Our clients have found great benefit in our QMP GMP Audit preparations
services all scoring well. We keep it simple, yet effective and after
each vendor ordered audit, our clients understand and manage their programs
much better.
-- BILL SPINALI FDA Consulting Services, LLC www.fdaconsultingservices.com> From: Richard Chivers <richard@fishonline.co.uk> > Reply-To: Richard Chivers <richard@fishonline.co.uk> > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:28:38 +0100 > To: <straddiegal@optusnet.com.au>, 'Francisco Blaha' <francisco@ihug.co.nz>, > <seafood@ucdavis.edu> > Subject: Re: Auditing Quality Systems > > Hi Clare, > > > > We run a business in which we outsource the administration of the corner > posts of the quality management systems. It works well for those who take it > on as they save the cost of trained staff, skilled auditors etc and gain > consistency and lower costs but it is a difficult business to sell in as > companies are afraid to let go control of the qms. In fact we have rarely > come across a well managed system or one that is not more cumbersome and > expensive to run than it needs to be whether that be food or engineering. > Perhaps it is because we deal mainly with small and medium sized > enterprises. > > > > Having said all this, the point of the qms is to make the company more > efficient and in food safety systems, to provide safer food. Unfortunately > what most businesses want is the certificate on the wall that gives them > market access but getting management to see the benefits of a system audit > and data collection is a difficult bridge to cross. > > > > We have noticed great variation in the quality of inspection which I take to > be the auditing industry's response to the number of companies out there > offering the same service; after all what is the advantage of being the > strictest auditor when the client's management do not appreciate the value > of corrective actions, internal audit, management review and document > control; they will only go elsewhere next time. > > > > Is Ireland treating you well? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Richard Chivers > > Seafood Audit International > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clare Winkel" <straddiegal@optusnet.com.au> > To: "'Francisco Blaha'" <francisco@ihug.co.nz>; <seafood@ucdavis.edu> > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:14 AM > Subject: 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 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 03:56:47 PDT