Archive for the ‘General’ category

A Case for “Case-Level Serialization”

April 15th, 2010

Can you have traceability without serialization?   I’d say it depends on what granularity you want. For instance, you can’t have case-level traceability without case-level serialization – the application of a unique serial number on each case.

Traceability initiatives want GTIN + Lot Number, but no serial numbers

There are several current industry initiatives for traceability in North America which are, in part, including GS1 bar code requirements.  These recommend incorporating two main components into the bar code: GTIN and the Lot Number.  In at least one initiative, a date code is also required.  Most plans exclude or even discourage the use of serial numbers at the case level.

People involved in setting the standards and consulting with the industries involved have told me that while serialization at the case level would be desirable and will likely be adopted in the future, it’s probably too big a step at this stage.  That’s unfortunate, I think.

I agree that implementing GTINs and Lot Number bar codes is a good step forward, and it’s better than doing nothing.  This will give a level of traceability – to the lot.  But I believe that there are significant benefits to going one step further – to the case.

GS1 case serialization has been around for awhile

Case-level serialization with GS1 bar codes is by no means a new thing.  Meat and poultry companies in Canada were required to supply Canada’s largest grocery retailer with GS1-128 (formerly UCC/EAN-128) bar codes for random (catch) weight cases already back in 1993. Most of these companies implemented serial numbers in the bar codes.  Each case iss individually processed and has a database record applied to it.

Below are scanned samples of serialized case bar code labels from years ago incorporating the following GS1 Applicator Identifiers (AIs):

(01) GTIN

(13) Pack Date  – could instead use (11) Production Date, (15) Best Before Date, or (17) Receive By Date

(3202) Weight in kg to 2 decimal places – could instead use (31xx), where 31 is weight in lbs to xx decimal pts

(21) Serial number – up to 12 digits to stay within the maximum total 48 digits for the entire bar code

With 17 years of experience with case-level serialization using GS1 bar codes, including sitting on the bar code sub-committee for GS1 Canada (formerly ECCC) back in the mid-1990s, I’d like to share a few points about why I believe case-level serialization is a good idea.

Case-level serialization will

  • Help isolate supply chain issues from processing, or production issues.

    • - For instance, a storage-related problem (such as inadequate cooling) would affect only products in that location, not an entire lot.  With just the GTIN and lot number, there would be no way after the fact to determine which affected cases had been in that location.  Using serialized cases with a warehouse management system that supports them will offer you this capability.

  • Give more granular traceability than by the lot:
    - With case serial numbers, you can track every movement, location, and each transformation or co-mingling event performed – for complete, detailed traceability.
  • Enable trace-back to production details: line, time, etc.
    - You will know with precision which items were produced from which production source, and at what time.  You will be able to contain problems to a more precise level.
  • Offer increased flexibility in pallet handling

    • - You will be able to accurately track multiple SKUs and/or lots on a pallet.

    - By scanning just the serialized pallet label,  you will track all the individual cases as well.

  • Support 100% verification of items shipped

    • - You will be able to associate specific cases with customer shipments – i.e. know exactly which cartons were shipped on which order.

    - Due to each and every carton being accounted for, you will be able to identify lost product accurately due to issues such as loss or theft.

  • Prevent duplicate scanning and avoid quantity errors. Without serial numbers at the case level, a person will
    1. not know if a bar code has been scanned already and may accidentally scan the same case twice, causing a quantity error.  With serial numbers, the scanning system will detect that the case was already scanned and either ignore the duplicate scan, or alert the person that the case data was already captured.
    2. either be prompted to type in the quantity of cases of that SKU (leading to potential quantity errors), or be tempted to scan the same bar code several times to match the quantity that is believed to be on the pallet (also a source of errors).  With serial numbered cases you will avoid these problems by forcing the operator to scan each case on a mixed SKU pallet, ensuring better accuracy.
  • Enable detailed aged inventory by location and better stock rotation

    • - You will be able to see in the warehouse management system the specific cases that are approaching expiration, showing the specific locations of those products for easy retrieval.

    - Product age can be more precise than by the lot – for example, by time – so that even within the lot, you will be able to identify older products.  This is helpful particularly with the produce industry due to the perishable nature of its products.

Use the printing step to your advantage

You can take advantage of the label printing step by performing the following functions:

  • Monitor production with a printing system that also offers real-time visibility of what’s printed
  • Tie in your orders and production scheduling with the printing solution
  • Use the printing process to record and build into finished goods inventory
  • Build pallets off the printing process or production line automatically without the need to scan each case, since that data is already captured.

The downsides of case-level serialization are minimal

From a cost perspective, since all cases will be labeled, there does not need to be additional cost to add serialization of cases other than perhaps due to a slightly larger label.

Obviously there needs to be printing and scanning/inventory systems that support case serialization.  But such systems already exist, although they are not altogether common.  Less than 5% of Warehouse Management Systems (WMS), for example, can handle serialized cases.

Data storage is cheap

There’s no need to worry about the amount of data storage required.  And with the extra data comes a wealth of information that can really help a company manage its business better and achieve complete, detailed traceability. Without that data, however, traceability will be limited.

While there are relatively few software solutions for product tracking that can support serialized case tracking, industries can look to meat and poultry solution providers who have successfully implemented solutions with case-level serialization for a number of years.

The good news is that there are also initiatives that are pursuing serialization

Serialization will happen.  There is a lot of development in this area.  For example, the SGTIN (serialized Global Trade Identification Number) will support item level serialization.  RFID will further drive serialization.  It’s my prediction that the industries not currently pursuing the precision of serial numbers at the case level will eventually get on board with it.  It’s just a matter of time.  The forward-thinking companies will adopt it sooner when they understand the benefits to their own organization.

Comments Off »

Posted in General, Industry Trends, Solutions

Tags:

Internal Traceability is Hard to Achieve

March 3rd, 2010

One-up and one-down.  You need to know where your products come from and where they go.  That’s the law in the U.S. with the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 and in the E.U. with the Common Food Law put into effect in 2005.

Let’s suppose you comply with that.  Hopefully you do.  This means that if an inspector requested that you show the source of an ingredient or raw material that went into a product, you could do that.  But at what level of certainty?  Would you have to widen a potential recall because you couldn’t limit the source to a particular batch or time period?

That’s why recalls are often so widespread and sometimes are expanded beyond the initial scope.

What you need is a method to positively link the “one-down” with the “one-up” and vice-versa.   Many people expect that they have this capability.

One Up and One Down is not enough

If you’re called on by an inspector to produce records of shipments or received items do you really want to spend a lot of time leafing through papers and file drawers trying to sort this type of thing out?

It seems obvious to many of us in the business of integrated systems and data collection and reporting solutions that a good integrated software and equipment solution brings many benefits.  With such a system, companies can streamline the process of performing traceability, and they can also reduce their risk and gain a lot of significant productivity and cost advantages.

Yet complete systems that provide true internal traceability are rare in the North American food industry.

There are numerous reasons for the lack of a good internal traceability system.  Probably many of them are due to the lack of one or more of the following required elements:

  • Leadership needs to understand the value and make it a priority
  • Corporate culture has to be developed to make it work
  • Processes need to be defined clearly and the system needs to be aligned with them
  • The solution must be adopted by all the parties who will interface with it
  • Proper resources must be allocated
  • The right technology (software and equipment) has to be applied
  • Finances must be available

We’ll review these areas in more detail in later blogs.  As we do, it will become clear that in order to implement a true and complete internal traceability solution, it will take a lot of commitment and hard work.  But we’ll also show how it will be worth the effort and the investment.

Comments Off »

Posted in General

Tags:

Cost Justifying a Traceability Solution

February 21st, 2010

Who’s going to pay for traceability?

That’s a common question in the food industry these days.  A senior director in a well-known food company told me recently, “No one will pay for traceability.”

Of course, a traceability system is going to have costs associated with it.  Initially there’s the cost of implementing a solution with equipment, software, services, and internal resources.   Ongoing costs add up for materials, system maintenance, and labour associated with additional process steps.

It’s not likely that the average consumer will be willing to pay extra for product that is traceable back to the source.  I don’t expect my wife at the grocery store to look at two similar packages of meat, for example, and say to herself, “Oh, this one’s traceable.  I’ll pay the extra price for it.”

Retailers likely won’t pay for it.  You know how it goes.  They’ll expect both traceability and lower prices.

So it appears that the costs of traceability, like so many other initiatives, will fall on the backs of the processors and manufacturers.

But it doesn’t have to be the case.  If things are done well, there is actually a pretty good deal available for the food processing companies.  (Just don’t let the other parties know.)

For the most part, the food industry could use a good shot in the arm to update their level of technology in order to achieve higher levels of productivity and lower production costs.  It’s time, and the increasing need for traceability may actually be a great tool to realize huge benefits.

While many expect companies to already have suitable internal traceability, what is all too common are manual systems based on paper files – even in 2010.  Plus in most companies’ operations there are gaps in the data chain, lack of real-time data visibility, and islands of technology.  Internal traceability?  Hardly.

The time for internal traceability in organizations is ripe.  And the potential benefits really are significant.

Internal traceability should not be embarked upon as a solution in itself.  It should, in fact, be seen as a by-product of a complete plant productivity solution that incorporates visibility and control tools.  With all product movements and transformations being monitored in real time, internal traceability will be one of the outputs of the right kind of system.

Here are some great benefits of implementing a complete internal traceability solution:

Area of Benefit Some “Top of List” Benefits
Brand protection Risk management with complete lot traceability
Labour reduction Automation, less time searching, counting
Productivity Visibility leads to better decisions and more efficient processes
Cost control Better management of raw materials, improved yields, production goal monitoring
Label control Central label design, approval process, database-driven product, nutritional, and ingredient details
Quality improvements Attribute checking, better stock rotation, lot control, quality checklists, SPC on piece weights, QA holds, process control
Better customer service More visibility of orders in real time, improved image, more accurate order fulfillment
Regulatory Compliance Food safety & quality, HACCP, record keeping, weights, labeling, nutritional & ingredient declaration, traceability (e.g. one-up, one-down)
Insurance Rapid detailed recall capabilities, support for limited recall scope, due diligence to help reduce litigation risk

Take a look at your organization in light of these potential benefits and see where you can find significant improvements.  It’s likely that you could easily cost justify the right solution that will offer many of these benefits.

Don’t focus on the costs of internal traceability.  Consider a full, detailed plant productivity solution that gives complete real-time visibility of products and events, and internal traceability will be one of the built-in deliverables.  Implement a technology solution for in-plant benefits that will pay for itself.

Stay tuned.  We’ll review the many components of an Internal Traceability solution and how they produce benefits.

Comments Off »

Posted in General

Tags:

The Next Big Food Safety Story . . . Yours?

February 18th, 2010

I never like to see companies being slammed in the news.

I like Kellogg. I like their cereals.

I believe that Kellogg isn’t as bad as this article makes them out to be.

But the reality is that they are getting bad press. Why?

When I hear of a problem, I often think of a kaizen process of asking a series of 5 “Why?”s to get to a deeper level of understanding of the source of a problem.  It could go something like this:

  1. Kellogg is getting bad press. Why?
  2. Atlanta plant inspection found bacterial contamination and sanitation violations. Why?
  3. The plant had “significant deviations” from the manufacturing practices for food manufacturers. Why?
  4. Proper food safety steps were not enforced.  Why?
  5. There’s not a good system in place.  Why???

I don’t know the why of number 5 with Kellogg or even if this is accurate, but here are some possibilities of “Why” that I’ve seen a lot with companies:

  • Our ERP system is supposed to do it (but it doesn’t, because either it can’t, or that module is not yet implemented – and it will take a long time, a lot of money, and IT resources that are forever tied up with other priorities)
  • At the management level, we expected that we  have a system
  • Our people are expected to be accountable with or without a system
  • We haven’t found a good system that works
  • We have a system, but it isn’t being used properly

Whatever the reason, there is certainly a growing awareness and an increasing need for companies to have a working system and to use it.

The system could be a manual process, but a manual system will require very tight observation, discipline, and accountability.

A good electronic solution can make the job of ensuring processes are adequately followed so much easier.  Of course, it could be that such a system is not used properly, but with the right system, quality assurance managers can be alerted when conditions are not met, or parameters are outside critical limits.  If certain HACCP or GMP checklists are not followed according to a prescribed schedule, the right people can be notified by email, text message, or other method.

The technology is here.  The systems are available.  The payback is justifiable.

Without the system, the risk is high – too high.  The media is always out there, hunting for sensational stories.  Don’t let your company be the next big food safety issue news item.

Comments Off »

Posted in General, Industry Trends

Tags:

Traceability Requires Several Key Elements

February 9th, 2010

A couple of years ago, I met with a Food Safety representative of one of our government agencies.  We got talking about traceability, and she asked me what my experience showed regarding the percentage of food companies that have traceability solutions.  I said to her that from what I can see, traceability in the food industry in North America does not exist.  This was interesting to her because, as it turned out, the day prior to this she had sat through a thesis presentation of a master’s student who claimed that 85% of companies she had studied had traceability solutions.  The person I was meeting with commented that she herself leaned towards my findings.

Obviously we have a different view on what traceability means.

My boss was at the Traceability Interoperability Summit last month in Denver, and he reported that one of the presenters had surveyed over 100 companies to see how they were meeting the one-up and one-down traceability requirements as mandated by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002.  My boss asked me what my guess was as to the percentage of companies that were compliant.  I guessed zero, which was exactly what this other company had found.

Without even realizing it, many food processing operations do not have true and complete internal traceability because they fail in one or more of the following required areas:

  1. real-time data entry and access
  2. no data islands
  3. integrated data chain
  4. no gaps

(I don’t remember the source of this list.)

They may have some form of product tracking, but it often doesn’t classify as a traceability solution.  I mean, could they scan the bar code of a finished goods case and be able to pull up within a couple of minutes all the lot numbers and suppliers of each and every ingredient and component in that case, including packaging?  And do they have a system that would enable them to determine all the downstream locations, lot numbers, finished goods, and orders of a specific  ingredient that is found to be suspect?

1) Real-time data entry and real-time access to information:  Clipboards with paper and pen are still amazingly commonplace.  Manual recording is used for downtime recording, quality/HACCP forms, and other data collection.  Some of this data is never entered into an electronic system but is filed for potential manual retrieval.  Other data is keyed in manually at a later time for the purpose of generating reports and graphs to be posted after the fact.  It’s not uncommon to see posted reports that are months old.

2) No data islands:  Widespread use of tools such as MS Excel spreadsheets, which may do some basic importing of data but operate mostly as off-line tools, shows that data islands exist.  Departmental “silos” keep people from having visibility of other areas of the plant.

3) Integrated data chain: Too often there are multiple vendor systems that are not exchanging data that would enhance their capability.  With the robust and reliable interface methodologies available, gone are the days when interfaces between systems need to be an issue.  Using best of breed systems is the best strategy for overall performance and value as long as the systems are communicating with each other.  For example, an ERP system will not offer complete in-plant product tracking with interfaces to devices (although some actually claim to, the truth is that there is no one system that will do everything for everybody, even within a single company).  But the ERP system’s capabilities will be extended with an appropriate interface with the right in-plant productivity solution.

4) No gaps: (receiving – raw material and ingredient batch control – material issue into processes – work-in-process including rework – transformation – pack-off – inventory – order fulfillment):  Data gaps in the processes prevent complete traceability since there is not a satisfying link from source to destination.

A true internal traceability solution is characterized by these elements.   What’s needed in many food processing plants is an integrated solution that meets these traceability requirements.  Without it, paper abounds, schedules are missed, product gets lost, labour goes wasted, and food safety is at risk.

I’d be interested in knowing what are your thoughts regarding the adoption in the food industry of traceability according to the above requirements.

Comments Off »

Posted in General, Industry Trends

Tags:

GS1-128 Bar Code Labeling – Carlisle’s Experience

February 4th, 2010

Since the early 1990s, Carlisle Technology has had experience implementing systems for producing GS1-128 bar codes for serialized cases.  Bill deVries of Carlisle Technology was a contributing member of the ECCC – Electronic Commerce Council of Canada (now GS1) bar code sub-committee that helped develop the Application Identifier standard for the GS1-128 bar code format.

It was in 1992 that a company in the U.S., Gordon Foodservice, with direction from the Uniform Code Council (now GS1) began to utilize a bar code solution that would best serve their needs, the first commercial use of the UCC/EAN-128 (now called GS1-128) bar code.

Then in 1993, Loblaw Company in Canada issued a requirement to their then 127 suppliers of meat, poultry and cheese across Canada to implement the GS1-128 bar code on all their cases that contained variable weight products.

Sample GS1 Labels from 1994

Sample Labels on the 1994 version of Carlisle's Omni-Weigh Flyer

Carlisle Technology had by then already developed an industry leading program for weighing and labeling in the harsh wash-down environments of food processing facilities with installations in companies with names like Canada Packers, Fearman’s Fresh Meats, and J.M. Schneiders.

The Omni-Weigh solution from Carlisle Technology became the world’s first weigh/label program with touch screen control and configurable label formats.  Furthermore, Omni-Weigh included fully-compliant support for the GS1-128 bar code.  The program worked with dozens of makes and models of weigh scales and bar code label printers (wash-down  printers such as Fargo MTL and MTL-660, as well as Datamax desktop printers with wash-down enclosures manufactured by Carlisle).

The world's first configurable weigh/label solution, touch screen controlled. Manual, wash-down version.

Within a short period of time, Carlisle Technology became the vendor of choice for the majority of meat processors across Canada as well as a growing number in the U.S., and developed a good reputation with their configurable solutions for weighing and labeling cases (both manual and automated in-line weigh, print and apply solutions handling mixed cases of catch weight product).

With a great deal of experience in the meat and poultry industry, Carlisle’s software meets requirements for many in-plant operations including yield and production monitoring in slaughter areas, cut floors, recipe and product transformation.

Over the past 20 years Carlisle Technology has continued to upgrade their solutions and to add functionality for identifying and tracking products through the entire process from receiving to shipping.  This includes live animal receiving and related process steps, work-in-process tracking, finished goods pack-off, inventory control and shipping.

With a unique blend of software development, equipment manufacturing and sourcing, along with consulting, engineering and support services, Carlisle Technology continues its reputation as a total solution provider for integrated plant productivity and traceability systems for the food industry.

Carlisle has built on their large company experience and consolidated their various software solutions into the Symphony – Plant Productivity Suite which tracks all physical entities through the entire process, offering visibility and complete internal traceability.  The Symphony program meets the needs of large multi-enterprise organizations as well as offers required functionality for small and medium-sized companies at an affordable price.  As a standard, configurable solution, Symphony can be implemented quickly and is well-supported.

Clients who use Carlisle Technology’s solutions realize significant payback and return on investment through increased productivity, quality, efficiencies, and yields.

Comments Off »

Posted in General

Tags:

Welcome

January 19th, 2010

Welcome to the official blog of Carlisle Technology!

Why are we doing this?And why now?

We have a lot to say.

  • We’ve been in business for 25 years, and serving the food industry for 22 years of that. We’ve seen incredible advancements in technology, and we’ve been at the forefront of more than a few of these developments, such as standardized bar codes, touch-industrial workstations, and integrated internal traceability systems.
  • The food industry is changing faster than ever before. Food safety is now a major concern among consumers, as they are being inundated with reports of recalls in the media.  And it’s not just FUD media (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). Consumers are starting to grasp how incredibly complex our global  food supply chain is, and with that complexity comes added risk. Brands are built on trust, and consumers are willing to pay extra for brands that remove the uncertainty of food safety.
  • Niche product categories are expanding, and food processors that address these will be rewarded. Organic foods, locally grown foods, medicine-free meats, allergen-free foods, sustainably grown foods, and animal welfare protected foods are all areas of focus. But will consumers trust that product labeled as medicine-free really is? Integrated food processors should have visibility to ensure compliance, but comprehensive tracking systems that would allow this are still rare. And non-integrated processors must work on interoperable traceability systems to provide this visibility.
  • Governments are responding to consumer demands, and are busy enacting new regulations that will affect the food supply chain.
  • Labels must include the Country of Origin; Nutritional information must be compliant with standards; Allergenic information must be prominent; — All this added complexity requires a regimented label design and approval process to ensure food processors are onside with the law.
  • Traceability requirements of the entire food supply chain is being expanded. The FDA Bioterrorism Act of 2002 requires one-up and one-down traceability, but this is only a start.  New regulations are expected to be passed in 2010 that will increase traceability demands
  • Food processors are justifiably concerned about who will pay for this. For some, this will be the cost of doing business. For some, they will be able to provide added value to consumers, and will be able to capture some of this. And for others, they will reap productivity gains by using the added information provided by their traceability systems.

We’re excited about the prospects of the food industry. We love solving problems. And we already have great solutions to address productivity, visibility, and traceability.

Through this blog, you’ll gain some of our insights into events that are changing the industry, hear about some of our experiences in addressing them, and understand how to extract value from traceability solutions.

We hope you follow along!

Comments Off »

Posted in General

Tags: