Copyright © Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection, 2011 and ALL subsequent years: Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s authors and/or owners is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Global Coalition for Sustained Excellence in Food & Health Protection with appropriate and specific reference and/or link to the original content.

Saturday 29 December 2012

Product Safety Auditing – The Robot and the Thinker

Marks of confidence or insecurity that can be shown by a food safety and quality auditor or inspector are demonstrated in these robot and thinker comparisons:

Robot – more likely to be on a  power trip with a "know-it-all" and "I have the final say" attitude.
Thinker – understands and respects the knowledge of audited parties and their input.

Robot - thinks that the audit checklist or "standard" dictates the standard of compliance.
Thinker - knows that the consumer dictates the standard of compliance.

Robot - only looks at getting all of the questions on the audit checklist or "standard" covered during the audit.
Thinker - considers the actual consumer protection outcome of the audit.

Robot - simply goes by the letter of the law according to the "standard" and leaves the risk assessment to the audited party.
Thinker - does actual risk assessment of all observations to arrive at the reported audit judgment.

Robot - sees any observation that the audit checklist does not cover as irrelevant and insignificant.
Thinker – explains the significance of, and/or risks associated with, observations that the audit checklist may not have covered (although these may not appear in the report produced with the checklist used).

Robot – accepts every documented proof (even if it is pseudo-evidence) as the objective evidence.
Thinker – challenges the documented evidence through reality checks to assess the validity of the evidence.

Robot – sees an audit “pass” as proof that the audited party’s product safety system is effective.
Thinker – understands that the effectiveness of the audited party’s product safety system depends on the audited party’s consistency in maintaining effective procedures and valid control measures prior to and after audits.

Robot – counts the number of completed audits as the measure of successful involvement and experience in auditing.
Thinker – looks at real improvements to the safety of products that are delivered to consumers as the measure of successful involvement and experience in auditing.

Robot – conducts temper tantrum audits: (A temper tantrum auditor points to the checklist requirement and says: "it says so right here" without understanding the rationale behind the stated requirement). 
Thinker – assesses findings on the bases of the rationale behind stated requirements on the audit checklist.

Which of these types of auditors or inspectors demonstrate confidence and which demonstrate insecurity? Although they can, if they recognize the insecurity, should audited company representatives take advantage of insecure auditors or inspectors? Many do.
Posted by Felix Amiri
___________________________________________________________
Felix Amiri is currently the chair of GCSE-Food & Health Protection, and a sworn SSQA advocate.

Wednesday 26 December 2012

From the Chair to All Members and Prospective Members

If you have recently joined this group, I wish to extend a personal welcome to you. If you are yet to join, it only takes a small step with no pressing obligations afterwards and . . . membership is free.

For all of you veteran members, it is only getting better. Please continue to participate to the degree that you are able to contribute and  #inspirefoodsafety. This is a member driven and member led coalition that encourages the industry at large to maintain excellence in protecting the safety and satisfaction of food and health product consumers - we are the consumers. 

There may be doubters outside of the group who are predicting a huge failure for the coalition. The problem with such predictions is the underestimation of what determined individuals are capable of accomplishing.

GCSE-Food & Health Protection is a coalition of well-meaning individuals who are determined to act beyond merely recognizing the need to act. 

The great thing is that members are not pressured or burdened with any compulsion to do things. The actions expected of members are also not excessively demanding with respect to the members’ time, etc. Actions are self-driven and completely voluntary. At the same time, these actions collectively constitute a directed and potent force that will be felt throughout the industry worldwide in due course. Such actions as a member inviting friends and colleagues to join the coalition may appear insignificant to some people. They are by no means insignificant.


There are more opportunities for practical action provided by the coalition. A list of such opportunities is provided here: “Beyond the Rhetoric”.

Please invite others to join the coalition and we look forward to your continuing participation.



Sincerely,

Felix Amiri
Chair, GCSE-Food & Health Protection
http://www.afisservices.com/gcse-fhp/index.html

Wednesday 5 December 2012

SSQA and the Pareto Principle

When will your new day begin?

If 80 % of managers were to adopt the SSQA (Safety, Security Quality Assurance) model right from the start, that would be a strange phenomenon. It would be great but unusual. The Pareto Principle is expected to play out as usual. It will be the 20% of managers who show most of the professional drive who will initially venture into SSQA, and never look back. The remaining 80% will continue to wonder how the 20% are able to do things better. They will only wonder and do nothing or continue the chase around the usual path of fire-fighting futility. 

The safety, security and quality assurance (SSQA) model holds much promise for forward-looking managers. It has cost reduction as well as efficiency and effectiveness maximizing components.

80% of managers are expected to continue the chase around the usual cycle of futile efforts. They will continue to only reactively put out fires without addressing the root-causes. Only the proactive 20% of managers who dare can expect to stay ahead of the game and maintain sustained progress in the assurance of product safety and quality.

SSQA has defined expectations and provides strategies for success. The same things are done today but mostly the wrong way with confused expectations. SSQA holds much promise but only to those who will dare. There is actually nothing to lose. 

Don't  know much about SSQA? Have no worries!
To receive updates about GCSE-FHP SSQA, you may Join the SSQA Development (SSQA-D) Community   – "the SQUAD"

Better still you are welcome to board the Live Events Bus:


.
.