Speaking in Code

Just about anyone who has walked through a grocery store has noticed the product identification labels on fruits and vegetables, or the numbers and letters printed on cans, bottles and boxes. The information contained in these codes is critical to retailers and consumers. A code may allow retailers to enter the correct item at checkout or may let consumers know the shelf life of an item.

In addition, the packaging in which these products arrive at the store has codes defining the contents of cases or pallets. These codes are used by the supply chain and warehouses to properly identify and route products.

Codes can be any information printed or marked onto a product or its packaging in a format readable by humans or machines. Common codes include "best by" dates, country-of-origin designations and product bar codes. These codes can be applied to products using a multitude of technologies, including ink-jet printers, laser coders, and label printers and applicators.

Coding errors are defined as those that are illegible due to inadequate quality, those that contain incorrect data or those that are completely missing from the product or packaging. Coding errors may cause bar codes to be difficult to scan at the point of sale or cause tracking issues as the product moves through the supply chain. Errors in human-readable information can result in the customer’s inability to correctly identify a product or decipher dates.

Videojet Technologies, a maker of coding, printing and laser marking products, conducted a survey of fast-moving consumer goods manufacturers and found the majority of coding errors are a result of operator mistakes that can lead to wasted time and unwanted costs due to scrap, rework, regulatory fines and damage to brand reputation.

Ensuring that the correct code is applied in the correct location on the correct product and packaging is essential for reducing risk, preventing costly product recalls and avoiding costs of product rework. To reduce the potential for coding errors, many manufacturers have implemented code assurance solutions.

Code assurance can take on many forms with various levels of complexity. It may be a simple hand scanner attached to the coder that allows the operator to scan a bar code rather than enter the data on a keyboard. It also may be a completely integrated system with a centralized message management solution and product changeover commands initiated by the production line control systems.

To whatever level code assurance is implemented, however, its primary objective is to proactively prevent errors by providing message creation and job selection processes that are as simple and straightforward as possible. Relying on a single, secure and centrally located message database, rather than editing and storing jobs at each printer, ensures a high level of code accuracy and consistency. By changing the job selection process from manual entry on a keyboard to one where a bar code is scanned on a work order, the level of code assurance is taken to a higher level of reliability.

See Figure 1, which shows the many levels of code assurance used today in production facilities around the world. The chart shows several code assurance options, progressing from very basic (red)—having each job keyed into the coder on demand—to fully comprehensive (green)—with coders integrated into a production line control system. By stepping from one stage to another, the level of code consistency, accuracy and security increases.

Figure 1

The truth about coding errors
Code accuracy is of far greater importance than simply ensuring consumers have accurate expiration dates. With increased attention to allergen-related risks, it is essential that food products’ contents are accurate and applied to the correct packages. About 45% of U.S. Food and Drug Administration food recalls in the first three quarters of 2013 were related to allergens, many because of mislabeled products.1

Coding errors can place an organization’s entire enterprise at great risk. For example, a coding error may require an organization to rework a product, but if a production schedule is tight or resources are unavailable, scrapping a product or missing a shipment may be the only options. A more serious situation could arise if miscoded products make it to store shelves or consumers. In these cases, not only will an organization risk regulatory fines or penalties, but it also may face significant damage to its brand and its brand reputation.

One of the largest U.S. family-owned honey manufacturers, for instance, must handle more than 300 different codes that must be consistent and coordinated at the product and case level. If any of the codes are mismatched, the organization risks having product rejected from a warehouse or pulled from store shelves, which creates an excessive amount of waste and rework.

Many organizations tend not to highlight coding errors within their plant efficiency reporting. Often, it’s assumed that coding errors are detected by regular inspection and then rectified. The specific costs associated with rework remain entangled with general measurements of line inefficiency, which means there is a significant lack of knowledge of the cumulative effects of these mistakes. Even after a problem is recognized, many organizations respond by simply introducing more checks and balances.

This does not address the root causes of coding errors, nor does it tackle the problems and costs associated with product rework, scrap or the resulting decrease in plant efficiency. The same honey manufacturer used a code assurance solution to eliminate coding inaccuracies and remove human error. The code assurance solution pulls critical data and information from a central message database to coordinate and streamline production and coding operations.

Root cause approach
The Videojet Technologies survey mentioned earlier suggests that 50 to 70% of coding errors are caused by operator mistakes, resulting in incorrect code entry or job selection. Understanding the root cause of coding errors can allow organizations to develop countermeasures that help eliminate the errors.

Common operator mistakes include the entry of incorrect, invalid and transposed data, and entry of unacceptable codes or messages by unauthorized operators. Manufacturers may manage coding mistakes reactively by having operators validate the codes as they are printed. They also may rely on random quality control checks or proactively address potential errors by implementing a code assurance solution.

Taking a preventive or proactive approach can help create a lean manufacturing process and offer reliable measures that allow organizations to reduce coding errors and react more appropriately and efficiently after detection.

Many manufacturers rely on a proactive approach to prevention by focusing on up-front process designs that incorporate error proofing, often called poka-yoke. With a poka-yoke method, lean manufacturing processes are created with features that allow operators to immediately detect a mistake and correct it or prevent it altogether.

The concept of poka-yoke began in 1961 with a simple change in the way workers assembled products. The poka-yoke principle has since been applied to countless other more sophisticated processes, but the essential features of the first poka-yoke solution still apply more than 50 years later. The solution must be cost effective and easy to implement, and it must ensure correct operation without depending on constant supervision or infallible input from the operator. Ideally, it should work independently, without operator supervision.

Minimizing errors to increase productivity
Implementing a code assurance solution is the first step toward removing human errors from the message process and minimizing the effect on the company. A key goal of code assurance is to simplify the process of message selection and restrict operator input. Predefined coding rules automate as much of the message creation process as possible and minimize day-to-day operator input while ensuring that any necessary input complies with policies and logic that pertain to the specific job.

After the code assurance solution was successfully implemented, the honey manufacturer was able to streamline its production and changeover process, leading to increased uptime and fewer errors. Additionally, the solution provides operators with immediate production information about which lines are running, how fast they are running and how efficient they are—ultimately driving productivity.

With correct coding, organizations can avoid brand damage and boost their reputations. They are able to meet regulatory requirements and retail partner needs while minimizing the resupply costs that may have been caused by replacing recalled or withdrawn products.

Connecting to the right solution
Many code assurance solutions are powerful, comprehensive systems that offer flexibility to gain productivity and ensure quality and consistent codes from line to line and plant to plant.

The best code assurance solution is customized to an organization’s operational requirements. Many software solutions can restrict data entry and the opportunity for operator error, but there are other considerations when choosing a code assurance solution.

Desktop and network-based technologies remove the need to create codes at individual printers, while providing a centralized message database. Comprehensive solutions take message creation and management off the production floor and provide separate user authorizations for code creation and job selection. By moving these processes to a central location, messages can be managed by dedicated individuals who are properly trained and who work in environments free from the distractions of the production floor.

Code assurance solutions should provide networking capabilities for full coding control across the plant or the entire enterprise. Manufacturers should look for a code assurance solution interface that:

- Restricts coding parameters.
-Provides stored jobs in a drop-down list to eliminate wrong key presses.
-Implements calendar selection for dates and assigns date offsets from a range of valid dates for the product.
-Sets calendar rules that prevent operators from selecting specified dates, such as weekends or holidays, and also prevent the system from using these dates in automatic date calculations.
- Generates linked dates automatically.
-Confirms data prior to every job change to ensure the correct job has been selected.
-Provides a means of using hand scanners for job selection.

After printers are networked, the job information should be pulled easily, and the correct message for that job should be pushed directly to the right printing, coding or labeling machine.

This type of networking facilitates reduced setup and changeover time, because after a change is made, it is automatically available to all printers. In some cases, code assurance solutions will offer capabilities that allow jobs to be scanned from a worksheet to provide even greater protection against operator error. Solutions with industry-standard open process control functionality offer an alternative mechanism for downloading and starting jobs and for viewing real-time status information.

A robust code assurance solution will help mitigate coding inaccuracies by using connected coders, message management, bar code validation and accurate job selection. It also will be designed with the right quality control options to meet growing requirements and production performance analysis.

Taking quality to the next level
Establishing the right initiatives and processes to guard against coding problems is the first step in creating a more productive, efficient and successful supply chain. Integrating the entire production line with a code assurance solution gives manufacturers better control to manage product quality from a centralized location.

Streamlining the management of data offers significant benefits to manufacturers who are looking to reduce costs and waste, and protect a brand’s reputation.

Reference
Stericycle, ExpertRECALL Indexes, 2013, http://recall.stericycleexpertsolutions.com/index.

Article Reference:QP