Food Quality Magazine July 2016 - Page 30

ISSUE 03 | JULY 2016 Food Quality Magazine requirements (deviation) • Customer satisfaction evaluation for 2012 was not performed (deviation) • Measurable objectives for customer satisfaction evaluation are not defined (deviation) • Customer satisfaction questionnaires were used. In the case of average or worse score detailed information needed for improvement was not always available (deviation) • Customer requirements and expectations were identified and evaluated by customer questionnaires. The sample of the inquired customers, however, did not cover all groups, not including retailers representing about 15% if the company turnover (deviation) • There were procedures for finding out customer requirements and expectations. Part of marketing and trading activities of the company had recently been outsourced, and the procedures had not been updated (deviation) 4.1.4 Management Review For the auditor management review is an interesting part of the audit. It is a collection of information from various resources on the quality and food safety management system functioning. The responsibility is on the company management, not the quality manager alone. The quality manager may prepare materials for management review (in the case of medium-sized and large companies the materials must also be provided by other representatives responsible for the individual areas), may moderate the discussion in the context of which the management review is executed, but it is absolutely necessary that management provides a standpoint on each item of the management review agenda. The auditor often receives a report from the quality manager but the standpoint of the management is missing. And yet this is nothing complicated. The management only takes minu- 30 tes of the review in which it expresses its standpoints to the individual points on the agenda, e.g. by accepting the report results concerning the reviewed areas or proposing an improvement and defining the relevant tasks. The standard lists the minimum scope of management review: - Results of audits and internal inspections - Customer feedback (including complaints) - Process and product compliance - Preventive and corrective actions implementation status - Consequential measures following from previous management reviews - Changes that might affect quality and food safety management system - Recommended improvements Management review may also include other important items, including review of the HACCP system, especially by small companies, where the management review and HACCP team composition is similar. Usually perform management review annually. More frequent reviews are often not necessary, for unlike operative meetings the results and trends addressed concern a longer period. An interesting point of management review is comparison of the results for the review period (usually one year) and for the past couple of years. Sometimes management review date corresponds to the anniversary of the first IFS audit and is not ideal for the company due to other planning mechanisms (economic planning etc.). It is not important for the audit whether the management review is scheduled close to the audit date or not, the auditor is rather interested in the way the review is performed, its outputs and their use for continuous improvement of the company. It is therefore no problem to change the management review date for the beginning of the calendar or fiscal year when all results for the previous year are available, and schedule the audit for the end of the year when records from nearly a year old management review are available. As mentioned above, management review is usually performed annually, sometimes biannually. IFS standard requires more frequent reviews in the case of substantial changes. The last two points of part 1.4 concern the requirements for use of results of internal audits and internal inspections, their review and corresponding investment planning. Not only the results of internal audits but also results of internal inspections must be then included in management review. Problem areas should be defined (e.g. where drawbacks in personal hygiene are found, where investments are needed for work environment improvement etc.). This requires adequate reaction time, in the first case represented by changing of instructions or additional training, in the second case by ensuring corresponding funds for the required repairs. Internal inspections are often forgotten in the context of management reviews. Examples of deviations and nonconformities: • Management review has been carried out but particular standpoints of the management to the individual review items are not available (deviation) • The review report is too general, lacking assessment of the HACCP system, evaluation of internal nonconformities, internal and external raw material analyses results, internal inspections (deviation) • The results of the last management review did not include assessment of quality objective fulfilment in the area of customer satisfaction (deviation) • Results of internal inspections were not included in management review (deviation)