Management Commitment: Partnering With Site Leadership for Success

Elizabeth Tierno: All right, according to my clock, we are now at the top of the hour. So, we're going to kick this off and get started. So, again, thank you everybody for joining us. We appreciate that you're you're here and want to listen and learn more about what we have to say about management commitment. so it's all about that partnering with site leadership to have a successful food safety program. So, go ahead there, Amanda. we'll advance the next slide and we'll tell you about what's going on. So, before we get into the nitty-gritty of what we're going to talk about, here is our antitrust statement. So, anytime we get possible competitors together, we have to put this up. so does our FMI SQFI antitrust statement. So, food safety is a safe topic to talk about. so, we're going to stay on topic and we should be just fine. But if you hear anything that's about price fixing, boycotting, trade restrictions, anything of that nature, we would like to stop the conversation. So if you hear any of that, please let us know. and we will do the same.

If you would like a copy of this antitrust statement, let us know and we can absolutely get you a copy of this statement. So we'll leave this up just for a second and then we'll go ahead and get started. All right. So, a little bit about who I am, a little bit about what my experience is. so I am Elizabeth Tierno. I work for SQFI. I've been here about 2 and a half years now. prior to joining the SQFI team, I worked at food manufacturing sites. so if you guys are from a food manufacturing site, I've been there. So, I understand some of those challenges. I've worked in a variety of different food sector categories. So, I have experience in b in bakery, in dairy, in beverage, and in honey processing. So, I kind of jumped around just to get different experience in different places. So, I'm going to be a speaker as well as Amanda. So, Amanda, why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and tell them who you are?

Amanda Wilder: Perfect. Thanks, Elizabeth. similar to Elizabeth, my background started in food manufacturing and I've also worked on the floor. I've worked in the industry about 10 years now. I started out in processed meat manufacturing with SQF certified sites. So, again, we know exactly what it's like to try to get management commitment from the floor. but I've also worked in frozen fruit and vegetables. I've also worked in pulse manufacturing and I've been with Provision now for about 3 years. if you would have asked me when I started my career if I would have ended up in tech, I would have been really surprised. but at Provision Analytics, I get to work with clients all across the food supply chain. So that's been a really fun way to continue working with the industry and I did get to work with TM on the module 11 SQF edition 10 working group. So that's been fun as well. Before we get started, we just wanted to lay out the structure for today. We started with introductions so who you're talking to. but Elizabeth and I are going to have a conversation.

We and we want to include you as part of that conversation as well. So throughout this discussion, we are going to be asking each other questions, but we're also going to be asking you questions. So when you see those polling questions on the screen, we would love for you to participate. We're just looking to get to know you guys a little bit and just understand the lay of the land when it comes to how we all think about management commitment. So first we're going to start out with issues that we see with management commitment. Then we're going to talk through some best practices and how we could best adhere to the code. Then we'll do a little bit about Provision and then we'll ask all of you for questions at the end. So to get started co if you want to start dropping the questions perfect. know that you can drag those polling questions around on your screen. if you don't want them right in the middle that's fine. But we're just curious to hear where you guys are at in your SQF journey. Are you just starting?

Is this something is this a program that you're still optimizing your facilities? We'll go ahead and give you guys just another second or so to answer that, but I believe the results will pop up on the screen really quickly once you've had the opportunity to answer that question. So, I think we're ready for the second question. Okay, perfect. We've got some results. Awesome. So, it looks like most of you guys are SQF certified. There's some newbies, so welcome. Glad you're here. but it looks like we're all in different phases. and then one more question that we had for you guys is we wanted to start off the very beginning of this webinar and just understanding where you guys what you guys think about management commitment. Is this something that you think you're good at today or is this something you think you need to work on? And if that poll question is not popping up, that's okay. we can go ahead and skip it or just leave it up. But while you're thinking about this, we wanted to start this webinar off and I wanted to ask Elizabeth. So you're with SQFI.

So what do you guys see as the biggest issues with adhering to the management commitment section of the code today?

Elizabeth Tierno: So yeah, thank you. so we definitely see a wide variety. as many of our SQF sites are different sizes. They're in different food sector categories. So it does vary depending on that. but you can see that oh that's great. Most people think that they have good management commitment. There is a quite an answer of they're not sure. So hopefully by the end of this though you're not sure you'll be able to say yes or no or maybe steps of how to do improve your management commitment your site. So that's great to know. so to answer your question there Amanda a lot of times we're seeing it's that substitute practitioner. So I did put up here the number. I'm not big on the numbers just because I don't like to memorize numbers. I'm not good at it either.

If you start spitting out different code requirements and I understand the concepts behind it, but typically not the code number that correlates to. but I did put them up here just so people know. but it's that substitute practitioner that either they forget to identify one or they're identifying a person that doesn't understand the food safety system. So, they're not a true backup. So the intent behind the substitute practitioner is that they can fill that role. So if your practitioner goes on vacation, maybe they win the lottery. I'm more into the positive examples that they decide to I would love for that to happen. Yeah. So okay, I'm the practitioner and I got the lottery and I say, "Hey, I'm out. I'm not doing this anymore." Then what? Then what? So right now we see a lot of our sites don't have that substitute practitioner that can step in and fulfill that role that they select someone who's maybe it's HR, maybe it's a receptionist that could be the backup practitioner.

However, we're finding out that person doesn't have the knowledge the responsibilities to fully actually be prepared to be that substitute. so we need to have that person identified that can step in and take that role. the probably the biggest thing that we see in management commitment as a non-conformance is the annual review that sites think they're doing it correctly. However, they're missing the six topics that are identified in 2.1.2.1. So, if you don't know what they are, I encourage you read the code. Go back and look at what those requirements are, but we're missing them. People are like, "Well, I do a monthly meeting and it meets the annual review." That's not entirely true. So go ahead and look at that and what that means because we're really typically missing that trending which goes into that next one. So we're talking about customer complaints. So 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.3.3 that we're missing the trending of complaints and also the followup.

So if there are complaints identified that we're not identifying corrective actions to actually identify that negative trend and how do we change that negative trend.

Amanda Wilder: I think one thing that you also indicated by the star with the annual review is that's one of the top non-conformances that you guys see with SQF isn't it?

Elizabeth Tierno: It is absolutely so we identify based upon so it's in the top 10. So that's a top 10 of every site on every food sector category that 2.1.2.1 is in that top 10 non-conformances that we see across all sites. Yeah. So yeah and one thing that I wanted to just kind of note it's not necessarily a non-conformance but things that we are identifying is done incorrectly is that people are putting their food safety objectives as a score. So we will continue to talk about that throughout the rest of the webinar, but we want to make sure that it is about food safety. That's what it's food safety objectives. And we're just want to make sure we're get our sites on the right path for sure.

Amanda Wilder: And I think what we all agree with is that sometimes like it sounds like just asking the audience, we all think that we are already doing a good job and maybe we are, but there's also some issues. And one of those issues is that maybe we think we are but it's not actually presenting that way. Are do you have any other thoughts on what is causing some of these issues broadly? so

Elizabeth Tierno: one major comment is we always talk about continuous improvement. So what worked for your system 10 years ago might not work today. So it's a system that is a living breathing thing and it constantly needs to change as your company changes as the industry changes. So don't think that you can just check a box and just leave it go. That the system does need to get updated and honestly reviewed at least on an annual basis to make sure it still meets those requirements.

Amanda Wilder: And I think that even goes back into how we present that information as well. Like to your point, maybe the information we're presenting isn't actionable. We might have it, but we're not doing anything with it, which is the core problem here, right?

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. So what are we going to do about that? we've got a couple different strategies.

Amanda Wilder: And one last thing I wanted to highlight before we go to the next page is one thing that we had talked about in preparation for this is it's definitely one thing to look at how we're addressing the code, but we also probably need to acknowledge that sometimes there's just flatout confusion. And that's part of why we're here today is we want to make sure that folks understand the difference in the code requirements, especially when we're looking at those monthly and annual requirements. Exactly like you just mentioned. Oh, hey, we're doing our annual review monthly. It's like well that's your monthly requirements but we are still missing a few critical pieces. Do you have any specific examples of where you've seen companies really struggle with meeting these sections of the code?

Elizabeth Tierno: Yeah. So I'll tell you that my so I worked at a site that we covered the topics typically on a monthly basis but we didn't take a look back. So that annual requirement is you're supposed to look back over the last 12 months what occurred. So, it's one thing to say, okay, well, this is what happened in the last 30 days and that's what you do in that monthly review, but and it can be a meeting. It doesn't have to be a meeting to meet that monthly requirement, but the annual update, that's what we're looking. missing that trending over 12 months, whether it's your corrective actions, your audits, your customer complaints, that trending to fully understand what is going on with your process, with your company that you don't look at that full picture. And that's a huge gap that we're seeing.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, that's a really good point. And I think we had one polling question just because we're curious how you guys are addressing this is when you're doing your annual review, are you doing that separately from your monthly review or what does that look like for you guys? And we'll go ahead and give you guys just another seconds. but again to Elizabeth's point, this is one of those big issues that we see and if we can just help folks understand and clear up the reporting that can be super helpful. Awesome. So, it looks like a lot of you guys are doing that in your review separately.

Elizabeth Tierno: So, just to kind of make a point that this polls, they're all anonymous. and there's no right or wrong answers. It's just trying to give us a picture of what you guys are and to get you guys involved. So, it's not just us talking to you, but it's an interactive type of podcast webinar type of a thing.

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. We know that getting talked at for an hour, especially right before the holidays, right around lunchtime, depending on where you're at, can be really hard. So that's why we're going to be asking you guys some of these questions. And also maybe it won't make you feel like you're doing things totally differently than other folks in the industry as well. And one of the things that I think is really important about the management commitment section of the code is it does require us to outline that policy. but are we seeing issues with the policy or are we seeing issues with sites practicing what we say? like are we doing are we walking the walk as much as we're talking the talk.

Elizabeth Tierno: So most sites that they have the policy the policy is in place and that's not a problem but how are they implementing it? That's where the problem is. It's like okay we have the policy now how do we do it? So it's that practice putting it into practice and doing it every day.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah. And I know from my experience, I've worked at sites where our upper level management saw that we had really great SQF audit scores. And so they thought that everything was okay every day and that we didn't really need to make any improvements to our food safety systems because we were getting 99s in our audits. It's like, well, I think those of us that have worked in the industry know that the score is helpful, but really the point of SQF and the point of the program is to ingrain food safety into that daily practice and really drive results and that all of the data that we're gathering because of our SQF programs, those complaints information, again, we need to use the information that we're getting. And if we are starting to see a negative trend, so first we need to use it so we could see it. And if we're starting to see issues, we have to actually address those issues.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely.

Amanda Wilder: And one of the ways that I think that we start thinking about management commitment is really getting them involved with this reporting. and when we think about reporting, there's a few different areas where this can tend to fall down. So we wanted to talk through a few different strategies here. And some of that is when we think about reporting out data, what's the context of the data? I think a really big key with this section of the code is again, are we trending our information? If we're looking at just a single incident, that's one point in time. what happens if we don't have multiple incidents? Well, we need to expand what that looks like over time. we need to really show that trending because if we have that narrow viewpoints, not only is it going to be frustrating for our management, they're going to say, "Hey, like we had one problem." but also again just for overall SQF compliance is again really trying to make a point to expand our data sets of what we're looking at.

Elizabeth Tierno: So from your perspective which is different than SQF are you seeing different themes and presents like what are those big issues that you guys are seeing from the reporting side.

Amanda Wilder: So I think that what a lot of us are used to and I know like I started the industry and we all think that's like okay let's start with one log like let's look at our temperatures or CCP checks and let's look at just that section and that's great but when we get a customer complaint we need to do a root cause and looking at single data points or single areas of our business really aren't helpful. So helping folks see the forest through the trees a little bit is what we see. It's like not just taking a single data set, but again like let's take all of our data holistically so we can expand that concept not just for the SQF commitment but again how do we get our leaders involved? They care about the whole business not just food safety.

Elizabeth Tierno: They want to talk about the numbers.

Amanda Wilder: Yes, they do. So we also have to talk about the numbers and some of that is the way that we present the numbers as well. So depending on how we're presenting these numbers, I think a lot of us have our own internal codes that we use, our own internal nomenclature. I mean, even look at SQF, like that's an acronym. I worked for a company where we had our own nomenclature for everything that was different than the industry. And so just make sure that you're speaking the right language when you're talking to your management team. Like do they understand what APC means when you're talking about your environmental monitoring program or when you say that you're doing Listeria testing? They don't necessarily know the difference between species and monocytogenes. But again, doesn't matter. Like understanding your audience really can be helpful so that you're not losing management when you're presenting data regardless of what that looks like.

Elizabeth Tierno: So just a point of clarification before too far, APC is not environmental monitoring just so we know, but that is a terminology that we do use. to make sure that we use it in the right way for the right things because it can be confusing really quickly.

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. And it to your point it should not be popular environmental monitoring but maybe they think it should be because again it's just understanding using the right nomenclature where it makes sense and that we're doing the right things in the first place. And then the last thing that we look at and again I think it's really interesting how reporting consistency the SQF code especially for management commitment really requires that monthly meeting that monthly reporting on what's going on but when we're doing these meetings are we presenting different data every time or is it consistent because that can really managers can really struggle if we're talking about something different every single month and we want to make sure that we're covering all aspects of our program but customer complaints is a really good example of a solid metric that we should be looking at all of the time. And Elizabeth, in your experience, did you guys ever struggle with reporting out information or having these conversations with management or what did that look like for you?

Elizabeth Tierno: So, we didn't we had a recurring time that we would talk and sometimes it was meetings, sometimes it wasn't. Maybe it was a an email type of a thing that they would have to respond to. but we had some way to correspond within that month's time frame that we were able to do that. But it definitely opened up questions and we allowed for them to ask questions and we're going oh okay well we're reporting the data but they're not understanding what we're doing and thankfully my teams were always willing to ask questions. sometimes I didn't want the questions but they would ask the questions and I go okay I need to clarify this so they understand. So you can very well have a management team that's there going, I don't know what they're talking about, but I don't want to ask the question. So are we presenting the data in a way that makes sense? Or maybe in a way that they can even ask a question. They're going, I don't get it, but I don't understand enough to ask the question like, how do I get the data that I really need, and I'm I'm missing that leap.

So thankfully I said my team asked questions, but you make sure that you open it up that they can they can understand where you're coming from.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, I think that's a really great point and when we think about how the frequency like meeting on that monthly cadence might not necessarily be the problem, but are we seeing issues and meeting in addition and we're not just waiting to address the issue the next month as well.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. And that is a really good tiein which leads us into how we want to think about this from a best practice perspective. And we have a bunch more polling questions coming your way. And so when we think about best practices, again, we're thinking about management commitment, and that's coming down into how we're reporting out some of this information in your guys's businesses. How are you doing this? What types of language are you using? Are you using graphs, charts? Are we focusing on our operational language? Or again, are we looking at that technical information?

Amanda Wilder: And like Elizabeth mentioned, this is more of a curiosity thing. We just want to see what the industry is doing as a whole. And then again so you guys can see what each other is doing as well. Yeah, there's there's not a right answer. It's a what works best for your company, but understanding for us what works for you guys. it's helpful for us.

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. So we can go ahead and wrap this one up.

Amanda Wilder: Awesome. So cool to see a pretty interesting split across the board. And then we've got I think one more question is specifically looking at the way that you're presenting this data. Like what's the primary format in which you report that data to leadership? Do you guys use charts? Do you use spreadsheets? Do you just have raw information and forms? Like Elizabeth mentioned, there is no right answer as long as you're meeting the code requirements, as long as you are doing that tracking and trending and reporting. like we often refer to that monthly meeting, but it does not have to be a meeting. that's typically how a lot of people meet the requirement, but there are other ways. so just keep that in mind that maybe you do have some dashboard that you use or an email correspondence. There is other ways to meet the requirements. Just make sure you read the code to see what the requirement is.

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. Awesome. So it looks like we've got a whole bunch of different ways that we're meeting this, which is really cool to see.

Elizabeth Tierno: That is really cool to see. There is not one straight answer and it's going to depend on your site and what works for you. and just keep in mind what works for you today might not work for you in six months. So keep that in mind who your audience is and maybe it changes. Maybe you need to be a copy of all of them. You combined them all together. but what works for your site.

Amanda Wilder: Awesome. And so that leads us into how we can think about best practices for again really getting that management commitment. And I think one thing that is worth calling out is that RSQF programs are hefty. They're a lot and we're collecting a lot of data within those programs. And what we found is that regardless of your food safety system, obviously we're talking about SQF today, but there's a lot of data. And we might think about our operational data, especially our management are always thinking about what's in our ERP, but you're sitting on a true gold mine of information and your SQF programs. And part of the SQF code requirement is again to report on that data. So just understanding that you have it, it's there. Maybe it's difficult to see if it's in manual or disjointed systems or if your management team is really focused on specific areas. But the SQF code really does a good job of allowing you to look across your entire business and gather this huge amount of information to start with.

And that can really be a good starting point for how we think about how we think about reporting up to management and getting their buy-in. And you might be thinking, why are we talking about risk assessments right now? And at the end of the day, like Elizabeth mentioned earlier, we need management commitment. So that requires us to start speaking the same language. And maybe our management team struggles with food safety. Maybe they see it as that overhead cost and they're doing the SQF requirements because they have to.

But if we can flip the language a little bit and say, "Hey, food safety is a pretty significant business risk." And we should be looking at this not just from a food safety requirements, but from a business risk perspective. and how can we take everything that we're doing and use that to better understand again our business risk and from a food safety perspective I think we're all used to doing those risk assessments understanding that impact and likelihood how severe is something going to be to our business if it happens and the way that we do this is probably somewhat infrequently maybe we're thinking about this again as part of that annual requirement but are we thinking about it in all aspects of our this. And Elizabeth, from your perspective, I know we spent a ton of time talking about risk assessments. How do you guys see a risk assessment really helping drive that a management understanding and management buyin?

Elizabeth Tierno: So, we talk about risk a lot at SQF and it's funny when we talk about risk, you're like, "Oh, it has to be this formalized process and everything has to be written down." And there is definitely a time that is true. That has to happen. but I will tell you that we do risk assessments all the time and you might not think about it in that same terminology. one of my co-workers gave an example of they were out eating something, they had a white shirt on and it was spaghetti sauce and she didn't think about the risk assessment, but she goes, "Oh, likelihood severity. Yeah, I'm not touching that." She knew that she would have red sauce all over her white shirt, so she elected not to. It wasn't a formalized process. She didn't write anything down. She didn't go through all the steps in her head, but it was very much a likelihood severity. I'm out. And it's doing that often, not just, oh, I'm never gonna buy a white shirt again, right? And so you go, okay, so what is the risk?

You're going, okay, but if my management doesn't understand what's going on, we're not going to be able to fix any issues. So if I can communicate better with them, and we had a question about that. I was like, well, how do I communicate? There's not one way. So you have to know who you're talking to. Who is that audience? Do they need data? Do they need all the information? Maybe you go, "Okay, we are a small company and I need to have a one-on-one conversation. We can't have all the distractions. And can we sit down for an hour and we can talk about different risks of what I'm seeing and what that means? Do they needed to put in terms of money? I know a lot of our CEOs, our presidents, they're they're focused on that monetary value. Okay, well, how can I correlate this to money?" and they'll be like, "Oh, now I get it." So, you need to know who your audience is and what they're talking about to make sure that you're presenting in a way that they get it. But you're going, "Okay, there's a risk associated with not having that commitment.

You start having divides in your company and you're going, "How do we connect all the pieces?" And that's truly what that management commitment is. It's connecting your whole program together. You have production, you have sanitation, you have maintenance, but you go, we need something that pulls everything together that we can look everything holistically and not just as individual programs or processes, procedures, but what is going on with our entire program?

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. And it comes down to how are we doing it? We know we have to, but is it is it effective? Is it actually helping us drive the needle on business? And we have a polling question that should pop up cuz again we're curious when we're thinking about risk assessments. We know that we need to do this at least annually, but how often are you guys doing this or when are you guys doing this in your process? Because to Elizabeth's point, risk changes. So are we looking at that again just as part of that annual requirement or are we looking at that when other things happen in our business as well? And you can select more than one. Yes. Yeah, hopefully you are not looking at the battering of all the problems, but maybe you are. So, we can go ahead and wrap that poll up. But again, the key here is we know that we're doing it, but how do we do this in an effective way that's actually using our systems? Okay, I think this is super interesting. Love to see that you guys definitely do this anytime a problem comes up. You guys are doing it often and in other aspects of your business as well.

You have to understand that things change whether or not maybe it's not your supplier, it's not your product, it's not your process, but your environment has changed, the personnel has changed and how does that affect your risks and has the upper management changed? How do I how do I need to communicate with them differently because of a different personnel?

Amanda Wilder: Awesome. And I think one question that I definitely wanted to make sure we hit on and we've gone around it a little bit, but again, we're hitting on data, we're hitting on the reportings or requirements, but like Elizabeth from SQF's perspective, why is this so important to continue to do this? Like we have that monthly requirement that's really driving that continuous assessment of data, but why is that so important?

Elizabeth Tierno: Yeah. And like so we talk about risk as I said all the time, but your risks do change. so you go, okay, well, how am I committed today? If you don't update your management on a regular basis, so yeah, we require that monthly update. Well, if they're in the dark, so depending on how big of a site you are, they might be distanced from the daily operations and they don't truly know what's on the ground, what are all those leg works and what's happening. Or even if maybe they do, but they're so ingrained with the daily stuff, they're missing the monthly, the annual overall. So we need to make sure that ourselves as practitioners, sites, management you going how do I see the big picture as well as the daily stuff. So both are so important and we need to make sure we're looking at both of them and not ignoring one or the other. Yeah, I think that is a really good point and it comes back to how do we report this information. I think a lot of us, I know in my experience, I worked with sites that wanted to use our audit score as a metric because management loves metrics.

They need to see numbers. They need to see data. But how do we give them data and something that's actually usable? Again, we want to avoid using that audit score as a metric because it's it's good Hart's law. Like we know that we can achieve to 100. We want that score of 100, but then we kind of lose the point of everything that we're doing. So we want to look at again we're sitting on this mountain of data. How can we leverage it in a way that gives us information that is directional and objective? How do we leverage everything that we're doing on a daily basis to help us create something like an internal risk score says hey if I have relative changes in my business because again we just talked about risk is living and breathing. It changes all the time and it's going to change if my workforce changes. It's going to change if my facility starts to break down. if tasks aren't getting done, if we're starting to see issues, that's all going to impact my business risk and ultimately food safety.

So, how do we create something like this risk score that we can internally use to drive that change across our business? So, how do we create a metric that makes sense when it comes to business reporting? And I think one thing that audit scores don't tell us is they don't tell us directionally where to where to make change. They tell us, hey, out of this program, this is roughly what your score is, but it's not really helping us fix those specific problems. Unless you get a major non-conformance, it's like, hey, you have a problem in this code section, but it doesn't necessarily help like, oh, we should focus on this production line or on this product skew or with these suppliers.

Elizabeth Tierno: From an SQF perspective, we really want sites to not focus on the score. understanding that yes management can focus on the score and they get we have to get this score for whatever reason but we want people to understand that this is about food safety that yes we do give a score but that's not the point of SQF in the program but the point is to achieve food safety and to have a food safety program so you can identify the risks and once you've identified the risks you then mitigate them going okay I can't eliminate it completely okay but what can I do what steps can I put into place to mitigate whatever those risks are. So you need to fully understand your system. Like it all comes back to it all it all comes back together in one system. Yes, we have different code requirements and they're separate sections section separate clauses but it's one program. So how does your whole program loop together and where is that annual review that you do to get management on board? and maybe you have a management system that they're great. They have your back.

They're fully committed. and maybe you don't. I've been a part of both scenarios. and it causes challenges when management isn't committed. and how do you get them there? And we will talk about this. It's like how do we how do we get someone on board that isn't?

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, that's a really good point. And again like SQF does a really great job is as an entire code forcing us to look at every aspect in our business again from our facility to our suppliers to our sanitation and maybe we're a multi-site operation where we are all doing fresh cut fruit in different parts of the world but maybe we have a facility that's 20 years old and we have a facility that's brand new. We know that inherently our risk is different even though we might be doing the same thing owned by the same company and have the same processes. So having data that we can benchmark against a program and then benchmark against ourselves. So that way we know again relatively how is our risk look? We might have a riskier site but they've got better management. They've got better team but we still need to pay attention. It's it's an old building. in old buildings.

I think we all have them and if you don't, kudos for you because they're expensive, but we know that they come with some inherent risks as well and they just require us to manage it differently and if we're not cleaning on time, it means something different for us than in the brand new facility. I think at the end of the day, this really forces us to look at that food safety culture. Again, we're spending a lot of time talking about management commitment and how do we get that buy-in of our executives and our managers, but the SQF code helps us create a program which is ultimately executed by our operators. It's a full circle, it's a full circle approach. So, when we think about how we are executing our code, how we're getting that data, we want to make sure that we're thinking about everybody in our supply chain and the way that we and in our operation and that who we're talking to matters. Maybe our executives are really only involved in that monthly meeting, but our operators are involved every single day.

So, ensuring that we are gathering information in a way that's helpful and reporting it on a way that our operators understand, but so does our executives could be super helpful. And I know we're not necessarily talking specifically about food safety culture today, but we do know that there are some changes potentially coming to this with Edition 10.

Elizabeth Tierno: There are we're still working through some of them, but yes, there's potential that a food safety assessment plan is coming. So, as you brought up Edition 10, we are hoping that it's going to be before long. We don't have an exact date. We're still waiting for some insight from our third party. so hopefully soon. I'd like to see it before the end of the year, but there is no guarantees for that. But we're looking hopefully again hopefully I'm not making any promises that before conference in March that it would be released. But again it's a hope no guarantees at this point

Amanda Wilder: but we should still be thinking about food safety culture regardless of Edition 10. Right.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. so I' I've been at different sites. I've been with our upper management and we was like hey I need to show you something on the production floor and he refused to wash his hands. And I go, "As the QA manager, I need you to wash your hands before we go any further." And he got very upset with me. And I was like, "I cannot walk out into the floor with someone who hasn't knowing that the employees can see you not wash your hands." So it was hard sometimes to get that upper management to buy-in. And it's not just, okay, here's our all of our trends, but what do they do? What are they showing the employees? So, it's a management commitment on all ends that they're like, "Oh, I'm good with the numbers, but you don't want to put it into practice." So, it's like, "No, we have rules that we have to go by and you're not exempt from them." So, when you go on the production floor, I expect that you're going to abide by the same rules as everybody else. Regardless of what's name is on your office, what position you hold, it doesn't matter. You're stilling food safety.

Amanda Wilder: And GMPs are a pretty big risk, you would think. if not one of the biggest risks I think we have. Like if we could fix GMPs, we would all be in really great shape.

Elizabeth Tierno: It's like, we can write a policy and it's easy enough for me to sit in an office and write a policy and I go, "Okay, check. It meets all requirements." The challenge is the people. How do I get the people to buy-in? And also, how do I get the people to continually abide by it? So they might be like, "Yes, it's a good policy." But if they don't put it into practice, the piece of paper doesn't mean a whole lot.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah. And even when it comes to data reporting, we might say, "Okay, like we've done all of this work. We've created our own internal scoring system that helps us understand what's going on. It's helping us have that conversation with our managers." And you might be thinking, does this actually work? and I wanted to share some data that we got working with a multi-site meat processing operation. When you implement internal scoring systems and start communicating that up to leadership and just across your teams, they shared their evidence. They're like, "Yeah, it really does work creating that scoring system." in this particular case, this company was looking at sanitation incident scoring and they had a whole bunch of factors feeding it. And what's really cool is that we don't just see a decrease in customer complaints, which again we have to trend those customer complaints per SQF for this section of the code. But we're also seeing a decrease in variability and those complaints as well.

So two major wins from implementing something like a scoring system that's really allowing our teams to kind of report up to management, hey, here's how we're doing. And also the proof's in the pudding. like we're seeing less issues with our with our products and that's evidenced by all of our customer complaints. Elizabeth, do you have any other examples to share from your time in industry of other types of reporting systems that have been especially helpful?

Elizabeth Tierno: Well, I just have a comment. so we talk about customer complaints and we always view them as such a negative thing. I would just encourage people to think about in a different way so that if a customer is complaining, they're still willing to buy your product. So, yes, we don't want the complaint. but if you do nothing about it, that's where the problem lies because if they continue to have that same problem, they'll go to another product and you don't want to be losing your customers. So, the complaint in itself, yes, you don't want them. And that the goal is always to decrease them. So, but you go, okay, now that we have the complaint, what are we doing about it? So, just encourage you. I shared an example of a complaint that we had that I worked for a drink manufacturer and someone had teeth in their drink and they were very adamant that the teeth came from our facility. And I'm going, it's not physically possible. The filters, the straining, the equipment that we have, we're not going to have teeth come through. It just there's no way for it to fit.

But we're like, okay, we're going to take this complaint seriously and talk to this person. and it's a back and forth and back and forth and she's very adamant the teeth came from and eventually through the conversation, it was probably a week later she goes, I did lose my teeth at the same time. So, you're going, okay. So, we took her seriously going, there's there's no way, but I'm not going to discount her. We want to keep her as a customer. So, what does this mean? Now, fortunately, it was a very calm conversation. She was very nice about it. There are some people that call. Not everybody is. It's not that way. But what are those complaints that are coming in? How many of them are legit? Look at them. So, we figured out the teeth complaint is not legit. However, we also had a different complaint that there was plastic in our product and you're going, okay, we're going, it doesn't come from our facility. We don't have that type of plastic here. So, we could have just written it off and said, it's not our problem. We had the complaint more than once and we're like, what?

It is our problem because it is our customer. So, what are we doing about this trend? We're seeing this plastic. So, we went to our supplier and my boss and I, we flew out to go and talk to the supplier cuz they said again, it didn't come from them. We're like, "Okay, we just want to come and see your operation. What does it look like?" Whatever. And so, we were out there on the floor less than 10 minutes and we identified the root cause of where that plastic was coming from.

Elizabeth Tierno: So, we didn't discount a complaint or we were able to find that root cause and then we completely got rid of it. Completely got rid of the complaint. So, we're going look at what's going on. If you're not actually looking at them, you're not trending them, you're not seeing the big picture, but just looking at one-offs, you might not recognize where the problem is and how to fix it.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, really, really great points. And again, like there's evidence that if we implement systems that help us better see our data, better report on our data, again, we use complaints as a really great example. We're never going to get rid of them, but we might be able to manage them or decrease them a little bit.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. And that can be applied across many different functions of your facility. We use complaints because that's part of management commitment and that trending and everything, but it can be used for any of the different processes they have knowing there's a trend and why are we seeing a spike in our environmental monitoring? Why are we seeing issues with our supplier? So, look at that as a holistic thing and maybe not just oneoffs to see what's going on with the system.

Amanda Wilder: Awesome.

Amanda Wilder: I love that feedback. We did have a comment or a question that came in that I just wanted to call out. I know it's u we've already touched it and we've gone on. but they were talking about the backup practitioner and you're going okay when you lose a practitioner people come and go from different companies. So whether it is upper management it's someone on the floor. You're going okay the risks change when your backup or your main your primary practitioner leave what does that mean and how long do you have to replace them? and there's not a specific time frame. We don't say you have to have them replaced in x amount of days or x amount of months. but you need to be making that effort to be replacing them. So, we've had sites that two weeks before your audit, they lost their backup. You're not going to have it replaced in two weeks. Yeah, that's tough for anybody. Yeah, you might have an interim. Maybe there's someone else that can step up and fulfill that in the meantime. Or maybe you do have already someone who's hired. we've had, sites I've worked at, we've had three practitioners.

Yes, we had one designated as the primary, but we had multiple backups, and that's allowed. It's not required, but you can have as many backups as you want. so there's not a hardcore cut you have x number of days, weeks, months, whatever to replace them, but you need to be fulfilling the requirement. And what are you doing in the meantime? Do you have a backup plan in place? Are you actively looking for that replacement versus just being like, "Oh, we lost someone and we'll get there when we get there." And six months later, there's no job posting, there's no internal training. That's probably when it's a problem. It's absolutely that's when it becomes a problem. So, you can go, we're actively looking, it's posted, we're taking applications, we're interviewing for somebody, but we're not finding someone who's competent to do that. You're going, okay, we're going to have to train someone up to get there. and understanding going okay but what have you done?

So if you're just sitting on your hands not doing anything, it's going to be different versus these are all the steps that we've taken and this is looking how we're making those steps to meet the requirement.

Amanda Wilder: And

Amanda Wilder: I love that comments competence like you can't just have a warm body like they need to understand what SQF is, what code is, what food safety is. It's like don't just pull in your security guy because that's the only way you have.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, thanks for addressing that as it come up. I think it's a really good one. so that leads us to talk about Provision for just a couple minutes and we really wanted to talk about management commitment and Elizabeth and I were talking a couple days ago and one thing that I really appreciate about the conversation is we think about meeting the code requirements. So we think about doing our SQF programs and that requirement to report on data and that requirement to trend all this information. There's a lot of different ways to capture information at Provision. We're a digital tool. Digital tools are not required for the code. They're not required per FDA and there's a lot of digital tools that exist. But when you think about meeting the code requirements, you can either do work upfronts to implement a digital tool that's ultimately going to help with your trending of information and help with your data gathering or you're going to be spending time later manually having to pull all that information back in.

And so digital tools can just be really helpful when it comes to helping meet these requirements and especially as we're thinking about our entire team. Again, we're focusing on management today, but we know that management needs the team below them to help make everything work. we want to ensure that our operators have tools that work for them. If we're thinking about digital data capture, that can really just speed up the way that they're capturing that information.

We can speed up the amount of time it takes us to pull all of that information for that audit prep or even just again like gathering our data so that we're tracking and trending proactively versus retroactively just to meet that code requirements. one of the things that we have done at Provision is again thinking about all of the data that we're capturing as part of our SQF programs is presenting it in a way or presenting it in that risk score that's really helping us understand how our food safety risk is changing and helping us better communicate to management our real time changes in our business and how those real-time changes are ultimately impacting our business risk by way of food safety is arguably our biggest risk in our business. So what that comes down to is again creating a score that is not trending towards 100% but is allowing us to directionally see how we're doing our in our business both by program and by site if we're a multi-site operation.

Again, we're thinking about just the management section of the code, but we know that other sections of the SQF code are going to really dive into our facility risk, our employee risk, our supplier risk, and understanding how we're seeing that happen real time can be really, really helpful. We know that every business is a little bit different. If you are processing lettuce or baking cookies, the things you care about are going to be different, but we're all adhering to SQF. So the way that we look at our facilities is going to be a little bit different. The types of records that we care about might be a little bit different, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to are we seeing issues? Are we seeing deviations or non-conformances? And are we getting things done on time? We know that nobody lives in a perfect system. I wish I did. employees sometimes aren't going to quite get thing get things done on time. Maybe you're short staffed for a day. And we know that we should be finding non-conformances. And if we're not, we probably need to change the way we're addressing things.

But we know that if things are consistently becoming late or if we're consistently seeing a lot of issues that maybe we need to re-evaluate the way that our programs work and that is ultimately going to impact our business risk. And having this all come to us real time can just be really, really helpful. And then again thinking about from a site-to-site perspective if you're a multi-site operation again knowing that some of our sites inherently might have more risk than others but also just allowing us to be able to benchmark against ourselves. Are we having issues with one site getting things done on time versus another site? Do we have a riskier site than others? Where should we be spending our time and resources?

So this risk scoring module that we've put together at Provision is really allowing clients to take all of the data that you're already doing that you're already gathering and really driving it into a reportable method. again thinking about management and thinking about the way that they want to get those numbers is how do we really drive that business case so that we can ensure that they're involved. And with that I think we have a few wrap-up questions before we dive into the Q&A. And the first one that we had is thinking about how you're reporting out your food safety information. What's your biggest issue in getting this? Is it time? You're just totally bogged down. We know some of our smaller sites, you might be wearing one hat, so you're responsible for not just SQF. Maybe you have other projects going on. We know that sometimes if you're doing other tech projects or other major equipment rehauls, like that's a huge time suck. but we're just curious what it looks like in your operations. We can go ahead and wrap up that poll. Awesome. I'm surprised. Yeah, support.

That's a really interesting one and I think that's a really good call out is yeah, you need resources. And we've got another question. thinking specifically about your technical barriers, are you worried about reliability in your data? Are you worried about how your data is captured? Or do you just have a lot of systems in your facility? Again, as we think about pulling all this information together, how you're capturing it today, like Elizabeth mentioned, what you do today might work, but what you're doing in six months might be different. But understanding if there's any technical barriers in place can certainly help us. So we can go ahead and wrap up this one. Also really interesting. All right. Yeah. Again like as a digital platform we say like you should have a digital platform in place. It really helps with structure. I am impressed with that reliability. Everyone's saying that their data is good.

Elizabeth Tierno: So the data is being captured. So everybody has different types of data and looks at it very differently and it's going to depend on the site. So what is the size of the facility? What are you doing? So are you a twoman operation? are you a 365 day eight lines multi-site type of a thing. So it's going to depend on how much data you have and what you do with that. But so it is interesting.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah. And then we have one last question. And now that we have spent 45 minutes or so talking about management commitment, we asked you at the beginning of the webinar, do you think your management commitment is good? now we're curious that we've had this conversation. Do you feel like there's anything you can take away to be better? And if the answer is no, then the answer is no. But otherwise, we're just curious your thoughts there. We can go ahead and wrap this one up, too.

Elizabeth Tierno: Okay. So, a lot of us think that there's definitely some things we can implement, which is awesome. That's the whole point. We're very glad. we want to make sure that people are looking at their systems as a way that it can continue to grow. So, that's great that you learned something today that maybe you can implement, you can use and say, "Hey, I can make this a little bit better." So, that's constantly what we're doing. How do you have that continuous improvement? And your continuous improvement today will look different than it will look in 2026 or 2027. So, it's going to change and how do you continue to keep up with everything as time progresses?

Amanda Wilder: Yeah. And I think we want to adhere to the code, but we want to make sure that our business is improving and the code is just part of that.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. so we do have some questions. So, Amanda, I'm going to throw this one to you if you don't mind, but can I have a consultant as my practitioner?

Amanda Wilder: Really good question. no. I know that the code is a little vague, but if they are not getting benefits from you, they're not truly employed by you, they don't meet the code requirements. So, consultants are great, great for gap analyses. But I think Elizabeth, you'll probably agree with me like, no, you can't have a consultant. they've got to be employed, truly employed by your site.

Elizabeth Tierno: Absolutely. I'm in complete agreement. Yes. If consultant does not meet the code requirement. So if you can use a consultant to help with your program, but they cannot be your practitioner. So there is a place for the consultant, but that is not one of those.

Amanda Wilder: And even if you're a small site and there's just a few of you, it just means maybe you're all involved and you might be the SQF practitioner and the owner might be the backup practitioner. Like that's okay.

Elizabeth Tierno: It is okay. so one is if we are a really small site or maybe a really big site, I don't know. but how do we trend annual complaints if we only have two?

Amanda Wilder: Also a good question. two is still a trend, but what you should also do is the code requirement is annual, but you can extend that data out like extend your data points out. so that way you can really show that there's a trend over time. And I'm not sure, Elizabeth, if you have anything else to add to that.

Elizabeth Tierno: I do. So, we talk about it's like, well, maybe you're not looking at a one-year trend. Maybe you're looking at a five-year trend and you're going, okay, we don't get many complaints. So, maybe that's not really an issue, but look at those. So, we find it interesting in some of my previous sites that you're going, we don't get a lot of complaints, but most of our complaints happen in July. So, you're going, okay, what's going on in July that we're getting these complaints? You're going, yeah, we don't have a lot. We're like, we don't really need to make a big deal, a big fuss of, but what's going on? the weather has changed. Is it because people are out on vacations and we're having different operators use different machinery than they're used to? So, take a look at what that means. So, yes, the code requirement is an annual trend, but what makes sense for your site? We wrote the code in a way that it can be applied to everybody, but that doesn't mean that you're not going to use different things to help your site. So, what tools do you need? What makes sense for you?

The code is your minimum requirement, but what can you do above that to make it impact your site and what you're seeing?

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, that's a super good point. And again, like if maybe your only two complaints are in June, that's a trend because you don't have complaints any other time of year.

Elizabeth Tierno: It is absolutely. I mean, you're saying while we're talking about complaints, maybe it's in pest control and it could be the same thing and you're going, "Okay, it's always the same time year, we're seeing certain things. So, what can we do about it?" but if you don't look at that trend, even if it's year-over-year or just that one year, you might miss that trend. So, that trending is so important for many reasons. Yeah. And again, just layering it with our other data like our pest control data, our non-conformance data. Maybe you saw a huge uptick in deviations that month that might be contributing why.

Elizabeth Tierno: Yeah. So, and I alluded to this earlier and I kind of left it off knowing that there was a question coming, but it's like how do I get management buy-in? So, I told you I've worked at a site where I had great management commitment and everybody was fully on board. and I've worked at sites where that wasn't the case and there was a lot of room for improvement in those and you're going, "Okay, how do you work with that?" and the ones that I said there was a lot of questions. We had a lot of back and forth. I had one CEO, president, whatever, top dog in the company who would challenge me quite frequently when I would come in and say, "This is a problem." And it was always that why, what is going on? So, at first I was taken back and I was like, "Okay, she's she's questioning me." And she was absolutely was. but I figured out how I could communicate. So, okay, I need to have the code to back me up going, "Okay, why is this a problem?

What data can I bring in that says, okay, here is the data that I have that proves why it's a problem and the code requirement." I came with a possible solution, but at the same time when I presented that solution, I said it's one solution. There's more than one way to fix this. We just have to be open to it. And so then we threw it out to the group. So fortunately in that team, we had a full team and we could all discuss it. And I go, "Yes, I have a fix, but what are other options?" and be willing to listen to those options. Because if you're willing to listen to their feedback and their possible fixes for it, they're also going to be more listening willing to listen to what you have to say and where those problems are.

Amanda Wilder: I love that cuz again, like we spent some time today talking about how do we speak the same language as management? How do we like open the door to say, "Hey, here's a risk to the business. Here's a problem. We've identified the problem, but now we have to fix the problem." and the way that we do that matters and it changes, but we have to start the conversation somewhere.

Elizabeth Tierno: So, we do have more questions here. that they seem to be diverting from management commit. We have some about internal auditing and some about environmental monitoring. quite a few about Edition 10. so Edition 10 is coming. as I promised, it is coming. we are the code is written. We are ready to hit that button to go live, but we are just waiting for some feedback. so once we get that feedback, we're going to just go through the code again and then we're going to release it. There will be lots of different webinars, trainings. We're we're looking to put out a lot more guidance documents for that. So, it's not we're just going to push it out there and say good luck everybody. we want to partner with you to make it apply. for those of you that haven't signed up, I would really encourage you to come to SQF Unites in March. I know we do have a slide on that. we are going to be talking a lot about Edition 10 and those changes and how they apply and what that means for your system, not just for management commitment but for your entire system. So we are focused on that.

So, even if edition 10 isn't released before you, that is still going to be our focus of the conference. So, if you haven't signed up, I would encourage you to. It's going to be a great one. I'm going to be there and I'm super excited. So, please come along. it's going to be in St. Louis this year. could be a great venue, great time. great learning opportunity and way to connect with other SQF sites. but there is a lot coming. So, I really can't dive in a whole lot with Edition 10 just looking at our time. and unfortunately the environmental monitoring and the internal auditing, it just doesn't quite apply. we do have one other comment that was in. We talked about KPIs and we talked about scoring very briefly and how scoring isn't an adequate KPI, but there are other options. So, we don't want sites to be using things such as zero customer complaints. So, that encourages things and maybe that's a bad example, but to not receive that feedback, to not put it through your system. So, that feedback, when you say zero findings for internal audits, that's not it's not a good thing.

You want to find those things. You have non-conformances. It's not a matter of getting rid of them, but addressing them. So, I want to identify that we have the non-conformance so then we can fix it versus I'm just going to sweep it under the rug and ignore it. So, call it out. You want your employees to report that. But maybe a more value added KPI is the percentage of completion of tasks or how long tasks to get to can be completed. So, something along those lines. So, how can you add value that are pertaining to food safety to get away from scoring to add that effectiveness to your program?

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, scoring should be valuable and based off of real time data.

Amanda Wilder: Exactly. To your point, like if we strive to zero or strive to 100, we tend to get lost in our true goal.

Elizabeth Tierno: I'm like, and then you see every deficiency whatever as bad. and we really want to get away from that terminology that there are values in non-conformances. So, yes, you don't like them, especially when it's a third party that's telling you. but what can you do about it to make a stronger food safety system?

Amanda Wilder: Exactly.

Elizabeth Tierno: So, I know we have now passed the top of the hour. so I mean, I don't know if there was any final comments you would like to leave with the group.

Amanda Wilder: Yeah, I was just going to say thank you to the group and thank you to SQF. Again, we love talking about management commitment and getting the opportunity to drop a teaser about Provision risk scoring again as a way to leverage data real time as a way to better talk to your management teams and better get that commitments. And if you have questions, our website information is on the screen. otherwise, I think both my information and your information is getting sent out with this recording and we'll also be at SQF Unites as well.

Elizabeth Tierno: Well, it's going to be a party. It is going to be a party. so I just want to make sure like Provision is here sponsoring this today. for those of you that are really small sites or maybe even really big sites, understand that this is one option. So, it's one option that we are presenting today. There are other options in order to help you with management commitment. We like to just show what some of those are, but just take that understanding that it is it is an option. and hopefully this has helped you with that management commitment and how you can better understand and hopefully have that continuous improvement for your site and your food safety program. So, thank you Amanda. I had a lot of fun talking. This was great. Hopefully we can do it again. and thank you everybody for joining. Much appreciated. hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and happy holidays.