022 - 07:23 PM

A training sesh is what I'd do....



Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,010 posts
  • 1101 thanks
773
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 10 January 2022 - 07:36 PM

You cannot train away human errors.............they will continue to happen

 

Perhaps in the scenario, the actual root cause is humans performing data entry, when it should/could be an automated process??

 

We have a process where by corrective and preventative measures (almost always) are implemented (even in short form) WITHOUT a root cause

 

A well done root cause (5 whys or fishbone for example) take quite a bit of time, and for that reason should not be used for minor NCs

 

our CCP would be a major, as would a titration of no-rinse sanitizer, that sort of thing that could cause

 

A) product that is adultered

 

B) significant loss of production hours

 

C) possibility of a recall

 

D) large amount of rework

 

I'm sure others may have a different view, that is how I sail my ship


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


Thanked by 1 Member:

sjegorov

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 14 posts
  • 2 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 10 January 2022 - 07:48 PM

Hi. Regarding production paperwork errors, you can review the paperwork and try to make filling-in easier and more user friendly: circling/ticking instead of writing, reduction the number of checks, reduction the amount of checksheets, removing duplicating questions, combining two questions into one, etc. We used to have some startup sheets where people had to sign and time every single question they answer. We replaced it with just the time and signature at the bottom of the sheets.



Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

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

Posted 11 January 2022 - 05:07 PM

Hi. Regarding production paperwork errors, you can review the paperwork and try to make filling-in easier and more user friendly: circling/ticking instead of writing, reduction the number of checks, reduction the amount of checksheets, removing duplicating questions, combining two questions into one, etc. We used to have some startup sheets where people had to sign and time every single question they answer. We replaced it with just the time and signature at the bottom of the sheets.

 

Hi sjegorov,

 

I agree the Principle but logically IMO it  also relates to the significance of the paperwork errors, eg some threads here have people omitting to fill in CCP monitoring forms.

 

Not too easy to combine Metal Detection and Listeria ? Similar Root Cause ?


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,305 posts
  • 955 thanks
221
Excellent

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

Posted 11 January 2022 - 09:37 PM

I'm with Scampi here.

 

If I am walking around doing a GMP inspection and notice some cobwebs in the ceiling in the warehouse, there is not much point doing a RCA.

Just have someone remove the cobwebs. You might want to have the Sanitation Manager review the Master Cleaning Schedule to ensure that this area is in fact being cleaned on a scheduled basis, but to spend the time and effort doing RCA makes no sense.

 

Now as far as the OP goes, metal detectors finding metal is not a non-conformance. That's what they are supposed to do. You of course investigate to see if you can find the source of the metal.

A positive Listeria hit is certainly a bit more serious.

Paperwork errors and the like always happen and IMO, are not candidates for a full blown RCA/CAPA. Unless of course if you have the time and people to do so.

 

Your Corrective Action program/policy should indicate at what point a full blown RCA/CAPA investigation needs to take place.

 

Marshall



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

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

Posted 11 January 2022 - 11:26 PM

Hi all, 

 

I  am a bit perplexed about internal non conformances. my boss likes to see all  deviations from norm opened as a non conformance  EX: if the metal detector found metal ,  if  we found a positive of listeria ssp. in a transition zone  during environmental monitoring, paperwork errors, production errors. etc.   I sometimes don't know what to writer as a  root causes for items like these....

 

 Normally I write an internal non-conformity resolution for minor NC  which  is how we resolve the issue immediately. it is only after 3 of the same minor NC that we do root cause analysis.  my understanding is for edition 9 you must do  a Root Cause Analysis for  all Major NCs. what do you guys consider a major NC besides CCP deviations? 

 

How do you respond to typical production  minor NC's ?

 

thank you! 

 

Hi cgarces,

 

Maybe try studying the Guidance and Glossary, eg -

 

Attached File  RCA.PNG   79.17KB   0 downloads

 

 A minor non-conformance is evidence of a random or infrequent failure to maintain compliance to a requirement, but which does not indicate a breakdown in the food safety management system or that food safety is compromised. It is evidence of an incomplete or inappropriate implementation of SQF requirements which, if not corrected, could lead to system element breakdown

 

etc

 

GMP-related checklists can include categorisation of Mi/Ma/Cr defects.
 

@ Marshall, If the MD is a CCP, i cannot see how a positive result can avoid raising an RCA. The NC is directed to the CL.

Listeria per se is not a hazard so IMO the documentary consequences depend on the context.

I concur yr final sentence.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


mgourley

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,305 posts
  • 955 thanks
221
Excellent

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

Posted 12 January 2022 - 12:11 AM

Charles,

 

I stated that any presence of metal detected should of course be investigated to attempt to find the source.

Does that need to be a full blown RCA/CAPA? I guess that all depends on your assumption of risk.

 

If we have a metal detector trip, we investigate, but do not do a full RCA/CAPA. If there are multiple trips within a designated time frame, then yes.

 

Marshall



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

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

Posted 12 January 2022 - 12:16 AM

Charles,

 

I stated that any presence of metal detected should of course be investigated to attempt to find the source.

Does that need to be a full blown RCA/CAPA? I guess that all depends on your assumption of risk.

 

If we have a metal detector trip, we investigate, but do not do a full RCA/CAPA. If there are multiple trips within a designated time frame, then yes.

 

Marshall

Hi Marshall,

 

Assuming you do set the MD as a CCP, sounds like you have an interestingly "layered" Corrective Actions section in your haccp plan. :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users