:.

. 2.; .
mvxvv

‘. x
2 .3 1
6%...
{JV .
.
.1:

[.2539 S
. €1.31... 1.

5.5..
£1. 1 .

I Eire...“

V. .(in.
.\:

Banxmfium
uusfihifiai t.
vafi‘fifiu
f. . nut!
.

x A
9.1::
a 5......

l. I
x..l Tex: u
1.173. x x

TH Sails

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ASSESSMENT OF LINE-LEVEL TRAINING NEEDS

RELATED TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF FULLY-

COOKED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

presented by

KERRI LATRICE HARRIS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Food Science and Human
Science Nutrition

 

 

 

' .v-r Pro essor’s Signature

 

December 10, 2002

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARY '
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAMomgs,

 

NOV 1 9 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuopes-sz

ASSESSMENT OF LINE-LEVEL TRAINING NEEDS RELATED TO
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF FULLY-COOKED MEAT AND POULTRY
PRODUCTS

By

Kerri Latrice Harris

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

2002

ABSTRACT

ASSESSMENT OF LINE-LEVEL TRAINING NEEDS RELATED TO COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION OF FULLY-COOKED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

By

Kerri Latrice Harris

Most cooking systems in the meat and poultry industry still depend on human
operators, and the effectiveness of those systems, in terms of product safety, quality,
and uniformity, remains dependent on operator knowledge, beliefs, and actions.
However, very few, if any, third-party training materials are targeted at this specific
workforce.

The hypothesis for this study was that training resources targeted at line-level
oven operators would have a positive impact on the workforce and the product being
produced. Telephone interviews of supervisors or professionals responsible for oven
operations in USDA-FSlS inspected facilities were conducted (n= 50) to collect
subject and training material data.

The results were analyzed in terms of response distributions, statistical
relationships, and quote analysis. Several significant relationships (a=0.05) were
found between variables that affect training perception, such as respondent job title
vs. familiarity with the pathogen lethality standards and job title vs. perceptions
regarding the potential impact of oven operators. The results indicate that third-party
training resources targeted at line-level oven operators should have a positive impact
on the workforce (78%) and the product being produced (80%). These results will
also be useful in optimizing materials, in terms of format, content, and method of

delivery.

Copyright by
KERRI LATRICE HARRIS

2002

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family for their unfaltering love and support:
Willie and Emma R. Harris

Kara J. Harris

Mary E. Hudson

Minnie C. Adams

Keshia Harris

Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, Nephew, Niece, and Friends

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Michigan State University for this opportunity

Dr. Marks for taking a chance and working with me

My entire committee, Drs. Ten Eyck, Booren, and Ryser for lending their
support and knowledge

The interviewees in the meat and poultry industry for their participation and
suppon

USDA-CSREES for funding

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xii
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................. 1
1.2 REGULATORY ISSUES .................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Development of Meat Regulations ................................................. 1
1.2.2 HACCP .......................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Performance Standards for Ready to Eat Meat and Poultry .......... 3

1.3 THE AFFECTED NIDUSTRY ............................................................ 4
1.3.1 Size of the Meat Industry ............................................................... 4
1.3.2 Number of Employees in the Meat Industry ................................... 4

1.4 HUMAN IMPACT ............................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Responsibility of Oven Operators .................................................. 5
1.4.2 Responsibility of the Industry ......................................................... 6

1.5 HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................... 6

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 8
2.1 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Principles of Interviewing ............................................................... 8
2.1.2 Structure and Design of Interviews ................................................ 9
2.1.3 Respondent Consideration .......................................................... 10

2.2 TRAINING ....................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Definition of Training .................................................................... 11

vi

2.2.2 Advantages of Training ................................................................ 12

2.3 IMPACT OFTRAINING ................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Who are the Trainees? ................................................................ 13
2.3.2 Employers .................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Training in the Food Industry ....................................................... 15

2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF TRAINING PROGRAMS/MATERIALS .......... 16

2.5 METHODS OF BEHAVIOR EVALUATION ..................................... 19

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 22

3.1 SUBJECTS ...................................................................................... 22
3.1.1 Identification ................................................................................. 23
3.1.2 Contact ........................................................................................ 24
3.1.3 Management ................................................................................ 25

3.2 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Structure ...................................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Questions/Script ........................................................................... 27

3.3 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS ......................................... 30
3.3.1 Interview Transcription ................................................................. 30
3.3.2 Data Coding ................................................................................. 31
3.3.3 Quote Analysis ............................................................................. 36
3.3.4 Statistical Analysis ....................................................................... 36

4 RESULTS ............................................................................................... 37

4.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 37

4.2 COMBINING RESPONSE Categories ............................................. 37

4.3 QUOTES ......................................................................................... 38

4.4 SUBJECT STATISTICS .................................................................. 38

vii

4.5 RESPONDENT BACKGROUND ..................................................... 39

4.5.1 Basic Demographics of Interviewed Subjects .............................. 39
4.5.1.1 Job Title of Interviewees (Supervisors and Managers) ......... 39
4.5.1.2 Background of Supervisors and Managers ........................... 40

4.5.2 Basic Projected Demographics of Line Employees ...................... 41
4.5.2.1 Projected Education Level of Line Employees ...................... 42
4.5.2.2 Synopsis of Quotes ............................................................... 44
4.5.2.3 Training Methods of Oven Operators .................................... 44

4.5.3 Company Procedures and Demographics ................................... 45
4.5.3.1 Location of Companies ......................................................... 45
4.5.3.2 Type of Product(s) Produced by Company ........................... 45
4.5.3.3 Respondent Company Sales ................................................ 46
4.5.3.4 Number of Company Employees (Size of Company) ........... 46
4.5.3.5 Average Turnover Rate ........................................................ 47
4.5.3.6 Monitoring of Oven Operators ............................................... 50

4.6 REGULATORY SAWY ................................................................... 52

4.6.1 Familiarity with the USDA Regulations ........................................ 52
4.6.1.1 Supervisor Familiarity ........................................................... 52
4.6.1.2 Familiarity of Line Employees ............................................... 55

4.6.2 Companies Meeting USDA Regulations ...................................... 58

4.6.3 Company Satisfaction with Results from Presently Used

Methods... .............................................................................................. 61

4.7 TRAINING ISSUES ......................................................................... 63

4.7.1 Training Materials ........................................................................ 63
4.7.1.1 Quotes .................................................................................. 63
4.7.1.2 Discussion ............................................................................ 67

viii

4.7.2 Perceived Ability of Third Party Training Materials to Enhance

Safety, Yield, Quality and Variability ....................................................... 67
4.7.2.1 Quotes .................................................................................. 67
4.7.2.2 Discussion ............................................................................ 71

4.7.3 Recommended Format or Media for Training .............................. 72
4.7.3.1 Quotes .................................................................................. 73
4.7.3.2 Discussion ............................................................................ 74

4.7.4 Hardest Barriers to Overcome in Meeting the USDA

Regulations ........................................................................................... 75
4.7.4.1 Quotes .................................................................................. 77

4.7.5 Needed Technical Information and Tools to Meet the Goals of the

USDA Regulations .................................................................................. 81
4.7.5.1 Quotes .................................................................................. 83

4.8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING RESPONSE
DATA ......................................................................................... 87

4.8.1 Significant Statistical Results ....................................................... 87
4.8.1.1 Job Title of Interviewees ....................................................... 87
4.8.1.2 Education .............................................................................. 91
4.8.1.3 Supervisor Familiarity with Regulations ................................ 92
4.8.1.4 Regulatory Compliance ........................................................ 95
4.8.1.5 Perceptions of the Usefulness of Training Materials ............. 97
4.8.1.6 Line Employee Familiarity with the USDA Regulations ......... 99

4.8.2 Significant Statistical Results with Warning (Warning: 20% of cells
have expected count less than 5, Chi Square suspect) ........................ 101

4.8.2.1 Supervisor Familiarity with the USDA Regulations vs.
Perception of Additional Technical information or Tools Needed (N =
36). .................................................................................................. 102

4.8.2.2 Area of Study of Degreed Interviewees vs. Their Perception of
the Ability of Third-Party Training Materials to Enhance Safety, Yield,

Quality and Variability (N = 35) ......................................................... 104
4.8.2.3 Company Size, Location, and Products Produced .............. 105

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 106
6 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 109
6.1 CURRENT WORK ......................................................................... 109
6.2 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................ 109

7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 112
8 APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 117

List of Tables

Table 1. Job title distribution of interviewees (supervisors and managers) (N=

50). ......................................................................................................... 39
Table 2. Education level of interviewees (N=47) ........................................... 40
Table 3. Area of highest level study of degreed interviewees (N=24). .......... 41
Table 4. Years of work experience of interviewees (N=46) ........................... 41
Table 5. Education level of oven operators (N=48). ...................................... 42
Table 6. Training methods of oven operators (N=50). .................................. 45
Table 7. Location of respondents’ companies (N=41) ................................... 45
Table 8. Type of product(s) produced by company (N=50) ........................... 46
Table 9. Company sales (dollars) (N=42). .................................................... 46
Table 10. Number of company employees (N=43). ...................................... 47
Table 11. Size of company based upon USDA guidelines (N = 43) .............. 47
Table 12. Average rate of turnover (N=49). .................................................. 48
Table 13. Monitoring methods of employees (N=50). ................................... 50
Table 14. Supervisor familiarity with the USDA regulations (N=50). ............. 53
Table 15. Line employee familiarity with the regulations (N=49) ................... 55
Table 16. Employee awareness of importance and consequences of not

following regulations (N=49). .................................................................. 56
Table 17. Companies meeting USDA regulations (N=50) ............................. 58

Table 18. How companies are meeting the USDA regulations (N=48). ........ 59

Table 19. Company satisfaction with current method of meeting regulations
(N=47). ................................................................................................... 61

Table 20. Perceived usefulness of training materials (N = 50) ...................... 63

Table 21. Perceived ability of third party training materials to enhance quality,
yield, safety and variability (N=49). ......................................................... 67

xi

Table 22. First response regarding recommended format or media for
training (N=48). ....................................................................................... 72

Table 23. Total responses regarding recommended format or media for
training (N=85). ....................................................................................... 73

Table 24. First response regarding hardest barriers to overcome in meeting
the USDA regulations (N=46). ................................................................ 75

Table 25. Total response regarding hardest barriers to overcome in meeting
the USDA regulations (N=83). ................................................................ 76

Table 26. First response regarding additional technical tools and information
needed to meet the goals of the USDA regulations (N=50). ................... 81

Table 27. Total response regarding additional technical tools and information
needed to meet the goals of the USDA regulations (N=57). ................... 82

Table 28. Contingency analysis of level of education of interviewees by their
job title. ................................................................................................... 88

Table 29. Contingency analysis of interviewee familiarity with USDA
regulations by theirjob title. .................................................................... 89

Table 30. Contingency analysis of perception of the ability of third-party
materials to enhance safety, yield, quality and variability by job title of
interviewees ............................................................................................ 90

Table 31. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for training
by education level of interviewees. ......................................................... 91

Table 32. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for training
by familiarity of interviewees with USDA regulations. ............................. 93

Table 33. Contingency analysis of line employee training methods by
interviewee familiarity with regulations. .................................................. 94

Table 34. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for training
by how companies are meeting the USDA regulations ........................... 96

Table 35. Contingency analysis of the ability of third-party training materials
to enhance safety, yield, quality and variability by usefulness of training
materials (N=49). .................................................................................... 97

Table 36. Contingency analysis of the training methods for line employees by
usefulness of training materials. ............................................................. 98

xii

Table 37. Contingency analysis of line employee training mechanisms by line
employees familiarity with the USDA regulations (based upon supervisor
opinion) ................................................................................................. 100

Table 38. Contingency analysis of line employee education by line
employees familiarity with the USDA regulations. ................................ 101

Table 39. Contingency analysis of perception of additional technical
information or tools needed by familiarity with the USDA regulations...103

Table 40. Contingency analysis of ability of third-party training materials to
enhance safety, yield, quality, and variability by area of study of degreed
interviewees .......................................................................................... 104

xiii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Model of relationships by Klein and Thorns (1995) ..................... 15

Figure 2. Map of the United States for Company Locations ...................... 35

xiv

1 INTRODUCTION

1. 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The development of training materials for commercial oven operators in
the meat and poultry industry is motivated by the on-going shift of USDA-
FSIS regulations toward lethality performance standards (USDA 1999, 2001 ).
Given that most cooking systems still depend on human operators, the
effectiveness of those systems, in terms of product safety, quality, and
uniformity, remains dependent on operator knowledge, beliefs, and actions.
However, few, if any, third-party training materials are targeted at this specific
workforce. Additionally, the potential impact of such training has not been
assessed.

In light of the pathogen lethality performance standards for ready-to-eat
products (See section 1.2.3), it is important to analyze the current state of
knowledge throughout the meat and poultry industry, especially that of oven
operators, the ability of the industry to meet these regulations, the need for
additional training, and the recommended format and content of training

resources.

1.2 REGULATORY ISSUES
1.2. 1 Development of Meat Regulations

The meat and poultry industry has gone through many regulatory shifts,
from near the beginning of time to the present. Recent trends have been in

the interest of convenience to society. The human race is no longer content

to personally perform the farm to fork process. Therefore, the safety of ready-
to-eat products and their processing systems must be maintained, because
these products will, inevitably, become consistently more popular.

Whether for health or religious purposes, the regulation of meat extends
almost as far as time itself. There are several instances in the Old Testament
of the Bible (1990; Vetter 1996), namely in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, that
give instructions on the consumption and handling of meat. There were
further instructions and discoveries involving meat in the post-Biblical Era,
such as in 23 - 79 A. D. when Pliny the Elder described the use of flavors,
smoke, salt, and other ingredients in processing and preserving food (Vetter

1996). Changes in regulations have continued even to the present.

1.2.2 HACCP

The Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) System, initially adopted by the meat and poultry on July 25, 1996,
was designed to give the meat and poultry industry more responsibility in
regulating their own processes (Brown 2000; USDA 2002d). This program
was approved in the interest of pathogen reduction and is known as the
“Mega-Reg,” because it no longer involves just the regulation of the final food
products, but also the entire process (Brown 2000; USDA 2002d). It was this
regulatory system that led to the shift toward pathogen lethality performance
standards for ready-to-eat products.

With HACCP being so recent an implementation, only preliminary

studies have assessed the ability of the industry to meet these regulations.

All companies were required to employ HACCP plans by 2000, and the full
implications of this system cannot be uncovered in less than two years
(Brown 2000; Anonymous 2001). This study focused on the pathogen
lethality performance standards that are a part of this system for ready-to-eat
products. Even if the industry was able to install basic HACCP systems, it
may not be able to fully comprehend or account for the pathogen lethality

performance standards as a part of its plans (Anonymous 2001).

1.2.3 Performance Stangards for Ready to Eat Meat ang
Poultry

The lethality performance standards were intended to affirm the
lethality and stabilization of microorganisms in specific ready-to-eat products
(USDA 1999). Also, in February 2001, the USDA-FSIS proposed that the
regulations be extended to include all ready-to-eat meat products (USDA
2001). A primary step in developing these regulations was to determine the
“worst case scenario” and base the criteria for the regulations upon the “low
probabilities of surviving organism for the ‘worst case’ product” (USDA 1999).

The regulations that encompass this shift are USDA—FSIS Regulations
318.17 and 381.150(a). Regulation 318.17 basically states that cooked beef,
roast beef, and cooked corned beef products must be produced using
processes that ensure a 6.540910 reduction of Salmonella or an equivalent
probability that no viable Salmonella organisms remain. Regulation
381 .150(a) requires a Home reduction of Salmonella for fully cooked poultry

products and partially cooked poultry breakfast strips. Both regulations state

that there must also be a reduction in other pathogens, their toxins or toxic
metabolites, and that there can be no multiplication of toxigenic
microorganisms and no more than a 14on multiplication of Clostridium

perfringens.

1.3 THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY
1.3.1 Size of the Meat Industry

The meat and poultry industry is an integral part of the US. economy.
Consumers spend one-third, or $120 billion, of their food money on meat and
poultry products (USDA 2000, 20020). During 1990 to 1997, Americans
annually consumed 190.7 pounds of meat per capita (USDA 2000).
Additionally, more than 1,600 establishments in the US. produced ready-to-
eat products, with a total value of $90 billion (USDA 2000). Therefore, given
likely growth in the ready-to-eat product category, and the fact that these
products can be consumed as-is, proper processing to ensure food safety has
become increasingly important. It is important that all workers, from upper
level management to floor personnel, be aware of changes in the regulations
and understand necessary safety measures. Line level positions are a critical

element in implementing safety programs.

1.3.2 Number of Employees in the Meat Indusgy

The meat and poultry industry, as a whole, employs an estimated
494,000 people (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2000), approximately 30.2% of

which work in the sausage and other prepared meats areas, with 50.3%

involved in poultry slaughtering and processing operation (Bureau of Labor

Statistics 2000).

1.4 HUMAN IMPACT
1.4. 1 Responsibility of Oven Operators

The capacity to meet regulations governing cooked products is
complicated by the fact that most cooking systems still depend on human
operators. If they do not understand, value, or accept regulatory or
processing changes, major foodborne outbreaks could occur, threatening the
well being of the public and, consequently, the industry.

Therefore, additional training should help insure that oven operators
accept and are aware of the importance of their job, in terms of product
quality, value, and safety (Deming 1988). However, before any training
resources are developed, it is important to assess the training needs in order
to maximize the effectiveness of any new program.

In the cooked meat and poultry industry, the duties of oven operators
range from setting computer programs to manually setting temperatures and
times for various products. Therefore, human errors can occur in the
operation. It might be expected that smaller facilities have the largest barriers
to acquiring better equipment and knowledge to protect against such errors.
In general, the capability of these line workers to control oven operations is a
primary driving force for training, in order to ensure appropriate understanding

and actions associated with ready-to-eat products.

1.4.2 Responsibility of the lndustg

The new lethality performance standards for ready-to-eat products
(USDA 1999) force the processed meat and poultry industry to be
accountable for the microbial safety of all new products and processes.
Processors must use “scientifically supportable means” to validate process
lethality (USDA 1999). The two possible means are mathematical models
and inoculated challenge studies (USDA 1999). Unfortunately, existing
lethality models were developed from data gathered under laboratory
conditions, and therefore may or may not be valid under commercial
conditions. Additionally, inoculated challenge studies are not feasible in
processing facilities, because pathogens may not be brought on site.
Therefore, these limitations can make compliance with these regulations a
difficult task.

Furthermore, knowledge of the regulations, in terms of both their
existence and their details is critical. If the industry as a whole is unfamiliar
with the regulations or unable to meet them, the implication may be drawn
that line level employees are unaware of the importance, or even existence,

of these regulations.

1.5 HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES

The hypothesis for this study was that training resources targeted at
line-level oven operators in the meat and poultry industry would have a
positive impact on the workforce and the product being produced.

To test this hypothesis, the specific objectives were:

To assess perceptions of the meat and poultry industry related
to lethality performance standards for ready-to-eat products.
To determine how training materials for oven operators might
impact ready-to-eat products.

To determine the preferred content and format of training
materials for line-level oven operators.

To analyze the relationships between various demographic

factors and industry perceptions regarding:

a. regulatory standards,
b. potential impact of training for oven operators, and
c. the desired format of those materials.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The current state of knowledge involving training and its peripheral
subjects will be discussed. A review of the present food industry perceptions
regarding training is needed in order to examine whether the results in this
document are consistent with those found in the literature. Because
interviews were the primary method used to obtain information in this study,
the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology are discussed. The
effects of training will also be examined to determine the potential impact of

oven operator training materials.

2. 1 INTERVIEWS
2. 1. 1 Principles of Interviewing

The spoken and written word always has a certain level of vagueness,
due to various factors, such as body language or multiple meaning of words;
however, interviewing is still one of the most common and powerful tools used
to understand humans and their actions (Denzin 1998). Interviews are a cost-
efficient mechanism to get a wealth of information, specifically when
deciphering the beliefs, attitudes, values, experiences, motives, and actions
of people (Foddy 1993). This is one of the most popular methods when one
is interested in an open-ended, yet controlled, technique (Denzin 1998; Foddy
1993). Although questions are often difficult to code and vary in data, they
are often more reliable than written surveys, because the responses are not

affected by a pre-determined list of choices (Foddy 1993).

Interviews can be complicated by lapses in subject memory or
comprehension and interviewer mistakes; however, data derived from
interviews are often more noteworthy than those from surveys (Belson 1986;
Bradburn and Sudman 1981 ). Errors associated with surveys, such as the
subjects” failure to answer questions as intended, a lack of subject interest or
effort, and/or subject unwillingness to admit having certain attitudes or
behaviors are often lessened by an interview process (Belson 1986). If a
minimal amount of information presently exists, like in surveys, interviews
may be used to validate data to further diminish researcher bias (Rentsch

1990).

2.1.2 Structure and Design of Interviews

Uniform structure of the interview is of utmost importance, regardless of
length (Guenzel et al. 1983; Bradburn and Sudman 1981). The structure
often dictates the validity of data collection (Guenzel et al. 1983). There are
advantages and disadvantages to all interview and survey methods; however,
interviews tend to work best for a small population of respondents (Foddy
1993)

Although the length of interviews may vary from a one-time interview of
a few minutes to a lengthy, multiple-day interview, it is important to be
cognizant and considerate of the subjects’ external duties (Denzin 1998). It is
important to minimize the questions that may be perceived as threatening to
the subject by beginning with a casual approach, granting anonymity, placing

the potentially threatening questions at the end of an interview, and (in the

present study) lessening any accusation of not following or implementing
USDA regulations (Foddy 1993; Bradburn and Sudman 1981).

No interviewing/survey method is without fault; however, some methods
have advantages over others, depending on the information being sought.
Face-to-face interviews are often unfeasible, especially due to financial
constraints, and mail surveys often have a low response rate (Dillman 1978;
Groves and Kahn 1979). In an effort to compromise between these two
methods, telephone interviews are often implemented, because valuable
information may still be gathered without limiting responses or risking low
response rates (Dillman 1978; Groves and Kahn 1979; Singleton and Straits

2002)

2-1-3 WW

Several measures can be taken to insure the security of interview
subjects (Denzin 1998; Foddy 1993; Singleton 2002). Informed consent,
consent received from the subject after he/she has been thoroughly and
truthfully informed about the research, should be gathered by all interviewers
(Denzin 1998). Treating the respondent as an equal is recommended at all
times, especially in the establishment of rapport (Denzin 1998). This gives
validity to the research in the areas of morality, honesty, and reliability

(Denzin 1998; Groves and Kahn 1979).

10

2.2 TRAINING

Training is an integral part of all industries. Companies depend on
training to convey innovative information to new and present employees. It is
becoming increasingly important, due to regulatory and corporate policy
changes, which can pose numerous challenges for industry, policy makers,
and job training providers (Tershy 1989). The negatives and positives
surrounding this mechanism of information transfer are constantly being
debated throughout the industry across the world, mainly due to its expense

(Tershy 1989).

2. 2.1 Definition of Training

On-the-job training involves any learning that takes place by an
employee in a job setting, through observation, supervisor/manager
apprenticeship, and co-worker apprenticeship (Managing Human Resources
1992). For a job that requires little education other than high school, short-
term on-the-job training is defined as that requiring a few weeks or less;
medium-term on-the-job training requires one to twelve months (Anonymous
1999). Short and medium term on-the-job training is the largest education
and training category (Anonymous 1999), accounting for almost 54% of that
received by the entire workforce. It is projected that it will account for well
over 57% of the work force between 1998 and 2008, with a projected

increase of 9 million on-the-job training opportunities (Anonymous 1999).

11

These types of projected increases support the importance of good on-the-job
training.

Three types of training are outlined by Hackes (1995): orientation, skill
based, and growth and development. The orientation aspect is designed to
introduce new employees to the “physical environment and organizational
policies and procedures” (Neumann 1992), while skill based training is
designed to teach specific “technical or manual tasks” (Ryan 1993; Feuer
1987; Harris 1991 ). Finally, growth and development programs are created in
the interest of meeting the needs of both the individual and the company
(Stephenson 1992; King 1992; Stephenson and Weinstein 1992). Most well
defined training programs consist of a combination of two or more of these
programs (Hackes 1995). Because most oven operators are trained on the
job, the orientation and skill based aspects of training are already conducted.
Therefore, a long-term purpose of this study was to enhance these two
aspects by implementing a growth and development program. A sound,
scientific background should give oven operators important knowledge that

might help ensure or improve product safety, quality, and /or yield.

2. 2.2 Advantages of Training

Training has numerous positive immediate and peripheral effects.
Globally, it has been found to improve worker productivity, reduce crime,
improve family socialization, and aid U.S. competitiveness in the international
market (Tershy 1989). Training also increases employee self-esteem and job

satisfaction by supporting their worth and making them feel valuable (Clark

12

1991; Tershy 1989). In more localized studies, training has been found to
lead to increases in productivity, reductions in employee turnover, increased
participation in further education, and better ability of employees to make
sound choices about education and training needs (Anonymous 1992).
These changes are due to several factors, many of which are interrelated.
Employees feel more valuable, because they are given more decision-making
and self-monitoring responsibilities and feel as if the company values them
and is committed to their future (Anonymous 1992; Anonymous 1993).
School enrollment rates increase amongst employees of companies that
recommend and support education (Anonymous 1992). Even business
harmony amongst employees has been attributed to the effects of good,

quality training (Sheridan and Perlik 2001).

2.3 IMPACT OF TRAINING

In spite of the potential positive impact, many barriers to training exist
throughout industries. Many of these barriers are company induced or

dependent upon employer perception of training and employee behavior.

2.3.1 Who are the Trainees?

Ideally, training would be an important development tool for the entire
workforce. However, current training practices encourage training of those
who are “most likely to succeed, not those who are most likely to need it”

(Tershy 1989; Spitzer 1986). Clearly, it takes additional time, effort, and

13

knowledge to train those with less formal education, such as high school
dropouts and those who do not speak English (Tershy 1989).

Training has been deemed a necessity. Although it has been stated
that, “employees at all levels in the workforce will need training over the next
decade to remain employable,” not all individuals within a company will be
selected for training (Anonymous 1992). Line employees, especially, need
to acquire skills to enhance productivity and to ensure adaptability in an ever-
changing work environment (Anonymous 1992). Many workers do not
possess the means to survive in today’s job market, much less tomorrows'
(Anonymous 1992). Although this is known throughout the business world,
few companies provide sufficient, if any, growth and development training for

line employees (Anonymous 1992).

2. 3.2 Employers

Despite many studies disproving employers’ primary fears, several
excuses are still being used by employers to defend their lack of line
employee training (Anonymous 1992). The foremost justifications are as
follows: (1) insufficient time and resources to develop and implement training
programs; (2) lack of information about implementing effective models for
employee education and training; (3) training not viewed as contributing to
increased productivity and profit; (4) training departments equated with
“trouble shooting” or remediation; and finally, (5) belief that employees who
develop transferable skills through training programs will leave for better jobs

(Anonymous 1992).

14

Even for those employers who have discovered the advantages of
training and adult education, some barriers block their ability to implement
these measures. Training is often viewed as a cost, rather than a long term
investment, which often impedes the study of its impacts (Anonymous 1992).
This is highly unfortunate, as there are innumerable advantages of training,
not only for individuals and companies, but also entire industries.
Government funding for employee education and training is limited and
difficult to access (Anonymous 1992).

The last noted barrier (Anonymous 1992), lack of employee motivation,
is one of the largest barriers. Thorns and Klein (1995) found a positive
correlation between employees’ motivation to learn and the likelihood of
behavioral change when no specific evaluation instructions were given in the

beginning of the training program (Figure 1).

Behavior
Change

Learning Goal Motivation to
Implementation . Learn

   

Figure 1. Model of relationships by Klein and Thoms (1995).

2.3.3 Training in the Food Industry

Most training programs within today’s food industry are aimed at food

service workers, usually in an effort to decrease turnover and increase

15

productivity (Hackes 1995). However, turnover and productivity remain a
problem (Hackes 1995), because companies are hesitant to invest in training
when they are unsure of the stability of the individuals in a particular position
(Colarelli and Montei 1996). When high turnover exists, it is normally
inefficient to invest in training, because employees do not stay around long
enough to benefit the company (Colarelli and Montei 1996). However training
throughout various industries has been shown to increase company loyalty
and employee and stability (Tesluk et al. 1995), with some saying that training
is the key to employee retention as well as recruitment (Morris 2000). In the
food industry, higher retention rates lead to an increase in production and
safety implementation (Jackson et al. 1977). Therefore, it is important to
encourage the advantages of training and aid food companies in training line

workers, including needs assessments and training implementation.

2.4 DEVELOPMENT OF TRAINING PROGRAMS/MA TERIALS

Several steps may be taken to identify training needs - examination of
existing data, observation, questioning, and interviews (Morris 2000;
Whetherly 1994). The key step is to speak with managers and supervisors to
determine the specific needs of the industry and to implement the training
program according to those findings (Hackes 1995; Whetherly 1994).
Managers hold the records and note training needs on a daily basis.
According to Whetherly (1994), the proper analytical plan is to, “define the
purpose and aims of the analysis, designate who will be responsible for it,

plan the analysis, collect information, further investigation, interpret and draw

16

conclusions from the information, report the findings, gain commitment for
further action, establish priorities, produce a training plan (1994).” As
summarized by Morris (2000), a training model should consist of a needs
analysis, training and performance support, and finally evaluation. This is the
foundation upon which the present study was built, with the current focus on
needs analysis.

Training needs should be identified prior to the actual training process.
Training need analysis usually involves identifying the skills, knowledge, and
attitude required to effectively perform job tasks (Whetherly 1994). With this
in mind, there are many considerations when developing training programs
and materials. The following factors, according to Miller (1993), must be
considered to have a successful training program: (1) training must be
targeted to the adult learner, with attention to delivery systems, (2) adult
educators must take the entire training environment into consideration when
developing programs, (3) trainers should work to bridge the gap between
learners and administrators in developing training objectives, and (4) program
coordinators should create a flexible program and coordinate career training
with all parties involved. The training must be focused on clear, defined
goals, should provide a verified improvement in performance, be aimed at
alleviating problems, be supported by management, be targeted to all
employees, and must include a programmatic follow-up to the training

(Spitzer 1986; Yeomans 1982).

17

The training mechanisms should be as realistic and as pertinent to the
companies and individuals as possible (Hassinger 1982; Spitzer 1986).
Effective training should outline learning, skill development, and behavioral
change, and also be pertinent and straightforward, even if the sessions are
not entertaining (Haywood 1992).

When designing the training process, the following elements should be
outlined (Whetherly 1994): the performance required of the participant, the
conditions that may occur when performing job tasks, and the minimum
performance standards. Next, the training content and sequence should be
established. The means to meeting training objectives need not be limited to
a single approach. There may be several ways to meet the objective
(Whetherly 1994). Several factors should be considered when planning and
implementing a training program: the participants and their behavior, the
group structure, course contents, program production, course assessment,
trainer preparation, and constraints (Whetherly 1994).

Written manuals have, through the years, proven to be important to all
levels of employees within an organization. These materials may be used
repeatedly for full understanding and retention, as well as for reference
resources. According to LaGreca (1990), these materials must be well
organized, written at an understandable level or conversationally, and should
include examples of taught theories.

In the information age, videos have become more popular, specifically in

food service training (Anonymous 1993; Salter and Knight 1985). Such

18

videos are highly economical, leading to short in-class sessions which further
eliminate the need for additional staff or off-site personnel. While interactive
video training has been explored, it has not alleviated the desire to interact
with other people throughout the training process (Hackes 1995; Durocher

1990)

2.5 METHODS OF BEHAVIOR EVALUATION

Training will produce significant differences in employee behavior
(Alliance Workforce Skill 1995). The billion dollar training business is
supported throughout numerous industries by hundreds of companies and
organizations. It is virtually useless to companies for employees to know the
information and not utilize it. For these contributors to be successful, the
knowledge gained from training must be transferred to the job by changing
the behavior of the trainees (Haccoun et al. 1998). A change in behavior
depends upon the continued administration of training knowledge to new
employees, the refreshment of that information to seasoned employees,
support yielded by owners and top management, the “real” life application of
material and relevance to the trainee’s job, and, finally reinforcement
measures, such as corrective action or reward for good performance
(Jackson et al. 1977).

Although a previous study on training conducted by Canadian
companies and organizations found that only about 10% of the funds spent
on training resulted in a behavioral changes (Georgenson 1982), Saks and

Belcourt (1997) found that 62, 43 and 34% of training was transferred to the

19

job immediately, and six and twelve months after training, respectively. This
change may be based upon Canada’s wide implementation of Donald
Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model (Kirkpatrick 1983). This model was
developed to assess the effectiveness of training programs using the levels of
reaction, learning, behavior, and results. These criteria may be
recommended to insure the results of the training evaluation. Of these, it has
been found that behavior is of utmost importance to company success
(Kirkpatrick 1983).

Several factors lead to the successful longevity of a training program.
The workers themselves have an insurmountable influence on the correlation
between behavioral change and training (Hackes 1995). According to
Hackes” (1995) study of food service workers, a shift in behavior depends on
the trainee’s interest in their job, their job performance, and their view of their
personal impact on company and individual success.

Owners and top management must support the training efforts by
stressing their importance (Georgenson 1982; Gordon 1986; Spitzer 1986;
Sussman 1982). They must provide continual feedback on job performance
and also outline future expectations (Spitzer 1986). These are the individuals
who are expected to promote continued behavioral change from new
employees to seasoned employees, despite turnover statistics (Alliance for
Workforce Skills 1995; Jackson et al. 1977).

These results and methods should be amenable to the food industry,

specifically in the area of food safety. With the implementation of HACCP in

20

the meat and poultry industry, employee behavior will play a larger and more
important role in ensuring the safety of food. Therefore, it is important to
evaluate potential changes in employee behavior and attitudes, and to design

training programs that will achieve the maximum impact.

21

3 METHODOLOGY

Data were collected via telephone interviews of randomly selected
supervisors or professionals responsible for oven operators in USDA-FSIS
inspected facilities. Interviews included 22 primary questions, with
opportunity for additional input from the subjects. Questions were designed
to determine regulatory sawy, the necessity of training materials, their
potential impact, and their best possible design.

Telephone interviews, rather than written surveys, were used for several
reasons. Primarily, there was no existing database of specific names that
could be sent surveys. Also, address changes can make subject location
difficult. Therefore, identification of proper subjects had to be done by
telephoning facilities, often through telephone receptionists. Furthermore,
written surveys can yield unknown, potentially low, response rates, and they
can contain numerous unanswered questions or insufficient responses
(Dillman 1978). Also, written surveys, unlike telephone interviews, do not
allow for easy follow—up or clarification for a given question. Because even
short questionnaires often experience low response rates, the large size of
our question list would promote these low responses. It is believed that these
problems have been virtually eliminated by using telephone interviews

(Dillman 1978).

3. 1 SUBJECTS

Supervisors, managers, or those simply familiar with oven operators

(presidents, quality assurance, quality control, etc.) and their daily functions

22

were interviewed to collect needs assessment data. These individuals were
contacted in USDA-FSIS inspected facilities producing fully and/or partially
cooked meat and poultry products. Oven operators were not interviewed,
because one goal was to assess their knowledge. They cannot report what
they do not know, what additional knowledge would enhance their jobs, where
sufficient information is lacking, or the impact of that deficiency. It was found
through the literature review that the information sought was best received
from those in authority over these individuals. Furthermore, it is typically
difficult to reach these individuals, because theirjobs may require constant

presence on the floor.

3.1. 1 Identification

Potential interview subjects were selected from the USDA’s Meat and
Poultry Inspection Directory (USDA 2000b) by two methods. Approximately
half were selected from the directory using a random number generator
(Microsoft Excel, version XP 2000). The other half were identified by previous
subjects or USDA employee recommendations (based on prior knowledge of
subject eligibility). All identification methods were used as guides to
determine which facilities would fall under the pathogen lethality regulations,
and, more importantly, cook meat and poultry products.

Out of a pool of 347 telephoned individuals, 50 telephone interviews
were conducted. The randomly selected subjects from USDA-FSIS inspected
facilities were screened according to whether the company fully and/or

partially cooked meat and poultry products, and the subject's responsibilities

23

at the facility. The subjects were further screened according to authority,
interaction, and familiarity with oven operators and the daily operations.

A total sample size of 50 was chosen based mainly upon statistical
rationale. The minimum sample size suggested for chi square analyses is 25
to 30 (Frankfort-Nachmias and Rodeghier 1997). Additionally, no more than
50 interviews were needed, due to the repetitiveness of the responses after
50 interviews (Frankfort-Nachmias and Rodeghier 1997). Although the
sample size could have been increased, it was not, because the responses
became relatively stable around the 50th interview.

Initially, the use of a written survey distributed through a partner
company with supervisor training programs was attempted to garner interest
and identify potential interviewees. They were distributed to individuals
requesting more information before being interviewed. Those efforts,
however, were thwarted due to unforeseen issues at the partner company. In
the end, the written surveys were used to give potential interview respondents
further information, to receive additional input, and/or to validate the
authenticity of the project for the subject. See Appendix A for a copy of the

survey.

3.1.2 Contact

Once the randomly chosen plants were identified, telephone numbers
were located and dialed (n=347). Upon responding, company personnel first
were asked if their company fully and/or partially cooked meat and poultry

products. If they said, “No,” they were politely thanked for their time and

24

requested to recommend another facility. If they said, “Yes,” they then were
asked to identify individual(s) within the company who were familiar with oven
operators and their day to day functions, but who were not necessarily oven
operators themselves. If a name was given, it was noted for future reference.
Once the correct individual was contacted, a synopsis of the project was
given to ascertain interest, and a call back time was scheduled, at their
convenience, as often as necessary. The remaining respondents either
declined to be interviewed or could not be reached for further questioning.
For those needing additional information or Michigan State University
confirmation, a standard explanatory letter was either mailed or faxed (See

Appendix B).

3.1.3 Mama;

Records of call back appointments, concluded calls, and interview
contacts were kept in an electronic database (Microsoft Access, Office XP
2000) for organizational purposes, and to prevent inconvenient, repeat calls.
The database was queried to pull matching numbers and contacts when new

information was inputted.

3.2 INTERVIEWS

The interviews were conducted via telephone and recorded, upon
subject consent, on a portable cassette recorder, (Marantz, model PMD 221 ).
Detailed notes were taken, rather than recording the interviews, for three

respondents who did not grant tape recording privileges.

25

Interviews were designed to assess the present level of knowledge of
the industry regarding regulatory compliance for RTE products, any lack of
information and tools in the industry, perceptions of training, and the
education level and behavior of oven operators. It was suspected that the
regulations were not being met on a universal level, but perhaps they were
being met or researched in various ways. If they were, information about
these methods might be useful to large and small facilities, alike.
Furthermore, perhaps these methods could be utilized in explanations to oven
operators, who are the main focus of this project. The interviews were
designed to assess the degree of knowledge of the industry, as a whole, not
only that of the line employees, about the pathogen lethality regulations. It
was important to know whether and how companies were meeting the
regulations. It was also valuable to know their perception of the barriers to
meeting the regulations. There were also questions about additional
technical tools and information they deem necessary for regulatory

compliance.

3. 2. 1 Structure

The opening statement of the interviews began with an introduction of
the researcher, an overview of the research project, and a confidentiality
statement mandated by Michigan State University’s Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). A standard interview format was used
for all subjects; however, it was altered as necessary, based upon subjects’

willingness to answer specific questions and comfort level. Subjects were

26

encouraged to provide as much information as they desired. The interviews
included 22 primary questions, with opportunity for additional input from the

subjects.

3. 2.2 Questions/Script

The actual interview template was as follows:

Hello, my name is Kem' Harris, and I am a graduate
student at Michigan State University. I am in the process of
developing prototype-training materials for oven operators. I
sincerely need your help in order to determine its final
composition. This is a confidential interview, which means that
neither your identity, nor your company’s will be linked to this
interview. It should only take about 10 to15 minutes of your
time.

Do you mind ifl tape this interview, so I can listen and not take

notes?

1. What is your exact job title?

2. What do the duties of your job entail?

3. Tell me a little about yourself, your background.

4. How familiar are you with the USDA ’3 requirements on
pathogen lethality/perfonnance standards for fully cooked

products?

27

The regulations, basically, state:

Regulation 318.17 states that cooked beef, roast beef, and
cooked corned beef products must be produced using
processes that ensure a 6. 540910 reduction of Salmonella or an
equivalent probability that no viable Salmonella organisms
remain. Regulation 381.150(a) requires a 7-log1o reduction of
Salmonella or no viable organisms for fully cooked poultry
products and partially cooked poultry breakfast stn'ps. There
must also be a reduction in other pathogens, their toxins or toxic
metabolites. There can be no multiplication of toxigenic

microorganisms and no more than 8 140910 multiplication of

Clostridium perfringens.

5. Have you found a way to meet these regulations?
If yes,
6. How?

7. Have you been happy with the results?
8. Has it been tested in a laboratory?
9. Do you think training materials may still be of use

here, specifically with line personnel?

If no,
6. Have you tried?
7. What barriers have you encountered?

8. What do you intend to do about it?

28

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

9. Do you, personally, think materials that explain
how to meet the regulations will help?

What do you think is the hardest thing about meeting the

regulations?

What technical information or tools do you think are

needed to meet the goals of these regulations?

I know the areas of safety, yield, quality, and variability

are important. In your opinion, would third party training,

as in material from a university, help enhance these

areas?

What format or media would you recommend for this

training, for example, booklets, C. D. ROM ’3, web pages

or videos?

Have you seen manuals you thought are appropriate or

inappropriate?

Can you name some examples of each type?

Are your line employees, especially oven operators,

familiar with these regulations?

Are they aware of their importance and the

consequences that may follow if the regulations are not

followed?

Do you have trouble keeping your oven operators? What

is the average turn around rate?

29

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

How are they trained for this job?

In general, what is the education level of your present
line employees?

How closely are you able to monitor the behavior of these
employees?

How do you go about monitoring behavior?

Who else can give me useful information on this matter?

I appreciate the time you have taken to talk to me. I will

take your mailing information if you would like any of the

following information:

A copy of the results of this interview process,

An overview of the research program

A prototype of the training material

3.3 DA TA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

With so many diverse ways of saying the same thing, some sort of

analysis and coding system had to be developed to condense and interpret

similar responses. After transcription, 3 database was used to summarize

responses to each question for easier viewing. They were then coded for

subsequent statistical analysis.

3. 3. 1 Interview Transcription

Tapes from each interview were transcribed verbatim by the

researcher using a dictator/transcriber, (Sony, model BM-87DST). These 50

3O

interviews averaged approximately six, single-spaced, typed pages each.
The transcriptions were minimally corrected and punctuated, as needed, to

ensure subsequent reader comprehension.

3.3.2 Mg
Responses were coded by key words, phrases, and/or categories.
After they were grouped according to similar themes and phrases, similar
responses were coded into assigned categories and statistically analyzed via
distribution and chi square analyses.
The actual key for numerically coded data was as follows:

Supervisor/Manager Job Title

1 = Quality Assurance Vice Presidents, Managers and Quality Control
Managers, Supervisors, Vice Presidents etc.

2 = Floor = 3rd Shift Supervisor, Group Leader, Lead Supervisor,
Foreman, Owner, President

3 = R & D = Research and Development, including Supervisor,
Directors, Managers, Leaders, etc.

4 = Operations = Operations Specialists, Managers and Production =
Production Manager, Assistant, Supervisors, President, Owner

Education of Supervisors/Managers
1 = High School and Associate
2 = BS/BA/MS/MBA and PhD

Area of Study of Degreed Interviewees
1 = Food Science
2 = Other

Work Experience of Interviewees (Years)
1 = 10 or less

2 = 11 - 15

3 = 16 — 20

4 = 21 or more

31

Supervisor Familiarity with the USDA Regulations
0=No

1 = Maybe

2 = Fairly well

3 = Above Average

4 = Unequivocally Yes

Type of Product Produced by Company

0 = Unknown
1 = Meat
2 = Poultry

3 = Meat and Poultry

Whether the Company is Meeting the USDA Regulations
0 = NolMaybe
1 = Yes

How Companies are Meeting the USDA Regulations

1 = Safe Harbor

2 = Other = Software, Validation Studies = For those trying to meet
pathogen lethality regulations using legitimate, actual regulatory
processes, process authority, CCP’s, companies with own
programs

Perception of Satisfaction with Present Methods of Meeting the

Regulations
0=No

1 = Maybe

2 = Yes

3 = Unknown

Company Performance of Pathogen Lethality Tests in a

Laboratory

0 = NolMaybe = Micro testing only, sampling, not necessarily for
regulations

1 = Yes

Perception of the Usefulness of Additional Training Materials
0 = NolMaybe

1 = Yes

32

Perception of the Hardest Barriers to Overcome to Meet the USDA

Regulations

1 = Equipment, Chilling Problems, Temperature

2 = Scientific information - Number of products, Variation,
Validation/Documentation

3 = Understanding Regulations, Language

4 = Training, Turnover

Perception of Additional Technical Information or Tools Needed
1 = Equipment/Facilities

2 = Scientific Information

3 = Simplify Regulations

4 = Training = Additional information to employees

Perception of the Ability of Third-Party Training Materials to
Enhance Safety, Yield, Quality and Variability

0 = NolMaybe

1 = Yes

Recommended Format or Media for Training
1 = Booklet

2 = Video

3 = CD ROM

4 = Person, Group Session, Lecture

Line Employee Familiarity with the USDA Regulations
0=No

1 = Maybe

2 = Yes

Line Employee Awareness of Importance and Consequences of
the USDA Regulations

0 = NolMaybe

1 = Yes

Existence of Turnover for Oven Operators

0=No

1 = Yes

Method of Line Employees Training

1 = Apprenticeship

2 = Other —- Classes: HACCP, SOP’s, GMP’s; Stages, Numerous
steps; and Other, Company training, Group

33

Line Employees Education Level

1 = High School Graduate or Less

2 = High School Graduate

3 = High School Graduate or Higher

Notes: The education category is not mutually exclusive, because
respondent answers were not mutually exclusive. High school
was the marker used by all respondents to measure the
average education rates, therefore, they did not exclude it,
because they had some high school graduates and others who
exceeded that level or did not meet it at all. Those who had
anyone at the oven operator position who did not complete high
school were placed in the #1 category, while those who had
some employees with associate degrees or more were placed in
the third category. The #2 category may include some
companies that fall in the 1 and 3 categories, but they were not
differentiated by the respondent.

Methods of Monitoring Line Employee Behavior

1 = Manual

2 = Manual and Automated

3 = Automated

In addition to the data coded from the interviews, information regarding
the location and size of the respondents’ companies was collected and
coded. For location, a map of the United States was divided into Northeast,
Southeast, Northwest and Southwest, with horizontal and vertical lines drawn
between the states of Califomia/Oregon to Virginia/North Carolina and North
Dakota/Minnesota to Texas/Louisiana, respectively (Figure 2). Company size
was coded by both the number of employees (Thomson-Gale, 2003; Dun and

Bradstreet, 2002) and total annual sales (Thomson-Gale, 2003; Dun and

Bradstreet, 2002). The resulting groupings and codes are listed below.

34

NTIII‘ T” INT-I IT“: .IIII‘ .ITl.‘ TTII‘ 1TTTT‘ ‘II I "" ‘ i II" I '"TI T ‘2‘...
" Tl. Ll I Italian Wt.) ”I III l

 

 

 

 

    

‘II ‘ 'h ' III II‘ I l Tit ' '
i cattle I I Ii I W I I
I1?’ I l TIII I I
m T IT “TI TT "iii It
If: MT ND MN “‘5 T ‘ ITP ETII'
O B H) 'm -- ' WI MI ‘ 80‘ I I
wv so ». _ ' "V . "
( A ' IA tror PA t. T
NV Chicago Phil dolphin T
Sn 1” Denver (0 I" OHJW I
3T3” Francisco INII [5ft 1.. j I T13"! E S. St.Loui's( V
"(3' os Angeles "0 Nc
.TTT‘. rnphis T"
II . . , 2 N M 0 K .
who I A“ tlanta
1IT'ILHT TT Dallas. MS Al GA
w .- I'.‘ ;, _ T
’ 4" ,1 San Antonio . l A

   

I TTTIIIII TTTTTTI
.. TTTT IIIIITTI‘II I II "I“
ll" TTlll “W" ‘ ‘f'lli

TI“ “I! 3! Iti‘ 0 at: IIII“\“TTTTTIIIIIIII‘IIII TTTTTIIII

.Tllli l TlTTllI
ll TTTIII‘ ITTT

    

:5
. -:

, TTTi It
“‘ llliiillll .lll lillll .lll ..

lTITTll ' mil“ TTTT his...” '

.I‘IIII

Figure 2. Map of the United States for Company Locations.

Location of the Company
1 = Northeast
2 = Southeast
3 = Northwest
4 = Southwest

Size of the Company (Based on Number of Employees according
to USDA:FSIS Guidelines)

1 = Large = 500 or More Employees

2 = Small = 10 to 500 Employees

3 = Very Small = 10 or less Employees

Company Sales

1 = More than $1 Billion

2 = $200 Million to $1 Billion
3 = $1 Million to 200 Million
4 = Less than $1 Million

35

3.3.3 Qyote Analysis

Direct quotes from the respondents were isolated based on their
potential to show different ranges of responses, as well as to emphasize
those differences. These quotes were further analyzed with an explanation of
why some of the responses were given and what could evoke changes. This
was also a method to personalize and clarify some of the reported statistical

data.

3. 3.4 Statistical Analysis

The responses were analyzed by frequencies and for X by Y
(correlation) comparisons (Chi-square) to determine significant relationships

amongst variables via JMP (Version 4, SAS Institute).

36

4 RESULTS
4. 1 OVERVIEW

The raw data consisted of approximately 300 single-spaced pages of
transcribed responses from the interviews. Therefore, an overview of project
results is necessary. This chapter was designed to condense that information
in the following way. First, the response data are presented in terms of
frequency distributions in order to characterize the respondents, to assess
regulatory sawy of the industry, and to characterize perceptions related to
training. Then, statistical tests (chi square) are presented to evaluate how
respondent background influenced various results. Chi square can only be
used to determine the presence of a significant relationship between variable,
not the degree of that significance. Direct quotes from subjects follow several
of the sections to illustrate the range of responses to certain questions.
Throughout this chapter, the terms oven operators and line employees are
used interchangeably, while interviewees, subjects, respondents, and

supervisor/managers are used synonymously.

4.2 COMBINING RESPONSE CATEGORIES

In the interest of valid statistical results, response categories were
grouped together for a few of the questions. In order to construct meaningful
chi-square analysis on the data, at least four-fifths of the cells had to have
counts greater than 5, which was the reason for aggregating some categories
(Frankfort-Nachmias and Rogeghier 1997). The combining of categories was

done primarily on an individual respondent basis. For example, because Job

37

Title frequency was re-categorized on a case-by—case basis, the numbers do
not add up on a categorical basis. This was done based upon follow-up
questions about specific job duties, not just by job title, in order to most
accurately classify each individual into the new categories. Education,
however, was combined by category, so that counts in each category reflect

the sum of several original categories.

4.3 QUOTES

Example quotes are reported for each question, based upon their
potential ability to illustrate reasoning behind certain classes of answers. The
quotes were not chosen randomly, nor are they necessarily representative of
the population median. In order to show the range of responses, many of the
selected quotes represented the extremes within the sample set. Bold font is
used throughout the quotes sections for easier reading and identification of
main points within the text, and therefore reflects the author’s emphasis rather
than emphasis by the respondent. The quotes are presented entirely as
transcribed, without editing for grammar. The subject code number precedes

each quote presented, but the subject's identity is protected.

4.4 SUBJECT STA TISTICS

Although 50 interviews were conducted, many of the statistical analyses
in the following sections reflect N < 50. This was mainly due to the inability or

unwillingness of some respondents to answer specific questions. The N

38

values in the chi square results were based upon the smallest N between the

X and Y variables in that analysis.

4.5 RESPONDENT BACKGROUND

4. 5. 1 Basic Demographics of Interviewed Subjects

Some basic demographics of the interviewed subjects are given to
provide a better indication of the subject population. The data do not directly
contribute to the project objectives; however, these questions were simply
designed to initiate rapport and enhance subject relaxation, in the interest of

getting complete and useful information for other, more pertinent questions.

4.5.1.1 Job Title of Interviewees (Swervisors and Managersl

The Job Title distribution was grouped into five categories (Table 1).
With a subsequent re-categorizing of responses, 58% were in Quality
Assurance/Quality Control functions and 42% were in Operation/Production
areas.

Table 1. Job title distribution of interviewees (supervisors and
managers) (N= 50).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Job Title N Percent (%)
Quality Assurance/Quality 18 36

Control

Operations/Production 14 28

Floor 9 18

Owners, Presidents, VP’s 5 10
Research and Development 4 8

 

39

 

4.5.1.2 Background of S_upervisors and Managers
4.5.1.2.1 Education

The education of the subjects spanned a wide range (Table 2). When
college degrees were re-categorized according to job duties: 42% were at
least High School Graduates or had Associate Degrees (but not a Bachelors
degree), and 55% had at least a BS or BA degree.

One unclassified subject was unwilling to answer questions regarding
his/her personal background; therefore, these questions were skipped to
further encourage subject comfort and interview rapport.

Table 2. Education level of interviewees (N=47).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education N Percent (%)
High School 19 41
Associate 1 2

BS/BA 19 41

MS/MBA 4 8

PhD. 3 6

Could Not Be Determined 1 2

 

 

 

4.5.1.2.2 Area of Study of Degreed Interviewees

Among the respondents who had degrees, the area of study was quite
varied (Table 3). After condensing the categories, most (56%) of the degreed
individuals had at least some Food Science background, while the remaining
(44%) had degrees in other areas, namely Microbiology, Engineering, and/or

Business.

40

 

Table 3. Area of highest level study of degreed interviewees (N=24).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Study N Percent (%)
Food Science 12 49
Business 4 17
Engineering 4 17
Other 4 17

 

 

 

4.5.1.2.3 Work Experience (Years) of Interviewees

The work experience of these individuals ranged from 3 to over 31
years in the food business (Table 4). Those with 3-15 years of experience
represented 39% of the subjects, and those with over 15 years’ experience
represented 61%. The mean, mode, and median of the respondents’ years of
experience were 17, 20, and 17, respectively. The standard deviation was
7.4 years.

Table 4. Years of work experience of interviewees (N=46).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years of Work Experience N Percent (%)
10 or Less 8 17
11-15 10 22
16-20 19 41
21 or More 9 20

 

 

 

4. 5.2 Basic Projected Demographics of Line Employees

The basic demographics of line employees were obtained through the
opinion of the supervisors/managers. These demographics were purposefully
gathered in the interest of exploring the population for whom training
materials are to be developed. This information will be used to design the

training materials at an appropriate educational level and format.

41

 

 

4. 5.2.1 Proiected Education Level of Line Employees

The supervisors approximated the average education of their line
employees to suggest the appropriate level of training materials (Table 5).
The education level of line employees was further combined into two groups
for statistical purposes: High School or Less (35%) and High School
Graduates or More (65%),

Table 5. Education level of oven operators (N=48).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Level N Percent (%)
High School or Less 17 35
High School Graduates 26 55
High School or More 5 10

 

4.5.2.1.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: ‘What is the general education of your line employees,
specifically oven operators?” A sample of the different types of answers to
this question is given here.

(45) High school graduates. The Spanish workers are predominant
here, and I do have a few in my smokehouse area. No disrespect intended;
we find that most of them understand English very well, but you have to keep
in mind how well they read even in Spanish, there are so many different
dialects in Spanish also. You still have to go through it verbally with them
with an interpreter or someone who speaks very well, because they are not

confident about their reading skills. That’s why we prefer something in 6-8th

42

 

grade writing level, not with too many papers. Anything with more syllables
than mayonnaise is too big of a word.

(4) They’re probably evenly split between non-high school
graduates/high school graduates. There will be very, very few that are
degree individuals. I won’t say zero, because I do know at one point I came
across a fellow that had his PhD who was a sanitation worker. So, I know it
happens, but I think that’s by choice rather than by necessity.

(9) I’m going to guess, go back in my history, and I’m going to say
tenth grade, at best. We cut out all of the technical information, which Ithink
is just overkill for them. We give them, “Here’s why you do it, here ’8 how you
do it, then you do it that way every time.” You build that standard in them; I
think that’s the most respected way we can do it. I want to be able to walk up
to my guys and say (the following scenario): ”You’re cooking meat for Taco
Bell, how long do you take it? How long do you have it there? Why do you
have it there?

(25) Well, we have a mixture here. There are a lot of people from
Mexico, China, the Islands, so I would say most of it (education) is high
school that’s actually in the plant. Of course, the technical people are all
college level.

(26) All of them have high school diplomas, and maybe one or two of
them have college education. A little bit of military background, a few of them

have. So they have gained educational experience through that.

43

(35) Yes, bilingual material would be helpful. Basically, years ago we
had reviewed our specifications, and we sent them out for a study, and found
that we need to keep actually the reading material down to about a 7-8th

grade level.

4. 5. 2.2 Synopsis of Quotes

The median education of the line employees was estimated to be
approximately high school. While some college is seen in the line level,
specifically in oven operation, it is not the norm. Most of the interviewees
reported having line employees educated at the level of high school
graduates or high school graduates or less.

Responses to this question often led to further questions regarding
language, especially in areas known to have workers from other countries.
Spanish appears to be the main second language needed for training
materials. However, due to the many dialects, good, concise English

versions were highly recommended.

4. 5. 2.3 Training Methods of Oven Operators

Although several training techniques are available, the majority of
employers train oven operators through hands-on or apprentice methods
(Table 6). Other methods included a combination of hands-on and classes,

such as HACCP, GMP’s, SOP’s, and other background information.

44

Table 6. Training methods of oven operators (N=50).

 

 

 

 

Type of Training N Percent (%)
Apprentice 41 82
Other 9 1 8

 

 

 

4. 5.3 Company Procedures and Demographics

Company size, location, and product type were analyzed through chi
square and frequency distribution to give more insight on industry

expectations.

4.5.3.1 Location of Companies

The location of the respondents’ companies was divided into northeast,
southeast, northwest and southwest according to the state’s geographic

position (Table 7).

Table 7. Location of respondents’ companies (N=41).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location N Percent (%)
Northeast 1 O 24
Southeast 1 3 32
Northwest 3 7
Southwest 1 5 37

 

 

 

 

4. 5. 3. ZIype of Product(s) Produced by Company

The type of products the company produced were divided into three
categories - meat, poultry, and meat and poultry - as outlined by the

USDA:FS|S (Table 8).

45

 

Table 8. Type of product(s) produced by company (N=50).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Type N Percent
Meat 3 6
Poultry 4 8

Meat and Poultry 41 82
Unknown 2 4

 

 

4. 5.3.3 Respondent Company Sales
The annual sales of the companies (N = 43) ranged from $750,000 to

$7.687 billion, with a median of $155,000,000 (Thomson-Gale, 2003; Dun and
Bradstreet, 2002). The mean sales for these companies were $1.501 billion,
while the standard deviation was $2.77 billion (Thomson-Gale, 2003; Dun and
Bradstreet, 2002). The sales (Table 9) were divided into four categories, less
than $1 million, $1 million to $200 million, $200 million to $1 billion, and more
than $1 billion. The two lowest sales categories were grouped together for

chi-square analyses.

Table 9. Company sales (dollars) (N=42).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount of Sales N Percent
Less than $1 11 26
Billion

$200 Million to $1 7 17
Billion

$1 to $200 Million 21 50
Less than $1 3 7
Million

 

 

 

 

4. 5.3.4 Number of Company Employees (Size of Company)

The number of company employees at the interviewees’ companies
ranged from 7 to 200,000 (N = 42) (Thomson-Gale, 2003; Dun and
Bradstreet, 2002). The mean, median and standard deviation for the

companies were 21,254; 600; and 48,521, respectively. The number of

46

employees was divided into four categories — 100 or Less, 101 to 600, 601 to
9999, and 10,000 or More (Table 10). In order to use USDA, FSIS
classification, the size of plants were additionally divided into Large (More
than 500 employees), Small (10-500 Employees), and Very Small (Less than

10 Employees) (Table 11).

Table 10. Number of company employees (N=43).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Employees N Percent
100 or Less 9 21
101 to 600 13 30
601-10,000 12 28
10,001 or More 9 21

 

Table 11. Size of company based upon USDA guidelines (N = 43).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size of Company N Percent
Large 22 51
Small 19 44

Very Small 2 5

 

4. 5. 3.5 Average Turnover Rate

The average rate of turnover was low for oven operators in the vast
majority of companies (Table12). This was surprising, given the normally
high turnover rates within processing facilities. The job of oven operator is
considered to be a premium position; therefore, on average, they receive
higher pay and sometimes additional benefits, such as extra breaks or health

insurance.

47

 

 

Table 12. Average rate of turnover (N=49).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turnover N Percent (%)
Low 44 90
High 5 10

 

4.5.3.5.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following questions: “Do you have trouble keeping your oven operators?
What is your average turnover?” Samples of the different types of answers to

this question are given here.

4.5.3.5.1.1 Low

(8) No, our oven technicians are probably the highest on the pay list
here among the employees. We base our pay scale on the amount of
responsibility a position has, or responsibility and potential for an area that
would cause loss of money.

(16) Well, turnover rates in that department aren’t that high. The
people that we have that are cooks tend to have some experience. New
cooks come from quality backgrounds; so before they even get in, they are
knowledgeable of HA GOP and food safety and pathogen reductions and all
that.

(23) No, we really don’t. It’s what we consider the most important job
in the plant, and it is the most highly paid as well. It’s a highly desired
position, and it’s well compensated. Most of our cooker operators have many
years experience prior to them becoming cooker operators. It’s kind of a

pinnacle in our plant of jobs.

48

 

(40) Oven operators? No, not too badly, because they’re paid more
than regular line employees like a packer or a regular production employee.
The operators are paid a little bit better, so the turn around time is a little less
frequent. It can be [a] very frustrating and hot fiob], especially in Georgia in

the middle of August.

4.5.3.5.1.2 High

(19) Yes, we do [have high turnover] and I can’t really share any
turnover rates, but I’d certainly like that to be a long term job. It’s the highest
paying job in our skill set, but a lot of times people do shy away from the
paper work, and the responsibility that comes with that.

(24) Well, Imean, really the main thing is employee turnover. Because
we train our employees, but, if they don’t stay, you’re in a constant training
phase. In this industry, I don’t think our turnover is any higher than anyone

else ’3 really; it’s just an industry that has a lot of employee turnover.

4.5.3.5.2 Discussion

Contrary to the situation with some other line-level employee groups
(Anonymous 1992; Hackes 1995), the majority of the interviewees reported
little or no turnover in the oven operator position, due to better pay and
benefits. This position also calls for more responsibility, which may lead to
pride and confidence in their jobs (Clark 1991; Tershy 1989). Therefore,
companies tend to be more particular about whom they place in this position.

It is unclear whether these additional benefits are missing in the companies

49

with high turnover rates, but it is possible. It is also possible that these
companies are attempting to train people who are unprepared for the
responsibilities associated with this position or, according to the Tershy
(1989), they may not be taking the additional time needed to train those with

less formal education.

4. 5. 3.6 Monitoring of Oven Operators

Oven operators are monitored manually, manually and automatically,
and/or solely automatically (Table 13). Manual monitoring involved actual
hands-on evaluation of employees, usually conducted randomly throughout
the work day. Monitoring was labeled automated when it involved
supervisors’ monitoring of generated paperwork from the ovens or logs kept
by employees.

Table 13. Monitoring methods of employees (N=50).

 

 

 

 

 

Monitoring Methods N Percent (%)
Manual 23 46
Manual and Automated 21 42
Automated 6 1 2

 

 

 

4.5.3.6.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “How do you monitor the behavior of your line
employees?" Samples of the different types of answers to this question are
given here.

(8) Basically, we go on errors that they make.

50

 

(10) Well, pretty closely. It’s pretty much a continuous process and
we have certain requirements. They have information that they have to
provide within the time period [so] that we’re pretty certain that they’re
following the process. We check our yield and patties. If you’ve overcooked
patties, you’ve lost a lot of money.

(26) Oh no, (I don't have to stay out here the whole time); that would
drive them nuts! I think people sometimes feel belittled if you stand right over
them and monitor everything they do. Most of our jobs here are operator jobs.
[There is a lot of peer monitoring. ] They are trained to know that it’s ok to
say if something is unsafe or something like that. It doesn’t matter what your
position is; you have that responsibility to let somebody know when they are

doing something unsafe.

4.5.3.6.2 Analvsis of ngtes

The monitoring of oven operators may affect the way they conduct the
duties of theirjob. There seems to be no consensus concerning the method
for monitoring oven operator behavior. With multiple methods often used
within a company, manual, automated, and peer monitoring are the most
popular techniques. The manual checks are generally done in a periodic, but
random manner. This may involve auditing paperwork or direct observation.
Some of the checks may only come in reference to major problems, such as
process deviations and/or product inconsistency. The method of behavior
monitoring can be used to anticipate whether a company is proactive or

reactive to facility and/or product problems.

51

4.6 REGULATORY SAWY

These questions were designed to estimate the current knowledge of
the meat and poultry industry, specifically related to pathogen lethality
requirements in RTE products. If the supervisors/managers were not familiar
with the regulations, it was inferred, even if their answers indicated otherwise,

that their line employees were also unfamiliar with the regulations.

4. 6. 1 Familiarity with the USDA Regulations

4. 6. 1. 1 §gpervisor Familiarity

The familiarity of Supervisors/Managers with the USDA regulations
was analyzed as a preliminary assessment of the knowledge of their
employees. This was also important in determining the overall regulatory

sawy of the industry.

4.6.1.1.1 How familiar are you with the USDA’s requirements on
pathogen lethalitymerformance standards for fplly cooked_

products?

Familiarity of the supervisors and managers of line employees was
divided into four categories — NolMaybe, Fairly Well, Above Average and
Unequivocally Yes (Table 14). The interviewees familiar with the regulations
were given “Unequivocally Yes” ratings when they could either quote the
regulations or give a sufficient synopsis of them. “Above Average” ratings
were assigned when interviewees could not give information on the
regulations, but, generally, knew of their existence without having them read.

A “Fairly Well” rating was given when interviewees, after having the

52

regulations read, could recall hearing about them, and following answers
were sufficient to demonstrate that some previous knowledge existed. A
“No/Maybe” rating was given when interviewees did not have a grasp of the
regulations throughout the interview, or admitted to being unfamiliar.
Although the regulations have been discussed since 1998 (USDA, 1998),
there are still a range of responses to questions about the regulations.

Table 14. Supervisor familiarity with the USDA regulations (N=50).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Familiarity N Percent (%)
NolMaybe 18 36
Fairly Well 11 22
Above Average 13 26
Unequivocally Yes 8 16

 

4.6.1.1.2 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “How familiar are you with the USDA’s requirements
on pathogen lethality/performance standards for fully cooked products?”

Samples of the different types of answers to this question are given here.

4.6.1.1.2.1 No

(28) I’m not up to date, but some of the QA people know about the
standards we have set forth, for our particular customer and the govemment.
We’ve got all that regulation here and we just check it day to day by keeping
up with the changes. I feel like I’m as familiar with it as anyone else here.

(29) Not a whole lot on it.

53

 

4.6.1.1.2.2 Fairly Well

(8) I am pretty familiar with them; we deal with them day in and day
out with our cooking process. I don’t get in to a lot of that; we have a micro lab
that deals with that. My main focus is the chilling requirements and the
cooking requirements, and making sure that we meet all the criteria that we
have set.

(3) Average. Yes, but I don’t know all of the details, but I basically
know what they state and why we have to do what we do and actually from
the tests I’ve seen.

(9) Well, I mean I know some about it. lmean I’m not sure exactly
what. . .I mean basically what we deal with on our end is good temperatures
and times and oven times, and that’s what I’m involved with. To do micro
testing and that kind of stuff and we have a biologist on staff who takes care

of all that kind of stuff and obviously informs us, gives us reports of results.

4.6.1.1 .23 Above Average

(2) Some what, I know that, at this time they do have safe harbor
temperatures which they allow operators to target for poultry, beef, [and] pork.
Then, I know that they initialized a program where the companies do have a
choice in scientifically monitoring their process and adjusting based on the
thermal inactivity of the microorganisms.

(5) Oh, I mean, I’m pretty familiar with it. I’ve done some research with

that. I can’t write the reg., but I can tell you, generally, what it says.

54

(7) Well, I just know what the guidelines are as far as what’s
considered fully cooked and at what temperature the pathogens are
controlled at and also the timeframe that’s required to hold that product to that

temperature.

4.6.1.124 Unequivocally Yes

(14) lntimately involved with it.
( 1) Well, let’s see. We ’re no longer required to cook meat to a given
temperature. We have to guarantee a given lethality based on pathogens. I

believe it’s a log reduction of 6 salmonella. Am I close?

4.6.1.2 Familiarity of Line Employees

The level of familiarity of line employees was gathered through
employer perceptions and categorized as No, Maybe, and Yes (Table 15).
Only three of those who felt their line employees were familiar with the
regulations had to be adjusted to “No” answers, based on evidence that the
supervisor was actually not familiar with the regulations.

Table 15. Line employee familiarity with the regulations (N=49).

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Familiarity N Percent (%)
No 33 68
Maybe 8 1 6
Yes 8 1 6

 

 

 

4.6.1.2.1 Awareness of Oven Operators with the Imwrtance of
Regulations

Although they felt their employees were not familiar with the

regulations, 96% felt the oven operators were aware of the importance and

55

 

consequences of following the regulations, if only in the interest of protecting
their own jobs (Table 16).

Table 16. Employee awareness of importance and consequences of not
following regulations (N=49).

 

 

 

 

Awareness N Percent (%)
No 2 4
Yes 47 96

 

 

 

4.6.1.2.2 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “Are they [oven operators] aware of their [regulations]
importance and the consequences that may follow if the regulations are not
followed?” Samples of the different types of answers to this question are
given here.

(4) They understand the importance of human safety. But they don’t
necessarily know how those temperatures were derived. Well, see that’s part
of our management operations.

(8) Definitely, they know that if we are chilling that if we don’t meet the
chill that the potential based on how long it would go over chill that this
product could be thrown away or undercooking something. They understand
that would probably have to re-cook it to get it to the proper temperature.
They don’t play with the fact that if they deviate they may cause damage to
the product.

I just don’t get into the technicalities of it. For the most part, on
positions on the floor like that in today’s society, I think it’s too much for that

position. To me, it’s more important that they realize those pathogens are in

56

 

there and how to kill them, than what the regulation is, and that’s more of
what I stress.

(18) Yes. They know they are putting their jobs and company at risk.
Our disciplinary policy has almost a page developed for Food Safety. If you
falsify a document, it is a terminating offense. Safety and food safety go hand
in hand.

(25) I think so, I mean we have put a lot into measurement systems;
mainly we are using established guidelines like the lethality time temperature
reg. for roast beef. We kind of use that as a sign post for all of the general
product methods, so there was a lot of work done with Salmonella years ago
with that particular process. It’s intended that they use that as a tool so
others will have an understanding of it.

(38) They’re aware, but to what degree depends on each employee
and that’s one of the problems. They’re aware of it, but how much do they
take into consideration? They figure you can ’t see these microorganisms, so
they don’t fully understand how easy it is to spread them and to contaminate
product. They are definitely told about it, and you try to make them
understand, but. . .. I wouldn’t say they blow it off, but don’t really consider it, if

you know what I mean.

4.6.1.2.3 Analvsis of Quotes

While it has been noted that the majority of the line employees were
unfamiliar with the pathogen lethality regulations, they were aware of the

importance and consequences that may occur if the regulations were not met.

57

This is consistent with the supervisors/managers who did not think it is
important for the oven operators to know the regulations, as long as they can
understand and implement given instructions. The analyzed responses relate
to section 2.5.3 in the literature review, where Tershy (1989) and Spitzer
(1986) noted that those needing training the most are often the least likely to
receive it. The data shown in this section suggest that this is apparently true

in the processed meat and poultry industry.

4-6-2 WWW

Over 94% of the respondents indicated that their companies were
meeting the regulations governing RTE meat and poultry products (Table 17).
Respondents who said, “no,” to meeting the regulations, said, “no,” because
they fully understood the regulations and were not performing their own
pathogen lethality testing. They were, in fact, meeting the regulations through
safe harbor methods (Table 18), but they may have felt this to be something
less than their interpretation of the regulation. Even those who were unaware
of the regulations believed they were in compliance, because the USDA had
not shut down their production.

Table 17. Companies meeting USDA regulations (N=50).

 

 

 

 

Meeting Regulations N Percent (%)
No 3 6
Yes 47 94

 

 

 

58

 

Table 18. How companies are meeting the USDA regulations (N=48).

 

 

 

 

How? N Percent (%)
Safe Harbor 38 79
Other 10 21

 

 

 

4.6.2.1.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “Have you found a way to meet these regulations?”

Samples of the different types of answers to this question are given here.

4.6.2.1.1 .1 Safe Harbor
(4) Oh, absolutely. Yeah, most of the regulations have got the

provisions that are most commonly referred to as safe harbor provisions
that are for primarily the small operators, those without technical expertise, to
continue to produce products that have been traditionally produced utilizing
the standards that were prescriptive in old regulations.

(3) By establishing cooking practices that take it to the temperature to
where that lethality occurs and holding it there for the set amount of time.

(5) Oh, we more than meet them. We cook to a temperature degree
that, aesthetically, is desirable and, I dare say, that more than kills 7
logarithms of your organisms. We don't typically have that kind of load on
product, and we don’t have spores nearly as much as in the canned
environment. Although we don’t exactly check to see what kind of counts we
have on there, it’s a fairiy fresh product. We ’ve gone through every microbial
intervention that’s typically used to get to that point and so there ’3 not quite as

heavy a pathogen load on the meat we cook. We use process control charts

59

 

that we (use to) adjust our cook process to get those intemal temperatures,
so I feel like we more than destroy the bacteria we need to do. We cook it to
death.

(11) Yes, it’s just monitoring. We do fully cooked temperature
monitoring after our product exits the oven or dryer, and then we also temper
[slightly thaw] our frozen product exiting our freezers, and we monitor our
dwell time to make sure that we are meeting the time requirements for
stabilization, along with frozen temperature monitoring.

(14) We’re going to 160 [°F] on everything.

46.21.12 Other

(2) We have a group that’s looking into that. How can we document
our processes to meet the new standards and how do we manage that?

(34) Well, most of the product is browned, then cryo-vacced, and then
baked in the Cryo-vac [in package], so that we get rid of any of the bacteria
that are most dominant in meat, whether it be Listeria or Salmonella. By
cooking in the Cryo-vac, they are never hand touched again; that pretty much
eliminates [post, processing contamination].

(22) Absolutely, that’s the process authority. On a daily basis that is
not something we are actively involved in. That is achieved through the

process that is dictated by the process authority.

60

4. 6.3 Company Satisfaction with Results from Presently Used
Methods

Present satisfaction with the results they are receiving from current

cooking and laboratory methods is reported in Table 19.

Table 19. Company satisfaction with current method of meeting
regulations (N=47).

 

 

 

 

Satisfied N Percent (%)
Yes 45 96
No 2 4

 

 

 

4.6.3.1.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “Have you been satisfied with the results [received
from current method(s) used to meet the regulations?” Samples of the

different types of answers to this question are given here.

4.6.3.111 Yes

(45) Yes, the pathogen program that the AMI put out, which is a spread
sheet of either Excel or Lotus. Using that spreadsheet along with my cooking
time/temperatures and probes to monitor the cooking process has provided
the data to put into this particular spreadsheet model shows my lethality. I
have recalled [noted] that in each one of my smokehouses.

( 1) Yes, we’re happy with those results, because it’s a simple way to
manage the process, and I would say that we are most convinced that if we
have pathogenic problems in fully cooked product, it is more likely post-

process contamination than under-processing.

61

 

(10) Yes, we’re pretty well in control. That’s never been an issue with
any of our product.

(21) Well, it’s acceptable, but there’s always room for improvement.

( 19) Oh, I would say we ’re happy, but I’m not satisfied.

(4) Well, yeah, we ’ve had problems, not so much with meeting the
regulatory requirements, because the requirements that currently exist are
nothing more than standards that have been of assured safety in the past.
Problems become apparent when failures to meet regulatory requirements
become repetitive even though the facility may have control over the process
and is not shipping any product that may be over processed. In the HA CCP
environment, the repetitive deficiencies, even though caught and corrected,
can lead to regulatory enforcement actions, and that’s the real pitfall with the
types of regulations that are currently being promulgated before ready-to-eat
performance standards.

(8) Occasionally my oven operators get a little can'ied away and over
cook something, but very seldom do we have any complaints about
undercooking. Every once in a while we do and we find that as the meat

temps.

4.6.3.1.12 N0

(40) Well, you have to give that [being happy] up, but I mean not
only do you have to cook to the lethality steps, you have to cook over that
because of the inconsistencies of raw products coming in. You have to cook

that one when you’re filling up an entire production belt, you have to cook all

62

of them, not just that one piece; you end up over cooking the smaller pieces
or center pieces in order to cook or ensure the cooking of that one piece and

sometimes that can really hurt.

4.7 TRAINING ISSUES
4. 7. 1 Training Materials

Although the companies are meeting the regulations, most felt
additional training would still be useful (Table 20).

Table 20. Perceived usefulness of training materials (N = 50).

 

 

 

 

Training Materials Useful N Percent (%)
No 1 1 22
Yes 39 78

 

 

 

4. 7. 1. 1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “Do you think training materials may still be of use
here, specifically with line personnel?” Samples of the different types of

answers to this question are given here.

4.7.1.1.1 M

(5) We have a laboratory group that trains and develops the
procedures that all of our plants follow as far as evaluating either raw or fully
cooked products or environmental and a big company would have developed
procedures along that line, so as far as to not need more, our company
probably wouldn’t use it as much as smaller companies. Very large

companies have to be real proactive. We have technical people like me,

63

 

and our food safety director, who are constantly revising what we need
to do.

(8) Um, yea we’ve got a fairiy good training system, basically on oven
operator its all hands-on, and this situation and then we have a specification
system that gives every single step that the ovens got to be set and an oven
operator probably gets on average, at least in my area, close to a month of
training with another operator before they are put off on their own.

(16) It’s our job in management to give him [the oven operator] the
tools, so that he can do it [his job], but as far as the operator himself, he’s
only doing what he ’s being asked to do. He’s not really making a decision. I
mean he follows the procedure and if that procedure is met, then his job is
done. I ’m not saying that they don’t fully understand. From a job standpoint,
their requirements don ’t-they’re not paid to manage. The smokehouse
operator shouldn’t have to make decisions, because, again, if he’s an hourly
employee, he’s not management and it’s not really his responsibility.

(48) I don’t think we would necessarily need any further training

materials, not when USDA has something.

4.7.1.1.2 @

(38) Oh, god, yes! Training is just huge! You can’t tell people enough
as far as just beating it into their heads what they need to be doing for any
aspect of the job. Re-training, beating it into your head, watching them,
putting them through training courses, refresher courses, sitting them down

for videos and, actually, having them take tests at the end.

64

( 1) Yeah, if it can be done in a manner that they understand, definitely.

(2) Yes, you kind of take them through the process to say this is what
we ’re saying, this is where we’re at, this is where we ’re going, and this is what
is in it for you. [You have] to show them why they should change.

(4) Oh, yeah, the training is going to be a real issue; well, actually,
process control is probably going to be the key issue is understanding two
different elements of process control, one being how to utilize statistical
process control to remove the possibility of failures. The second part of that
would be the technology to allow equipment automation with some
physiologic controllers so that you can automate the processes to eliminate
the human error factor.

( 7) I think so. I don’t believe you can have enough knowledge on as
far as pathogens and bacteria ’3 concerned. It’s an ever changing world we ’re
living in, and any kind of material that could help us would be beneficial. You
know it’s never too late to learn.

(10) Yes, because training is more than just understanding
pathogen kill; it is maximizing the operation. You want to maximize your
operation; you want to maximize your resources, which are gas, equipment.
You want to control a finished product yield, so you can make way without
putting in more than what is required.

(15) I think any type of training material is always a help.

(17) Sure, I mean, they should probably try to gain as much

knowledge as they can. Sometimes they come into this type of an

65

environment, they’ll look at product and to them it’s just not a software type
business. [They] don’t view it as something that people are actually going to
consume or eat. I mean as much knowledge or awareness that’s given is
important.

(22) Well, I have to say that training materials that were available to
me, I’d always be interested. I have to see some, and if you were a firm or an
organization that develops the training materials, I can’t say that I would use
them; I would have to review them and see if they are applicable to our
operation here.

(35) Yep, especially, on the oven personnel and mainly I would say, at
least the supervision. The more training they get, the more beneficial they can
see where we’re coming from [via] our point of view instead of trying to take a
short cut here and there.

(44) Yes and No. I think a lot of the line personnel - it’s hard for them
to have an understanding of it. I think it’s important to kind of relate why it’s
important to cook stuff, but to give them the details, I think that’s a little bit
over their head.

(4 7) Well, I think it is, so they can understand the course of what would
go wrong if they failed to do their job property.

( 16) Yeah, in a general sense, because each smokehouse at each
company is going to be different, so I don’t think you can have a real specific
program. You can say like the USDA requirements of you have to meet a

certain temperature requirement for so many minutes to verify that the

66

requirement has been met. You can have that kind of specification or
training, but I don’t know how you would get much more specific due to the

different ways, the different smokehouses work.

4.7.1.2 Discussion

Many of “Yes” and “Maybe" individuals have noted the advantages of
training (See section 2.3.2). Those who said “No" restated many known

barriers to training (See section 2.3).

4. 7.2 Perceived Ability of Third Party Training Materials to
Enhance Safe Yield uali and Variabili

The majority of respondents felt additional training materials would be
useful; however, it was important to further evaluate whether industry would
prefer in-house or third-party training resources (as currently being planned.)
Many of these answers (Table 21) are also consistent with concepts stated in
section 2.2.2.

Table 21. Perceived ability of third party training materials to enhance
quality, yield, safety and variability (N=49).

 

 

 

 

Enhance? N Percent (%)
No 1 0 20
Yes 39 80

 

 

 

4. 7. 2.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “I know the areas of safety, yield, quality and variability

are important. In your opinion, would third party training, as in material from a

67

 

university, help enhance these areas?” Samples of the different types of

answers to this question follow.

4.7.2.1.1 Hg

(5) Probably not, because we have strong technical group in all those
areas.

(22) Don’t take this wrong, but uh, I think my answer would be, no. I
don’t think they would help, and I guess I say that simply thinking that as a 20
year veteran in my industry, I would logically think, now what could the food
technology department at Michigan offer me. If they could, I would welcome
that. Do I think you could help me with yield, and things of this nature? I

doubtfi.

4.7.2.1.2 Y_es_

(4) Absolutely, as a matter of fact, we are collaborating with the
University of Arkansas, and they’re collaborating with a number of other
universities to deliver web based training and education of about 12-14 food
safety modules of continuing education units.

( 1) Yeah, I think that the university input should be useful especially
from the safety standpoint, [and] from a microbiological standpoint looking
at thermal death in various products. To me, that’s the most helpful thing that
could be done.

(10) I would think it should, because I think training, in general, will

help give privileges like developing of training, and over the years I have been

68

through that. It takes a lot to get [information] through that way, and,
generally, the communication is what it should be when using casual
instruction. Casual instruction does not communicate issues thoroughly
enough.

(2) Yeah, I think that one of the good things about it is that being a
university you can get input from the different industries, whereas I would
have trouble going to similar competitors and getting information. You can
take the confidential information from different companies, bring it together
and create a forum for training and understanding that can be passed on to
everybody, so the whole industry benefits, which is good. Plus, I think it
would give more credibility with the govemment regulatory agencies.

( 16) From a technical standpoint, yes. You know, if you can do
research, and you’re asking me about if I ’m doing inoculations and testing
here, no. I mean that should be done at the university level, doing studies,
determining log reductions making determinations before and after cook, so
you are getting that reduction.

(32) For some people, yes, it depends on who you’re gearing it to.
There are some things that may be above your line employees’ grasp and
understanding, and then there are different people and different levels of the
workforce that like to lead people through and inform them. That would
probably be good training for supervisors, line supervisors. It all depends on
who you’re dealing with, how long they’ve been in the business, what they

want to learn.

69

(3) They could, if the person who is developing the training material or
the group that is developing the training material have a thorough
understanding of what’s going on out in the actual process. You know it’s not
easy to determine in a lab, because usually you don’t have those variables
that are changing on you on a regular basis like temperature of the products,
size of the product, thickness of the product, and things of that nature.

(8) Yeah, probably. Training materials, it’s hard to see where it would
help, but there might be some aspects that would shed a different light on
things a different point of view and might help improve some of the aspects.

(9) Yeah, I think they can. I ’m not sure, specifically safety, yes, I’m not
sure without seeing the material and what you would have in mind about
consistency and yield that you might be able to do because I think that’s more
of an issue that is going to be critical per se to whatever product someone
has cooked, if you know what I mean. Safety-wise, yes, very important.

(15) That depends. If the commitment is there from the company, it
would enhance it, but if there is not commitment from the company, ldon’t
care what you do; it’s not going to enhance anything. To me, that’s the first
step. You have to have that commitment.

(4) So, this is part of the challenge for a third party in developing
training materials in order for those training materials to be broad enough to
make them economically viable to produce then they also have to be generic
enough to be broad based and often times the generic nature of it, the non-

specific nature of it makes it less usable, whereas we in collaboration with the

70

universities and other third party providers can do very targeted very specific
training to very specific needs without having to have the need for that non-
specificity.

(36) Possibly, they like to hear someone else say the things we’ve
been saying day in and day out and it just sounds better coming from a third
party. They just think a third party always knows more than what we know
here. We always get a good reception when bringing training tools and
basically saying the same things that we were saying before, but in a different
format.

(39) I would think any kind of material, whether it comes from a vendor
or a college would be beneficial, yes. When you start talking into fees and
what not, our vendors will come in and give us oven training for nothing. I’m
not saying training is not a necessary expense, but most company’s vendors

will come in and provide that training for them at no cost.

4. 7.2.2 Discussion

Those who said, “Yes,” to third party training materials felt they were
pertinent because they would come from outside of the meat and poultry
industry. They might carry more weight as being unbiased, authoritative
resources. Outside parties, such as a university, might also have the facilities
that can handle foodborne pathogens without affecting product/public safety.
Some interviewees were already collaborating with universities and other
third-party organizations in the interest of their company’s product. Those

who said “no” felt that third parties were too far removed from the industry to

71

give full, quality aid. They did not see them as an entity that could tell them
anything new. This is, perhaps, because they are the “experts” who work in

these areas daily, and do not appreciate outside interference.

4. 7.3 Recommended Format or Media for Trainipg

The recommended format or media, from first responses, was divided
into four categories, Booklet, Video, CD ROM, and Person/Lecture (Table
22). These results were derived from the respondent’s first answer,
regardless of subsequent responses; however, many respondents gave more
than one answer. Table 23 represents the total responses, including multiple
answers from the same respondent. This should be considered the most
reliable data, because primary and secondary answers were hard to
distinguish for many subjects who gave multiple responses.

Table 22. First response regarding recommended format or media for
training (N=48).

 

 

 

 

 

Format or Media N Percent (%)
Booklet 8 17
Video 28 58
CD ROM 5 10
Person/Lectu re 7 1 5

 

 

 

 

72

 

Table 23. Total responses regarding recommended format or media for
training (N=85).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Format or Media N Percent (%)
Video 33 39

Booklet 23 27

CD ROM 10 12

Web Page 12 14
Person/Lectu re 7 8

 

 

 

4. 7. 3. 1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: ‘What format or media would you recommend for this
training, for example, booklets, C. D. ROMS, web pages, or videos?”
Samples of the different types of answers to this question are given here.

(3) I’m more thinking along the lines of a 30 minute video segment and
then you back that up with handout materials. Okay, and obviously these
materials would need to be something as a reference material and if an oven
operator, or a cooking equipment operator was going to use this, or the plant
was going to use this, then they would need to be materials that could handle
being out in production, so they’ll be read.

(21) Really, I think that training will be specifically tailored for individual
needs, but for the requirement, really it is difficult to take a book, copy down,
and show it to them. The best way is to be like a teacher of toddlers. You
have to get stuff ready, show them what is the requirement. All you have to
do is teach them what is required on their job, so it will not confuse them. Not
everyone has a technical background. You would be surprised; some cannot
do good basic mathematics. How do you expect them to know the technical,

so just teach them like you grabbed somebody from the street. Of course

73

 

they have to know the basic operating procedure and show them this is what
you have to do. So it goes with what you say, just so it will have all the
specifications there. Don’t give them too much information; otherwise they
get confused. You have an SOP manual, train them to follow the manual,
forget about regulations.

(27) I think any kind of training video has got to follow the process of
what you’re trying to do. If you’re going to have a video on sausage, you
need to take it from the raw materials to the finished material and have the
training video follow that. People understand processes; they don’t
understand individual processes. Don’t explain just one section of it. Take
them all the way through the process; that way they understand why this and

why that.

4. 7. 3. 2 Discussion

It was interesting to note that a video format was preferred for
information transfer to line employees. It was originally hypothesized that a
booklet would be more helpful, because it could always be available to the
employees when needed. Booklets, however, were a prominent secondary
choice. Many of the individuals recommended using booklets as
supplements to videos and lectures. In other words, show the video or give
the lecture, including all aspects of the training mechanisms, then give
handouts or booklets for in-plant use and future refreshment. Lectures were
a notable option, because it was not listed in the given examples for this

question, but was, nevertheless, a popular choice. The recommendation for

74

video training is consistent with the recommendation of Anonymous (1993)

and Salter and Knight (1985).

4. 7.4 Hardest Barriers to @ercome in Meeting the USDA
Regulations

The respondents reported that several barriers existed to companies
actually meeting the regulations (Table 24). The hardest barriers to
overcome were equipment, scientific information, regulations and training.
These results were derived from the respondents’ first response, regardless
of subsequent answers; however, many respondents gave more than one
answer, so the total responses were also analyzed (Table 25). This should,
again, be considered the most reliable data, because primary and secondary
answers were hard to distinguish between multiple responses.

Table 24. First response regarding hardest barriers to overcome in
meeting the USDA regulations (N=46).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers N Percent (%)
Equipment 8 17
Scientific Information 9 20
Regulatory Language 6 13
Training 1 0 22
None 1 3 28

 

 

 

75

 

Table 25. Total response regarding hardest barriers to overcome in
meeting the USDA regulations (N=83).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barriers N Percent (%)
Equipment 18 22
Scientific Information 18 22
Regulatory Language 10 12
Training 13 16
None 14 17
Other 10 12

 

 

 

Out of 83 answers from 46 respondents, equipment tied with
inadequate scientific information as the top barrier. The equipment category
included post cooking solutions, such as better chilling methods, easier
thermometer calibration techniques, equipment maintenance, equipment to
limit human contact with product, and automated recordkeeping, such as
documentation and validation. The category of scientific information included
eliminating the influence of product differentiation, lethality determination,
process differentiation, field testing, lethality documentation, and integrating
process control. The training category included employee monitoring,
education, employee error, turnover, and employee repetition. The category
of understanding regulations consisted of the following: use of language,
change in regulations, zero tolerance standards, and non-valid, unreasonable
USDA regulations. Of those who said “None” to this category, some felt the
regulations were simply not hard to meet, or just could not think of an answer.
The anticipated barriers to meeting the pathogen lethality regulations were
consistent with the respondents’ answers. However, it was a useful question,

because respondents gave more detailed insight into the problem.

76

 

4. 7.4.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “What do you think is the hardest thing about meeting
the regulations?” Samples of the different types of answers to this question

are given here.

4.7.4.1.1 Eguipment

(40) We haven’t done that product by product. We run 200-300
different products and we did beef patties, or extended beef patties and
because when you’re dealing in a production situation to have it different for
each and every product is just too difficult for us anyway.

(2) I think it’s just there are just so many different products. There
are slight differences in equipment that are used to make those products. I
think to me, it’s the size of the products and processes probably the biggest
challenge as far as getting it in place, knowing that you have good sound
scientific documentation to do just about all those.

(3) The hardest thing about meeting the regulations is just the variation
in the products as it comes into the process. The products’ constantly
changing, the temperature of the products changing or the physical
dimensions, or just the make up of the products’ constantly changing, so it
requires you to set your process to cook to the worse case scenario, and
when you do that you lose a lot of opportunity and yield from the products that

fall below the worse case scenario.

77

(5) The thing is that having to have, let’s see, individual plants prove
this when you cannot take organisms into a processing plant makes it
very difficult to prove it. You know we can prove them in a pilot plant that’s
not USDA inspected or in a laboratory that’s non-production facility, but you
can’t take those organisms in there and have them to come up with marker
organisms have (been) proven. We don ’t have rocket scientists [handling]
our products, so I think that from the standpoint of it’s going in a direction
that is very, very hard to prove, although we feel like we definitely get that
destruction of bacteria in our processes.

( 1) Performance, that’s easy. There ’3 almost no. . .. you don't have
enough data to really be sure you’re meeting them. The fact is you can’t be

sure [you are] meeting them unless you actually took pathogens in the plant.

4.7.4.1.2 Scientific Information

(48) We get more shrinkage, but there’s nothing particulariy hard about
it, no. We do tend to lose some product characteristic from a sensory
standpoint, taste, texture, things of that nature. It’s hard to maintain your
sensory like appearance, juiciness, tendemess, texture, and palatability, but
yet meet the regulations.

(40) Well, they do you have to give that up, [quality, satisfaction with
product] but I mean not only do you have to cook to the lethality steps, you
have to cook over that because of the inconsistencies of raw products coming

in.

78

4.7.4.1.3 RegulatorVJLanguagp

(4) The difficulty is primarily based upon the zero tolerance standard
that the regulations are built upon given the variability that’s inherent of
biological systems.

(6) I think the regulation is written up pretty complicated and I think it
could be simplified, and jot down the important stuff of the regulations. I think
if it were spelled out it would broken down into little pieces - simpler language,
I think making people understand why they have to follow the regulation; you
know what the thought is behind it.

(2) Well, probably the biggest one is just kind of being sensitive to
change. I guess first thing would really be collecting enough information and
having a good sound basis data to support the standpoint that yeah we know

we can go ahead and go that way.

4.7.4.1.4 Training

( 16) Hard is kind of a relative term. Sometimes it’s how much money
you invest in it to make the job easier, or how much time you put into it.

(34) Training people to meet the safe handling practices that USDA
dictates - I would say would be number one. Number two is sometimes their
regulations aren’t up with the industry. They are behind the 8 ball actually is
howl like to look at it, so they like to question a lot of procedures that really
shouldn’t be questioned. They should do research to see if it will actually

work or not.

79

(35) It’s more, ifl look at all the errors employee based, it’s more
geared toward the paperwork than necessarily on what they were actually

doing.

4.7.4.1.5 None

(17) Well, it’s not hard to meet it. You develop procedures within your
plant, and you can meet them. You set up special cases for the different
products, as far as product cooking. You know if you’re cooking below a
certain temperature [it is] just a matter of understanding it.

(49) At this point, we don’t have too much of a problem meeting the
regulations. I don‘t feel like we do. I don’t feel like anything is very difficult for
us to do here, at least as far as what they’re looking for.

(8) We really don’t have a difficult time meeting regulations. We’ve got
all of our chilling systems are top notch and very seldom is there an issue,
with the exception of mechanical failure with refrigeration systems, where we

even come close to not making the chill.

4.7.4.1.6 Other

(5) Well, I think there are lots of products that are being developed that
call for post cooked packaging steps in their refrigerated type foods, and this
is a different kind of processing than traditionally, and so we have to actually
prove our pasteurization after the cook process just because of potential for
cross-contamination, because it’s not a continuous operation that we would

package.

80

The cooking part we ’re not having that really big a difficulty in meeting it. It’s
the chilling where we ’re having difficulties meeting it for C. perfringens.

(4 7) It would probably be the cooling process. Thermal processing I
don’t believe there is a guideline or timeline of how quick it has to be done,
but the cooling is where your lethality stabilization comes in, so I think it would
be the cooling of the product.

(11) Our process is stable enough that we don’t have a problem
meeting them, but a lot of paperwork we have to generate to prove that. We

don‘t have a problem with it; it’s just the most involved part of the process.

4. 7.5 Needed Technical Information and Tools to Meet the
goals of the USDA Regulations

From 46 respondents, a total of 53 responses were given regarding
needs for technical information and tools. They were grouped into four main
categories (Table 26). For chi square analysis, results were derived from the
respondents’ initial answer. However, they were further analyzed, because
many respondents gave multiple answers to this question (Table 27).

Table 26. First response regarding additional technical tools and
information needed to meet the goals of the USDA regulations (N=50).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Needed Tools and N Percent (%)
Information

Eguipment 10 28
Scientific Information 12 26

Simpler Regulations 7 15

Training 7 1 5

None 14 22

 

 

 

81

 

Table 27. Total response regarding additional technical tools and
information needed to meet the goals of the USDA regulations (N=57).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Needed Tools and N Percent (%)
lnfonnation

Equipment 16 28
Scientific Information 12 21

Simpler Regulations 7 12

Training 8 14

None 14 25

 

 

 

Although the answers in this category were very similar to the ones
involving hardest barriers, there were differences. The category called
equipment included facilities, thermometers, thermocouples, tools to maintain
product consistency, infrared thermometers to continuously take
temperatures, record-keeping devices, oven validation and calibration, chilling
equipment, cheaper equipment, and ample refrigeration. Scientific
information included D- and z-values for actual processes, consistent models,
lethality studies in food matrices, thermal lethality information in terms of fat,
salt, moisture and pH, relationship of oven steam flow and temperatures,
temperature verification, product by product information, automated computer
programs, and verification of air flow. Training consisted of the following:
training on time/temperature tools, awareness, knowledge, the concept of
HACCP, more information to employees, and training materials to back up
data. For those who said “None” to this category, some felt the regulations

were simply not hard to meet, or just could not think of an answer.

82

 

4. 7. 5.1 Quotes

Several types of answers were given when respondents were asked
the following question: “What technical information or tools do you think are
needed to meet the goals of these regulations?” Samples of the different

types of answers to this question are given here.

4.7.5.1.1 Eguipment

(36) Better temperature recording equipment, so you can eliminate all
of the papenrvork. That’s the core thing, we have a lot of paperwork we
generate, so that we need more electronic versus the old pen and paper route
we do now. They have machines that do it, but we don’t have enough
money to get into the 21st century.

(26) I think before we talked about like a type of an infrared
thermometer that actually takes the temperature continuously as it rides out of
the oven instead of somebody having to manually stand there with a probe
thermometer.

(30) Well, you need to validate your ovens at least once a year, and
also it’s real critical to try to find cold spots, so that you are temping products
in those cool spots to make sure that the regulations are being met. Better
thermometers and uniform heating measurements and you have to check
them because ovens go out of balance.

(31) Basically, you have to redesign the specific equipment to do it.

Like thermometers. With a cooked product you have to chill it’s very difficult

83

to meet the requirements unless you have special chilling equipment or

apparatus.

4.7.5.1.2 Scientific Information

( 1) Well, I would say that we would have to have D- and z-values from
all the pathogens in the process in the plant. In other words, we would
actually have to have those values for our product, in this actual process, not
in the laboratory.

(2) I think a lot, well, one I know would help would be product
characteristics or properties, knowledge of properties of the material.
Different ingredients in the material whether it be the meat or the spice and
flavor ingredients, any knowledge that we can gain around like thermal
conductivity. Some other tools would probably be models. Is there a way
we can do models without having to actually go out and run the. . .go out in the
field and run the tests?

(45) The only other thing would be to simulate the verification of air
flow in the house, whether it is probes or what that would be. We really want
to tell how well it is smoking, so that the air flow and temperature and ability of
a very sophisticated type tool that has probes on it can be loaded on various
locations within the house and tell what's really going on within that house,
and to balance them or how to view the heating of the house for various
products.

(4) There’s a great need for lethality studies to be conducted in

different food matrices. When you get into formulated meat and poultry

84

products, there ’3 not a great deal of thermal lethality information that is
specific to varying fat levels, varying salt Ie vels, moisture levels, pH levels.
Really, more scientific data, you know, that would encompass what is the
actual where you’ll run into micro problems, is it 6 hours, 7? The time tables
they have now, I think some microbiologist might dispute the accuracy
involved.

(16) I would say data collection would be the biggest tool that you
would need to help ensure this in the big scope of things, and then you’re
going to have a lot of other little tools like ways to collect the temperatures or
ways to verify signatures, things like that, that are kind of under that umbrella,
but data collection would be the main tool. Well, you’ve got to have some
kind of computer program available to you, so that you can log the data on to
it. You’ve got to have some kind of temperature tracking device. Whether a
lot of people use Data Trace, there are others out on the market and then you

have to have a certain amount of calibration involved.

4.7.5.1.3 Simpler Regulations

(3) I think there needs to be a simple explanation of the lethality
regulations on the pathogens and why. Why it has been determined that
that’s the accepted goal, or that that’s what the regulations is built around?
Why the kill rate at this point, set at that rate? And what is required from a
product standpoint to get that? In other words, what internal temperature do
you have to achieve in the different products whether meat or poultry and how

long?

85

(15) Well, I think one thing that would help is sometimes the
government regulation that is put forth are confusing, so that if you do get a
positive test, what do you do with the product? Do you automatically go
ahead and condemn everything? There are studies that are being done for
that, but nothing in concrete. Yeah, I think that’s one thing that would help.
You know, what do you do if you have a positive? Can you go ahead and

cook it to the next step of lethality?

4.7.5.1.4 Training

(34) I would say it would be nice if the USDA offered more specific
training materials as far as back up data to back up to 145 kill bacteria or 165
degree temperature will kill these bacteria. If they could offer more research
data, that would help.

(37) You know I think the biggest need always continues to be post
processing types of issues. You know I think anybody can cook a product to
get rid of the pathogens; it’s making sure that it doesn’t get recontaminated at
some point either in the packing or further shipment and handling procedures
that go on.

(9) I think at a supervisory level, yes. I think if you go down a level,
with just a floor employee, a regular cook, I think that to me, that is too much
information for them; they need to know what to do and why you’re doing it,

but not technically why you’re doing it. Does that make sense?

86

4.7.5.1.5 None

(8) With our system, [additional tools and information are] not really
[needed]. I’ve been outside this plant and based on what people tell me that
have come in, we ’re right at the top of keeping up to date on what’s going on,
how the latest and greatest ways of doing things. I don’t know for our system
if it would help us that much, but I can see it helping throughout the meat
industry.

( 1) I really think they’re pretty straight forward as far as how they’re

directed, what it is written for, what is expected of that, the regulations.

4.8 STA TISITCAL ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING
RESPONSE DA TA

Chi square analyses were performed on all coded variables. This
analysis was performed to determine how any one variable might significantly
((1 = 0.05) affect another. From all those tests, the following section presents
those for which the statistical significance and pertinence to the project

objectives warranted review and discussion.

4. 8. 1 Significant Statistical Results

4.8.1.1 Job Title of Interviewees

The subjects’ Job Titles were significantly related to their education,
their familiarity with the USDA regulations, and their perceptions of the ability

of third-party training materials to enhance safety, yield, quality and variability.

87

 

4.8.1.1.1 Job Title of Interviewees vs. Their Level of Education

N = 48
The relationship between the job title of the interviewees and their

education was highly significant (P = 0.0040) (Table 28).

Table 28. Contingency analysis of level of education of interviewees by
their job title.

 

 

 

 

 

Job Title
Count Quality Production/Operation Total
Total % Assurance/Quality Column
Col % Control
Row %
Education High 8 14 22
School 17 29 46
29 70
36 64
Higher 20 6 26
than High 42 13 54
School 71 30
77 23
Total Row 28 20 48
58 42 1 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was not surprising that the Quality Assurance group had a higher
educational background, due mainly to the nature of their job(s). These
individuals are often responsible for the overall safety of their products and
documenting regulatory compliance. While sufficient knowledge of safety
procedures and regulations is necessary for those in production and
operation, assuring regulatory compliance is generally not a part of their core

job responsibilities.

88

 

4.8.1.1.2 499 Title of Interviewees vs. Their Familiarity with

yflDA Regulations (N = 50)

The relationship between Job Title and Supervisor Familiarity with

Regulations was significant (P = 0.0434) (Table 29).

Table 29. Contingency analysis of interviewee familiarity with USDA

regulations by their job title.

 

 

 

 

 

Job Title
Count Quality Production/Operation Total
Total Assurance/Quality Column
% Control
Col %
Row %
lnterviewee Low 14 15 29
Familiarity 28 30 58
47 75
48 52
High 16 5 21
32 10 42
53 25
76 24
Total 30 20 50
Row 60 40 100

 

 

 

 

 

The significant relationship between Job Title and Supervisor familiarity

with the regulations is not surprising. Upon each random call, I told the

receptionist or whoever answered the phone what information I was seeking.

I often was directed to the quality assurance/quality control managers and

supervisors. As previously stated, this knowledge and comprehension of

compliance is a part of their job description, so they generally had a higher

level of familiarity than did the respondents in production/operations.

89

 

 

4.8.1.1.3 Job Title of Interviewees vs. Their View on ThirLPartv
Training Materials Enhancement (N = 49)

The relationship between Job Title and their view on the ability of third
party training materials to enhance the safety, yield, quality and variability of
processed products was highly significant (P = 0.0005) (Table 30).

Table 30. Contingency analysis of perception of the ability of third-party

materials to enhance safety, yield, quality and variability by job title of
interviewees.

 

 

 

 

 

Job Title
Count Quality Production/Operation Total
Total % Assurance/Quality Column
Col % Control
Row %
Ability of Third No 10 0 10
Party Training 20 0.00 20
Material to 34 0.00
Enhance 100 0.00
Product Yes 19 20 39
38 41 80
66 100
49 51
Total 29 20 49
Column 59 41 1‘00

 

 

 

 

 

Third party training materials are important due to the very nature of
this project. Those in QA were fairly split on the potential impact of third party
training materials, while those in Production/Operation were all in agreement
on the ability of third party training materials to enhance product safety, yield,
quality and variability. This difference may have been caused by several
factors. The fact that previous third-party resources had not been adequate
in meeting specific, individual company goals could be one reason for this
difference. Another reason for the difference could be that

production/operation employees are more likely to see, firsthand, the potential

90

 

impact of training, because they are working more directly with the target
audience, and therefore are more likely to identify their needs.
Production/Operation personnel may also directly observe a need for
employee empowerment due to a lack of communication between line
employees and management. That is, training might give the employee
necessary tools to make informed, last minute decisions to correct or report

work station inconsistencies.

4.8.1.2 Education

4.8.1.2.1 Eggcation Level of Interviewees vs. Recommenge_d
Format/Media for Training (N = 47)

The relationship between Supervisor Education and Format/Media was
significant (P = 0.0559) (Table 31). Although this relationship does not meet
the o = 0.05 criterion, it was close enough to warrant discussion.

Table 31. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for
training by education level of interviewees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Education
Count High School or High School or Total
Total % Less More Column
Col %
ROW °/o
Formatl CD 6 2 8
Media ROM/Website 13 4 17
29 8
75 25
Video/Booklet 15 24 39
32 51 83
71 92
38 62
Total Row 21 26 47
45 55 1 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

It was interesting to see that the suggested format/media for the
training materials depended somewhat upon the supervisors” education.
Those with post-secondary education were more likely to feel that videos or
personal methods were best for their line employees. Perhaps, this is
because these are the methods by which they were taught. However, those
with a high school education had slightly higher regards for technologically-
based education. Perhaps, this is where they get their recent information, or
they have seen numerous changes over the years within the company and
regard this as a more change-friendly tool. It is noted that those with less
education were more likely to favor CD ROMNVeb Page for employee
training. This may be due to the fact that they receive much information from
this medium, versus those with more “formal” education background, where
books and written materials are primary tools. However, a valid explanation

for this relationship could not be deduced.

4.8.1.3 grpervisor Familiarity with Regulations

4.8.1.3.1 Familiarity of Interviewees with the U_SI_DA Regulations
vs. Recommended Format or Media for Training (N = 48)

The relationship between Familiarity with Regulations and Format or

Media was significant (P = 0.0379) (Table 32).

92

Table 32. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for
training by familiarity of interviewees with USDA regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnterviewee
Familiarity
Count No Yes Total Column
Total 0/0
Col %
Row %
Format! CD ROM/Website 7 1 8
Media 15 2 17
26 5
88 13
Video/Booklet 20 20 40
42 42 83
74 95
50 50
Total Row 27 21 48
56 44 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given a specific effect of regulatory familiarity on preferred training
format/media, it is logical to give greater weight to the impact of those more
familiar with the regulations when producing training resources. These
individuals understand the regulations and their requirements; therefore, they
are perhaps in a better position to understand the potential impact of training
format on the target group. Therefore, videos would be the recommended
method, because they were the overall favorite for both groups, but especially

those familiar with the regulations.

4.8.1.3.2 lnterviewees’ Familiarity with Regglations vs.
Employees Training Methodfs for Line Employees (N = 50)

There was also a significant (P = 0.0263) relationship between
supervisors familiarity with the regulations and their current employee training

mechanism (Table 33).

93

 

Table 33. Contingency analysis of line employee training methods by
interviewee familiarity with regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

lnterviewee
Familiarity
Count No Yes Total Column
Total 0/0
Col %
Row %
Training Apprenticeship 21 20 41
Method 42 40 82
72 95
51 49
Other 8 1 9
16 2 18
28 5
89 11
Total Row 29 21 50
58 42 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee training was, as aforementioned, done mainly by
apprenticeship. It was surprising that those unfamiliar with the regulations
were more likely to implement other methods into the training of oven
operators, than those familiar with the regulations. Perhaps, those unfamiliar
with the regulations saw the need for additional coverage of the information,
because they were aware of their weaknesses, which inherently affected the
job of those they supervised. Some employers who were familiar with the
regulations sometimes felt there was no need for the oven operators to know
or understand the regulations, because all direction comes from their
supervisors, and as long as the supervisors are well-versed in the regulations,
the oven operators are automatically in good standing. That is, they felt that
the operators just do as they tell them, and that was all that was needed.

Those who were unfamiliar with the regulations were split as to employee

94

training. These individuals may feel that as long as they are covering the
basic, necessary guidelines, all information is inclusive. Therefore, there is
no need for them to seek additional information to share with the oven
operators. This attitude is detrimental to any job. Training that encompasses
some authority or empowerment mechanism is more effective than training
without these elements. If employees do not have the power or knowledge to
take corrective action, physically or informatively, job morale and commitment
is not as strong. Therefore, many mistakes or miscalculations may go

unreported to upper management.

4.8.1.4 Regulatory Compliance

4.8.1.4.1 How Companies are Meetinq the U_SDA Regulations
vs. Recommended Format or Media for Training (N = 46)

The relationship between how the regulations were being met and the

Format or Media was significant (P = 0.0490) (Table 34).

95

Table 34. Contingency analysis of recommended format or media for
training by how companies are meeting the USDA regulations.

 

Method of Meeting Regulations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Count Safe Harbor Other Total

Total % Column

Col %

Row %

Format! CD 8 0 8
Media ROM/Website 17 0 17

22 0
100 0

Video/Booklet 29 9 38
63 20 83
78 100
76 24

Total Row 37 9 46
80 20 100

 

 

 

Meeting the regulations is dependent upon the media or format chosen

for the training materials. Safe harbor temperatures are used by almost

everyone; however, those using other methods, including their own validation

methods, are more likely to think videos and personal methods are the best

modes of information transfer. The main point of this table is to note that

100% of those implementing other methods, besides safe harbor

temperatures, felt the best format/media for their oven operators was a

video/booklet. These individuals are already implementing methods in

addition to apprenticeship training, and, therefore, may already be noting

advantages through product improvement or boosts in employee job quality.

96

 

4.8.1.5 Perceptions of the (liefulness of TrainipLMaterials

4.8.1.5.1 Perception of the fiefulness of Training Materials v;
Perceptions of the Ability of Third Party Training Materials
to Enhance Sfiafetv. Yield, Quality 8&1 Variability (N = 49)

The relationship between respondent perceptions of the usefulness of
training materials compared to their perceptions of third-party training material
enhancement abilities was significant (P = 0.0029) (Table 35).

Table 35. Contingency analysis of the ability of third-party training

materials to enhance safety, yield, quality and variability by usefulness
of training materials (N=49).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Usefulness of
Training Materials
Count No Yes Total Column
Total %
Col %
Row %
Third Party No 6 4 10
Ability to 12 8 20
Enhance 55 11
Products 60 40
Yes 5 34 39
10 69 80
45 89
13 87
Total Row 11 38 49
22 78 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both general training materials and third party training materials were
thought to be useful to the interviewees. Only 8% of the entire population felt
third party training materials would not enhance safety, yield, quality and
variability, even though other training might. 45% of those who felt training
was not useful did, however, feel that third party training materials could

enhance safety, yield, quality, and variability, which is very encouraging for

97

the creation of growth and development training for line employees. More
importantly, however, is the fact that 89% of the respondents who felt that
additional training materials would be useful also believed that third party
training materials would enhance the safety, yield, quality and variability of
their products. Overall, it was found that any kind of training is valuable,

including that developed by a third party.

4.8.1.5.2 Qsefulness of Training Materials vs. Employee
Training Methods for Line Employees (N = 50)

There was a significant (P = 0.0253) relationship between the
usefulness of training materials and employee training methods (Table 36).

Table 36. Contingency analysis of the training methods for line
employees by usefulness of training materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Usefulness of
Training Materials
Count No Yes Total Column
Total %
Col%
Row %
Training Apprentice 11 30 41
Methods 22 60 82
100 77
27 73
Other 0 9 9
0 18 18
0 23
0 100
Total Row 11 39 50
22 78 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who are already using other methods of training, including
HACCP, GMP, SOP’s, etc. are already aware of the importance of additional

training, while some of those performing apprentice-style training do not see

98

the usefulness of additional training information for oven operators. These
individuals often felt the oven operators did not need to be concerned with
regulatory compliance. Their premise was that oven operators do the
physical work, but only based upon the instruction of management. They felt
that since oven operators did not make the time/temperature decisions, they
did not need to fully understand the regulations themselves, but only need to
follow the orders associated with them. However, those who felt additional
training was necessary and/or useful often said that the oven operators have
too many responsibilities not to know the importance of the regulations.
Further understanding may enhance their desire and ability to do their jobs,
specifically in the area of safety. It may replenish perceptions of self-worth in

terms of positive behavior change and company accountability.

4.8.1.6 Line Employee Familiarity with the USDA Regulations

4.8.1.6.1 Line Employee Familiarity with the USDA Regulations
LBased Upon Supervisor Opinion) vs. Their Present
Training Mechanism(s) (N = 49)

There was a significant (P = 0.0194) relationship between line

employee familiarity with regulations and training (Table 37).

99

Table 37. Contingency analysis of line employee training mechanisms
by line employees familiarity with the USDA regulations (based upon
supervisor opinion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Familiarity
with Reflations
Count No Yes Total Column
Total %
Col%
Row %
Training Apprentice 30 10 40
Method 61 20 82
91 63
75 25
Other 3 6 9
6 12 18
9 38
33 67
Total Row 33 16 49
67 33 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

The type of training is very important to whether employees
understand the regulations or not. Over 90% of those who felt their
employees were unfamiliar with the regulations used apprenticeship training.
These are the employees who are expected to do simply as instructed, while
those who are trained by additional methods may be exposed to various
aspects surrounding theirjobs, including regulations. They may not be fully
explained, but a mere introduction may exist. This gives emphasis to the
speculation that additional training may aid oven operator knowledge in

details surrounding their occupation.

4.8.1.6.2 Line Employee Familiarity with the USDA Regulations
vs. Line Employee Education (N = 47)

 

The relationship between line employee familiarity with regulations and

line employee education was significant (P = 0.0107) (Table 38).

100

Table 38. Contingency analysis of line employee education by line
employees familiarity with the USDA regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Familiarity
with Regulations
Count No Yes Total Column
Total %
Col %
Row %
Employee Some High School or Less 15 2 17
Education 32 4 36
48 13
88 12
High School Graduate or More 16 14 30
34 30 64
52 88
53 47
Total Row 31 16 47
66 34 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was found that the average education level of the oven operators
was believed to be approximately high school. Those with less than a high
school education were more likely to be unfamiliar with the regulations than
those with a high school education or higher. If those with lower education
have less familiarity with the regulations, this supports the need to have
training materials targeted at a reading and comprehension level less than

high school, and maybe even in additional languages, like Spanish.

4. 8.2 Significant Statistical Results with Warning (Warning:

20% of cells have expected count less than 5I Chi
Square suspect)

Results in this section were significant; however, these values came
with the following warning, ‘Warning: 20% of cells have expected count less
than 5, Chi Square suspect,” that is, the individual cells in at least one-fifth of

the table are not big enough for an unequivocal chi square analysis. The

101

warnings were noted; however, the potential significance of the results shown
here were valuable enough to report in the interest of full usefulness of
results.

4. 8.2.1 Supervisor Familiarity with the @A Regulations vs.

Perception of Additional Technical information or Tools
Needed (N = 36)

There was a significant relationship between supervisor familiarity with
the regulations and their perception of needed additional technical information
and tools (P = 0.0110) (Table 39). That is, the subjects’ familiarity with the
regulations does affect their assessment of which additional tools and

technical information are needed.

102

Table 39. Contingency analysis of perception of additional technical
information or tools needed by familiarity with the USDA regulations.

 

lnterviewee Familiarity
with Regulations

 

Count No Yes Total Column
Total %
Col %

Row %

 

 

Additional Equipment 3 7 10
Information 8 19 28
Or Tools 16 41
Needed 30 70
Scientific Information 4 8 12
11 22 33
21 47
33
Understanding Regulations 7
19
37
100
Training 5
14
26 12
71 29
Total Row 19 17 36
53 47 100

 

 

 

GNOQOOEJD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The specifically requested additional technical information and tools,
as aforementioned, depended upon the supervisors’ familiarity with the
regulations. It is not surprising that those familiar with the regulations noted
no need for information related to regulatory language. In the final
recommendation, the needs of those who were familiar with the regulations
will be given more weight than those who were unfamiliar, because those who
were familiar are assured to have fuller comprehension of the factors affecting
regulatory compliance and product safety. For those who were unfamiliar,

regulatory language will be considered, especially in the interest of oven

103

operators. If the supervisors have trouble deciphering the language, it can be

inferred that the oven operators will have problems.

4. 8.2.2 Area of Study of Degreed Interviewees vs. Their
Perception of the Ability of Third-Party Training Materials to
Enhance SLafety. Yield, Quality and Variability (N = 35)

The results indicate that the subjects with a Food Science background
were slightly less likely than those with other degrees to believe that third-
party training materials would impact the safety, yield, quality and variability of
their products (P = 0.0498) (Table 40).

Table 40. Contingency analysis of ability of third-party training

materials to enhance safety, yield, quality, and variability by area of
study of degreed interviewees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnterviewee Area
of Stud
Count Food Science Other Total Column
Total %
Col %
Row %
Ability to No 6 1 7
Enhance 1 7 3 20
32 6
86 14
Yes 13 15 28
37 43 80
68 94
46 54
Total Rows 19 16 35
54 46 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although the Food Science majors do have formal training from
universities (third parties), they may be under the misconception that no
regulatory or complicated concepts can be understood without extensive,

formal training. This is a surprising phenomenon, but the length of the

104

training may be the major deterrent for Food Scientists in thoughts of third
party materials. They also might feel as if the developers of third party
materials are not in-tune enough with the processes and companies to
properly develop the materials. This view may be mitigated by, again,
contacting these individuals and asking for specific information needed for
their company. Perhaps, they feel their problems are so specialized that no
one else could possibly have the same difficulty, and this may or may not be

the case.

4. 8.2.3 Company Size, Qcafion, and Products Produced

No significant relationships were found between the number of company
employees, the size of the company, the location of the facility, or the type of
products produced by the company and interviewee perceptions on training,

training materials, and regulatory sawy.

105

5 CONCLUSIONS

Four key conclusions can be synthesized from the response

distributions, statistical results, and quote analyses. They are as follows:

- Oven operator training should have a positive effect on safety, yield,
quality, and variability of products. However, interviewee perceptions
were influenced by their professional background and current job
responsibilities.

Training materials targeted toward oven operators in the meat and
poultry industry are needed and expected to improve the overall quality of
products and an oven operator’s job performance, according to
expectation of their managers/supervisors. This training may improve
employee knowledge as to the importance of their processing of the
product.

- There appears to be a need for broader education related to food safety
standards in the meat and poultry industry, as indicated by interviewee
familiarity with the USDA regulations, perception of the hardest barriers to
overcome, and the need for additional technical information and tools.

This is no surprise, according to the aforementioned insight that
regulations are quickly changing, and some in industry are forced to play
catch-up. Although the job of oven operator, like other line-level positions,
is very important, few training materials are targeted at this group. While
current skills and development orientation training programs should be

continued, this research proves the need for additional growth and

106

development materials to further enhance the knowledge and, hopefully,
behavior of these individuals. Even some of the interviewees, themselves,
could use additional training, specifically to simplify and explain regulatory
language.

Training resources for oven operators should be targeted for levels below
high school and should be preferentially in video format with supplemental
reading materials.

With the average educational level of oven operators being
approximately high school, it is important not to alienate those below the
average. Therefore, materials should be prepared at the eighth to tenth
grade reading level. The recommended media for training was video,
supplemented by written material, such as booklets. However, it is not
known if this is the most effective, or most convenient method. It is
suspected that convenience is the more likely reason.

Two distinct, fundamental viewpoints on oven operator training were
reflected in responses regarding employee familiarity with the USDA
regulations, existing training methods, usefulness of training, and the
product enhancement capabilities of training. One side of this issue is
illustrated by the idea that, . .as far as [training] the operator himself, he’s
only doing what he’s being asked to do. ” The other side is typified by the
idea that, “Oh, god, yes! Training is just huge! You can’t tell people

enough [about what] they need to be doing for any aspect of the job. ”

107

One of the largest perceived problems in this category is lack of
management support. If managers fail to see the need for additional
training of oven operators, our materials will not reach oven operators,
because supervisors are the direct link to the oven operators, further
supporting the idea that those likely to be in greatest need of training will

be the least likely to receive it.

108

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

A discussion of current and recommended future work in relation to

this research is necessary. Hindsight, as always, revealed improvements that

could be made to this research.

6. 1 CURRENT WORK

These results are being used to optimize training materials in terms
of format, media, and content.
Prototype training materials are currently being produced in a for

oven operators.

6.2 FUTURE WORK

More in-depth information should be gathered from willing
interviewees on specific content, delivery format, and marketing
strategies for the training materials. The delivery format should be
discussed further to determine why videos are the preferred training
mechanism. Although several respondents gave reasons for
choosing videos, some were vague or indicated that it was more of a
conventional and convenient method compared to others. More
specific information is needed regarding content to include in training
materials for oven operators, such as language, and specific areas in
which knowledge is lacking and may enhance job quality. Additional
information concerning laboratory testing methods underway, other

than microbiological sample testing, is also needed.

109

A pilot scale assessment of all training materials and their impact
should be conducted in order to determine the specific needs of the
industry and implement the training program according to those
findings (Hackes 1995; Whetherly 1994). This assessment may be
performed through the examination of data, observation (Whetherly
1994) and by, again, speaking with managers and supervisors.
Further assessment should be conducted of the effectiveness of
training programs using the levels of reaction, learning, behavior,
and results considering the impact on line-employee behavior
(Kirkpatrick 1983). An assessment of employee reaction, behavior,
learning, and training outcome should also be conducted. Finally, an
assessment of how training techniques are utilized by companies
where line-level training is supported by management vs. companies
where line-level training is not supported by management should be

conducted (Jackson et al. 1977).

110

REFERENCES

111

7 REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1992. Closing the Skills Gap: New Solutions. Chicago: Council
for Adult and Experiential Learning. 8.

Anonymous. 1993. Employee empowerment. Food Management 28(5):55.
Anonymous. 1993b. Seeing is believing. Restaurant Institutions 103(27):30.

Anonymous. 1995. Final report, Summative evaluation report. Hartford:
Alliance for Workforce Skills. 19.

Anonymous. 1999. Occupational employment projections to 2008: Part 10 of
10. Monthly Labor Review 122(11):51-77.

Anonymous. 2001. Getting to grips with HACPP. Hygiene (7)231-34.

Belson WA. 1981. Validity in social research. Aldershot: Gower Publishing
Company. 19.

Brown M. 2000. HACCP in the meat industry. Cambridge: Woodhead
Publishing Limited. 13.

Bureau of Census. 2000. Average annual expenditures of all consumer units
by region and size of unit: 1998. Congressional Information Service, Inc. 464.

Bureau of Census. 2000. Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational
injuries and Illnesses by industry and selected case types, 1998.
Congressional Information Service, Inc. 8.

Clark M. 1991. Training for tradition at Opryland Hotel. Cornell HRA Quarterly
31(11):46-51.

Colarelli SM and Montei MS. 1996. Some contextual influences on training
utilization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32(3):306-322.

Deming WE. 1988. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study. 2.

Dillman DA. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.
New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. 73.

Dun and Bradstreet. 2002. D 8 B Million Dollar Directory, Series 1-3.
Bethlehem: Dun and Bradstreet. 8.

112

Durocher JF. 1990. Beat the training challenge with interactive videodiscs.
Cornell HRA Quarterly 31 (1 ):46-51.

Feuer D. 1987. Training for fast times. Training 24 (7):25-20.

Foddy W. 1993. Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires:
Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 11.

Fontana A and Frey JH. 1998. Collecting and interpreting qualitative
materials. In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln YS. Interviewing the art of science.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 32.

Fox S. and Dinur Y. 1988. Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation.
Personnel Psychology, 41 (1 ):581-592.

Frankfort-Nachmias C and Rodeghier M. 1997. Social statistics for a diverse
society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. 40.

Georgenson D L. 1982. The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training
and Development Journal 36(10):75-78.

Gordon J. 1986. What they don’t teach you about being a training manager.
Training 23(6):22-34.

Gottlieb L. 1985. Education is essential. Restaurant Business 84(12):114-118.
Groves RM. 1979. Surveys by telephone. New York: Academic Press. 3.
Guenzel PJ. Berckmans TR, and Cannell CF. 1983. General interviewing
techniques: A self-instructional workbook for telephone and personal
interviewer Training. University of Michigan: The Survey Research Center of
the Institute for Social Research. 37.

Hackes BL. 1995. A Thesis: Effects of training on employee productivity and
turnover in college and university food service. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska. 59.

Harris J. 1991. Dinnerhouse technology. Forbes 148(1):2.

Hassinger JH. 1982. Increase your stakes to expand your training
effectiveness. Training Development Journal 36(10):3.

Haywood KM. 1992. Effective training: toward a strategic approach. Cornell
HRA Quarterly 33(6):43-52.

113

Jackson BB, Hatlen JB, and Palmer BJ. 1977. Evaluation of a fast food
management training program: One year later. Journal of Food Protection,
40(8):562-565.

King P. 1992. Tuning into training. Food Management 27(7):98.

Holy Bible. 1990. The King James study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
Inc.

Kirkpatrick DL. 1983. Four steps to measuring training effectiveness.
Personnel Administration 28(11):19-25.

Klein HJ and Thorns P. 1995. The setting of goals for skill acquisition 14(1):3-
9.

LaGreca G. 1990. Training techniques. Restaurant Business 89(7):96-98.

Managing Human Resources. 1992. Managing effective on-the-job training.
Chicago: The Educational Foundation of the National Restaurant Association.
18.

Miller, MT. 1993. Barriers to adult education training programs:
Challenges for the adult educator. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. 10.

Morris CE. 2000. Training key to recruiting & retention. Food
Engineering 72(6):55-58.

Neumann R. 1992. Training full-time employees: programs that work.
NACUFS Newswave 26(1):26.

Rentsch JR. 1990. Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences
in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology 75:668-681.

Ryan NR. 1993. They give service with a style. Restaurant Institutions
103(13):71-76.

Saks AM and Belcourt M. 1997. Transfer of training in Canadian
organizations. Update 1 (1 ):9-10.

Salter, CA and Knight JB. 1985. Videotapes-fulfilling the promise. Cornell
HRA Quarterly 26(2):54-55.

Sheridan M and Perlik A. 2001. 2001 top 100 for leading independent

operators, an investment in training yields rich returns. Restaurants &
Institutions 1 11(9):69-73.

114

Singleton, Jr. RA and Straits BC. 2002. Handbook of interview research:
survey interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 23.

Spitzer D. 1986. Five keys to successful training. Training 23(6):37-39.

Stephenson S. 1992. California State-Sacramento teaches more than
technique. Restaurant Institution 102(12):28.

Stephenson S and Weinstein J. 1992. Training feeds fighting spirit.
Restaurant Institution 102(1):83-88.

Sussman L. 1982. Support from the top: A case history. Training and
Development Journal 36(12):102-105.

Tershy R. (Executive Director) et al. 1989. Annual report. San Jose: Center
for Employment Training (CET).

Tesluk PE, Farr JL, Mathieu JE, and Vance RJ. 1995. Generalization
of employee involvement training to the job setting: Individual and situational
effects. Personnel Psychology 48:607-632.

Thomson-Gale. 2003. Ward’s Business Directory of U. S. Private and Public
Companies, 45"1 Ed. Volume 1-3. Detroit: Thomson-Gale. 39.

USDA. 1998. Lethality and stabilization performance standards for
certain meat and poultry products. Technical Paper. Food Safety and
Inspection Service.

USDA. 1999. Performance standards for the production of certain meat and
poultry products. Federal Register (CFR Parts 301, 317, 318, 320 and 381)
64(3): 732-749.

USDA. 2000. US annual consumption of grain products, meats, dairy
products

and fruits and vegetables in pounds per capita for the periods of 1990 to
1997, 1980 to 1989, and 1950 to 1959. Milling and Baking News 79(1):26+.

USDA. 2000b. Meat and poultry inspection directory. Washington, D. C.:
Food Safety and Inspection Service.

USDA. 2002a. The people’s department. Available:
[http.//www.usda.gov/yourusdalopen.htm].

USDA. 2002b. The United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety
Inspection Service homepage. Available:
[http.//www.usda.govlagency/fsisl.html].

115

USDA. 2002c. Food safety. Available:
[http:l/www.usda.gov/yourusda/fstext.htm].

USDA. 2002d. Pathogen reduction/HACCP. Available:
[fsis.usda.gov/oa/haccp/haccpq8a.htm]

Vetter JL. 1996. Food laws and regulations. Manhattan: American Institute
of Baking. 30.

Wankat PC and Oreovicz FS. 1993. Teaching engineering. New York:
McGraw-Hill Inc. 4.

Whetherly J. 1994. Management of training and staff development. London:
Library Association Publishing. 15.

Yeomans WN. 1982. How to get top management support. Training and
Development Journal 36(6):38-40.

116

8 APPENDICES

117

 

APPENDIX A

SURVEY

118

 

MICHIGAN STATE
0 N I V E R SIT Y

LINE-LEVEL TRAINING PROJECT

Hello, my name is Kerri Harris, and I am a food science graduate student at
Michigan State University. I am in the process of developing training
materials for oven operators and am asking for your help in order to ensure
the usefulness of these materials. This survey should take only 2-3 minutes
of your time and will help ensure the value of this project. If there are any
questions or concerns with the survey, please contact me at (517) 353-7283.

If you would be interested in giving additional input, participating in initial
testing or screening of training materials, and/or utilizing the final training
products, please print your information on the inserted page. This information
will be separated from the survey in order to ensure the confidentiality of your
responses.

This is a confidential survey, which means that neither your identity, nor your
company’s identity, will be linked to your responses in any way; therefore,
your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only
the project personnel will have access to your responses. Completion of this
survey is voluntary; you may refuse to answer certain questions or may
discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing this questionnaire. If there
are questions about participants’ rights as human subjects of research please
contact David E. Wright at (517) 355-2180.

119

Is your company involved in producing fully and/or partially cooked meat
and/or poultry products? (Circle one)

Yes No

If yes, please, continue to the next question. If no, thank you for your
time, but you do not need to fill out the rest of the survey.

Please read the six statements below, and indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each one by circling one number per statement: 1 =
Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 =
Slightly disagree, 6 = Somewhat disagree, 7 = Disagree, 8 = Strongly
disagree.

Line-level operators of ovens and cooking systems can influence the safety,
yield, quality and/or uniformity of fully cooked products.

a. Safety. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
b. Yield: Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
0. Quality. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

(I. Uniformity. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

High quality, third party training materials targeted at line-level operators,
such as booklets, videos, CD-ROM’s, or web pages, will help improve product
safety, yield, quality, and/or uniformity.

a. Safety. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
b. Yield: Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
0. Quality. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

d. Uniformity. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

Rank the following in terms of priority for operator training materials:
(1 = Highest, 4 = Lowest)

Quality Safety Uniformity Yield

My company would utilize high quality, third party training resources for line-
level operators (assuming no cost.)

120

Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

121

I am familiar with the USDA ’s pathogen lethality requirements for fully cooked
products.

Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

If you are not familiar with the lethality requirements, please skip
question 6.

Meeting these requirements is difficult.
Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

Your job title:

 

Please add any additional comments you have about employee training,
particulariy as related to cooking operations.

We appreciate your help with this project. Please print your appropriate
contact information on the inserted page, which will be kept separate from this
questionnaire.

122

LINE-LEVEL TRAINING PROJECT

Please print your information on this page. This information will be separated
from the survey in order to ensure the confidentiality of your responses.

Name:

Employer:

Job Title/Position:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-mail:

Fax:

Check any of the following that apply:
I am willing to provide additional feedback via telephone or on-site visits.

I am interested in participating in the initial testing or screening of training
materials.

I may be interested in utilizing the final training products.
I am not interested in any of the above. Please do not contact me further.

123

APPENDIX B

Additional Information for Potential Interviewees

124

 

2100 S. Anthony Hall
East Lansing, MI 48823

Dear Mr. Sans:
December 13, 2002

I appreciate your interest in helping me with my research. I am providing brief, but-
hopefully- adequate information on the scope of my project at Michigan State University.

I am in the process of developing training materials for oven operators, mainly motivated
by the FSIS shifting the regulations for ready-to-eat products toward lethality
performance standards. It is our belief that worker training can have an impact on
product safety, quality, and uniformity, but we need to test our assumption. Therefore,
we are seeking individuals who fall under these regulations to help us determine the
necessity of training materials, as well as their best possible design.

Three objectives have been outlined to meet the goals of this project: 1. To assess
specific training needs, where they are needed, and the level of education of oven
operators by interviewing and/or surveying supervisors; 2. To create the prototype
training materials; and finally, 3. To assess the impact of this training via a survey of
supervisors, and possibly the employees themselves. We are currently in the middle of
the first objective.

Your help in meeting these goals will be greatly appreciated. I have attached a
preliminary survey, which will give you an idea about the questions to be asked, and the
feedback we are seeking. If you have any more questions or concerns, please, feel free
to call me at (517) 355-7713, ext. 188.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Harris

Graduate Research Assistant

Michigan State University

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

125

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R SIT Y

 

LINE-LEVEL TRAINING PROJECT

Hello, my name is Kerri Harris, and I am a food science graduate student
at Michigan State University. I am in the process of developing training
materials for oven operators and am asking for your help in order to
ensure the usefulness of these materials. This survey should take only 2-
3 minutes of your time and will help ensure the value of this project. If
there are any questions or concerns with the survey, please contact me at
(517) 355-7713, ext. 188. Please, return the completed survey to 2100 S.
Anthony Hall, East Lansing MI 48823.

If you would be interested in giving additional input, participating in initial
testing or screening of training materials, and/or utilizing the final training
products, please print your information on the inserted page. This
information will be separated from the survey in order to ensure the
confidentiality of your responses.

This is a confidential survey, which means that neither your identity, nor
your company’s identity, will be linked to your responses in any way;
therefore, your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable
by law. Only the project personnel will have access to your responses.
Completion of this survey is voluntary; you may refuse to answer certain
questions or may discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing this
questionnaire. If there are questions about participants’ rights as human
subjects of research please contact David E. Wright at (517)355-2180.

126

Is your company involved in producing fully and/or partially cooked meat
and/or poultry products? (Circle one)

Yes No

If yes, please, continue to the next question. If no, thank you for your
time, but you do not need to fill out the rest of the survey.

Please read the six statements below, and indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each one by circling one number per statement: 1 =
Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 =
Slightly disagree, 6 = Somewhat disagree, 7 = Disagree, 8 = Strongly
disagree.

Line-level operators of ovens and cooking systems can influence the safety,
yield, quality and/or uniformity of fully cooked products.

a. Safety. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
b. Yield: Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree
0. Quality. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

(I. Uniformity. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

High quality, third party training materials targeted at line-level operators,
such as booklets, videos, CD-ROM’s, or web pages, will help improve product
safety, yield, quality, and/or uniformity.

a. Safety. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

b. Yield: Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

0. Quality. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

d. Uniformity. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly
disagree

Rank the following in terms of priority for operator training materials:
(1 = Highest, 4 = Lowest)

Quality Safety Uniformity Yield

My company would utilize high quality, third party training resources for line-
Ievel operators (assuming no cost.)

Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

127

I am familiar with the USDA ’s pathogen lethality requirements for fully cooked
products.

Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

If you are not familiar with the lethality requirements, please skip
question 6.

Meeting these requirements is difficult.
Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly disagree

Your job title:

 

Please add any additional comments you have about employee training,
particulariy as related to cooking operations.

We appreciate your help with this project. Please print your appropriate
contact information on the inserted page, which will be kept separate from this
questionnaire.

128

LINE-LEVEL TRAINING PROJECT

Please print your Information on this page. This information will be separated
from the survey in order to ensure the confidentiality of your responses.

Name:
Employer:
Job Title/Position:

Address:

Phone Number:
E-mail:
Fax:

Check any of the following that apply:

[I I am willing to provide additional feedback via on-site visits or a
confidential (10-15 minute) telephone interview.

[I I am interested in participating in the initial testing or screening of
training materials.

[3 I may be interested in utilizing the final training products.

[I I am not interested in any of the above. Please do not contact me
further.

129