14 replies to this topic

[GMO]

When I started in the food industry I saw audit results as a reflection on me.  I saw good results as my good work.  I know we all say that it's an audit of the factory but at the time I had a very old fashioned value about it.

 

Now I've gone into working in consultancy and part of the reason is I stopped caring about results in audits.  I cared about not being b*****ed for a bad result, still, sadly, not a given.  But I stopped caring what score we had.  In fact in my last external audit we had such an unfairly high score it depressed me beyond belief.  It wasn't going to drive the change which was needed in the site and I told the site director that as I handed in my notice.

 

Now I almost can't understand 20 something GMO who celebrated an A in BRC (that was long before AA, AA* and BRCGS).  How I celebrated leading the auditor into what I wanted them to see.  

 

I feel quite ashamed now.  In what way was that my job?  Yes of course it was what I was rewarded for but it wasn't making food any safer.  

 

I'm actually coming to think that the process of scoring audits is part of the problem not the solution.  There are many ways to (as they say in the UK) polish a turd.  

 

Now I'm in consultancy, I have noticed how good British Technical people are at presenting their sites.  But it's all BS.  

 

 

[MDaleDDF]

We're pass/fail, so.....

[Scampi]

you're beating the same drum i have on here for a couple of years

 

When you are audited to a scheme, and the company NEEDS the GFSI certificate---que'll surprise the system is made to pass an audit, NOT to make food safer

 

The proof is in the pudding-----no net reduction in recalls since the inception of GFSI  (which ultimately I my grumble with the "culture" piece) 

[Killian]

How I celebrated leading the auditor into what I wanted them to see.  

 

I think this is the crux of it. Getting a good score in a 3rd party audit when you know that you deserve it should still feel good. It's an external validation of all the hard work you put in. But getting a good score when you know you've been the lead conductor of a 3 day dog and pony show should feel bad, because the audit isn't the point.

 

I think this is why perfect scores can basically never feel good, because you know you don't deserve it.

[GMO]

I get all the comments above but I suppose my angle is even if you're not intending to lead the auditor, we all do it, we're all trained to do it.  I even remember training people on traceabilities to highlight the pertinent section to draw the auditor's eye in case there was a mistake elsewhere you'd not noticed.  

 

GFSI hasn't improved food standards?  Would any audit do that?  But it has put in controls where legislation falls short, at least in the UK.  When you go to a site which doesn't have GFSI you notice.  I think the fault there is regulators though.

 

But GFSI only improves systems.  It's not designed to improve attitudes of anyone.  The culture sections are trying that but the response to any culture question on here shows how effective that is.

 

My point is, is some of this our fault?  That even we judge ourselves on audit results and if we don't, what meaning is there in working in QFS?  What do you ever get praised for?  Sometimes it's like being the best goalkeeper in the world playing for a team of 6 year olds against Liverpool.  You're saving every goal you can but the parents are still blaming you that you're losing the match.

[Seathalos]

I get all the comments above but I suppose my angle is even if you're not intending to lead the auditor, we all do it, we're all trained to do it. 

Damn, maybe it is good that I wasn't officially "trained" lol. But I do agree with this. We are not doing the audits in a way to make sure that we are making sure that the food we produce is safe but to "Pass" the audit. 

 

Upper management usually does not care about making sure that there is a good food safety culture just that we can be approved to sell products. Now we could easily just put the blame on ourselves and say "oh we just aren't doing enough", but that is not looking at the situation holistically. Sure we could maybe fight harder here or there but that won't matter when the focus of the company isn't about producing high quality and safe food but to make more profits than the last fiscal year. 

 

In all reality I feel like  QFS professionals are the scapegoat sent to Azazel, there to be the sacrificial lamb when something goes wrong even if we fought to make things right the entire time. 

 

Quote from the ops manager: "We have to fudge some stuff. I have been working for this place for 20 years, I am not going to let it get shut down". I do my best to stay vigilante even through the disregard and disrespect but it is not a fun time for a majority of it. 

 

Some of the blame can be put on us, but we are only a few individuals. The bigger issue is the cultural view of our position as "only a cost, not profit to be made from it" and the only way that will change is if the public itself puts QFS higher than slim marginal increases. 

[TimG]

In all reality I feel like  QFS professionals are the scapegoat sent to Azazel, there to be the sacrificial lamb when something goes wrong even if we fought to make things right the entire time. 

I worked in a place like that. I am an extensive butt coverer though. Was the only time I failed an audit (AIB). The auditor let me know I failed about 2 hours in, asked if I wanted him to continue. Absolutely, let's get it all. As we were going through and he asked me how I could have missed x and x, I replied "I most certainly did not. Part of us continuing this audit is that we've paid for it, but you might also be keen to take a look at my internal audit findings over the past year. As well as what was said, and how I went about notifying the global quality guy and global V.P of ops of my concerns, as it's all documented in my uncompleted corrective actions."

That was an audit that if I passed with flying colors I would have lost all respect for the auditor.

 

I still remember him saying after reading my audit report write up 'you told them 'this can fail us, this can fail us..and this can fail us..and one of those failed you..."

One of the many reasons I will no longer work in a facility where the top-quality person answers to the plant manager.

 

My butt covering turned the situation from me probably being terminated, to the plant manager and global quality being flown out to HQ and getting grilled by the E.C.

I passed the follow-up audit and then resigned.

Edited by TimG, Yesterday, 07:48 PM.

[Killian]

My point is, is some of this our fault?  That even we judge ourselves on audit results and if we don't, what meaning is there in working in QFS?  What do you ever get praised for?  Sometimes it's like being the best goalkeeper in the world playing for a team of 6 year olds against Liverpool.  You're saving every goal you can but the parents are still blaming you that you're losing the match.

 

I don't want to overstep because you have a lot more experience than I do and a lot more time to have become disillusioned with the process. I think the reason we work in QFS is self-evident, we care about food safety and we care about people. We have so many threads complaining about how production leadership will willingly disregard food safety if it means a couple extra pallets can leave the facility, and how it can end up being one food safety minded person having to try (with mixed success) to stand in their way. It's thankless but necessary, which definitely explains all the frustration and burnout we can experience. I feel so dejected sometimes seeing people get praised for comparatively easy tasks while I get treated like an inconvenience for noticing and preventing food safety disasters. But at the end of the day I don't do it for praise or recognition, and certainly not for money (although I wouldn't complain). I don't do it for the company at all, I do it for the consumer.

 

Your football example is definitely accurate in terms of how we get treated despite doing our best, and it would feel pointless to carry on in that situation. The difference to me is that it doesn't matter how many goals you let in in a match, but with our job, if no one is in net, people might die.

[jfrey123]

I still care about the results.  I'm in supplier approval now and they're a good barometer when evaluating my suppliers.  Someone's got a good audit score and are eager to share their report/CAPAs?  Lemme see what you guys are up to!  Someone responds with "our audit is proprietary info" and I can see on the BRC or SQF portals they have a barely passed score publicly available, well shucks now we're going to dive deep.

 

My only gripe is PrimusGFS.  A globally recognized GFSI scheme for farm type operations where (unless there's a critical finding) you can score well under 85, but when you submit corrective actions they'll remove the findings as corrected and print your final score on the cert.  I review farms weekly with sub 90 initial scores who submit 99% scores on their certs.

 

Back to my own companies, I do find it a bit ironic that when they get a good score it's everybody's help that contributed.  When you get a less than great score, it's all QA's fault despite the things you flagged that needed attention.  When it comes to the total number of recalls, we could argue this in a whole different thread, but I do think it's because we have better oversight over final product records that let us recall for more frequent "possible" issues versus "government mandated recall for confirmed lethal pathogens".  We're literally catching the shit that used to kill people way more frequently, at least that's what I tell myself.

[GMO]

I suppose where I'm getting with this is British sites particularly have got so good at stage managing that Technical Managers will swear blind they don't do it (and probably even believe that) while leading you on a route they want to take you on.

 

In the UK there was a famous case with OFSTED (a body who audits schools) where a school was downgraded from Outstanding to a low grade.  The headteacher killed herself.

 

As a result, they're now considering changing how schools are scored.

 

But it made me wonder if we've got some behaviours in our Technical teams which are because of the consequences of "bad" audits.  It used to be fairly common that someone would get the sack if it went badly when I joined food safety teams (but I'm old) yet a recent audit in one site I know, the Technical Manager had already handed in his notice because he thought it was crap, they got a bad audit and he was told "if you weren't already leaving..."

[Scampi]

 

But it made me wonder if we've got some behaviours in our Technical teams which are because of the consequences of "bad" audits.  It used to be fairly common that someone would get the sack if it went badly when I joined food safety teams (but I'm old) yet a recent audit in one site I know, the Technical Manager had already handed in his notice because he thought it was crap, they got a bad audit and he was told "if you weren't already leaving..."

 

 

This again, hits the nail on the head--------------if we don't get the support (and let's face it $$$) to do the job we've been tasked to do, it's ultimately NOT the fault of the QFS, it's the fault of upper management 

 

We can do our jobs to the best of our ability, but if the corporation does not put value in our findings, we are only the scapegoat.

 

Having said all of that, Canada has a very robust food safety regulatory landscape with sharp teeth and they are not afraid to use them.  That plus losing export certification alone is enough for most business' to want to stay on the good side of CFIA

 

GFSI audits will never be the silver bullet grocers think they are----because the system is inherently flawed 

[TimG]

My SQF auditor this year helped me put audits, particularly SQF, into perspective a bit. The previous year was done under the previous director, and the score was in the previous director's opinion 'not great.' I believe he had a 91. My goal was a 95 or better. When I got that last point on the last day (yes former Maint Manager, when I walked you through and said food grade chemicals must remain segregated from non-food grade I meant in EVERY CABINET).

Anyway, the auditor could tell I was a bit bummed at the 94. He pulled out his calculator and said 'look here, it's not 94%, we have x amount of code in food safety and x in quality, I found 6 minor things that should be improved, your audit efficiency percentage is over 98%! You quality guys need to stop beating yourselves up over these scores, that's why they're getting rid of the scores.'

And hell, I couldn't argue with that. I think quality attracts perfectionists. Also, none of us wants to be the next big recall that hurts people. Care about audits? Yes, but I'm trying to make them the impetus of improvement rather than a gauge of self-worth.

[kconf]

I care because BRC has grading system which would stress me out if not achieved an A or better. Also, the previous people in my role maintained a good level and I like to keep it like that. 

[Lynx42]

Do I care about external audit results? Yes, I personally care. I'm less than 2 years into this after a major shift from hazmat to food and I still see it all as learning opportunities.

Am I jaded about the process, feel the system is greatly flawed, and adding "turd polisher" to my resume?  Also yes.  

 

It took me 3 AIB, 2 Organic, 2 FDA, and 1 management meeting (7 months) to hate the way it's all set up.  I've now (20 months) been through a GAP, 2 initial SQF audits, 2 more organic and multiple customer and AIB audits over 5 sites.  Watching the same AIB auditor tear apart one site (but still pass them), then completely ignore some of the same things at another site just because it was a newer building followed by having the manager at the newer site ignore everything I was hired to help with because his site got the best score of all 5 sites has been disheartening. My rule of thumb now is, I will explain what I can about the standard and remind you 3 times.  After that it's on you to explain it to the auditor why you ignored me.  I am done.

And with SQF, we got 5 minors for different things at both sites, but I took so many notes on "almost a minor" and one of the auditors actually said he wasn't giving us as many minors as he should because this was our initial audit and he wanted us to stick with his CB.   I had heard this was a thing, but never ever thought I'd hear an auditor flat out admit it.  Are auditors just as jaded?

[Setanta]

.  Are auditors just as jaded?

 

 

I would imagine even more so...