10 replies to this topic

[derekleea]

I have worked at companies that have been SQF certified for years. The frustration I have with the verification/validation process is that every auditor has their own opinion of how they should be completed. What is good for one is not good for another. SQF should define and require certifying bodies to train their auditors to be consistent. Have had auditors say, "WOW this is perfect", then a new auditor says, "this is OK I guess", and another say, "this is not what I am looking for". This is very frustrating as we have more work to do than trying to guess what the next auditor is going to consider the correct way that he/she likes it. 

[SQFconsultant]

Seems to be one of the things that messes auditors and facility staff up the most.

 

I sat in on an audit years ago and the QA Director had two sheets of paper on the wall facing his desk but behind where an Auditor would sit.

 

Before the Auditor started the Director asked him the definitions of V&V.

 

He got them right.

 

It put everybody on the same page.

 

I've seen this happen many times since then.

 

Might do the trick to do a quick q&a with your next Auditor. 

[G M]

People are the weak point in lots of well intentioned systems.  The GFSI standards and auditing processes like SQF are no different.  You hear the same kind of frustration with inconsistent interpretation for gov regulatory inspectors.

 

The appeals process helps mediate some of this if a new auditor is being over-zealous, but there is little incentive to push back when they miss things or overlook issues.  

 

The vague wording of the standards is helpful by allowing you some room for interpretation, but the reverse is just as likely sometimes.

[Theodore Donald Kerabatsos]

Just had an audit conclude last week and I opened the audit by stating "In my experience, all SQF auditors have their own quirks and areas of interest that influence their decisions...". I said this to open the door to the fact that we may not see things eye to eye but we will get through this process together. That was fervently rebuked by the auditor and labeled as simply not true as "I have the code right in front of me, I work off the code.". Upon the conclusion of the audit, I stated it again framed with "... and if that wasn't the case, how was XYZ acceptable for the last audit (9.0) and the six ones prior to that (in some cases)?". Rebuked again. "I have the code. I go off the code.".

 

It's frustrating and some don't seem to believe that they have any bias. Others, have come right out and said "my background is in XYZ and THIS is what I will be focusing on" which is refreshing because they're acknowledging their own bias, which we all have. Those auditors who acknowledge it are easier to work with and are more open to a discussion about the vernacular used in programs/documentation/SOPs.

[MDaleDDF]

Just had an audit conclude last week and I opened the audit by stating "In my experience, all SQF auditors have their own quirks and areas of interest that influence their decisions...". I said this to open the door to the fact that we may not see things eye to eye but we will get through this process together. That was fervently rebuked by the auditor and labeled as simply not true as "I have the code right in front of me, I work off the code.". Upon the conclusion of the audit, I stated it again framed with "... and if that wasn't the case, how was XYZ acceptable for the last audit (9.0) and the six ones prior to that (in some cases)?". Rebuked again. "I have the code. I go off the code.".

 

It's frustrating and some don't seem to believe that they have any bias. Others, have come right out and said "my background is in XYZ and THIS is what I will be focusing on" which is refreshing because they're acknowledging their own bias, which we all have. Those auditors who acknowledge it are easier to work with and are more open to a discussion about the vernacular used in programs/documentation/SOPs.

I've been through the same with some auditors, and have said on this site more than a few times:  the bad part of these NSF systems is different auditors reach different conclusions to the same issue based on vague writing of rules. 

 

If that auditor didn't get your point, there's no helping him.   Yeah, he's going off the code.   The way HE (or she) interprets the code....

[derekleea]

I've been through the same with some auditors, and have said on this site more than a few times:  the bad part of these NSF systems is different auditors reach different conclusions to the same issue based on vague writing of rules. 

 

If that auditor didn't get your point, there's no helping him.   Yeah, he's going off the code.   The way HE (or she) interprets the code....

 

I've been through the same with some auditors, and have said on this site more than a few times:  the bad part of these NSF systems is different auditors reach different conclusions to the same issue based on vague writing of rules. 

 

If that auditor didn't get your point, there's no helping him.   Yeah, he's going off the code.   The way HE (or she) interprets the code....

You are so correct. Each auditor has their own view and opinions. I have even asked them to show me in the code where this says this, and was told, well, it's not in there but that is what is meant. That is a crap answer. 

[derekleea]

I've been through the same with some auditors, and have said on this site more than a few times:  the bad part of these NSF systems is different auditors reach different conclusions to the same issue based on vague writing of rules. 

 

If that auditor didn't get your point, there's no helping him.   Yeah, he's going off the code.   The way HE (or she) interprets the code....

 

You are so correct. Each auditor has their own view and opinions. I have even asked them to show me in the code where this says this, and was told, well, it's not in there but that is what is meant. That is a crap answer. 

I have also told them that I have the code in front of me as well and the way you interpret it and the way I interpret it are two different things. I work in Food Safety, so I have to be conscientious of what is right or wrong, auditors come in here to verify that we are doing what is right, documenting, and verifying what we do is right. In the last audit we had, the auditor walked in and basically stated up front that we would not achieve the higher score we had received previously. He also stated that if we were to appeal his decisions, he would be the one reviewing the appeal with his auditing body and they would come to the same conclusion, so there was no need to go there. We are actually looking at changing auditing bodies due to the last two auditors we have had from this one. 

[olenazh]

I have also told them that I have the code in front of me as well and the way you interpret it and the way I interpret it are two different things. I work in Food Safety, so I have to be conscientious of what is right or wrong, auditors come in here to verify that we are doing what is right, documenting, and verifying what we do is right. In the last audit we had, the auditor walked in and basically stated up front that we would not achieve the higher score we had received previously. He also stated that if we were to appeal his decisions, he would be the one reviewing the appeal with his auditing body and they would come to the same conclusion, so there was no need to go there. We are actually looking at changing auditing bodies due to the last two auditors we have had from this one. 

How come, the person you're appealing against is the same who review this appeal? Isn't this a nonsense? 

[Miss Frankie]

I'm at my 3rd company that have been SQF certified.  The first company (I was there almost 37 years) started SQF a couple years before I left.  First year we had a few minor dings (no containment pallet under chemicals, not enough spill kits, etc) Scored 98,  Next year, new auditor, we didn't stress "SQF" enough.  A couple workers didn't know what it meant (language barrier), it should have been written more in our policies.. scored 98
 

2nd company, they had no spill kit, no containment pallets, doors left unlocked, only a few key personnel knew what SQF was, they've scored 100 & 99 on their last couple audits. 

 

It will be interesting next year to see how this place does.  It's by far the cleanest, pretty much EVERYONE knows at least a little bit about SQF, everything is color coded, well labeled, contained, locked, etc. 

 

 

At my first company, an auditor would find something, we'd fix it.  Another auditor would find something, we'd fix it.  It got to the point where they were looking for things to ding us on.   Yes, we're calibrating the thermometers daily (used or not), BUT we're not writing down the time of day they are being calibrated.

I've always said the people who write the policies should be required to work in a production facility before being allowed to write any policies.  It's obvious most are written by armchair workers who have no clue what goes on in a production facility.

[liberator]

 

At my first company, an auditor would find something, we'd fix it.  Another auditor would find something, we'd fix it.  It got to the point where they were looking for things to ding us on.   Yes, we're calibrating the thermometers daily (used or not), BUT we're not writing down the time of day they are being calibrated.

 

 Really, you got pinged on not writing down the time they were calibrated, WOW. When I audit, I'm not out to "get them" I'm there to support, if there are issues I'll raise them, and I've always said, if you don't agree with what I've said, don't be afraid to challenge. I'm not out to leave an audit with ridiculous NC's. If I don't find anything I don't say, I found nothing, so I'll find something. Mature systems typically have very few issues. Most issues I tend to find are around GMP, quality systems are quite robust.

[Miss Frankie]

 Really, you got pinged on not writing down the time they were calibrated, WOW. When I audit, I'm not out to "get them" I'm there to support, if there are issues I'll raise them, and I've always said, if you don't agree with what I've said, don't be afraid to challenge. I'm not out to leave an audit with ridiculous NC's. If I don't find anything I don't say, I found nothing, so I'll find something. Mature systems typically have very few issues. Most issues I tend to find are around GMP, quality systems are quite robust.

 

Yes we did!  It wasn't an SQF audit.  I THINK it was WSDA or USDC, it's been a while.   When some auditors can't find anything, they start looking deeper. I think they think if they don't find anything their boss will think they aren't doing their job properly??  
We had one auditor that came quarterly (USDC)  He would point out things, then at the next audit, if things weren't taken care of, or in the process of being improved, THEN he would ding us.  I was cool with that.  At least he gave us the opportunity to improve.