12 replies to this topic

[Auditgeek]

Hi there - anyone use NSF to audit and find they are super slack?  I started with a company recently and am absolutely stunned that they've even passed their audits, nevermind get high marks.  When I sat in on the Audits, I was floored.

 

This normal?

[kconf]

It's not uncommon to have that perception when you start at a new place. There are endless things auditors can write NCs for, but they don't. Maybe you caught those things, but the overall game is not as bad maybe. 

[Setanta]

I don't have anything to compare NSFwith when it comes to GFSI/SQF audits, but when I had just plain AIB or Silliker audits, they were not as stringent as NSF/SQF.

[TimG]

Hi there - anyone use NSF to audit and find they are super slack?  I started with a company recently and am absolutely stunned that they've even passed their audits, nevermind get high marks.  When I sat in on the Audits, I was floored.

 

This normal?

 

NSF can only go by the standard being audited against. Are you claiming NSF found audit non-conformities for the standard being audited and completely ignored them? Or are you saying you felt they 'shouldn't pass their audit' based on personal belief? Those are completely different things.

 

I will say I have had the opposite experience. I have one certification to a standard that is..let's just in its early stages and working on the standard still. The auditor hit me for minors based on the audit provided them from the standard, even if those items were not IN THE STANDARD. That's not NSF's fault; that's the fault of those who created the standard. 

You have more than just the auditing body at play for audits..

 

Edit: Or looking at your name, are you a bot trying to drum up business for your own auditing..lol

Edited by TimG, Today, 03:06 PM.

[Auditgeek]

I would like to think its just me at a new company, but here are a few examples :

 

- the QC Lab takes no notes.  None. Not even a notebook IN the lab.  Only reports results on a spreadsheet, which can easily be deleted and is accessible by multiple people.

- there are no versions on documents, or document control - at all. All docs are Word documents, again accessible by several people and modifiable. There are no ink signatures, or official copies etc.  It can be changed on the fly to suit the situation. 

- Incidents are never verified effective .  There are sometimes root causes, but no follow up if any corrective action worked

- Inspections have no criteria listed prior to being complete, so - the requirement to pass, also can change on the fly..... 

It goes on....

 

IRT personal feelings - I'm speaking from the angle that they shouldn't pass based on the fact that they are non compliant to many of the specific areas of the requirements.   

 

It seems to me that now that a lot of it was overlooked - and now since its the same auditor almost all the time they can't now go back and point out all the things they should have found before?   Or maybe NSF wants to keep the business? 

 

I'm not trying to drum up business.  I'm concerned the audit oversight is a sham. 

 

Edited: the standard is one for food safety.

Edited by Auditgeek, Today, 03:59 PM.

[kconf]

None of this surprises me. It is observed in both small and large companies. You are shocked because you just came from a different place. 

[Setanta]

What happened to "If it isn't documented, it difdn't happen?"  How do you (they) proof anything?!

[kconf]

Well everything is documented (in OP's case). It's just poorly done. It has been proven. It's not like records are being falsified. 

 

Those points are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. 

[LostInTheWoods]

We've had 2 NSF auditors for our 2 SQF audits. The first was very competent and fair. We had small issues, and he found some of them and wrote them up. The second wasn't as thorough. He spent a lot of time rehashing old grievances with a former employer (huge food brand). Of course, we were more than happy to indulge him  .

 

I think NSF contracts its audits out individually, and the auditors themselves can contract with multiple CB's for whichever audits they like. My point is that your particular slack auditor for NSF may be a slack auditor for a different CB when they audit your neighbor.

Edited by LostInTheWoods, Today, 06:20 PM.

[GMO]

Auditors across all companies are getting worse in my experience.  The old guard are retiring and they don't pay enough to attract experienced people into a thankless job where you're never at home.  You may have been lucky in having a good auditor with your old CB but I suspect all CBs currently have the same problem.

[kconf]

I thought it was a lucrative career. Maybe not in food industry. 

 

Auditors in engineering, pharma, tech get royal treatments. Huge allowances, first class flights, great hotels, clients order food, etc. 

[TimG]

I hear the pay hasn't increased in years (not even to match inflation). Also that things being run 'more like a business' with NSF since the new management took over (I never verified this, but heard it from 2 different auditors) and that it's hard to attract good auditors now.

 

I mean, they have to be on the road A LOT..add that to meh pay and you aren't going to get great folks.

[Scampi]

I would like to think its just me at a new company, but here are a few examples :

 

- the QC Lab takes no notes.  None. Not even a notebook IN the lab.  Only reports results on a spreadsheet, which can easily be deleted and is accessible by multiple people.

- there are no versions on documents, or document control - at all. All docs are Word documents, again accessible by several people and modifiable. There are no ink signatures, or official copies etc.  It can be changed on the fly to suit the situation. 

- Incidents are never verified effective .  There are sometimes root causes, but no follow up if any corrective action worked

- Inspections have no criteria listed prior to being complete, so - the requirement to pass, also can change on the fly..... 

It goes on....

 

IRT personal feelings - I'm speaking from the angle that they shouldn't pass based on the fact that they are non compliant to many of the specific areas of the requirements.   

 

It seems to me that now that a lot of it was overlooked - and now since its the same auditor almost all the time they can't now go back and point out all the things they should have found before?   Or maybe NSF wants to keep the business? 

 

I'm not trying to drum up business.  I'm concerned the audit oversight is a sham. 

 

Edited: the standard is one for food safety.

None of that would EVER be caught in an audit           they aren't there near long enough to notice all of those things.................they can only audit on what they see AND against the standard

 

We use NSF, as have previous employers and the experience depends VASTLY on the auditor.  Last year was a total book audit, year before we spend hours wandering around because our auditor insisted he had to spend 50% of his time on the floor