commonalities - tpximpact/f4-fsa-field-ops-discoveries-overview GitHub Wiki
The following table summarises some of the headline commonalities and differences between the inspection domains in a series of macro contexts:
- Why: mission; legal and governance drivers; KPIs and OKRs
- Who: operations; actors; subjects; stakeholders; touchpoints; policyholders; funders; related schemes
- What: service scope; inspection, enforcement and related official control activities
- Where: environmental contexts and constraints; target establishments and premises
- When: trigger events; cycles and frequency
- How: training; guidance; documentation; knowledge sharing
There are many common areas that can be built on to simplify, standardise and streamline inspection services carried out by the FSA (although not all are beneficial).
Areas of difference present constraints to preserve the integrity of individual services or opportunities to eliminate wasteful variation.
This macro comparison sets the context for understanding the proposed alignment of services lifecycle.
| Macro Contexts | Common | Different |
|---|---|---|
| Why | - Each service implements Official Controls to ensure public safety for food. - These are described in various EU & UK legislation. |
- A key driver for wine inspection is brand and revenue protection, which influences a different approach to inspection and relationship with FBOs. - DEFRA are policyholders for Wine Inspection, and the FSA has policy jurisdiction over Meat and Dairy. - Operational reporting metrics and tools vary across inspection areas. |
| Who | - Each food domain has at least one Lead Inspector, and a number of full-time Inspectors. - Service resourcing is supported by part-time or assistant Inspectors taken from the wider MHI pool (including SDP contractors). - Third parties are used to support inspection delivery, such as for sampling. - Internal stakeholders have interactions with or dependencies on third parties (such as industry bodies, local authorities and other government agencies). |
- Field Veterinary Coordinators are responsible for coordination of unannounced inspections (rather than UAI Leads). - Dairy Inspection has dedicated backoffice and customer support. - There is no Technical Lead for Wine Inspection. |
| What | - Each domain conducts routine and non-routine inspections. - Each domain has a defined set of inspection tasks and requirements. - Each domain distinguishes between high and low risk inspections. - Off-site preparation is carried out before each inspection, and is informed by a site's inspection history. - Each domain must formally report inspection visit outcomes, including recording or documenting supporting evidence. |
- FBOs have different responsibilities (eg, vineyards need to submit annual Production Reports). - Wine Inspection activities are not chargeable. - Wine Inspection provide more advisory services, while Dairy and Meat are predominantly compliance and enforcement focused. |
| Where | The types of establishment that are subject to official controls in each domain are well defined. - Each domain has or maintains a register of establishments that are subject to official controls. - Each inspector is primarily responsible for a geographical 'patch'. - Inspectors routinely work from home and on the move. |
- Regions and areas are not aligned across meat, dairy and wine inspection services. - Dairy inspections happen at one type of establishment. There is significantly more variety in environments for Wine inspections. |
| When | - Visit frequency and scheduling limits are defined in regulations, and informed by the product handled or type of FBO. - The operating schedule is adjusted based on the outcome of inspections. - Each domain responds to incidents outside of the inspection cycle. - Inspections for individual FBOs are initially triggered by new registrations or approvals, and may subsequently be adjusted based on inspection results. |
- Wine inspections are typically by appointment, whereas other services are unannounced. - Meat inspections are in step with the Audit cycle, which is controlled by the FSA. - Schedule planning is semi-automated through K2 for Dairy and Meat, but more manual for Wine (based on Access and Excel outputs). |
| How | - The MOC is recognised as the authorative source of guidance for each inspection domain. - Each domain has regular team meetings for knowledge sharing. - Good practice happens both outside and inside the FSA (such as with plant profiles). |
- Technical leadership is distributed across Wine Inspectors in the absence of a Technical Lead. |
The service blueprint and user journeys developed in previous Field Ops discoveries illustrate commonalities and differences at a more granular operational and task level.