FEATURE PROCESS AUTOMATION NO MORE WORKAROUNDS, NO MORE FOOD SAFETY SCANDALS
safety scandal to see the damage caused by workarounds. The company pores over its data only to find a gap it didn’t know existed; a gap filled by a workaround that’s either invisible, inefficient, inaccurate or all three. To outsiders (the consumers and retailers seeking accountability), this gap can seem endemic and, unable to provide all the answers, the manufacturer can quickly face a whole host of difficulties. This hypothetical scenario only looks at the impact of a single workaround when the reality is much worse. Our latest research shows eight out of
Aptean discusses the issues of workarounds and accountability in the food industry, and explains how Manufacturing Execution Systems can help demonstrate compliance and avoid food safety scandals
M
anufacturers often find themselves in the spotlight when a food safety
scandal hits the headlines – and, in many cases, the challenge isn’t achieving compliance; it’s proving that compliance to the public. Safety is becoming an ever- more visible issue. Following a number of negative headlines (including two high- profile deaths1
), consumers are beginning
to ask about the processes involved in guaranteeing food safety. And those manufacturers that can’t clearly demonstrate compliance with safety regulations risk their very survival. When a food safety scandal erupts,
manufacturers can find themselves in trouble, whether they’re at fault or not. This is when many manufacturers face their greatest challenge. While they’re pretty sure the issue didn’t arise in their facilities, there are a handful of processes they can’t account for or a group of tasks they haven’t fully tracked. These processes might have nothing to do with the scandal in question, but it’s enough to cast doubt on a manufacturer’s entire organisation. In terms of compliance, food safety is a
binary concept: food either is safe, or it isn’t. There’s no such thing as being 95% sure, which is why manufacturers can’t take the same approach to their production processes. It is crucial that they know exactly what’s going on – across the whole business – and how it affects everything else. Although visibility is vital, it remains something that manufacturers find difficult to provide. You might wonder how manufacturers
lack the ability to demonstrate food safety compliance. Why would they take such a
18 APRIL 2019 | PROCESS & CONTROL
gamble knowing the risks? The answer is simple. Organisations lack the systems and software needed to offer visibility and manage compliance effectively. Of course, food manufacturers have
systems in place to help them run their operations, the challenge is bringing those varied systems together to give everyone a clear picture of what’s happening across the factory floor. Without this, gaps appear, making information more difficult to trust – if you can even collect it. The processes that plug these gaps are called workarounds – and they can cause some food safety headaches for manufacturers. For example, if a process sits outside
your main systems, how do you even know it’s happening – let alone what data is held on it or what impact it might have on wider operations? The answer is you don’t. The process in
question might be seemingly harmless, but in this case, you don’t know what you don’t know – and that’s a dangerous lack of visibility to demonstrate for a company charged with public safety. You only have to look at what happens to a manufacturer caught up in a food
When a food safety scandal hits, even if manufacturers are sure they are compliant, it can be difficult to prove this to customers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-45774709 2
1
https://lp.aptean.com/ rs/100-GPB- 538/images/TheStateof SoftwareWorkarounds 2018.pdf 3
ten respondents say they can identify at least one workaround in their organisation, with three-quarters confirming the use of spreadsheets and paper to carry out tasks that could be easily automated2
. In addition, two-thirds
of respondents say they use workarounds to track compliance information and 13% state that these workarounds have directly caused a compliance or security issue in their organisation3
. To remove the risk of workarounds from
their companies, manufacturers need a factory system that tracks every workflow they have and provides end-to-end visibility of their operations. With this in place, they can gain a quick overview of every tiny detail, knowing that automated processes are providing them with accurate, actionable information. One such solution is the Manufacturing
https://lp.aptean.com/ rs/100-GPB- 538images/ TheStateofSoftwareWork arounds2018.pdf
All this improved visibility means that manufacturers can not only demonstrate clear compliance in the case of a scandal, but can also spot and prevent potential food safety issues before they occur
Execution System (MES) that Aptean offers. With real-time, actionable data available on demand, it allows manufacturers to measure their overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), better optimise their operations and improve their overall plan attainment. MES offers a range of measurement, analysis and simulation capabilities that help manufacturers plan more effectively and react more quickly when problems arise. Specifically designed for the food
manufacturing industry, Aptean Factory MES provides full manufacturing visibility from batching through to packaging, and delivers real-time metrics to help track manufacturing losses and compliance. Its intuitive dashboards and controls allow users to forgo monitoring line checks for completion, and provide preventative controls that meet the standards from SQF (Safe Quality Food), BRC (British Retail Consortium) and GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative). Aptean Factory MES can be easily deployed through on-site hosting or in the cloud, allowing implementation in just four weeks.
Aptean
www.aptean.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
