Feed mill audits: Another set of eyes
When properly planned and conducted professionally, audits can provide useful and actionable feedback, thereby providing that extra set of eyes.
By Adam C. Fahrenholz, Wilmer Pacheco, Charles Stark
We feel obligated to start this off by noting that this is not a thinly veiled, shameless plug for our independent auditing programs (which we each offer via private consultation.) However, we also think it’s important to share the fact that we do each visit feed mills on a regular basis through either our University Extension responsibilities or as consultants, and therefore have different experiences that we’ve used to inform the ideas we’re sharing in this article. There are a number of perspectives from which we can approach the auditing topic; here, we’re choosing to focus less on the technical items that might be reviewed, and more on the process overall. We should also note we’re writing this in the context of voluntary audits, those where the facility and/or the company has requested someone to come on site. There are obviously some different considerations for regulatory, customer, and third-party certification audit events.
First, let’s start with the importance of auditing. In our opinion, the biggest advantage is simply gaining another set of eyes, hopefully informed and un-biased, to view your facility and operations. Certainly, there is value in bringing people on site who have technical expertise beyond that which might otherwise be present in your operation. This is especially important when there is a particular problem to be solved. And since overseeing animal food manufacturing typically requires a generalist mindset to keep up with processing, maintenance, safety, regulatory, human resources, and budgetary items, sometimes a specialist is needed to bring additional knowledge to bear on a particular issue. However, in many cases an auditor doesn’t bring to light a large number of concerns that management staff have never heard of before. Rather, the auditor sees (and hears and smells) things that have become overlooked in the day-to-day operational environment, or they remind those in charge of a procedure, policy, method, or rule that they were already aware of but hadn’t thought to apply to a specific area or circumstance.
For an audit to be most effective, there needs to be preparation beforehand. This shouldn’t necessarily mean planning to use the day before to go around the facility and clean, pick-up tools, close off all the safety gates, etc. This isn’t supposed to be analogous to when the in-laws are coming to stay and you clean the house so well that it looks like you, the pets, and the kids don’t even live there. That practice isn’t fooling anyone, and it’s unlikely your one-day feed mill glam up will either. The things you can take care of in that one day are things that should be done on a regular basis anyway, so if you do find yourself in this boat, go ahead and get them addressed in your trainings, job descriptions, and SOPs. Instead, preparation for an audit should include things like making sure that all the relevant parties will be available, that necessary documentation is on site and ready to be reviewed, and that a general schedule has been established. Things will go much smoother if there’s less time spent searching for records or sitting around and waiting for the person who has the answers to arrive at the facility.
On the day(s) of the audit, having a general schedule established will make sure that things get off to a good start. There is often a sit-down meeting to make introductions, establish the plan for the day, make note of any special requests or concerns, and possibly answer some preliminary questions about the facility that will provide the auditor context as they move through the process. There may also be a need to go through safety and/or biosecurity protocols depending on company policy and the specifics of the auditor themselves (e.g., their background and training, have they audited the facility before, etc.). In most cases, the next most common step is a walkthrough of the facility. From this point on, the rest of the audit can vary widely based on the reason for the audit and how the auditor prefers to work. Some of us will be content to spend the rest of the day in the facility, climbing ladders and getting up close to any piece of equipment available. Others may want to hang out in the control room for an extended period of time, watching operators and the automation system, and looking for areas to improve efficiency and/or quality. And still others will finish their walkthrough and spend the rest of the time pouring over documents, reviewing records, policies, plans, and procedures. Most will do some combination of the above, and regardless of the method they will need someone available to answer questions and possibly perform some needed action. Auditors generally won’t (and shouldn’t) push buttons, open inspection doors, or alter any part of the process without specific permission but may need someone else to do these things in order to collect some piece of information. This, along with the fact that it’s generally considered poor practice to leave visitors alone to wander through your facility, means that one or more persons will need to be designated as chaperone for the duration of the audit.
After the audit, there will be some sort of feedback mechanism. Written reports are probably the most common, but less formal audits may rely solely on a closeout meeting to suggest areas of improvement and/or solutions to particular issues. Regardless of how feedback is given, someone at the facility should be tasked with making notes, determining what may realistically be done to address items of concern, prioritizing the list of issues discussed during the audit, and then providing that list to the people who can make decisions on what to do next. In some cases, these decisions may lie with facility management, and in others (typically the more expensive ones) approval may need to be sought from somewhere higher in the organizational chart. Because the written report and/or the facility personnel who were present for the audit become the advocates for change, details and justification are very important.
Let’s finish this discussion by considering what this process looks like if you’re in the auditor’s seat. While we often think of auditors as being outside experts, employed by a customer, or part of a third-party scheme, it’s certainly feasible (and often effective) for companies to have personnel audit facilities other than their own. The first step in this is often no different than it is for an external auditor: working to make the people at the facility being audited comfortable with your presence, knowledge, and desired outcomes. These types of voluntary audits tend to go poorly when there is a lack of trust and/or openness between parties. From there, the rest is hopefully relatively straightforward. Be respectful and honest, pointing out things you see and asking questions as needed, but without placing blame or criticizing. This mentality should be kept throughout the entire process, including any closeout meetings, providing written feedback, and/or having conversations with any supervisors of the facility staff.
We all recognize that audits are stressful, and in fact that can be true on both sides of the equation. But when they are properly planned, conducted professionally, and provide useful and actionable feedback, having an extra set of eyes should be a welcomed opportunity.
