Tag: Food safety

Build Bridges of Understanding – Part 2

mcalisterts 0 Comment Case Studies, Collaboration, Expert Advice, Food Safety, Management Skills, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Find the Answer - Magnifying Glass

 

 

 

 

Building Bridges Part 1 addressed how to gather useful information by having honest conversations with the people involved in the issue. Gathering as much information as possible was the key to determining exactly what happened. However, fact gathering is only a part of the process; it is equally important to implement improvements based on the information.

The highest levels of performance come to people who are centered, intuitive, creative, and reflective – people who know to see a problem as an opportunity. – Deepak Chopra

Here was the journey we took to solve the problem described in Part 1.

Once we gathered the preliminary information, we decided that the issue was most likely related to the raw material handling process. As we dug into the details of how the raw materials were handled we started asking questions such as, “how could one raw material be introduced into another raw material?”

We then discussed scenarios in which the offending material might have been introduced into a ‘common’ raw material, and developed one such scenario:

Contamination may occur when an offending allergen (seafood) attached itself to a common ingredient (pasta) because it was unsuccessfully separated out during the ‘re-work’ process (used to reclaim raw materials from damaged packages). When the ‘contaminated’ pasta was used again, it was used as raw material for a product that didn’t contain seafood. Thus, the process for re-using raw materials from damaged packages would have created the situation where unwanted ingredients were inadvertently mixed into the raw material.

As we talked through this scenario, we realized that a process intended to avoid wasting materials, actually put the product at risk. Armed with this information, we were able to determine the most likely root cause for the issue.

We were now presented with the ‘opportunity’ to eliminate the potential for contamination. This would involve changes in the material handling procedures and a commitment to a training program for the workers who manage the tracking paperwork. The owner of the business was amenable to the changes; peace of mind about the safety of his products was well worth any additional expense. The changes were effective. Millions of packages were consumed over the next 15 years without incident.

To summarize, here’s the entire process:

  1. Open up an honest and in-depth discussion about the situation and ensure everyone involved is on the same page. Establish the goal of the discussion and keep it in mind the entire time.
  2. As the discussion leads to various possible scenarios that could explain what occurred, critically and thoroughly review the scenarios – the smallest detail can lead to the smoking gun.
  3. Once the root cause is determined and verified, develop ‘fool-proof’ procedures to ensure the issue cannot re-occur. These new procedures must be audited to ensure they truly eliminate the potential issue.
  4. Discuss the rationale for making procedural changes with the production workers and supervision. Let them know why it is so important to follow the new procedures and how they can help keep the product safe.

I have always believed that “all of us are smarter than one of us”. In the end, because my team had the trust of the owner and his team, we were able to resolve the issue together.

To boil it down: focus on getting accurate, detailed information at the beginning of the process. Once the information is gathered, let your intuition guide you toward the next steps, such as brainstorming about scenarios. Once logical opportunities are presented, go out and test them. You will find out quickly if the situation can be recreated. Lastly, work out new procedures or policies that will effectively eliminate the problem.

Successful problem-solving starts with building bridges of understanding. Mr. Carnegie put it into words over 75 years ago and his words ring true today.

 

Photo credit: depositphotos.com 21849021 by:iqoncept

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Build Bridges of Understanding – Part 1

mcalisterts 0 Comment Case Studies, Collaboration, Expert Advice, Food Safety, Management Skills , , , , ,

Person on bridge helping another

 

 

 

 

Investigating major quality problems can be a difficult task. I think I speak for most workers; people don’t like to ‘get in trouble’, especially on the job. Whether negligence is involved or not, gathering useful information can be a challenge. However, in order to correct the situation and prevent it from happening again, it is extremely important to determine exactly what happened.

In my experience, the success of an investigation usually depends upon the investigator’s ability to put workers at ease. This helps the process to move quickly and thoroughly, resulting in accurate identification of the problems and rapid resolution.

Dale Carnegie recommends listening first, particularly in a tense situation.

“Let them finish. Do not resist, defend or debate. This only raises barriers. Try to build bridges of understanding. Dale Carnegie – Goodreads.com link

When trying to solve a serious problem, getting the full story with as much detail as possible is very important. Channeling Mr. Carnegie’s term, always attempt to “…build bridges of understanding”.

The three steps below are useful in the initial stages of the investigation

  1. Preface the discussions with the people involved
    • Let the interviewee know that all information is helpful toward resolving the issue completely.
    • Help them understand they are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
    • Make the discussion as non-emotional as possible. Let the person being interviewed know that the discussion is strictly intended for gathering facts and not meant to find someone to blame for the issue.
    • Mention that it is very seldom a single act or situation that caused the problem and their input is needed to be able to assemble the ‘pieces of the puzzle’ to resolve the issue once and for all.
  2. Establish the timeline based on facts
    • When did the situation occur?
    • What equipment or process was involved?
    • Explore any unusual circumstances taking place at the time of the incident.
    • Who else would have been in the area when the problem occurred that could add more information?
    • If the interview process uncovers multiple sources of the problem, collate all of the information into a single timeline listing all of the discrete times, places, and people involved in the issue.
  3. Once the basic causes are worked out set up a meeting with the appropriate personnel to perform a root cause analysis (to be discussed in Part 2).

Over 15 years ago I had a situation where I used the steps above to gather critical information necessary to resolve a complicated quality issue. A third party manufactured a finished product for our company and unfortunately the product was contaminated with an undeclared allergen. This was an extremely dangerous situation for someone who was highly allergic to the material, and a nationwide recall was performed. Thankfully nobody was ever injured as a result of this issue.

Immediately after the discovery of the problem (and a separate team had quickly initiated the recall), I was sent to the manufacturer to determine what happened and implement new procedures to prevent it from happening again. From the very beginning it was clear that this investigation was going to be challenging. From a practical perspective it was going to be costly; the situation would most likely result in a major insurance settlement (best case) or a significant legal proceeding (worst case).

The first thing I did was schedule a meeting with the owner at the company. The purpose of the meeting was to lay out the intent of my visit and the expected outcomes. In this case, it seemed straight-forward: determine exactly what happened and establish new procedures that would prevent it from happening again. I made it clear that my focus was on determining the root cause without assigning blame. I also made it clear that the information gathered during the investigation would be shared with the owner prior to communicating it to my management. I wanted the owner to agree that the information being communicated was factual and unbiased before it was distributed to anyone else.

I believe by establishing these ‘ground rules’ up front, it helped the owner to feel more comfortable disclosing all of the facts. He also encouraged his employees to fully cooperate in the investigation by saying that all information would be important in resolving the issue.

The interview process took place and a comprehensive timeline was developed. With this information we were able to initiate a successful root cause analysis and determine exactly how the product was contaminated. I will describe the root cause analysis process and ultimate resolution to the problem in Part 2.

Establishing open communication, ground rules, and transparency at the start, was key to expediting a successful investigation. This enabled us to ‘build bridges of understanding’.

Look to Part 2 for the results of the interviews, the root cause process and how we worked together to correct the situation permanently.

 

Photo credit: Depositphotos.com Image 11826066 by 6kor3dos

How Many Jars Do You Buy at a Time?

mcalisterts 0 Comment Expert Advice, Food Safety, Management Skills , ,

Glass bottles on the conveyor belt

Excellent food safety is a lifestyle choice. It’s a cultural thing… it’s a way of life. Having a good quality program in your plant or at your company is similar to a production facility having a good employee safety culture. A safety culture helps to ensure that everyone gets to go home to their family at the end of the day. I look at food safety at the plant or corporate QA level in the same way. As everyone does their jobs every day, their attitude and behaviors toward quality, contribute to the ‘culture of quality’ and keeping our consumers safe.

Food quality has many facets, but the most important aspect is food safety. Quality programs protect the people we love and there are very few issues as emotional as those around food safety and security. I recently read about a little girl dying from E. coli O157 food poisoning. Her friend was very sick because he ate the other half of her turkey sandwich. For more information, click here: E. coli kills Oregon girl.

It’s very difficult to say where the source of the contamination occurred, but rest assured each and every ingredient in the sandwich will be scrutinized. As a parent, our hearts go out to the families. As a Quality professional, I want to ensure everyone in my sphere of influence is doing everything possible to keep this from happening to our consumers. We are often encouraged not to let emotions affect our work, however when it comes to food safety, my emotional response clearly motivates me to do my best to prevent contamination whenever possible.

When it comes down to it, food companies are selling trust. Consumers don’t want to think about food as a source of risk. Most of us ‘trust’ our food supply and don’t think about getting sick when we eat something.

“All I ask of food is that it doesn’t harm me.”
Michael Palin (Monty Python’s Flying Circus) link to quote Michael Palin is a comedian, and he makes a serious point. Our food supply should not cause harm. Unfortunately, things happen and quality professionals must be extremely vigilant when it comes to food safety in their production facilities.

Identifying and eliminating potential sources of contamination is a difficult task. Having personally spent countless hours performing inspections and developing food safety programs, I believe it is possible to prevent the vast majority of quality incidents before they turn in to major problems.

Several years ago, I was the Quality Manager at a plant making a ready-to-eat product. One day I had a great discussion about food safety with the line operators. I asked them how many jars of our product do we think our consumers buy at a time. Everyone said they most likely buy one jar at a time. I said to them, “Then as consumers, our ‘experience’ with most food products is one jar at a time.”

I sensed that they were getting my drift when they rolled their eyes. I understood why my audience was a little skeptical because their particular production line could make over 300,000 jars of product every day. I’m sure they were thinking, ‘How could they possibly watch every jar on the line?’ I said to them, “We may produce thousands of jars a day here, but it is our job to make sure that every single jar is right. When it comes down to it, we sell one jar at a time.”

This insight hit home. Instead of being focused on how many jars we could make every day, the operators realized they needed to see the world from the consumer’s perspective; one jar at a time. If there was something happening on the line or in the production process that potentially compromised the quality of the product, it had to be addressed immediately. As we now say: “if you see something, say something.

“Food safety involves everybody in the food chain.” – Mike Johanns, US Senator link to quote

How do we help the workers in the plant understand they are the most important link in the supply chain with regards to food safety?

I knew there was a tendency to let ‘management’ be responsible for quality at that facility. I also knew the best defense was on the front lines of the battle. To change this mindset, we conducted a plant-wide education effort and made it clear that everyone was responsible for quality and food safety. Here are some of the principles we enacted to change the culture and truly improve food safety:

  1. Everyone working on the line was given the authority to stop the line if they saw something that could create a situation where foreign material contaminated the product. This sounds like common sense, but in many plant cultures, stopping the line is frowned upon. We made it clear that anytime foreign material was visible on or near the equipment, the line must be stopped immediately and the material removed as quickly and cleanly as possible. No questions asked. Enabling the operators and line workers to stop the line anytime they saw the potential for contamination was very empowering and sent the right message to everyone in the plant.
  1. Quick inspections or mini-audits were performed on a frequent basis to ensure conditions compromising food safety were rapidly identified and addressed. We found that a daily checklist performed by a line operator was the most effective way to stay on top of the situation. Thorough audits are helpful, but if they are performed once a month, a problem can manifest and create an unsafe condition for several days or weeks before being corrected. A combination of daily inspections and thorough audits enabled us to correct any potential issues quickly.
  1. Enlisting the sanitation teams to help identify possible environmental sources of contamination was a key to controlling the situation. ‘Environmental’ exposure is very difficult to detect and it usually requires a different approach to identify the source of contamination. We asked the sanitation team to think about the environment from a worst-case scenario perspective. For example, what if the source of contamination was the mop buckets and contaminants were being brought into the production environment during the cleaning process? There may be assumptions about the mop buckets being clean because they hold the sanitizer, but is it possible the wheels of the mop bucket are not fully sanitized? Involving the sanitation crew and supervisors in a thorough review of the practices was a key to uncovering these ‘environmental’ risks.

Those of us working in the food industry have the daunting responsibility of preventing our consumers from having a bad experience on all levels, especially with regards to food safety. The line operators are the last ones to ‘touch’ or see the product before it is shipped out. When they are empowered and encouraged to act upon any potential source of contamination, the vast majority of the potential issues are corrected before they become problems. Instilling a ‘culture of quality’ is the best defense against a food safety problem.

 

Photo credit: Depositphotos Weat 44731215