Marler agreed that permitting scores to fall short of 100% accuracy is unacceptable. “A company (with low standards) does not have a good food safety culture,” he said, “and those are the ones that wind up being sued.”
Response from Technology
The task of assessing actual worker comprehension and following up with remediation if necessary does not have to be hit and miss. It should not be surprising that technology, which permeates nearly every aspect of our lives, has been developed to provide training officers, employers, and supervisors with real-time data capable of evaluating worker learning and understanding.
Remediation has been found to be inconsistent. Sometimes remediation can resemble an intervention; because of time constraints, this too can fall short of correcting a problem.
Technology’s value in food industry training and testing became quite clear in the last decade in a report from the Texas Workforce Commission. The report contained analysis of training, evaluation, and remediation through the use of hand-held remote controls and interactive training technology applied to thousands of workers, many of whom had minimal English comprehension. The result: a 21% decrease in reportable food safety incidents, a14% decrease in worker injuries, a 24% increase in worker productivity, and a 13% increase in operating margins. The commission, noting the results, called the project “a solid success.”
Since that time, the technology, along with associated training and comprehension analysis, has become even more sophisticated. The power of technology has not gone unnoticed throughout the industry. One survey showed that approximately 20% of all food processing and distribution companies have implemented this form of training and testing.
One of its advantages, and perhaps the biggest reason for industry acceptance of this technology, is that workers do not have to be computer literate to use it. During the training, each employee receives what is, in essence, an easy-to-operate remote control device used to respond to each question. The technology is interactive and designed to keep workers engrossed in the subject matter as they learn. For non-English-speaking employees, the technology can provide multilingual information, if needed, on all critical points involved in food handling and processing.
The electronic training platform has been designed to validate worker comprehension in a practical way and to allow for immediate remediation. It accepts no scores below 100%. When employee answers are incorrect or missing, the system launches into remediation, again using remote control, until comprehension has been assured through additional testing. There is no pass/fail; there is no 80% score acceptance. Those standards just aren’t good enough.
Proof of the positive impact this approach has on comprehension, safety, and business operations comes from the companies that have used it. They now advocate insistence on 100% correct responses.
Randy Huffman, PhD, chief food safety officer for Maple Leaf Foods, Toronto, Ont., knows the value of technology-based training and comprehension. The company underwent a major product recall in 2008 after an outbreak of listeriosis—illness caused by bacterial infection—was linked to products from one of its plants.
Dr. Huffman said Maple Leaf’s subsequent decision to implement interactive electronic training and its ability to assess actual worker comprehension supports the company’s emphasis on a strong culture of food safety.
“The key for me is how the company uses that information to make those employees better at what they do,” Dr. Huffman said. “We can engage every employee and provide them with training that they need, including food safety, because (the platform) gives us the visibility of workers who do not comprehend the material and need individual support.”
Brent Winterton, quality assurance and human resources vice president of Chudleigh’s farm and bakery in Milton, Ont., reported similar results when his baking products company switched to an interactive electronic training platform. “We now use it as a corrective action tool when a food safety element is observed and address it within 24 hours,” he said. “The ability to monitor responses is invaluable to assess comprehension or review principles for greater clarity.”
ACCESS THE FULL VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE
To view this article and gain unlimited access to premium content on the FQ&S website, register for your FREE account. Build your profile and create a personalized experience today! Sign up is easy!
GET STARTED
Already have an account? LOGIN