Are You Working in a “Get ‘er Done” Facility?

A feeling of productivity and accomplishment is one of the greatest feelings there is. With this in mind, the “Get ’er Done” (GRD) mantra sounds like a good one since the focus is on completion of tasks. However, upon closer evaluation, one finds many faults with using the GRD approach in food processing.

The implications of GRD are that one does whatever it takes to get the task done (get the product out the door) with minimal regard for process, quality, or consistency. Far too many food plant managers believe they are successful simply by fulfilling customer orders. However, if product is being shipped without well-defined processes in place, there are missed opportunities. In the worst case, these missed opportunities could lead to illness or death of a consumer; in the mildest case, there is financial waste.

GRD assumes that people will “figure it out” or “everyone knows that.” However, the result of this assumption is great variation in task execution, which could lead to inefficiencies or product safety concerns. Take a simple process, such as casing-wrapped product, for example. The process is likely defined by the number of units to place into a case. However, if other specifics such as orientation in the case are not defined, this can lead to product damage. Also think about the number of units that can be handled and moved from the belt into the case at one time. Someone moving one unit at a time is inefficient, while someone moving six units at a time may be causing product damage.

The growth of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and its benchmarked schemes, such as BRC, SQF, and FSSC 22000, is a sign that the industry is recognizing the need for defined processes. GFSI requires that processes be well defined. These include processes related to product production, prerequisite programs (sanitation, maintenance, personnel practices), and communication.

Continuous improvement is another cornerstone of GFSI and most business models. Consistent processes are required for continuous improvement. If A+B+C=D, and we always know the values of A, B, and C, we can easily predict D. However, if A, B, and C are variable, we will not be able to control (improve) D. To ensure consistency of A, B, and C, they must be defined, training against the process must be provided, documenting and monitoring must be maintained, and corrective action must be taken when the established process is deviated from. This is not to say that documentation alone will result in high quality and safe product. The processes must be validated through in-depth inspections.

GRD is not a badge of honor to be worn, but rather a circumstance to be overcome. If you believe you are working in a GRD operation, take this occasion to place copies of this article on the desks of those people in your operation who can affect change. If you are a senior manager and this article has been placed on your desk, you have a great opportunity to make significant changes in your organization that will improve customer satisfaction, reduce food safety liability, improve profits, and ensure sustainable success. Now is the time to replace the GRD approach with a systems-based approach.

The author is Vice President of Food Safety Education, AIB International.