The packaging line arena in a food and beverage factory is full of complexity, with multiple pieces of equipment that present both operational and safety challenges and more often than not, working in a chilled environment. It’s no wonder that management has identified the packaging hall as the main source of human error in the food and beverage industry¹. In this #WorldQualityWeek 2024, we look at the theme from compliance to performance, not through culture change, but by examining how human factors itself can have a direct impact on quality performance.
Overburdened
With increasing product features and promotions, packaging operators must keep up with weekly specification updates and ensure basic quality checks are in place to reduce labelling and date code errors. In addition to cross-checking for verification, products need to be inspected on the line at all times to check for the correct package format, the correct product content, and that the correct message and promotional label appears in the required placement areas.
With more and more manufacturers budgeting for new coders, barcode scanners, labellers, metal detectors, checkweighers, etc., the packaging operator must also manage the coding and operational aspects of these new machine purchases.
Human factors
The human worker therefore still plays a key role in the food and drink industry, but interestingly not all systems at factory level have been designed with human factors in mind. Human factors science is perhaps better known for its impact on ergonomics and safety in production. However, human factors, with its principles of effective process design, can have an impact on quality performance, perhaps arguably in the same way that HR-led wellbeing initiatives have on production performance.
A balance
Exceeding capacity
When packaging operators are expected to be the linchpin of quality control (QC) on the packaging line, there is a risk that factory distractions and influences outside the packaging operator’s control, can affect their level of concentration leading to attention fatigue. Mistakes happen when situations exceed the operator’s capacity. Human error can be costly, resulting in product recall or rework.
In a research study conducted by London South Bank University¹, packaging errors occurred during the busiest times of a production run. The study also highlighted that incorrect start and stop dates and data entry errors were most common during promotional periods.
Challenge
The trick is to maintain an operating environment that is challenging for the packaging operator. Different personalities may dictate what is challenging for them, whether it involves more problem diagnosis, analytical thinking or hands-on maintenance.
Easy
At the other end of the spectrum, where compliance requirements are low, checks become easy, leading to boredom. This can lead to complacency or a lack of focus in spotting packaging errors, with the negative consequence of a product recall.
Variability
In any case, contract and seasonal workers are common in the manufacturing world. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be a large proportion of untrained operators, either old or young, from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and with a limited understanding of the English language. In the absence of formal training, packaging operators develop their own method¹ of inspecting labels, which can ultimately affect quality performance and speed.
Despite all these known human factors and potential negative consequences, there is rarely an allocated cost for product recall, reworked product or environmental impact due to labelling or date code errors. If it shouldn’t happen at all, we look at the different ways to prevent it.
Stop errors at source
There are systematic ways to prevent packaging errors from occurring in the first place, for both the system and the user.
One system, one brand, one interface
From a system design perspective, the path of least complexity would be to purchase a system that requires minimal human intervention or interference. There are many pros and cons to this format, but more often than not, managers have legacy systems to deal with and may prefer their own choice of best-in-class equipment for specific areas, leading to the second option.
One AutoCoding system, multiple brands, one interface
In reality, most manufacturers have developed a complex technology landscape where multiple brands of equipment co-exist to deliver optimum quality performance. Food and beverage quality professionals tend to move around, which exacerbates the training issue identified in our ‘Variability’ section. In addition, packaging operators may need to learn how to code each coder, barcode scanner, labeller, metal detector, etc., and how to document this effectively and legibly for audit purposes.
A system such as the AutoCoding System can control recipe deployment and date code control on connected equipment on the line, while automatically recording every line event in its database, minimising the level of human intervention. Most importantly, the AutoCoding System will initiate a line stop if it detects a discrepancy in the label or packaging, greatly reducing the risk of a product recall. When combined with the paperless quality module, manufacturers can capture data to support quality investigations and use this data as evidence, eliminating any paperwork readability issues.
Automated models
The AutoCoding System Ltd vision inspection solution is also an example of an approach that reduces fatigue in human factors working conditions. A vision inspection solution such as 4Sight promotes 100% continuous inspection inline. To improve packaging line performance and coding quality, the patented solution improves the accuracy of print inspection. The 4Sight solution ensures that factories do not send products out the door without the correct date code or barcode by checking different areas of the field on the packaging or label. With high processing speed and accuracy, the use of an automated 4Sight solution eliminates reliance on short-term memory. Packaging operators can be reassigned to other, more challenging tasks.
The future system model
To understand how to support improvement and reduce production variability, a production systems model that incorporates the Internet of Things, enables the collection of production data, enables remote monitoring through connected devices and sensors, and can be extended and applied to the management level can be useful. Overall, this leads to improved resource planning and effective redeployment and deployment of people. The AutoCoding system already provides packaging line control and traceability, but when used in the right way with the right modules, it can help to improve packaging performance for the aforementioned reasons.
Assess the situation
Most packaging lines are designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet the ever-changing demands of the customer, resulting in increased changeovers. For many workers, this level of change intensity may be beyond their capabilities.
Production shifts vary but can be as long as 8-10 hours. When product recall is both a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and a quality performance requirement, can you guarantee zero incidents of labelling and date code errors? Are you confident in the ability of your packers to cope with the current level of product changeovers and start-ups?
If you have any doubts about any of the above, please contact us. We will be happy to advise you on how to automate your packaging line. All employees should feel comfortable working within an acceptable workload and in conjunction with wellbeing projects. A system that improves quality performance will be one that supports the need for human factors conditions as well as improving system performance.
Source:
- James H. Smith-Spark, Hillary B. Katz, Thomas D. W. Wilcockson, and Alexander P. Marchant, Chapter X, pp 3, 4, 5, 2022, ‘REDUCING HUMAN ERROR IN THE QUALITY CONTROL CHECKING OF FRESH PRODUCE LABELS’, London South Bank University. Human error in label-checking chapter_REVISED.pdf