RE: Auditing Quality Systems

From: Clare Winkel (straddiegal@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Aug 12 2007 - 16:14:34 PDT

  • Next message: Richard Chivers: "Re: Auditing Quality Systems"

    Hi Francisco,

    I think you have hit the nail on the head- it's the cost benefit of the
    certification to the company that must be counted. But companies need to
    look at the implementation of any management system in a way that it's
    effective to the company.

    I audit some systems that pass the certification requirements but could be
    implemented differently to be of a major benefit to the running of the
    company especially with regard to the management aspects: corrective
    action/management review/customer complaints and internal audits.

    But alas most managers don't see it that way and just view it all as a cost
    burden with no potential for economic return and so won't resource these
    aspects of the system effectively.

    And as an auditor in most cases you can't give advice in these areas or have
    the time to explain why and how this can be done effectively.

    Thanks

    Clare

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf
    Of Francisco Blaha
    Sent: 12 August 2007 23:44
    To: seafood@ucdavis.edu
    Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems

    Hello again

    Being involved in the fishing industry since 1985 and in the field of
    international development since 1998 (in particular with EU market access),
    having been a lecturer at university (Food Science), a qualified food safety
    auditor and Risk Management Programmes Evaluator. Still surprises me the
    amount of so called necessary "certifications" thrown upon industry, and
    many of them VERY prescriptive, not in tune with contemporary thinking, and
    basically dodgy assessed.

    But then there is a whole industry around private and 3rd party
    certifications, so it comes to no surprise that for example that there was
    the "need" to be audited to 5 different systems at once, as Clare had to do.

    In New Zealand (my home for last 14 years), as a compliance and R&D manager
    for 2 mayor companies and an advisor for other 4 that have been exporting
    successfully for over 30-40 years to the EU, US, Australia and Japan, I had
    never agreed to any private scheme certification.

    As Hector as well pointed, one issue is regulatory compliance and the other
    is customer driven requirements, so I guess I have been very lucky with my
    clients.

    The only external certification I'm happy to have agreed has been ISO 1400
    (no involvement with food safety at all), because the competitive edge I
    believe it has, and because having some sort of EMS will, in the near future
    become another regulatory market access requirements, besides a customer
    driven request.

    So I guess the question I will ask my self if I was to comply with a
    "private" certification is one of cost benefit, in terms of the direct and
    hidden compliance costs per unit/volume of product vs. the price
    differential I get from that client/s that are directly (or indirectly via a
    certification company) pushing the standard.

    Cheers 

    -- 
Francisco Blaha
www.franciscoblaha.com

    On 13/8/07 2:41 AM, "Clare Winkel" <straddiegal@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

    > Dear Francisco, 
> 
> All of these systems are only market/customer requirements not national
> Government requirements. But in many cases if you want any level of market
> access- especially within the retail sector- you have no choice but to
> implement the systems.
> 
> I have audited Food safety systems as a full time auditor in Australia/New
> Zealand and Ireland and have audited up to 5 different systems (ISO 9000,
> WQA, Burger King, Codex HACCP, Dominos Pizza) on one plant in one audit
but
> this really takes concentration and of course to have the
> qualifications/registrations/approvals (for both the auditor and
> certification company)to be able to do all of those systems at once. From
> the auditors view point it's the report writing that kills you on a
multiple
> systems audit. These can take longer than the actual audit to do.
> 
> Each system is different, even within the HACCP based systems, and have
> different focuses. This is due to different requirements of the standards
> owners/stakeholders. Some have more of a GMP/pre-req program focus, others
> more of a HACCP system focus or more of a management system. Some markets
> have far more of a focus on one system beyond another ie BRC vs IFS vs ISO
> 22 000 vs WQA vs SQF. All very similar but not the same and it's your
target
> market that would make you decide which to implement.
> 
> As Roy said, some systems are way beyond just HACCP/GMP and include animal
> welfare/social ethics/supply chain management/environmental
> requirements/traceability/sustainability of raw materials.  Some systems
are
> for one industry sector ie aquaculture/farming or processing, some include
> just one industry ie horticulture or salmon. So it's not a clear matter of
> one system being better than another, just different.
> 
> So before you decide on a standard ask the following questions:
> 1/ What standard is suitable for your industry and sector ?
> 2/ What do your customers want/need/recognize?
> 3/ What do you target/future customers want/need/recognize ?
> 4/ Get a copy of the standard- can you actually implement the requirements
?
> 5/ What will the system cost you to implement: staff, time, training
> courses, capital & equipment costs, records to be kept, auditing time and
> costs ?
> 6/ Can your current certification body audit to this standard whilst doing
> your other audits?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Clare Winkel
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-seafood@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Francisco Blaha
> Sent: 12 August 2007 08:40
> To: Chingling Tanco; Vanessa Broadnax; criticalcontrolpoints@yahoo.com;
> seafood@ucdavis.edu
> Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems
> 
> Hi Chinling
> 
> Here is my 5 cents, the UK or France can't ask you to do any of these
> private schemes, this is surely a requirement of your clients there, but
in
> no way an "official" requirement.
> 
> All what you need for EU market access is to be listed by your Competent
> Authority in the list they provide the the EC.
> 
> The Philippines is listed as an "approved country" by the EU and if you
are
> in the list of Approved establishments, that's it.
> 
> Hence if your client does not trust neither your CA, neither the EU FVO
that
> visits the country and "approves" it, then those 3rd party certification
are
> a commercial issue in between your buyer and your self.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers

    -- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.13/947 - Release Date: 11/08/2007
14:29

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 12 2007 - 16:15:56 PDT