Which non-conformances do you get most?
Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone.
Let's be honest we all get them, so I thought it would be interesting to start a poll to see if there are any commonalities with the NC’s we get and hopefully it will also lead to some ideas on how we can get rid of them.
Please vote in the poll and comment.
Regards,
Simon
Simon,
Voted for GMP's and building standards. An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass. Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible. Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions. Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair. In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution. Not optimum but in our sights for improvement. Be interested to see what others vote for.
Thanks,
Watanka
It seems like no matter what, we always get a pest control infraction. This last time it was because someone moved an external bait station (so that it wouldn't get broken) a few feet away due to snow removal. They also commented on a few zapped bugs being inside ILTs (which is where they are supposed to be and not flying around) in the warehouse. We've had an auditor looking up EPA Registration Numbers and trying to match them up with CAS numbers on SDS sheets.
Granted we have had some reasonable non-conformances in the past -- the technician's scanner malfunctioned and stopped recording data and didn't realize it -- it does seem like auditors will dig and dig until they can find a non-conformance somewhere in pest control.
QAGB
We have reasonable systems with little in the way of ammunition to give them. However, its quite an old site that's creaking at the seams so always a target of opportunity :roflmao: I'll take that anytime over procedure issues etc. The occasional form not signed or dated has now died off now, as I introduced a system where all documents are checked again and checked against a list of expected documents (so none are missing!). Not fool proof, but has highlighted issues with previous poor standards. Engineering is my biggest issue but there wasn't box for that :secret:
Simon,
Voted for GMP's and building standards. An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass. Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible. Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions. Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair. In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution. Not optimum but in our sights for improvement. Be interested to see what others vote for.
Thanks,
Watanka
Hi Watanka, when I set the poll I expected personal hygiene issues to be the big one; it is so difficult to get everyone onside all of the time. The only way to get on top of it is through continued education, monitoring and when necessary getting the big stick out.
It seems like no matter what, we always get a pest control infraction. This last time it was because someone moved an external bait station (so that it wouldn't get broken) a few feet away due to snow removal. They also commented on a few zapped bugs being inside ILTs (which is where they are supposed to be and not flying around) in the warehouse. We've had an auditor looking up EPA Registration Numbers and trying to match them up with CAS numbers on SDS sheets.
Granted we have had some reasonable non-conformances in the past -- the technician's scanner malfunctioned and stopped recording data and didn't realize it -- it does seem like auditors will dig and dig until they can find a non-conformance somewhere in pest control.
QAGB
Hi QAGB, I've know auditors thumb through the pest control book for a couple of hours...a great read. :yeahrite: It is important and can tell you a lot about the organization and pest control contractor, just gets a bit boring sometimes. :yawn:
We have reasonable systems with little in the way of ammunition to give them. However, its quite an old site that's creaking at the seams so always a target of opportunity :roflmao: I'll take that anytime over procedure issues etc. The occasional form not signed or dated has now died off now, as I introduced a system where all documents are checked again and checked against a list of expected documents (so none are missing!). Not fool proof, but has highlighted issues with previous poor standards. Engineering is my biggest issue but there wasn't box for that :secret:
Hi John, Ahh engineering, but what are they doing or not doing?
I didn't make it clear on the poll that I meant all audits customer, third part and internal.
Regards,
Simon
supplier NCs.
Hi Simon,
JFI, afaik BRC have published (2012, 2015), for BRC Food, 2 global surveys of their audit NCs. -
http://www.ifsqn.com...indpost&p=98134
The first one is more revealing from a country POV, the 2nd for food categories.
Whether the "top" defects (which i occasionally found rather unbelievable) are considered by BRC to reflect actual FS capabilities is unclear to me.
The "Other" category might include topics such as "HACCP-related", "Traceability", "Suppliers" and "Food Fraud" (and many more of course).
Hi Simon,
JFI, , afaik BRC have published (2012, 2015), for BRC Food, 2 global surveys of their audit NCs. -
http://www.ifsqn.com...indpost&p=98134
The first one is more revealing from a country POV, the 2nd for food categories.
Whether the "top" defects (which i occasionally found rather unbelievable) are considered by BRC to reflect actual FS capabilities is unclear to me.
The "Other" category might include topics such as "HACCP-related", "Traceability", "Suppliers" and "Food Fraud" (and many more of course).
Hi Charles and sorry I didn't see that topic before (too many new topics). I will take a proper look.
It will be interesting to see what our member survey shows in comparison. Though I didn't add an option for some of the areas you mention.
Regards,
Simon
Pest Control and Document Control here. Seems to me Pest Control has been a "go to" for the last couple of years to find something. No matter how tight we think we have it wrapped up, there's always something.
Document Control in regards to the auditor(s) and magical abilities. Somehow they can request to see a form, and a T wasn't crossed or an I wasn't dotted. Trying to move most forms to digital format, just tons of work left on that project.
GMP's and Document Control.
GMP's: Men not wearing their beardnets properly or women not keeping all of their hair in the hairnet.
Document Control: People not signing off on the occasional form, which is the form the auditor finds, of course. Our management is very attached to paper check sheets, so the problem is bound to happen. Like Wally above, we're trying to move more items into an electronic system, but it's a difficult journey.
I voted for building, gaps in procedures and record keeping but every year there is at least one new that we absolutely didn't think we would be getting...murphy's law :headhurts:
wooden pallets is a regular occurrence too.
Hi All,
Not one direct mention of hazard analysis and other likely haccp argumentatives such as traceability. Hard to believe unless the respondents are all old-hands.
Or perhaps the votes reflect more on auditor capabilities than auditee. A secondary Poll ? :smile:
Hi John, Ahh engineering, but what are they doing or not doing?
I didn't make it clear on the poll that I meant all audits customer, third part and internal.
Regards,
Simon
Everything :) How they've got away with stuff so long baffles me. Not helped by site Manager who was the Engineering Manager, so seem to have been given a bullet proof shield ! In the grand scheme of things they would seem petty, however as I have pointed out that having half your non-conformances on BRC from engineering isn't good.......we got 7 this year and 4 were engineering!!
Not really building standards for us, more general engineering control and bloody PPM completion. :angry2:
Simon,
Voted for GMP's and building standards. An auditor once told me that GMP issues are like crabgrass. Everyone has it in their yard, the trick is to keep it cut back to the greatest extent possible. Typical GMP issues we see include improper wearing of hairnets and beard-nets, and other low-level infractions. Building standards are more difficult for us as they involve the product affecting the floors which is time-consuming and expensive to repair. In my audits I record the fact of the floor damage and have been working with the maintenance manager to find a good solution. Not optimum but in our sights for improvement. Be interested to see what others vote for.
Thanks,
Watanka
I went into a factory as a visitor the other day with the TM. As soon as a guy saw us, he turned round and put his beard snood on properly. It made me laugh as this was a very highly rated site by retailer audit but everyone has the same issues!
HI
I voted for GMP and gaps in procedures.Every auditor looking for something else, over few years working in the meat and seafood industry I've met a lot of auditors from different awarding bodies. And I can say sometimes it was a nightmare cos what was fine for one wasn't for another :(.
Hi everyone,
One I always get is packaging stored outside but shrouded... This has been for a few company's I've worked with now. I wish I could changes this.
I'm surprised(hopeful too) that not many has reported on Supplier Approval.
Our focus is on GMPs: Cleaning and Sanitation, as well as Preventive Maintenance.
We're struggling with monitoring activities to ensure that SOPS and Maintenance work has been finished properly.
Now we're developing visual aids to show people and quality personnel what the standard is and where are critical cleanness points.
:headhurts: 2 more weeks to go for us
We got picked up on BRC V7 section 4.11.1 - New requirement.....'The premises and equipment shall be maintained in a clean and hygienic manner' - So no surprises there! Was expecting this as the auditors struggle to find anything in the factory usually. They had a thorough look around each machine and found build up of debris under one of the machine motors..
My interpretation of this clause is "if the facility is not completely dirty" it's ok.
I do not think the interpretation of this clause would be if the auditor found a dust bunny under something it should be a minor NC.
Unless you working in a clean room, there is always going to be something that is not "clean".
Marshall
My interpretation of this clause is "if the facility is not completely dirty" it's ok.
I do not think the interpretation of this clause would be if the auditor found a dust bunny under something it should be a minor NC.
Unless you working in a clean room, there is always going to be something that is not "clean".
Marshall
I think a "build up of debris" though is different. If that debris looks old it could become a microbiological issue or a pest issue, a bit more than a dust bunny. That clause was explained to me as the fact that they were always raising issues on this but in multiple different areas of the standard e.g. walls, floors etc and it varied by auditor so stats were a bit off. When actually the root causes are likely to the same so it seemed sensible to have one overarching clause. The other thing was so that if you had multiple failures against it it's more likely to be upweighted to a major.
You should experience M&S auditors Marshall. They literally audit to that level of detail.
Hi All,
Not one direct mention of hazard analysis and other likely haccp argumentatives such as traceability. Hard to believe unless the respondents are all old-hands.
Or perhaps the votes reflect more on auditor capabilities than auditee. A secondary Poll ? :smile:
Charles,
I haven't once had a deviation for anything related to HACCP. Whether that is because our HACCP plans and PRPs are well buttoned-up, or because the auditors give them cursory reviews, I do not know. But I will go with the former. :spoton:
The last three years it seems like auditors are spending a lot more time and attention on facilities and grounds. My last audit was maybe 6-8 hours of documents and program review, and the rest was spent in the plant. The auditor went to the floor 10 separate times during the 2.5 days. I generally undergo one big walk through, and then maybe one more to check on anything seen during the first walk or to cover missing areas. But never that many.
I think industry has finally caught on that CCPs control what they control, and are generally in good shape, while the bulk of the problems come from the facility or the people.
Chris