Good one. I had to pick one for Q1, but I was torn between a and d. I want to believe they're a useful tool, but right now we only have one because the standard tells us to. I sat through 5 separate webinars last year on fs culture, and the note I took away from all the experts was that as soon as you create a form to measure your fs culture performance, you've lost culture because now you're just ticking off boxes each month. But from my SQF auditor(s) standpoint(s), at multiple facilities, if we don't have a controlled document recording how we check our culture each month, then it's ineffective. We received a minor finding because the plants were using the monthly meeting to discuss written notes of food safety activities (which I think is indicative of a strong culture), but the auditors refused to accept it.
For Q2, everywhere I've worked, anything related to culture has to be driven by QA leadership. Other departments will buy in when we force them to. There's the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." While that's true, you can force its head under the water and hold it there until it drinks or quits moving. I say this only to emphasize how we sometimes have to force leadership to act, either to comply with code or because we think it's genuinely a good practice to adopt.
I think the "plans" should be open to much looser interpretations, while equally each company should be committed to a constantly evolving and improving culture just at their core. My programs generally operate under a principal that "Food Safety is Everybody's Responsibility," but that's hard to write into a measurable standard. I want employees to be vigilant for hazards we haven't thought of yet. I want employees to notify supervisors immediately when they see something wrong. I want employees to identify improvements in their own practices, things that help the company and make their jobs easier. A rising tide elevates all the boats.
