EDGARTOWN, MA, March 13, 2019 – Innovative Publishing Co., the publisher of Food Safety Tech and organizer of the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo, has announced a partnership with the Chicagoland Food & Beverage Network (CFBN).
“Our new relationship with the Chicagoland Food & Beverage Network brings an enhanced level of industry presence to the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo,” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., Inc. and director of the Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo. “I am thrilled to welcome the members of CFBN to the Food Safety Consortium this year.”
As a partner organization, members of CBFN will receive a discount off registration and training courses being offered at the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo in October. CBFN members also have access to a discounted “One Day Pass” for admission to the first day of the Consortium (October 1), which includes the keynote presentation by FDA Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response Frank Yiannas.
“We are so pleased to welcome Innovative Publishing Company as a partner,” said Alan Reed, executive director of Chicagoland Food & Beverage Network. “Food Safety Tech and the Food Safety Conference and Expo provide incredible value to our members. We are thrilled to be connecting the leaders of the food & beverage industry in Chicagoland with this kind of industry knowledge and expertise. We are looking forward to a long and mutually beneficial partnership.”
About Food Safety Tech
Food Safety Tech publishes news, technology, trends, regulations, and expert opinions on food safety, food quality, food business and food sustainability. We also offer educational, career advancement and networking opportunities to the global food industry. This information exchange is facilitated through ePublishing, digital and live events.
About the Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo
The Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo is a premier educational and networking event for food safety solutions. Attracting the most influential minds in food safety, the Consortium enables attendees to engage conversations that are critical for advancing careers and organizations alike. Visit with exhibitors to learn about cutting edge solutions, explore diverse educational tracks for learning valuable industry trends, and network with industry executives to find solutions to improve quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness in an ever-changing, global food safety market. This year’s event takes place October 1–3 in Schaumburg, IL.
About Chicagoland Food & Beverage Network
The Chicagoland Food & Beverage Network (CFBN) launched in 2017 to bring industry players together, to provide a forum for collaboration and support, and to better connect the 4,500 companies in the industry across Chicagoland to drive innovation and growth in the region.
Records involving fraud can be found in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne
While “ketchup” made from carrot pulp does not exactly sound inedible (however, mislabeling in conjunction with food allergies comes to mind), other discoveries made during a raid in a ketchup factory in Pakistan brought food safety and hygiene violations to light. The factory was temporarily shut down after several violations and additional food adulterants, including acetic acid and Monosodium Glutamate, were discovered.
Resource
Tomato ketchup made from carrot pulp being sold in Karachi
Arif, K. (March 07, 2019). Tomato ketchup made from carrot pulp being sold in Karachi. Accessed March 7, 2019. Retrieved from https://arynews.tv/en/ketchup-carrot-pulp-karachi/
Running an unvalidated program or product is like betting your life’s savings on a horse because you overheard a “surefire tip” outside the racetrack, or driving around without any mirrors.
To put it less dramatically: Skipping validation is asking for problems. But what does validation mean, how much is necessary, and what’s the best way to include it in your plans?
In order to start understanding validation, we must first break it down into two main categories: Product validation and process validation. From there, it’s important to look at whether something has been broadly validated for general use, and whether it has been narrowly validated for use in your specific situation. That last question is where people often struggle: How can we ensure this product or process is validated for use in the way that we plan to use it?
Validating an on-site allergen test kit requires a few different layers of research and testing. Taking the time to carefully design and vet a validation process may seem tedious, and it may require some additional up-front costs—but in the long run, it’s the only way to ensure you are spending your money on a test kit that works. And if you’re using an allergen test kit that doesn’t actually detect allergens in your facility—best-case scenario, you’re wasting money and time. Worst-case scenario, you’re headed straight for a recall and you won’t see it coming until your customers get sick.
If you are buying a test to determine the absence or presence of allergens in your facility (specific or general), you’ll likely ask the kit manufacturer if the test kit has been validated. This validation can come in many forms, most commonly:
Third party validation (eg., AOAC)
Internally produced validation documents or whitepapers
Published studies
A product with more validation (third-party certifications, studies, whitepapers) isn’t necessarily better than a product with less. It may have simply been on the market longer or be produced by a company that allocates its funding differently. However, validation documents can be very comforting when reviewing a product, as they provide a starting point for your own research. When you are reviewing validation data, ask yourself a few questions:
Does this data cover products like mine?
Are the ingredients similar (raw meat, ice cream, spices, etc.)?
Are the preparation processes similar (heat, fermentation, etc.)?
Does this data cover an environment like mine?
Will the tests be run the same way in my facility as in the data?
Is the contamination being introduced in a way and amount that feels realistic to the risk factors I know about in my facility?
Does the data mention any complicating factors (and do I need to care about them)?
Are there ingredients known to cross-react or cause false negatives?
Are there processes known to change the LOD or cause false negatives?
If I am aware of limitations with other similar test kits, are those limitations addressed in the data for this test kit as well?
To give an example, let’s imagine you make premium ice cream and are reviewing allergen test kits that look for peanuts and almonds in product, in rinsewater and on surfaces. You’ll want to ask questions like:
How does the kit perform in a high-fat environment?
Does the validation data cover product, rinsewater and surfaces?
Are there ingredients in our facility that are called out as cross-reactive (or otherwise troublesome)?
Do our ingredients get exposed to temperatures, pH levels, or other processes that impact the LOD?
You might learn, for example, that one of the matrices tested in validation was ice cream. If so: Wonderful! That’s a vote of confidence and a great starting point. Or maybe you learn that the kit in question isn’t recommended for matrices that include an ingredient in your formulation. If so: That’s equally wonderful! Now you know you need a different solution. Or maybe the instructions on your current peanut test kit indicate that heavily roasted peanuts have a higher detection limit than raw peanuts, but this new test kit only has data for raw peanuts. If so: OK! You have more research to do, and that’s fine too.
In short: Pre-existing product validation data is a helpful starting point for determining whether or not an allergen test kit MIGHT work well in your facility—but it doesn’t eliminate the need for you to run your own internal validation study.
Once you’ve identified an allergen test kit that you want to use in your facility, you’ll want to prove that it can work to identify contamination in your specific environment. This is where a more narrowly tailored validation comes into play. Your test kit provider may have resources available to help you design an internal validation. Don’t be afraid to ask for help! A reputable test kit provider should care not just about making the sale, but also about making your food safer.
Before you even order a new test kit, you should have a good idea of how your validation process is going to work. It’s important to have both the study design and study outcome on file. Here are some possible additions for your internal validation study:
Validating that an allergen test kit can reliably prove your surfaces are clean of said allergen:
Test the surface prior to cleaning, after the allergen in question has been run. Do you see positive results? If not, then a negative result after cleaning is essentially meaningless.
Test the surface after cleaning. Do you see negative results? If not, it could mean a problem with your cleaning process—or a strange interference. Both require further research.
If your products encounter multiple surfaces (eg., stainless steel and also ceramic), test them all with before and after testing.
Validating that an allergen test kit can reliably prove your rinsewater is free of said allergen:
Test water from the beginning of the cleaning cycle as well as the end. Do you see a change in results, from positive to negative?
If you don’t ever see the allergen present in your rinsewater, you may want to “spike” a sample by adding a small amount of the product that contains the allergen into the rinsewater you’ve collected. Could it be that something in your cleaning protocol or some aspect of your matrix is affecting the detection limit?
Validating that an allergen test kit can reliably prove your ingredients or finished products are free of said allergen:
Test a product that you know contains the allergen but is otherwise similar. Keep in mind that some allergen test kits can be overloaded and can show false negatives if too much allergen is present in the sample—if you aren’t sure whether the test kit you are trialing has this limitation, ask your supplier. Do you see a positive?
Have you encountered batches of your product with accidental cross-contamination from the allergen in question? If so, and you have some of that batch archived, run a test on it. Would this kit have identified the problem?
Do you have a batch or lot of product that has been analyzed by a third-party lab? If so, do your results in-house match the lab’s results?
Run—or ask a lab to run—a spiked recovery. This is especially important if there is no pre-existing data on how the test kit works against your specific matrices.
Some test kit manufacturers can provide this service for you—you would simply need to send them the product, and they can add various amounts of allergen into the product and confirm that the test kit shows positive results.
Some kit manufacturers or other suppliers can send you standards that have known quantities of allergen in them. You can mix these into your product and run tests, and confirm that you get positive results when expected.
You may want to simply do this on your own, by adding small quantities of the allergen into the sample and running tests. However, take care to be especially careful with your documentation in case questions arise down the line.
No matter how the spiked recovery is being run, consider these two factors:
Be sure you’re including what could be a realistic amount of contamination—if you’re concerned about catching 25ppm of allergen, loading up your sample with 2000ppm won’t necessarily help you prove anything.
The matrix of your allergen-containing foods is just as important as the matrix of your allergen-free foods. If your allergen has been fermented, roasted, pressurized, etc. —your spike needs to be processed in the same way. If you aren’t sure how to think about your matrices, this previous Allergen Alley postis a good starting place.
Once you’ve proven that the test kit in question can in fact show positive results when traces of allergen are present, you can confidently and comfortably incorporate it into your larger allergen control plan. If your matrices change, you’ll want to re-validate whatever’s new.
While it can be tempting to rely on a kit’s general validation, taking the extra step to validate your unique matrices is an essential part of a truly robust food safety plan. If you’re stumped for how to begin, contact your kit provider—after all, you share the same goals: Safe, allergen-free food for consumers who rely on you to keep themselves and their families healthy and well fed.
Ghee, the glorious clarified butter leading a creamy buttery flavor to dishes and widely used in Asian cooking, is now also target for food fraud. Real ghee is based on pure butterfat extracted usually from cow’s milk, without impurities or additives. In Surajpole, India, an adulterated ghee operation was seized that used refined soybean oil and added butter flavor, which may have created a health hazard.
The Washington Post is reporting that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. is resigning. Gottlieb had only been at this post since May 2017 but has been pushing a number of initiatives across the industries in which the FDA regulates. Within the food industry, he has been supportive of taking additional policy steps to improve food safety oversight, and last year he revealed concern over some food recall practices.
“All of us at HHS are proud of the remarkable work Commissioner Gottlieb has done at the FDA,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in a statement. “He has been an exemplary public health leader, aggressive advocate for American patients, and passionate promoter of innovation. …The public health of our country is better off for the work Scott and the entire FDA team have done over the last two years.”
According to the Post article, Gottlieb wants to spend more time with his family, as he has been commuting between Washington and his home in Connecticut on a weekly basis. The article also reports that President Trump did not want Gottlieb to leave his post.
If there’s anything to take away from our three-part series on Architecting the Perfect Food Safety Team, it’s to be thoughtful and cognizant of what behavior and end results you’re looking for from your team.
When you enter the ASSESS phase, it’s important to arm yourself with questions that elicit responses that give you an indication of whether the person CAN perform well and who will thrive in your company’s culture.
Additionally, you want that behavior and end result to be synced and aligned against the broader organization’s mission.
Bob Pudlock will be moderating the panel discussion, “Food Safety Leadership: Earning Respect”, at the 2019 Food Safety Consortium | October 1–3 | Schaumburg, ILAs a director or VP, that’s an important distinction. A company that’s in M&A mode is much different than one that’s under pressure from a major customer to get in compliance with their supplier guidelines. The ideal candidate for one is not necessarily the best fit for the other.
Let’s say you’re a director or VP at a company who has just acquired a smaller company certified under a different GFSI scheme. For the next year to two, other integration efforts have been prioritized over folding the acquired company’s scheme into the parent company. For the foreseeable future, that means there will be a disconnect in some protocols, reporting and expectations between the parent and acquired company.
In this scenario, we brainstorm with our client and bring forward themes or dynamics that will be present.
Transition -> Change -> Ambiguity
Gray area -> Open loops not immediately resolved -> Discomfort
Two themes that come out of this brainstorm are “dealing with ambiguity” and managing discomfort associated with a GFSI certification or being downgraded as a priority while the company pushes other objectives forward.
For these themes, now we look to construct questions that elicit how one has behaved in past. We can also construct a hypothetical scenario to see how an individual would strategize and act moving forward.
As you look at potential hires into the organization at this stage, you’re going to be presented with a range of candidates that exhibit varying degrees of emotional flexibility.
Emotional flexibility is the ability to identify, assess and adjust responses to events, circumstances or triggers as they arise.
If a candidate in this scenario is rigid or exhibits a black and white “compliance or bust” mentality, that’s going to be a source of constant friction for the individual and those with whom they interact. During the integration efforts, that person is going to have a hard time calibrating their feeling of incompleteness or disconnect from the broader organization.
A candidate that exhibits a low degree of emotional flexibility will have a harder time “rolling with the punches” and will make those around them uncomfortable—they’ll push and work towards a set of expectations that is not consistent with the broader organization’s timeline. Now there is certainly an opportunity to manage that individual’s expectations, but the less we have to do that as leaders, the better—hence, the importance of accurately assessing and pegging the attributes early and often in the interview process.
So, how do we do that?
We advocate for what we call “layered” interview questions. In simple terms, it’s asking a question a number of different ways and in different contexts to elicit responses that offer an accurate prediction of how someone will react in the future.
The first question might be (one layer): How do you deal with ambiguity?
Another question would be: How have you dealt with a situation in the past where your boss was not on site but your plant manager took on day-to-day supervising and reporting? The hiring team can shade in specifics to make the scenario more realistic. The core of the question is to create an image of an ambiguous environment.
And yet another question would be (this is hypothetical): Let’s say you’re alone and have been put on the spot to solve this food safety problem. Your boss is not available for the next two days and you believe that there might be a disconnect between how the plant manager might solve the problem and how your boss would solve it. What would you do?
Asking a question three different ways will ferret out canned, stale answers. Additionally it will test a candidate’s ability to “connect the dots” between past experience and current/future challenges in the workplace. Asking these questions and observing the responses is a significant improvement over what’s typically done.
Taking it a step further will give you an even more accurate prediction of whether a candidate will thrive or perish in this environment. To test this, drill down further on the candidate’s responses to each layered question to the point where you determine what toll, if any, these situations took on them; in other words, how does ambiguity and discomfort in the workplace make them “feel”? Just because someone has experience in ambiguous climates or has managed “transitional” situations like a company’s M&A phase doesn’t mean they thrive on it. For some people, it’s a constant stressor, and if they’re not emotionally resilient, at some point they will break or wear down.
Drilling down to this level will give you a more accurate feel to how resilient and tolerant one will be in your company’s current and future culture. Additionally, you’ll determine whether or not their level of emotional flexibility will allow them to thrive or cause a constant stressor that will ultimately wear them down.
This is just one example of how to use a layered question. There may be three to four key themes that you want to dig into for each role in your organization. Pairing the layered questions (same question, multiple contexts) with eliciting feeling-based responses will give you an even more accurate predictor of who will thrive on your team. It will also isolate and disqualify individuals who have canned responses to interview questions and/or who can’t think on their feet, or struggle to tie past experiences to current state challenges.
This might “feel” like a lot of effort, but it’s an immense time and energy saver when you balance it against the aggravation, time and energy-suck you experience with a poor or mediocre hire.
Consumers and industry alike want more transparency in the supply chain. In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Julie McGill, director of implementation and strategic accounts at FoodLogiQ explains how companies can prepare to meet the increased demands and how technology can help.
Food Safety Tech: In light of the recent outbreaks and recalls, there an increased focus on traceability. What should companies do to get ready?
With the increased focus on traceability, companies should start assessing their internal capabilities, says Julie McGill of FoodLogiQ.
Julie McGill: There is so much that companies can do today to prepare, and they can start by assessing their current capabilities. What problems are you trying to solve? Have you identified all of your products and locations with GS1 identifiers? Are you using GS1 identifiers in your systems?
Do you have a data quality program in place? Are you able to mark all of your cases with a GS1-128 barcodes? Can you scan barcodes at receiving? At delivery? Are you sending EDI messages to your trading partners?
Those with successful programs will tell you this is a marathon, not a sprint. Securing executive support, aligning internal teams and setting expectations with trading partners is key.
Having the ability to act swiftly and with precision and accuracy is a differentiator during a recall. Trading partners who have made the investment are able to understand where these affected items are in their supply chains in seconds. These programs require a solid program, disciplined approach to implementation, and ongoing monitoring and management of the data. Companies that have committed to implementing these standards are gaining a competitive advantage today, as they are ready to meet the mandates and requirements set by their trading partners.
McGill: Yes, it is possible to trace products back to the source. Growing consumer demands and regulatory requirements, such as FSMA and SIMP, have led to the need for more detailed information about food and its origins. To achieve this, it’s imperative that companies standardize business practices, product identification and item data to enable interoperability across solutions and systems.
There has been tremendous work done by industry stakeholders to address traceability. They’ve mapped their entire supply chains, identified the key data elements and critical tracking events to be captured to enable full chain traceability. GS1 US hosts initiatives in foodservice and retail grocery, plus there are a number of industry-run initiatives, including the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI), Supply Chain Optimization (SCO2), and Global Dialogue for Seafood Traceability. Food industry partners agree that full chain traceability will be achieved through education, industry input, and the use of standards.
The Track + Trace platform allows trading partners to capture and share the movement of products across the supply chain. When there’s the need to run an investigation, data is stitched together to provide visualization so trading partners can effectively and efficiently take action. Screenshot courtesy of FoodLogiQ
FST: When talking about traceability, blockchain is part of many conversations today. How does it differ from existing solutions?
McGill: Blockchain is an emerging technology that offers a way for companies to transact with each other and share information in a secure manner. What makes blockchain unique is that it is a shared, immutable ledger that records all the transactions in chronological order that cannot be altered or deleted. While this approach holds promise on raising transparency in the food industry, there is much yet to be tested and validated on its real-world application within the food chain.
The most common use case for blockchain in the food industry has been traceability. As blockchain technology, solutions and use cases are evolving, industry partners have come together to discuss it’s capabilities and use. We host a Blockchain Consortium, bringing our members together to explore blockchain. Industry groups are coming together as well, such as GS1 US, who is hosting a cross-industry discussion group to help companies better understand the transformative qualities of blockchain, including the use of GS1 Standards.
Blockchain has also made clear the need for companies to automate their record keeping and traceability systems and to eliminate the manual, paper-based processes that often slow down the resolution of a food safety outbreak or issue.
Blockchain is not a “light switch” solution. What’s widely misunderstood is that in order to achieve full chain traceability, all partners across the supply chain will need to implement processes to capture and share this critical tracking event data.
FST: Additional comments are welcome.
McGill: Foodservice companies share common drivers and common goals which improve the reliability of product information, lower costs and reduce risk. There are numerous benefits that can be realized once you have access to accurate and complete traceability data, including:
EDGARTOWN, MA, Feb. 27, 2019 – Innovative Publishing Co., Inc., publisher of Food Safety Tech, has entered into a reseller agreement with ImEpik, an online training company that serves food manufacturers globally. Food Safety Tech will serve as a reseller of ImEpik’s PCQI online training course as per training that is required under FSMA.
“I’m pleased to announce our partnership with ImEpik, as it allows us to expand our efforts in giving the industry access to resources that are critical to food safety education and training,” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., Inc. and director of the Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo.
“Our ten-module online training program ensures that Preventive Control Qualified Individuals are proficient in the standards that are required under FSMA,” said Laura Lombard, CEO of ImEpik. “Providing compliance training in an online capacity also saves our ‘students’ time and money, as they can take the course any time and anywhere, without having to travel away from their job.”
As part of the partnership, the training will be offered at a reduced rate for professionals who also register to attend the Food Safety Consortium Conference & Expo, an annual industry event held October 1–3 in Schaumburg, IL. Full conference registration that includes PCQI training starts at $845 with the early bird discount. After September 13, the cost of the full conference registration with PCQI training is $995.
About Food Safety Tech
Food Safety Tech publishes news, technology, trends, regulations, and expert opinions on food safety, food quality, food business and food sustainability. We also offer educational, career advancement and networking opportunities to the global food industry. This information exchange is facilitated through ePublishing, digital and live events.
About the Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo
The Food Safety Consortium Conference and Expo is a premier educational and networking event for food safety solutions. Attracting the most influential minds in food safety, the Consortium enables attendees to engage conversations that are critical for advancing careers and organizations alike. Visit with exhibitors to learn about cutting edge solutions, explore diverse educational tracks for learning valuable industry trends, and network with industry executives to find solutions to improve quality, efficiency and cost effectiveness in an ever-changing, global food safety market. This year’s event takes place October 1–3 in Schaumburg, IL.
About IMEPIK
IMEPIK is a market-driven, and research-based online training company, facilitates food safety training for food manufacturers around the world. With an emphasis on accessible and innovative training, ImEpik offers a unique advantage in providing effective training for you, your employees, your association members, or your clients to ensure food safety compliance and best practices. We offer Preventive Controls courses that include the “standardized curriculum” recognized by the FDA.
Records involving wine fraud can be found in the Food Fraud Database. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne
Three arrests were made and at least 11,000 bottles of red wine labeled high-quality IGT Toscana wines have been seized in Italy for containing lower quality wines and fraudulent labeling, misrepresenting the wine’s geographic origin. The investigation was taken to the Europol level in conjunction with German and Italian law enforcement authorities.
The TWI: 2018 Training Management System Standard addresses various aspects of an organization’s Management System and identifies, explains and standardizes some of the best-known practices for ensuring that supervisor-to-operator relationships are strong and true. It also confirms that all training is performed in the most cost efficient, effective and safe manner possible. The standard provides guidance and tools for companies and organizations that want to ensure their products and services consistently meet customer’s requirements, while the quality remains top-notch.
TWI: 2018 sets out the criteria for an organization to integrate TWI practices into their management system and, when implemented properly, is the standard that can be certified (this is not a requirement). It can be used by any organization, large or small, regardless of its field of activity. It is equally as effective in service companies, as manufacturing or healthcare.
Read Part I: How training within industry empowers employees & facilitates continuous improvementThis standard is based on several quality management principles including a strong customer focus, motivation and implication of top management and process approach and continual improvement. Using TWI: 2018 helps ensure that customers consistently get good quality products and services, which in turn, brings many business benefits, and significant return on investment.
The adoption of TWI and the associated training modules into an organization’s management system must be a conscience decision and embraced as a business management strategy by the senior management team. TWI helps the organization see meaningful overall performance improvements and ensures the sustainability of the initiative.
Traditionally, the potential benefits of implementing TWI into their management system based on this international standard, are measured using the following Key Performance Indicators, (KPI):
Increased Productivity
Reduced Training time
Reduced Labor-hours
Reduced Scrap
Reduced Grievances
The TWI: 2018 Training Management System International Standard can be used by internal and external parties. The standard’s requirements are intended to be complimentary to the organization’s current management system for product and service realization.
This standard employs the process approach, which incorporates the Plan-Do-Check-Act, (PDCA) cycle, as well as, risk-based thinking. This Process Approach enables an organization to plan its processes and their interactions.
The PDCA cycle enables an organization to ensure that its processes are adequately resourced and managed, and that the opportunities for improvement are determined and acted upon.
Risk-based thinking enables an organization to determine the factors that could cause its processes and management system to deviate from the planned results. It also allows a company to put preventive controls in place to minimize negative effects and to make maximize opportunities as they arise.
As it all comes down to working with and through people, it is imperative that the development of an organization’s personnel is adequately addressed. This includes, but is not limited to:
Identifying and hiring the right people
Appropriate and effective on-boarding of new employees
New, as well as, refresher training
Adequate Succession Planning
Supervisor skills and knowledge training
Effective problem solving
On-going and effective safety training for a safe workplace
TWI training modules utilize a 4-Step Process to make the training consistent, standardized and easy to understand and comprehend. This process is time proven and meant to be rather rigid by design. The method looks much easier than it is to do, and requires, like any other skill, practice to perfect it. This standard DOES NOT include the actual methodology, but rather, documents the required elements of implementing TWI into business systems to ensure the integration of TWI into the organization’s culture and to achieve the highest return on investment. Appropriate TWI methods are identified throughout this standard.
TWI Training Management System Principles
This international standard is based on the quality management system principles described in the ISO 9001:2015 International System. It= is not intended to replace or supersede the ISO standard, but rather, to integrate with your current management system standard or GFSI-approved CPO. The focus is on enhancement by addressing the essential supervisor skills needed to “manage” the people aspect of doing business. By patterning it after the format of ISO, it is the intention of the TWI-Institute to make the TWI principles and training easier to integrate into an organization’s current management system.
The descriptions include a statement of each principle, a rationale of why the principle is important for the organization, some examples of benefits associated with the principles, and examples of typical actions to improve the organization’s performance when applying the principles.
The TWI Principles are based on The Five Needs Model for Good Supervisors:
Knowledge of the work
This refers to the kind of information that makes one business different from another (i.e.,materials, products, services, processes, equipment, operations, people, etc.)
Knowledge of Responsibilities
This refers to the organization’s situation regarding policies, regulations, rules, agreements, schedules, organizational structure, etc.
Skill in Instructing
This will assist supervisors in developing a well-trained workforce.
Skill in Improving Methods
This deals with utilizing materials, machines and manpower more effectively by having supervisors study each operation in order to eliminate, combine, rearrange, and simplify details of the job.
Skill in Leading
This helps the supervisor to improve his or her ability to work with people.
NOTE: Throughout this international standard, “Supervisor” is defined as anyone in charge of, or who directs the work of others. Therefore, “Supervisors can be identified by many titles: Supervisor, Manager, Foreman, Lead, Cell Leader, Director, VP, President, etc. “
The Process Approach
The TWI: 2018 – Training Management System International Standard promotes the adoption of a process approach when developing, implementing and improving the effectiveness of the management system and the supervision of people, to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements and expectations.
Understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its intended results. This approach enables the organization to control the interrelationships and interdependencies among the processes of the system, so that the overall performance of the organization can be enhanced. Maintaining good employee relations, providing effective and efficient training, and making the daily habit of reviewing processes in order to continually improve them, must be integral to the organization’s culture and a primary strategic initiative.
The process approach involves the systematic definition and management of processes, and their interactions, to achieve the intended results in accordance with the organization’s policy statement and strategic direction. Management of the processes and the complete system can be achieved using the PDCA cycle (See Figure 1), with an overall focus on risk-based thinking aimed at taking advantage of opportunities and preventing undesirable results.
The application of the process approach in a training management system enables:
An understanding and consistency in meeting requirements of necessary training
The consideration of the processes of training, in terms of added value
The achievement of an effective training process performance
Improvement of training processes based on evaluation of data and information, (i.e., KPI’s).
Figure 1. The PDCA cycle can be applied to all processes, including managing people, and to the overall management system.
The PDCA cycle can be summarized as follows:
PLAN: Establish the objectives of the system and its processes, and the resources needed to deliver results in accordance with customers’ requirements, (in this case, the employees of the organization), and the organization’s policies, and identify and address risks and opportunities.
DO: Implement what was planned.
CHECK: Monitor and (where applicable) measure processes and the resulting products and services against policies, objectives, requirements and planned activities, and report the results.
ACT. Act to improve performance, as necessary to correct deviations, or to continually improve the processes. (Note: See Appendix A for an example of an implementation plan using a PDCA cycle.)
Risk-Based Thinking
Risk-based thinking is essential for achieving an effective management system and the proper training and development of the people. By using Risk-based thinking, management can carry out preventive actions to eliminate the potential negative effects of an unforseen occurrence (i.e., untrained personnel trying to complete a task, action or process step).
To conform with TWI: 2018, an organization needs to plan, implement and measure actions in order to address risks and opportunities associated with the training and development of the people. Addressing both risks and opportunities establishes a basis for increasing the effectiveness of the management system, including training and developing people, achieving improved results and preventing negative effects.
Relationship with Other Management System Standards
The TWI: 2018 – Training Management System International Standard is intended to allow seamless integration into an organization’s existing management system. To meet that end, this international standard was patterned after the ISO 9001:2015 International Standard since it is universally accepted, as setting the bar for management systems. Note: While the international standard is patterned after the ISO 9001:2015 International Standard, it is not dependant on compliance to that, or any other, management system format.
TWI: 2018 may, however, be implelented as a stand-alone training management system and does not include requirements specific to other management systems, such as those for environment, food safety, financial, or occupational health and safety management.
Summary
Virtually every process or problem has a human element as part of the equation. Unfortunately, we continually find that some organizations fail to connect the logic of TWI and its underlying principles to the actual daily realities of running the operation. If you don’t continually manage and practice the process, then it won’t sustain itself in the long run. The key to sustaining programs is to get off on the right foot with a solid plan. If you create a plan emphasizing the activities discussed above, along with problem solving and strong daily operational management, we know you’ll have greater success and increase your odds of sustaining an effective and efficient training program that will yield a significant ROI.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
