Digital Transformation in Food Safety – Learnings from IAFP 2023 – Part 3

Learnings from IAFP Part 3: Making Your Environmental Monitoring Data Count

As we present our third and final blog in the series “Learnings from IAFP 2023,” we look at a session hosted by Neogen on July 17, 2023, right as the IAFP Conference began its first full day. This roundtable discussion focused on how to make environmental monitoring data count for food safety professionals. The roundtable was kicked off with a presentation by Dr. Lone Jespersen, Principal and Founder of Cultivate SA, on how food safety data — and its subsequent utilization — is impacted by the maturity of company culture surrounding that data.

Cultivate SA assessed 142 food manufacturers and developed a set of 5 stages to describe the maturity level of a company’s culture related to their data and reporting capabilities and how technology has been adopted to impact food safety success. Here are the stages that they developed:

• Stage 1 — These organizations are in a very reactive mode. Data is not being used to solve problems; instead, it is collected, collated, and locked away in drawers and folders. Stage 1 organizations have not adopted technology to integrate data and thus the data exists in paper and spreadsheet silos, making it difficult to utilize.
• Stage 2 — Typically, these organizations have a strong Food Safety and Quality department with staff who are knowledgeable and committed. However, ownership of food safety tends to not extend beyond this department. It is left to individuals within these organizations to identify the need for data and the way that information is derived from it. Their food safety data is not integrated into any other data set within the organization. Still reactive, it is usually only an incident that spurs a desire for advancement.
• Stage 3 — These organizations are looking at leading indicators and utilizing them to find root causes of food safety issues. Organizations in Stage 3 use their data to improve their systems. Commonly, more broad technology systems are in place across these organizations, including an enterprise solution that food safety data can be integrated with instead of residing in its own system.
• Stage 4 — Food safety data is built into the data systems of these organizations, and it is accessible at all levels. Organizations in Stage 4 are looking at and relying on leading indicators that are continuously updated. Automation is a much more important factor that these organizations rely on as they look for ways to improve consistency and limit variability.
• Stage 5 — Although none of the 142 organizations measured fit into this category, Dr. Jespersen described Stage 5 organizations as ones where front-line team members are very focused on data as part of their daily processes. Information is available for these front-line workers, and it is presented in a way that is relevant to them and focused on areas critical to their responsibilities. In Stage 5 organizations, front-line workers can make decisions based on the data that is available to them, and they don’t have to wait for Food Safety and Quality leaders to highlight findings before taking action to address issues.

To make testing data count, consideration must be given to the differing roles and functions of various departments within the organization. Every function provides a different perspective that can be invaluable to data-driven decision-making, but how the data is presented to each department and role matters. Ensure that the data is relevant and understand any biases that may impact how the data is viewed and interpreted throughout the organization.

The session moved forward to discuss the importance not only of collecting testing data, but also choosing what we do with it. The session moderator asked, “How are decisions being made within the organization and what information is available to those in decision-making positions?” This was followed by, “Is the information available to them presented in a manner that is relevant to their role?”

Additional discussion centered on this question: “How does your organization view food safety data? Is it available, reliable, and trusted?”

The session participants agreed that it is the culture of an organization that dictates the role that data can have, and, like personal fitness, culture must be worked on routinely to continue to push toward a desired state. Incorporating environmental testing performance into the success measures for the entire organization is one way to start a cultural shift in how food safety data is utilized and viewed.

Dr. Jespersen highlighted that, instead of incentivizing front-line workers solely through parameters like equipment up-time or budget, culturally mature organizations reward their teams when finding and uncovering potential issues. “It is a good day when we find something, not when we don’t find something,” Dr. Jespersen explained. This mentality must become part of the culture of an organization for it to progress in its data maturity journey.

The session participants agreed that it is the culture of an organization that dictates the role that data can have, and, like personal fitness, culture must be worked on routinely to continue to push toward a desired state. Incorporating environmental testing performance into the success measures for the entire organization is one way to start a cultural shift in how food safety data is utilized and viewed.

To learn more about making data visible across the organization and automating workflows, schedule a demo of Neogen Analytics today to see how a digital, cloud-based food safety data platform can enhance company culture and data-driven decision-making.