20 replies to this topic

[SnaxAuditor]

As I go through new regulations, I continue to see nearly every agency invoking some sort of unannounced audit scheme. The new Organic SOE mentions requiring agencies to do unannounced audits for at least 5% of the operations they certify, BRC and SQF both have their unannounced requirements now. Costco requires all of their audits in high-risk Kirkland brand to be unannounced as of their April 1st revision. 

 

At least in my experience, the QA manager/director tends to be the sole person responsible for prepping for the audit and leading the audit on audit days. I'm sure the companies making these regulations don't think about the individual and are more concerned about "catching" the operation as it runs normally, but I can't help but think we're going to see some good QA people leaving the field due to the fact they can't go on vacation without being constantly worried they're going to get a phone call saying an auditor is there and they need to come in. 

 

Considering the data suggests that unannounced and announced grades are very similar, are we making food safety worse due to these additional requirements forcing good talent out?

[G M]

Relying on that one 'special' person was always a bad strategy.  

 

Not being able to provide answers or documents for an auditor isn't much different than not being able to resolve day-to-day problems unless that person is around.

[SQFconsultant]

I think its being made better.

 

Long before I became  food safety auditor I worked for a 3 brand hotel company, 2 of the brands were handled on an unannounced basis and one by charter was always announced.

 

Both of 2 brands that got unannounced sudits were almost always "audit ready" and the ones that were not, well they failed, etc.

 

I don't think anyone should have to get ready for an audit. A facility should always be ready and considering that most gfsi schemes require a backup there is then no reason to worry about being called in. 

 

We are starting up a food company now and actually look forward to unannounced audits. I wish there was no notice whatsoever for any facility.

 

Have not experienced anyone quiting due to an unannounced audit. 

[mgourley]

The only reason I can think of for QA/Food Safety people getting out of the business because of unnanounced audits is if the company they are working for is not "audit ready" on a daily basis.

 

I'm well aware that my weekly (sometines daily) emails about stuff that is not getting done, is not done correctly or whatever, pisses off people. Too bad.

If people are not going to do what they need to do (or do it correctly) then it's my job to "remind" them to get it done.

 

I really should not have to do this, because we use a system that basically is a "to do" list for people that are assigned various things. If they actually use the system, there is a "My Actions" section that quite plainly spells out what they need to do.

 

I fully understand that, at least in our situation, there is a bunch of other stuff that takes time (like actually producing product), but that's irrelevant. You are assigned things to do, review, or whatever. In the end it's their JOB to do the admin work as well.

 

Marshall

Edited by mgourley, 19 December 2023 - 12:30 AM.

[Scotty_SQF]

I sort of agree with every post to an extent, even the original post.  I have not yet seen the benefit of an unannounced audit.  But then I again, I have always worked for places that are generally always audit ready.  The downside is, that you have that period where you can't schedule time off and such until the auditor shows up.  I agree that one person shouldn't be solely responsible, but at the same time when you work at a company of 15 total people, it is sort of hard as we as management already wear so many hats.  I generally think the GFSI system is slightly flawed.  I have seen various companies I have been in and seen first hand get near perfect scores, when I know there is no way.  There is still lots of companies that get by with a smoke and mirrors show.  The amount of time to audit, sometimes doesn't make sense.  Minimum is 2 days for SQF, our facility is about 40,000 square feet and even the most thorough auditor only took about 3-4 hours to inspect the facility, yet I worked for a facility that was 4 times as large and the audit days for that was 3 days.  The auditors in no way could have possibly done a good facility audit before having to get to the documentation in time.  Some of the focuses during the audits depending on the auditor make no sense from year to year.  You can almost tell when they have a communication on what items to look out for this year.  I in no way blame the auditors, I blame the system.  It is slightly flawed, and sometimes feel like it's a money making scheme.  

 

That being said, what is in place I do think has helped the industry in a way to get better.  My other issue is letting big corporate companies like Costco and Walmart, etc. start to have a say in the GFSI schemes when they themselves clearly do not have a clue.

[SnaxAuditor]

Thanks for all the replies. I agree that you should be audit-ready at all times (and I'm lucky enough to work for a place that is), but while we all know relying on that one special person is a bad idea, it does happen fairly frequently in small companies. 

 

I guess the better question would be, how do we create a system in which anybody is able to conduct an audit (albeit not as comfortably) in the event the QA person gets hit by the proverbial bus. I know where everything is, my other managers do not. It would be unfortunate to be audit-ready and fail because the team doesn't know where something is. 

[Setanta]

Where I see an issue, is the unannounced audit window. Here, that plays out, an unannounced audit for SQF translates to 2 months that the QA/SQF Practitioner/PCQI cannot plan any time off--every year. The corporate head of QA is on stand-by and the whole organization is on tenterhooks, waiting for the 3-day disruption to the schedule.
Audit ready is one thing, the 3-day block of time is another. Will it cause me to leave, doubtful. Does it make an already thankless task, even more unenviable? Yes.

[jfrey123]

For the businesses who have historically been refusing to invest in QA properly, those QA directors/managers are going to have more headaches as more unannounced audits come up and it might drive them to find companies with friendlier cultures.  Those old school "QA doesn't matter" attitudes are going to have to change, because the world is changing; auditors and customers are getting smarter, and suppliers are going to have to adapt or die.

 

The unannounced audits are, or should be, encouraging more teamwork.  Long gone are the days where one person should be handling all the major QA jobs in a plant.  They should have persons under them that can take over when needed, other managers and supervisors should be empowered and expected to explain a process they control on the daily basis instead of relying on the QA person to walk the auditor through their entire program.  Designated backups should be able to carry the slack when the QA Manager is out for a vacation.  Not to mention it is 2023, and the pandemic showed us we can in fact make audits work virtually, so a QA Manager being able to call in to part of the audit while they're not on site is a possible help.

 

The corp QA team I work on is responsible for oversight of 9 different plants across the US.  When their SQF audits happen, either myself or a director or the VP of FSQA (or all of us) sit in on the audits either virtually or in-person to support that plant's QA team.  At one of our meat packers, a recently released QA Manager had traditionally been the one person in the SQF audit each year.  But after we bought this company, we told them that won't be happening anymore.  The VP prepped them up and said your management team is going to run this audit:  Maintenance manager, get in here and explain the PM program and calibrations; procurement guys get to demonstrate the supplier approval; the team that handles new product development/specs and labeling gets to come front and center and show the process, etc.  Everybody came in and defended their program and the plant walked away with a 95.  When everybody rows the boat, we get to where we want to be.  These unannounced audits are a fantastic tool to make sure your plant is indeed audit ready 24/7, and overall makes your plant safer and more efficient.

[kaylan7]

Interesting and I can understand your viewpoint and the facility I'm at, we make sure I or the Quality manager are onsite at all times (via not take PTO on the same day). If you are PCQI certified, you should a have back up and those two make sure the plant has coverage every day. 

 

Also, this why Food Safety Culture needs to be pushed heavily with food manufacturing. To have the quality manager be the one to hold it altogether is a disaster waiting to happen. I do not blame CB and customers to push for more unannounced audits because companies need to start investing in quality and food safety. 

 

Personal opinion :) 

[MDaleDDF]

Eh, it would be nice if the window were smaller.   I'd think a 3 month window would be sufficient to keep businesses on their toes as far as not being able to plan for a 'one day good showing', and would also make it easier for heads of QA to have some open time to take time off for whatever reason.

Personally, I don't mind much because our busy season is the window where they'll show up, and I don't generally vacation in that window anyway.   But as others have said, we're a small company.   So it's pretty much on me.   I do have a backup, but he's pretty green and I'd imagine he'd stick his head in the lab oven after one day of a two day audit...   But if the worst happened and I wasn't here, I'd imagine they'd be able to pull thru an audit as long as the auditor was patient.

Am I gonna quit?   Lol, not because of that if I do....

[MOHAMMED ZAMEERUDDIN]

Built a team who will be responsible for handling the audit in your absence.

[jay2023]

As I go through new regulations, I continue to see nearly every agency invoking some sort of unannounced audit scheme. The new Organic SOE mentions requiring agencies to do unannounced audits for at least 5% of the operations they certify, BRC and SQF both have their unannounced requirements now. Costco requires all of their audits in high-risk Kirkland brand to be unannounced as of their April 1st revision. 

 

At least in my experience, the QA manager/director tends to be the sole person responsible for prepping for the audit and leading the audit on audit days. I'm sure the companies making these regulations don't think about the individual and are more concerned about "catching" the operation as it runs normally, but I can't help but think we're going to see some good QA people leaving the field due to the fact they can't go on vacation without being constantly worried they're going to get a phone call saying an auditor is there and they need to come in. 

 

Considering the data suggests that unannounced and announced grades are very similar, are we making food safety worse due to these additional requirements forcing good talent out?

Most of the sites i have worked on had unannounced audits. The QA manager might be responsible for coordinating the audit, but everyone should have a part to play and people should be able to step up and cover for the QA manager in case they are not at work that day- its poor practice to have only one person who is able to do an important job in any business. Its not that the auditor are trying to catch you out, they usually state that they look for compliance but the company being able to accommodate and run an audit as a team is important.

[Scotty_SQF]

Most of the sites i have worked on had unannounced audits. The QA manager might be responsible for coordinating the audit, but everyone should have a part to play and people should be able to step up and cover for the QA manager in case they are not at work that day- its poor practice to have only one person who is able to do an important job in any business. Its not that the auditor are trying to catch you out, they usually state that they look for compliance but the company being able to accommodate and run an audit as a team is important.

Understandable as that should be how it works, but much harder for a smaller company that only has maybe 20 people total in the business and has more than one site.  When the audit is scheduled it is easy to have all of management on site to aide in the audit.  When you have an unannounced audit window, it unfortunately tends to fall on one person as due to business needs management is spread out to keep the other site(s) operating.  

 

I don't see how unannounced audits are truly working or keeping sites 'on their toes' as there is data to show that there is no real change in the scores.  Basically if you have it together, it doesn't matter if it is a scheduled or unannounced audit, it should go smoothly.  If you put on a show to get past these audits (we all know companies out there that do it), it doesn't matter if its announced or unannounced, as they just put the show on for a longer period in time rather than known days.  

[jay2023]

Understandable as that should be how it works, but much harder for a smaller company that only has maybe 20 people total in the business and has more than one site.  When the audit is scheduled it is easy to have all of management on site to aide in the audit.  When you have an unannounced audit window, it unfortunately tends to fall on one person as due to business needs management is spread out to keep the other site(s) operating.  

 

I don't see how unannounced audits are truly working or keeping sites 'on their toes' as there is data to show that there is no real change in the scores.  Basically if you have it together, it doesn't matter if it is a scheduled or unannounced audit, it should go smoothly.  If you put on a show to get past these audits (we all know companies out there that do it), it doesn't matter if its announced or unannounced, as they just put the show on for a longer period in time rather than known days.  

Yeah i can see how it would be an issue for smaller companies. I guess the unannounced audits are seen as a better way of verifying the site standards, but unless its a customer requirement its not worth doing.

[MDaleDDF]

Understandable as that should be how it works, but much harder for a smaller company that only has maybe 20 people total in the business and has more than one site.  When the audit is scheduled it is easy to have all of management on site to aide in the audit.  When you have an unannounced audit window, it unfortunately tends to fall on one person as due to business needs management is spread out to keep the other site(s) operating.  

 

I don't see how unannounced audits are truly working or keeping sites 'on their toes' as there is data to show that there is no real change in the scores.  Basically if you have it together, it doesn't matter if it is a scheduled or unannounced audit, it should go smoothly.  If you put on a show to get past these audits (we all know companies out there that do it), it doesn't matter if its announced or unannounced, as they just put the show on for a longer period in time rather than known days.  

I agree 100%.   I work for a small place and it's easy to say 'have a backup', and I do, but everyone wears many hats and we're all spread thin.   The idea we can have two employees 100% as well versed with the NSF system as each other isn't reality.   (Not that I'm bitching, I don't mind.   I had plenty of vacation time in my 20s....)

Part of the issue for me as well is when they audit the way the direction is going nowadays, you're auditing 'to audit' at some level, which means customers start operating to pass audits, not to make safe food necessarily.   NSF audits are nowhere as focused on actual cleanliness, etc, as AIB audits used to be.   But hey, let's make sure that paperwork is right!   Same as the COA discussion we were having on here the other day.   Many folks on here have the utmost faith that the COA of an ingredient is their savior.   It PROVES the ingredient is safe.    And then when they get a recall notice they're baffled...   Paperwork is just paperwork, and will never take the place of making sure things are correct where the rubber meets the road, as the old saying goes.

 

Look at Costco and their customer audits.   Didn't they just have a giant recall due to cheese products containing listeria?   Odd their on site audits didn't solve the problem!   All these companies forcing manufacturers to do audits is a joke to me.   They have no clue what they're doing.   I've experienced that first hand.   It's the same reason I gave up teaching.   When some idiot from the government, (that has never spent one day in a classroom), starts telling me they know how to do my job better than myself or those above me, I find it hilarious.  

 

[jfrey123]

I know a lot of my stories are long, but I'll do my best here...

 

Our corporation had picked up a meat plant around Q4 in 2022, and early in 2023 they released a lot of upper management because they had a lot of redundant management roles.  One of them was titled Director of QA, and our corporate FSQA team would learn that she was responsible for 99% of the SQF audit stuff.  She kept SOP's available only to her and would run the SQF audits previously all on her own.  Somehow this company passed SQF audits when her SOP's were literally just a copy/paste of the SQF code.  I'd never seen anything like it.

 

But our team worked with this plant, started empowering employees to know the SOP's relating to their job.  We helped them rewrite the SOP's to reflect what they actually do.  We put the remaining leadership through SQF training courses and asked them to study the code, and told them the days of one person handling SQF are gone:  each of you will be responsible for showing your job to the auditor, so make sure your backups are as good at your tasks as you are.

 

When the unannounced audit came, I'm happy to report this team earned themselves a 95.  People don't have to have the GFSI codes precisely memorized, but your SOP's should cover all the code requirements and people doing the jobs should know what their SOP says.  If you have those items in place, there's no reason an auditor can't walk in any day of any week.  If your company is always scrambling to make themselves ready for an audit, then something in your program isn't working the way it should (and I'm 100% guilty of this myself, so I'm not trying to belittle anyone).

[Scotty_SQF]

To answer the topic though of this feed, I do find as the years pass me by I am finding myself to be less and less in the mood for unannounced audits.  While where I am at I feel we are basically audit ready at any time, it still doesn't matter having that little bit of stress of not knowing when they will show up, holding off travel plans to other sites, shows, learning opportunities, having someone on standby to watch your dog/kid etc., (i could go on) when they show up and all that is just getting old.  And if the trend is to increase the frequency of unannounced audits, I feel a smaller company, like I am currently at, could not sustain an increase in unannounced audits.  If that is the trend and it happens, I do feel you'll see a drop in sites doing GFSI as the smaller companies can't compete as someone like me could not sustain multiple unannounced audits in a year.  I like and appreciate having a healthy work/life balance and an increase in unannounced audits would throw that off and thus it wouldn't be worth it to me, as much as I enjoy the field and like what I do.

[Scampi]

I would be running for the hills

 

Having said that, I've always been in a highly regulated commodity where by regulatory swings in as they wish

 

I will NOT be sacrificing my life for some retailer who doesn't understand what manufacturing really entails dictating food safety like an arm chair quarter back

 

Show me the proof that there is ANY food safety improvement----until then, I will continue to believe it is driven by 2 factors:

 

1) the insurers

 

2) shareholder dividends

[SQFconsultant]

I think its being made better.

 

Long before I became  food safety auditor I worked for a 3 brand hotel company, 2 of the brands were handled on an unannounced basis and one by charter was always announced.

 

Both of 2 brands that got unannounced sudits were almost always "audit ready" and the ones that were not, well they failed, etc.

 

I don't think anyone should have to get ready for an audit. A facility should always be ready and considering that most gfsi schemes require a backup there is then no reason to worry about being called in. 

 

We are starting up a food company now and actually look forward to unannounced audits. I wish there was no notice whatsoever for any facility.

 

Have not experienced anyone quiting due to an unannounced audit. 

Friend of mine read my comments and said - yeah, but don't  you remember the front desk manager in Vermont???

 

Oh yeah I sure do now!

 

What happened was I was running a route of unannounced audits in New England and 9am in the morning I walk into a Howard Johnson Lodge and as custom, I put my card down on the desk in front of the person working there and annouce who I was, my title and then asked to see the manager on duty.

 

The guy (Tom) behind the counter looked at me and started screaming - it's too much! it's too much that they ask of us, please go away, please not today, you don't have soul do you?!!!!

 

There was lots of screaming on Tom's part and then before I could even say (that I was going to go and get a cup of coffee and come back in an hour) I could say anything he throws down his set of keys and says I quit MF'er, you f'ing do your own f'ing inspection.

 

So, Tom picks up the phone, calls the owner and quits his job.

 

After Tom walked out the front door, I talked with the owner who said - I see that you met Tom!!!

 

He said that he had wanted to fire Tom and this was just perfect!

 

The owner came in and we did the inspection, it was actually a pretty nice property and then Tom came back and asked for his job back.

[MDaleDDF]

Friend of mine read my comments and said - yeah, but don't  you remember the front desk manager in Vermont???

 

Oh yeah I sure do now!

 

What happened was I was running a route of unannounced audits in New England and 9am in the morning I walk into a Howard Johnson Lodge and as custom, I put my card down on the desk in front of the person working there and annouce who I was, my title and then asked to see the manager on duty.

 

The guy (Tom) behind the counter looked at me and started screaming - it's too much! it's too much that they ask of us, please go away, please not today, you don't have soul do you?!!!!

 

There was lots of screaming on Tom's part and then before I could even say (that I was going to go and get a cup of coffee and come back in an hour) I could say anything he throws down his set of keys and says I quit MF'er, you f'ing do your own f'ing inspection.

 

So, Tom picks up the phone, calls the owner and quits his job.

 

After Tom walked out the front door, I talked with the owner who said - I see that you met Tom!!!

 

He said that he had wanted to fire Tom and this was just perfect!

 

The owner came in and we did the inspection, it was actually a pretty nice property and then Tom came back and asked for his job back.

LMFAO, so THAT'S it, eh?   This is all a conspiracy by ownership/inspectors to weed out those too soft to handle the stress!?!?!?!   

[ChristinaK]

Went through an unannounced BRC audit this year. The auditor was surprised when I saw him and shouted "FINALLY! YOU'RE HERE! THANK GOODNESS!" Not because we had to be "audit-ready" from October-February, but because I was interviewing at another company and wanted the audit done and CAPA's closed out before I left.

 

I agree with what many have said about the pressure on smaller companies and their QA person. I left the smaller company for a larger one because I was wearing too many hats and the stress was starting to affect me physically.