Transcript Scorecard Matrix for Grain Traceability and Identity Preserved Production Compliance Effectiveness

Scorecard Matrix for
Grain Traceability and
Identity Preserved Production
th
4 Annual Meeting
and Conference
Torremolinos, Spain
23-25 April 2008
Gregory S. Bennet ([email protected])1
2
Major Professor, Dr. Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr. ([email protected])
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
2
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.
400
200
Fair-Wage
Required
Pharma
Low-Lin
Required
Depth—Depth describes how
far backward or forward the
system tracks data points.
Actual
Required
Shelf-Life
300
Type of IPT
High Oil
Breadth
Drought Resistant
Data Points
Depth
Required
Overall
Score 89.8%
100%
Accuracy—Describes, as
measured by laboratory or
field tests; the degree of
conformity of an actual (true
value) measured to the
standard (required).
89.8%
Required
90.1% of
Breadth
Required
Required
100
0
nil
80%
95%
75%
Purity Level Measured
98%
97.8%
*Σ
B = Breadth
(actual
number of
measurements
and/or
data p oints)
D = Dep th
1 = farmer
2 = farmer +
1 entity
3 = farmer +
2 entities
A = Accuracy
(degree of
conformity
and/or
measurement
p arameters;
determined
by tests,
audits, etc.)
99.99%
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.)
1
3
1
1
0.980
1
3
1
1
1
1
Difference
1.00
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
(as %)
0.978
y
ac
500
89.5% of
Depth
Required
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
Measured (actu al )
ur
Rigor Scale
Std (re qu i re d)
cc
600
Criteria Measured
Breadth—The data points
required to prove the
traceability or identity
preserved claim.
A
Greatest Rigor
th
ep
D
th
ad
re
B
y
ac
ur
cc
A
th
ep
D
th
ad
re
B
y
ac
ur
cc
A
th
ep
D h
dt
Least Rigor
Scorecard M atrix
a
re
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
0.98
15
3
0.9800
13.5
2.2
1.0000
0.90
0.73
0.98
0.9600
0.9796
0.98
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
0.98
0.9700
0.9898
20
4
14.9
3.7
0.75
0.93
15
3
13.0
2.0
0.87
0.67
0.98
5
2
0.9980
0.9780
4.5
2.0
0.9980
0.90
1.00
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 ©