Transcript Performance Evaluation for Grain Traceability and Identity Preserved Production – Abstract

Performance Evaluation for
Grain Traceability and
Identity Preserved Production
4th Annual GPSA
Research Symposium
Iowa State University, Memorial Union
30 April 2008
Gregory S. Bennet ([email protected])1
Major Professor, Dr. Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr. ([email protected])2
1
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Grain Quality Lab, Professor-in-Charge, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept., Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Abstract. The Scorecard Matrix provides a comparative evaluation of
traceability and identity preserved compliance. This methodology is
based upon auditing towards ISO 22000 certification.
High Oil
Fair-Wage
Shelf-Life
Pharma
Low-Lin
y
ac
th
ur
Drought Resistant
cc
Data Points
A
99.99%
h
dt
p arameters;
determined
by tests,
audits, etc.)
Difference
1
3
1
3
1.00
1.00
1
1
1
1
1.00
1.00
1
1
1
1
1.00
1.00
(as %)
0.978
ep
97.8%
measurement
Measured (actu al )
D
98%
A = Accuracy
(degree of
conformity
and/or
y
ac
75%
Purity Level Measured
2 entities
a
re
95%
1 entity
3 = farmer +
B
80%
D = Dep th
1 = farmer
2 = farmer +
th
nil
data p oints)
ur
0
measurements
and/or
2) Performance M easurement
Entity /Parameters
A) Primary Entity (farmer, etc.)
(i) Inp uts (p ts.)
(a) Seed p urity -98.0%
(ii) Op erations (p ts.)
(a) Chemicals data
(b) Storage
(c) Cleanouts
(d) Insp ections crop /field
(iii) Tests (p ts.)
(a) Field tests (A)
(b) Laboratory tests (A)
(iv) Administrative (p ts.)
(a) Training p eriods
(b) Data collection
(c) Insp ection, records
(v) Certification (p ts.)
(a) Organic
(b) ISO
B) Buy er insp ections
(i) Op erational (p ts.)
(ii) Administrative (p ts.)
(iii) Tests (A)
C) Third-Party insp ections
(i) Op erational (p ts.)
(ii) Administrative (p ts.)
(iii) Tests (A)
D) Grader (p ts.)
ep
100
*Σ
B = Breadth
(actual
number of
0.980
D
90.1% of
Breadth
Required
Required
Std (re qu i re d)
IPT Trait(s) /
= Σ 1) Controlling Std (contract/Regs.)
Attribute(s) Success
A) Seed Purity (98%)
Scorecard (e.g.,
(i) Outp ut Purity ± 0.002-0.005
organic p roduct, fair(ii) Other p urity data (p ts.)
wage, p asture-fed,
B) Tolerance Level (p ts.)
etc.)
(i) Other tolerance data
cc
Required
A
89.8%
y
ac
100%
Accuracy—Describes, as
measured by laboratory or
field tests; the degree of
conformity of an actual (true
value) measured to the
standard (required).
h
dt
Overall
Score 89.8%
a
re
200
Required
Required
Depth—Depth describes how
far backward or forward the
system tracks data points.
Actual
B
300
Required
th
400
Type of IPT
ur
Breadth
Required
cc
Depth
89.5% of
Depth
Required
A
500
h
dt
Rigor Scale
Criteria Measured
Breadth—The data points
required to prove the
traceability or identity
preserved claim.
ep
Greatest Rigor
a
re
Least Rigor
600
Scorecard M atrix
D
IPT Measurement Score
The IPT Measurement Score graphic comparisons the standard (required)
to measured (actual). Within the red circle, Breadth, Depth, and
Accuracy (output) are compared, to what was actually measured. In this
example case all criteria measured were within compliance tolerances.
B
Objective. The goal of this study was to develop a compliance scorecard
matrix as a tool in determining contractual compliance. The scorecard
compares actual performance to the required contractual or government
mandated requirements.
Results and discussion. In this example the Scorecard Matrix
spreadsheet indicates output Accuracy results of 98.7% purity. The
weighted averages of Breadth & Depth is 90.1% and 89.5%.
(as %)
2
3
1.0
3.0
0.50
1.00
200
4
185.0
3.1
0.93
0.78
15
3
13.5
2.2
0.90
0.73
0.98
0.9800
0.98
1.0000
0.9600
0.98
0.9796
0.9750
0.9949
50
3
45.0
2.0
0.90
0.67
1
3
1.0
3.0
1.00
1.00
8
4
4.8
3.2
0.60
0.80
7
3
5.2
2.1
0.74
0.70
0.75
0.93
0.87
0.67
0.90
1.00
0.98
20
4
15
3
5
2
0.9980
0.9700
14.9
3.7
13.0
2.0
4.5
2.0
0.98
0.9898
0.9780
0.9980
Conclusions.
 The matrix can enhance conformance (e.g., ISO 22000) to contractual and/or government standards by
its ability to evaluate Controlling Standards, Performance Measurements, and Communications.
 The numeric matrix indicates overall effectiveness, or areas of strengths and weaknesses, within the
traceabilitiy or identity preserved program.
Participants: Members and shareholders of Innovative Growers http://www.innovativegrowers.com
*Σ
3) Communications (Producer/Buy er)
A) Production Nomenclature (p ts.)
(i) Unit size
(ii) Product
(iii) Other inp uts/By p roducts
B) Trait(s)/Attribute(s) (p ts.)
(i) Data/p rocess(s) of interest
(ii) M easurements
(iii) Test M ethodology
25
3
22.0
2.4
0.88
0.80
50
3
46.5
2.1
0.93
0.70
Accuracy Range (Min, Max)
0.960 0.980
Scorecard input data was derived from a short farmer survey and from agricultural literature.
Weighted Average S core
0.901 0.895
April 2008, Gregory S. Bennet ©