Traceability

Report 15/2009y Published March 2009
Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping

and cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of
electronic traceability systems
Workshop hosted by Nofima in association with the TRACE project
25-26 February 2009
Kathryn Anne-Marie Donnelly and Petter Olsen

Nofima is a business-oriented research Nofima’s social scientific business area
group that aims at creating value of offers economic analysis, perspective
knowledge in close cooperation with the and foresight analysis, consumer
aquaculture-, fisheries- and food research, market analysis and strategic
industry. The group has four research consultancy. Other primary professional
divisions: Marine, Food, Ingredients areas cover information logistics and
and Market, around 470 employees traceability. In addition to servicing the
altogether. Our headquarters are industry, Nofima Market works closely
located in Tromsø. Other research units with Nofima’s scientific areas of
are at Ås, Stavanger, Bergen, business.
Sunndalsøra and Averøy.
Nofima Market
Main office in Tromsø Muninbakken 9–13
Muninbakken 9–13 P.O. box 6122
P.O. box 6122 NO-9291 Tromsø
NO-9291 Tromsø Norway
Norway Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00
Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00 Fax: +47 77 62 91 00
Fax: +47 77 62 91 00 E-mail: market@nofima.no
E-mail: nofima@nofima.no
Internet: www.nofima.no
Internet: www.nofima.no
Nofima Market
P.O. box 6122, NO-9291 Tromsø, Norway
Visiting address: Muninbakken 9–13
Tel.: +47 77 62 90 00, fax: +47 77 62 91 00
market@nofima.no
www.nofima.no
Business reg. no.: NO 964 441 898 VAT
ISBN: Report no: Accessibility:

Report 978-82-7251-679-5 15/2009 Open
Title: Date:
Harmonizing methods for food traceability process March 18, 2009
mapping and cost/benefit calculations related to Number of pages and appendixes:
implementation of electronic traceability systems
Author(s): Project no.:
Kathryn Anne-Marie Donnelly and Petter Olsen 20074
By agreement with: Contractors ref.:

EU Project TRACE
Three keywords:
Process mapping, traceability, cost-benefit
Summary:
In recent years there has been increased focus on traceability in food supply chains. Process
mapping for traceability in food supply chains is a way of describing where information which is
necessary to maintain traceability is lost. There exist many ‘methods’ for this, but few (if any) of
them are formalised as scientific publications. Cost benefit calculations are important in all areas
of research and management. With respect to implementing traceability, an appropriate cost
benefit analysis will be an important tool. A better understanding of the different methods would
enable advancement of this area of research.
Table of contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Contributions................................................................................................................... 2
Food Traceability Process Mapping. Standard method for analyzing material flow,
information flow and information loss in food supply chains.
Petter Olsen, Nofima................................................................................................ 5
Analysis of Food Processes: an Application for Traceability using ’Tracepoints’
Jorge Molina, Ainia................................................................................................. 11
Collection of data for optimizing operations in a fish chain .................................................
Maria Randrup, DTU Aqua.................................................................................... 19
Internal traceability system implementation in the Polish fish processing plant
Olga Szulecka, Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia .................................................. 25
Traceability in the Danish Fish Sector - a tool for sustainable and legitimate fishing
operations ..................................................................................................................
Erling Larsen, DTU Aqua ....................................................................................... 31
Traceability Profiling for fruit and vegetable SMEs in developing countries
Gwynne Foster, Consumer Goods, Council of South Africa .................................. 37
Development of traceability applications in Iceland.............................................................
Sveinn Margeirsson, MATIS .................................................................................. 49
Identification, monitoring and traceability of ice cream products in the supply chain
Roy Doornbos, ITENE............................................................................................ 55
3 Cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of traceability systems ......... 63
Global traceability standards for food supply chain -Traceback perspective
Tomasz Dowgielewicz,ILIM ……………………………….65
On the Use of Stochastic Simulation to Measure Traceback Solutions Economic Impact
Andres Silva, University of Kent………………………………………………………..71
Cost-benefit analysis of implementing traceability - a case study
Mai Thi Tuyet Nga, University of Iceland……………………………………………...77
Economic Evaluation of Technological Innovations in Food Traceability Systems
Freddy Brofman, University of Kent……………………………………………………83
An information model to manage traceability data in service based systems
Michele Puccio, Engineering Ingegneria Informatica.............................................89
4 Discussion................................................................................... ..................................95
4.1 Food Traceability Process Mapping....................................................................... 95
4.2 Cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of traceability systems .......... 96
5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................97
6 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 99
7 References ...................................................................................................................101
1 Introduction
In recent years there has been increased focus on traceability in food supply chains
(Carriquiry and Babcock, 2007, Caswell, 2000, Elbers et al., 2001, Fallon, 2001, Hobbs,
2004, Madec et al., 2001, Ozawa et al., 2001, Sporleder and Goldsmith, 2001). Sporleder
and Moss (2002) described the increasing demand for vertical product information flow in the
global food supply chain. This increased interest has led to the establishment of large
national and international research projects. The projects are focused on both the analytical
tools necessary to verify the origin of food products and the technical tools and knowledge
necessary to trace product and process information throughout the supply chain. The larger
European projects include, TRACE, TRACEBACK, TraceFish, ChillOn, CoExtra.
Process mapping for traceability in food supply chains is a way of describing where
information which is necessary to maintain traceability is lost. There exist many ‘methods’ for
this, but few (if any) of them are formalised as scientific publications. This makes further
development and exchange of ideas challenging. Comparison of results is also difficult when
there are no formal descriptions of the methods. A better understanding of the different
methods would enable advancement of this area of research.
Cost benefit calculations are important in all areas of research and management. They can
be used as a tool to decide whether a course of action is appropriate, how best to develop an
existing solution further and to assess the outcome of a completed project. With respect to
implementing traceability, an appropriate cost benefit analysis will be an important tool.
An outcome of the above mentioned projects has been further development of these
methods. The aim of the workshop was to discuss and share experiences from working with
methods related to food traceability process mapping and also with cost benefit calculations
in order to see what could be learned and what experiences could be exchanged.
The authors hope that the workshop and this document will form the basis for a further
exchange of ideas. The experience gained from this workshop is particularly valuable
because of the international and intra-project exchanges and contributions.
1
2
2 Contributions
3
4
Food Traceability Process Mapping. Standard method for analyzing material
flow, information flow and information loss in food supply chains.
Petter Olsen, Nofima
5
6
Nofima is the newly formed fusion of almost all
Norwegian food research institutes (incorporating
Harmonizing methods for food Akvaforsk, Matforsk, Norconserv and Fiskeriforskning)
traceability process mapping and covers all food sectors and links in the value chain.
and cost/benefit calculations Nofima Market is situated in
related to implementation of Tromsoe and carries out R&D work
electronic traceability systems related to economics, marketing,
logistics, rationalisation and
traceability of food products.
Senior scientist Petter Olsen, Nofima Marked
Intra-project meeting
Tromsø, Norway, February 25-26 2009
Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged
This presentation Definition - ISO 8402

1. What is traceability, definitions Traceability:
2. Why traceability? Ability to trace the history, application
or location of an entity by means of
3. Process mapping method –
recorded identifications.
background
4. Process mapping method – In a product sense, it may relate to
application Îthe origin of materials and parts
5. Process mapping method – Îthe product processing history
conclusions Îthe distribution and location of the
product after delivery
ISO 9000: What traceability is and isn’t:

“The ability to trace the history, application or location
of that which is under consideration” • Traceability does not refer to the (product)
data itself
EU Common Food Law:
• There is no such thing as “traceability data”
“The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-
producing animal or substance intended to be, or • Traceability does not mean “ability to identify
expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, origin”; that is only part of traceability
through all stages of production, processing and
• Traceability is the name of your systematic
distribution”
ability to access the data you have stored
Codex Alimentarius: • Traceable data elements are connected to
“Traceability/product tracing: the ability to follow the identifiers, and traceable data elements are
movement of a food through specified stage(s) of connected to each other
production, processing and distribution”
7
Traceability drivers in the food sector:
Chain traceability visualization:
Certification Avoid re-
This is the traceability (BRC, IFS,

punching Labour/cost
Traceability Optimal
ISO 22000, ..) requirements production
reduction
‘The ability to trace …’ Industrial
statistics
HACCP Make
Trace-
or buy
Trace
Food contamination,
Profiling Chain
Feedback-
safety communi-
Common
Enable recall
§18, §19
ability loops
cation
Food Law
Labeling Integration
laws of systems
Non-IUU
Environmental Competitive
load, food miles, Consumer
Legislation advantage
Information fish emissions,
resource use
preference
(systematic Documentation
of sustainability
recordings)
Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged Petter
PetterOlsen
Olsen 25/02/09
25/02/09 --©©Nofima
Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged
European Commission -DG Research
Detailed view of TRACE activities per chain

• 18. 6 M€
TRACE (IP)
• 60 months
“To develop traceability methods and systems Mapping
Dictionary of
• 53 participants that will provide consumers with added Drafting
of ad-hoc
Draft ad- Final ad-hoc
verifiable
parameters
verifiable
(11 SME’s) confidence in the authenticity of European food.” hoc standard parameters to
standard standard to objective objective
•4 traceability methods methods
pilots (mineral
water, honey, Consumers Technology Transfer Kick-off First Final Evaluate
Effectuate
chicken, meeting for company/ Plan re- Consensus company/ cost/
re-
this specific chain engineering meeting chain benefit and
feed/grain) chain visit
engineering
visit conclude
TIMCS
Fork Demonstration Farm

Draft plan for Final plan for
Initial re- re- Final
Final report
Traceable data capable of verifying the origin of food
analysis of engineering engineering analysis of
with ‘Good
material and material and
Traceability
information information
Practice’ and
flow flow
cost/benefit
analysis
Process mapping Cost/benefit
Traceability systems + Analytical Tools
method needed method needed
Batches, TUs and LUs

Process mapping method - background
Trade units 15510

Raw material Trade units 21551 Trans Trans
Trade units 16515 batch 151 Production port port
Trade units 22199
batch 211
LU
Trade units 16518
Pre Post
Pro
Raw material Trade units 22651
Trade units 18771

batch 156
Trade units 23174
pro Process pro
Trade units 18851
Ingredient
duct LU
Trade units 25009
cess cess
Trade units 19001
batch 838
ion Production
batch 212 Trade units 27654
Timeline
Trade units 19432 Ingredient Trade units 28866 Duration Duration Duration Duration Duration
batch 915
Trade units 19768 Trade units 29702 T T T T
Received Internal Sent Transformation

8
Sample form 1 – Transport (D)
9 sets of questions – go against the flow (or not)

Sample form 4 – Production ends (T) Question types

• Material flow (M), product or ingredient name,
type, condition, location, collection
frequency, etc
• Parameters including media used (P), linked
to TU/LU or on label, media used,
• Existing or possible keys (K), identification of
TU, LU, shipment, vehicle, trip, etc.
• Transformations (T), link between input and
output, between TU and LU, joins, splits
• Food safety (F), questions about temperature
and temperature logs
Questions related to durations Questions related to transformations

• What is the nature of the duration? How is the • Why and where did the transformation
vehicle / trip / tank / store identified? happen?
• What is the nature of the product in this • What is the frequency of this, what amounts
duration? The name? The type? The size? are involved?
• What is on the product label in this duration? • How do inputs relate to outputs? (one-to-one,
• Who is responsible for the product? one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many)
• How are products separated in this duration? • What is the relationship between LU and TU?
• What common parameters are linked to all • How are parameters that describe inputs
products in this duration? connected to parameters that describe
• What quality control checks in this duration? outputs?
9
History of the method Experience using the method
• A process mapping done using this method is in itself
not sufficient for subsequent implementation of
• First version developed in 2004 as part of traceability software
Seafood Plus IP
• Now in version 9 • The focus is on the identifiers and the transformations,
• Submitted for scientific publication not the parameters connected to the identifiers, so
additional questions are needed if you want to
• Used by various people in various projects investigate something related to the value of the
• Has been used for process mapping in parameters (hygiene, recall readiness, sustainability,
supply chains for chicken, cod, herring, resource use, etc.)
honey, lamb, mineral water, salmon, soy bean
and tuna (and probably more) • It is a good tool for first company visit, it ensures that
relevant questions are not forgotten, and it significantly
helps in standardizing reporting from pilots
Process mapping publications

Thank you for • Dupuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V. & Guinet, A. (2002). Traceability analysis and
optimization method in food industry. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2002 IEEE
International Conference on, 1), 494-499.
your attention •
•
Dupuy, C., Botta-Genoulaz, V. & Guinet, A. (2005). Batch dispersion model to optimise
traceability in food industry. Journal of Food Engineering, 70(3), 333-339.
Folinas, D., Manikas, I. & Manos, B. (2006). Traceability data management for food
chains. British Food Journal, 108(8), 622-633.
• Lo Bello, L., Mirabella, O., Torrisi, N. & ieee computer, s. "Modelling and evaluating
traceability systems in food manufacturing chains." 13th IEEE International Workshop
on Enabling Technologies - Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WET ICE
Petter Olsen 2004), Modena, ITALY.
petter.olsen@nofima.no
Cost/benefit publications
• Banterle, A. & Stranieri, S. (2008). The consequences of voluntary traceability system
for supply chain relationships. An application of transaction cost economics. Food
Policy, 33(6), 560-569.
• Caswell, J.A. (2007). Expanding the focus of cost-benefit analysis for food safety: a
multi-factorial risk prioritization approach. Workshop on Monitoring and Quality
Assurance in the Food Supply Chain, Bonn, Germany.
• Caswell, J.A. & Jensen, H.H. (2007). Introduction: Economic measures of food safety
interventions. Agribusiness, 23(2), 153-156.
• Cooper, R. & Kaplan, R.S. (1988). Measure costs right - make the right descisions.
Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 96-103.
• Gordijn, J. & Akkermans, H. (2001). Designing and evaluating E-business models. Ieee
Intelligent Systems, 16(4), 11-17.
• Maldonado, E.S., Henson, S.J., Caswell, J.A., Leos, L.A., Martinez, P.A., Aranda, G. &
Cadena, J.A. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis of HACCP implementation in the Mexican
meat industry. Food Control, 16(4), 375-381.
• Sahin, E., Dallery, Y. & Gershwin, S. (2002). Performance evaluation of a traceability
system. Proceedings of International Symposium and Workshop on System
Engineering of Computer Based System. IEEE transactions), 229-232.
• Siman, E.M., Hernandez, P.A.M., Henson, S.J., Caswell, J.A., Meneses, J.A.C. & Bueno,
F.C. (2005). Costs and benefits associated to the implementation of food safety and
quality controls: HACCP and ISO 9000 in the Mexican slaughterhouses. Revista
Cientifica-Facultad De Ciencias Veterinarias, 15(4), 353-360.
Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged
10
Analysis of Food Processes: an Application for Traceability using
’Tracepoints’
Jorge Molina, Ainia
11
12
“Traceability Methods Workshop”
Outline of the Presentation
Thanks to…
ainia ainia: about us

“Traceability Methods Workshop:
Título
Processverdana 24and
Mapping negrita
Cost-Benefit Analysis” ainia 1 - Traceability Methods
2 - Tracepoints in Traceability Methods
3 - Traceability Methods Comparative
Jorge Molina
Food Safety, Quality and Environment Research Projects
ainia – Technological Center
NOFIMA – Tromso-Norway 25-26 February 2009
“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”
Thanks to… ainia: about us
Our mission is to actively participate in the attainment of excellence in companies

Thanks to Mr. Petter Olsen….
through innovation, anticipating the requirements of society and establishing
ourselves as an organization of professionals recognized as a qualified and
Thanks to NOFIMA… committed collaborator
Thanks to the support of EU projects… 190 professionals on the staff
70 % doctors and university graduates

Pleasure to share this workshop…
30 % trained technicians
Continuous training
Our professionals are trained in the technologies that are most important for us,
Jorge Molina in the principal centers and universities in the world.
Food Engineer
Multi-disciplinary teams
ainia – Valencia SPAIN Food technicians, agronomists, chemists, physicists, industrial engineers, doctors
in telecommunications, lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, economists,
journalists, marketing experts, biologists, etc.
objective
The presentation is focused to the analysis and performance

of some process mapping techniques oriented to traceability
Part 1: Traceability Methods analysis and requirements definition for services
implementation.
13
Scope of the Presentation Some Methods Overview
Food Chain/Business/Process Data Model Information Flows /Events…

Activities Description Origin Scope References
2003. ainia
Food Chain & Technological Center, J. Several Spanish
“Avante Traceability Molina & team. In Food Chain and Food Research Projects, EU
Method” Systems collaboration with Food Players Internal Research Project.
Analysis SME´s. Technological Processes Some elements applied
and Non-Technological in TRACEBACK
Methodology
Approach
Description of Several EU EU Research Project.

Food Players Internal
Tracepoints Traceability Research Projects.
Processes mainly
Food-Reg /
Activities VI FP TRACEBACK…
Supply Chain Supply Chain

1996. Independent
Operations Processes, high level
“SCOR” Reference
Non-Profit Global
approach. Do not
www.supply-chain.org
Corporation.
Model Implementation level
Analysis of Fundación Chile Food processes.

“B.T.P”
Traceability Trazabilidad and Legislation and Food Fundación Chile
Software Implementation 2006 Systems others Standards compliance
Food Chain/Business/Process Capture
Models-Procedures
“Avante” “Avante”
Introduction
“Avante” maps the current situation of the food chain and/or food
“Avante” is a Food Chain and Process Mapping Traceability player traceability (INPUTS) using some traceability indicators and
Methodology (Including Food Safety and Quality approach) the method processes the information for producing an (OUTPUT)
Started in 2003 in research spanish projects. Applied in TRACEBACK final report and graphical representation for an added value
project later traceability solution
Firstly based on ainia´s experience in food applied projects OUTPUTS
INPUTS Final Traceability
Questionnaires, Conceptual Model
Method oriented to food chain analysis and traceability objectives interviews.… and Graphical
for process Solution
mapping
Applied to: Research and Innovation Projects, EU projects and in
Consultancy Projects
Tested in meat sector (processed), wine sector, vegetables

sector, DDGS (Dry Distilled Grains /Feed as a by-product for
“AVANTE-Process Mapping: a Balance Between Method Inputs and Method Outputs”
feed sector obtained from Bio-ethanol industry), grain sector
(rice), honey sector, dairy sector and spirits,
“Avante” Scope: Food Items “Avante” Scope: Food Players
Food Items Scope Processes Scope
Food Chain Configuration Level

Food Product
Raw materials and Ingredients Analysis of Contextual Scenarios
Traceability
Semi-processed products - Regulatory, Non-regulatory requirements… Food Chain
Analysis of Specific Supply Chain Configurations Requirements
Semi-processed products with destination to feed industry
Final Products
Food Players Level
Packaging materials
In direct contact with food content (packing, lid…) Internal Processes Mapping (linking with external processes)
Decomposition:
Special sectors (spirit): barrels...
- Flow Chart Steps
Technological Auxiliaries - Food Item involved Food Players
- Logistic Unit Involved (Trace Unit) Traceability
Inorganic filtering materials (active carbon materials, diatomea Requirements
- Data for Trace Unit ID
materials…)
- Associated records
- Data in associated records
- Lot criteria creation
14
Example Process Mapping: flow chart example (INPUT) Example Process Mapping: Traceability Conceptual Model
(OUTPUT)
0
VINO TINTO
-------------------8.76cmX %
Vino
Extracción R e ce pció n
vino prensa Mate ria le s
Almacenamient a ux ilia re s
o vino prens/2ª
Almacenamiento Envejecimient
Prensado
DIA 1 Depósito o en Barrica C o upa ge
Semielaborado
Alimentación
Par 1 Par 2 Almacenamiento corchos
depósito previo
R e m o nte s
Recepción Uva --Vino Flor
Etiquetado
Maceración Embotellado Bodega Expedición
C ontrol Previa De pó sito pre vio Final
C ampo Envas a do
DIA 2 Despalillado Estrujado 1
C orrección
Almacenamiento Almacenamiento
Recepción Uva depósito previo Depósito
Coupage Alimentación
Prensado
botellas
Maceración vINO fLOR
Par 3 Par 4
Previa C orrección
2 R e ce pció n
C orrección
R e ce pció n Mate ria le s
Ma te ria le s C orrección Vino Trasiego a ux ilia re s
a ux ilia re s
Identificación
Mate ria s P .
Aux ilia re s
Proveedor
Fecha Recepción Fecha Inicio Fecha Inicio Fecha Inicio Fecha Inicio
Lote llenado llenado llenado llenado
Tamaño del lote Fecha fin llenado Fecha fin llenado Fecha fin llenado Nº Barrica Fecha fin llenado
Variedad de Uva Variedad de Uva Variedad de Uva Fecha Llenado Variedad de Uva
Origen: Parcelas Origen: Depósitos Origen: Depósitos Contenido Origen: Depósitos
Producto Producto Producto Producto

Lote: Lote: Lote: Lote:
Unidades Unidades Unidades
Rima
Logística Productos
Registros
Registro Control Campo Llenado y Control Depósito

Registro Entrada Uva Llenado y Control Depósito Llenado y Control Depósito Control Coupage Control Correcciones Control Correcciones Registro Control Lotes MPA Registro Control Bodega Registro Control Expedición
Registro Etiquetado
Control Barricas
Registro Entrada Mostos/Vinos Control Correcciones

Registro Control Embotellado
Entrada M. P. Auxiliares
Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project
Example Process Mapping: Traceability Conceptual Model

Tracking and Tracing Models (OUTPUT):
CONTROL DE TRAZABILIDAD
ELABORACION ENVEJECIMIENTO
EXTRACCIÓN VINO PRENSA ALMACENAMIENTO DEPOSITYO
CONTROL RECEPCION MACERACION PREVIA SEMIELABORADOS BARRICAS COUPAGE LLENADO DEPÓSITO ENVASADO EMBOTELLADO BODEGA ETIQUETADO FINAL BOTELLA EXPEDICION
+Depósito PREVIO VINO FLOR
Agrupación de Etiquetado de 13.330 botellas

DEPÓSITO 007
Rimas e identificación
DEPÓSITO 005 DEPÓSITO 008 de cada rima con su
DEPÓSITO 005
DEPÓSITO 001 DEPÓSITO 002 DEPÓSITO 003 DEPÓSITO 004 DEPÓSITO 007 número de lote.
DEPÓSITO 008
LOTE: 1 2 3 ENVASADO LOTE Origen:
LOTE: Control de la ubicación
Código;Nº Albarán LOTE: LOTE: LOTE: LOTE: 005-145-05 LOTE: 008-186-06
005-145-05 física de productos y
001-116-05 002-116-05 003-134-05 004-140-05 007-181-06 LOTE:
Orígen: Depósito Envasado 08 lotes en almacén. LOTE Etiquetado Botellas
008-186-06 Dia Embotellado: 5/7/06= 186 Final=Lote Rima=
Orígen: VINO FLOR + Orígen: Barricas 1-4
LOTE: Nº Depósito+DiajulianoInicio (001-116-05 + 002-116-05) Orígen: 2 vinos flor de 2 VINO PRENSA Orígen: Depósito Coupage 07 Lote Embotellado
DEPÓSITO 006
Dia Llenado: 30/6/06= 181
Llenado+Año depósitos distintos, llenados 25/5/05: 145 Dia Llenado: 5/7/06= 186
Rima
cada uno en distintos dias L1860611
4 5 6
20/5/05: 140 LOTE: LOTE RIMAS=
006-145-05 LOTE BOTELLAS
Aplicable a Registro Llenado Registro Llenado Registro Control Depósito
Registro Llenado Registro Llenado Registro Llenado Registro Llenado
Depósitos (Semielaborado) Control Coupage Envasado Dia Juliano+año+Nº linea+Nº Envasado
Depósitos Depósitos Depósitos (V. Flor) Barricas
1)Unidad Homegenea 186-06-1-1
Depósito: 005 Depósito: 008
de Cultivo o Partidas Depósito: 003 Depósito: 004 Depósito: 007
Part 2: Tracepoints in Traceability Methods

Depósito: 001 Dia Inicio Llenado:25/05/05 Dia Inicio Llenado:28/07/05 Dia Inicio Llenado:5/07/06
(AAAA/01) Dia Inicio Llenado:26/04/05 Dia Inicio Llenado:14/05/05 Dia Inicio Llenado:20/05/05 Dia Inicio Llenado:30/06/06 Registro Etiquetado Final Albarán Salida
Registro Embotellado
Lote Actual: 00514505 Variedad: Bobal,... Lote Actual: 00818606
Lote Actual: 00111605 Lote Actual: 00313405 Lote Actual: 00414005 Lote Actual: 00718106 Dia Etiquetado: 12/10/06
AAA/03 Variedad: Bobal Dia Embotellado: 5/07/06 Nº: 2222
Variedad: Bobal Lote Origen: 005 145 05 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Dia Expedicion:
Dia Variedad Nº Albarán Variedad: Bobal Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005
Dia Orígen Litros Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005 12/10/06
AAA.../06 26/4/05 Bobal AAAA/01 BARRICAS Orígen Lote Litros
Dia Llemado Orígen Tipo Litros
Dia Llemado Orígen Tipo Litros Dia Llenado Variedad Lote Origen Litros Depósito Nº Botellas: 13.330
14/5/05 001-116-05 10000 25/5/05 00414005 Flor 8.000 Lote : 186 06 1 1 Tipo Vino:
AAAA/03 20/5/05 00111605 .. 8.000 1, 2, 3 30/6/06 Bobal 00514505 Barricas 1,2,3 10.000 Coupage 007 00718106 30.000
2)Cisternas mostos Crianza 2005
00313405 Prensa 8000 Lote Embotellado: 186 06 1 1
/vinos 27/4/05 Bobal AAAA/04 002-116-05 10000 21/5/05 00211605 .. 8.000 VOLUMEN TOTAL:.... 30/6/06 Monastrell 00614505 B. 4,5,6 10.000 Orígen Litros
(AAAA/02) 008 186 06 10.000 Nº Botellas: 600
AAA/02 Externo 8.000 Lote Origen Ubicación Nº Cajas:100
VOLUMEN TOTAL: 10.000 l VOLUMEN TOTAL:.... Registro Llenado 30/6/06 Bobal 00510006 Depósito Semielaborado 2006 186 06 1 1 Rima
Barricas Botella
3)Materias Primas Registro Llenado VOLUMEN TOTAL:... VOLUMEN TOTAL:.... Lote Unidades Registro Cliente: 0000
Auxiliares y Coadyuvantes Depósitos Dia Inicio Llenado:28/07/05 BBB/01 13.330 Preparacion
Tecnológicos Registro Control CAVA: Lote Embotellado:
Depósito: 002 VOLUMEN TOTAL:.... Licor
(BBBB/01) Variedad: Bobal,... Correcciones Tapón Registro Control
Lote Unidades Expedicion 186 06 1 1
Lote Actual: 00211605
Registro Llenado Depósito: 008 Fecha: 12/10/06 Licor Expedicion
Lote Origen: 006 145 05 BBB/02 13.330
BBB/02 Depósitos 2006 Lote: 008 186 06
Nº Albarán Fecha: 5/7/05 Tipo Vino: Cava Lote a Degollar: 186 06 1 1
AAA/06 (Semielaborado) LOTE: CCC/01 Fecha: 12/10/06
Tipo Vino: Crianza 2005
Depósito: 005 Producto Lote Tipo Vino: Cava
Dia Inicio Llenado:10/04/06 Correccion Lote Albarán
RECEPCION SO2 BBB/05 Vino AAA/25 Lote Licor
Entrada
Lote Actual: 005 100 06 (BBBB/01) Expedicion:
BBB/02 CCC/01
Variedad: Bobal
Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis Tracepoints an overview
We can define Tracepoint as an action or event related to a process

indicating a breakpoint in traceability, due to a change in the product Tracepoints break each production process into representative steps/actions:
state or the associated info. TRACEPOINT. The path composed by the flow or combination of tracepoints will
reflect the “traceability operations” needed to maintain traceability along internal
processes and therefore in supply chain.
Action to do
Input data Output data

Tracepoint
Symbol Meaning
This is a very good option to model internal operations and in

addition linking internal with external traceability, and one of the • Name of the corresponding action
crucial pieces to construct an optimum traceability system. • Symbol of the action
Tracepoints have been benchmarked in TRACEBACK project trying • Information relative tot he process
practices
to benchmark and identify new tracepoints for the specific tomato • Data inputs necessayr to traceability
and feed-dairy chain as well as including a set of rules of • Data outputs necessary to traceability
information management for IT management systems applications. • Importance of data
Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project
15
Tracepoints an overview Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis
Some Processes associated… Some Processes associated…

Tracepoint name Tracepoint name
Meaning Meaning
and symbol And examples of cases where the and symbol And examples of cases where the
tracepoint is used tracepoint is used
Receive Split
Reception
The trace unit is introduced into a food player A food player is taking possession of the A bigger trace unit is divided into various
tomatoes/ dairy products smaller trace units with identical Depalletization
characteristics (but not necessarily the same The different boxes of a pallet are separated
Entry/ Flow in Unloading weight).
A trace unit is entered into a process
The tomatoes/dairy products are transferred
equipment or location in the food
into a recipient so as to be introduced into Washing and drying
player/process.
the process
Modify (NEW ) Sterilization
Top up/fill Filling the bottles
The trace unit is affected by a modification Pasteurization
The tomato juice is used to be spread out The tomato juice is sterilized but its
One or various receptacle(s) is (are) fulfilled into receptacles which may change other parameters of food
with the trace unit content. safety. ingredients and texture are not changed
Milk product is packed into the bottles or
cups by filling machine. Milk is heat treated to improve hygienic
quality
New pieces of information about the trace unit
Repack(NEW )
internal or external identification (name, code, Palletization
New ID etc) are visibly attributed to the trace unit. 2 A product which is already packed (for
Labelling A trace unit which is already packed is
possibilities: or the trace unit has not been example a tomato juice bottle) is put into a
A code is given to the product, or a new repacked into a new pack.
identified before and this is the first second packaging (for example the bottles
label is placed on the product
identification or the trace unit is already are put into a box)
identified and this identification may replace
the existing one . Measure (NEW)
Store/ Stock The value of a parameter, or condition, of the Weight the received tomatoes
A trace unit is kept located in a specific Storage + trace unit, or of the process conditions, is The received tomatoes ate put in a machine
location without being processed (sometimes The tomatoes/milk products are warehoused measured (before or after a stage). which evaluates their size
in specific conditions) between two stages. into a cold room

Tracepoints description: example Tracepoints description: example
Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project
Tracepoints description: example
Part 3: Traceability Methods Comparative
16
Methods Comparative
“AVANTE” Method TRACEPOINTS
Interviews, questionnaires and Record Data Searching, interviews,

Searching. Graphical representations,
Method Characteristics Representative process language; for IT
oriented to provide final conceptual
model solution services implementation
Deep Process Analysis, To be

Thank you very much
Deep Process Analysis, To be complemented with data proposed by
Assuring data
complemented with data proposed by standards
Representativeness…
standards
Each single tracepoints has a standard

How to analyze data Conceptual Model: templates and
collected Graphical representation
information set. Graphical Jorge Molina
representation
High. Applied to both research and

2-3 EU projects.
communication
It
with
facilitates
ICT
jmolina@ainia.es
Experience with method consultancy projects. Several food
developers…trying to be a common
sectors
language. New approach in TRACEBACK
It needs the incorporation of information
It needs a tool for a quick translating of
Weaknesses from standards; not using a standard
information into ICT systems
graphical representation.
Practical, tested, easy to understand…
Includes lot criteria. Easy to understand
Strengths Clear link for developing ICT services
for SME´s, a previous step for IT
systems development
17
18
Collection of data for optimizing operations in a fish chain
Maria Randrup, DTU Aqua
19
20
The fish supply chain
Fishing vessel
Collection of data for optimizing
operations in a fish chain Collector
Maria Randrup, Ph.d. student

Traceability Methods Workshop Auction
Tromsø, Feb. 25, 2009
Buyer / Processor 1
How to get data?

Processor 2 Interviews!
Wholesaler
Retailer
4 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark
Agenda Objectives of the interviews (1/3)

• Ph.d. project • Processes
• Objectives of the interviews – what processes take place onboard fishing vessels and
• Characteristics, considerations at collectors and auctions
• Outline of the interview guide – what procedures exist for these processes
• Data analysis • Quality, quality variation, quality assurance
• Strengths and weaknesses – which criteria are the most important for the companies
• Summary when buying fish
– how is the variation in the quality of the fish
– what the company does to maintain the quality of the
fish
2 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark 5 DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark
Working title: Validated traceability

and quality assurance for improved
Objectives of the interviews (2/3)
chain operation
• Information
• Two project aims – what information is exchanged between the steps in the
– To develop a simple, effective quality assurance system chain, the importance of the information, the use of the
for the fishing vessels, collectors and auctions to information
maintain the quality of fish. – other types of information they would like and the use
– To map the knowledge and information flow in two fish of these types of information
supply chains to shed light on how the chain operations • Traceability
can be optimized. To find out what information is – what is the level of internal and external traceability
exchanged, why, and how this information and possibly
other types of information can be used to optimize the
operation of the individual company and the operation
of the chain.
21
Objectives of the interviews (3/3) Outline of the interview guide
• Feedback and trust • Introduction to the interview
– do the companies in the chain give feedback to each – Purpose of the project
other on the quality of the fish – Purpose of the interview
– how is the relationship of trust between the steps in the – The respondent is asked to give an introduction to the
chain company
– Drawing of the company’s supplier-customer network
• Main points
– Introductory question
– Supplementary questions
– Checklist
– If there is time, ask the respondent about…
• Closing
Characteristics Main points (1/2)

• Qualitative personal in-depth interview • Fish quality, variation in the quality, quality assurance
• To be used on few companies of each type – Use of respondent’s drawing of the company’s supplier-
• Interviewer listens and reacts to the respondent’s answers customer network
• Recorded on tape or MP3-recorder • Information
• Explorative: Acquire knowledge on not only what they do, – Use of index cards
but also why and how – Information required by EU Regulation 2065/2001
• Open questions and answers – Most important information, Next most important
• Can be supplemented with observations, tour of the information
production site, photographs, documents – Not important information
• Can interview more than one person at each company
• Approach the same topic from different angles
Considerations before making the interview

guide Main points (2/2)
• Aim and objectives of the project • Traceability
• Given setting – Use of diagrams showing two different levels of internal
– Context of the companies to be interviewed (chain, and external traceability
network) – What is their smallest traceable unit?
– Legislative requirements – How do they mark and identify their batches? Any
• Aim and objectives of the interview mixing of batches?
• Target group • Feedback and trust
– Types of companies – Relations with suppliers and customers
– Who in the company; maybe more than one person – Feedback related to the information supplied
• Length of time for the interview – Relationship of trust; do they trust the information
• Why is it interesting for the companies to participate? supplied?
22
Data analysis
• Transcribe the interviews
• Extract the essential topics, ideas, statements
• Data in prose form; processes can be in diagrams; tables
can be used to compare current practices in two of the
same types of companies
Maria Randrup
Ph.d. student, DTU Aqua
Tel. +45 45 25 25 41
mrr@aqua.dtu.dk
Strengths and weaknesses

• Strengths
– In-depth, get the reasons and motivations behind their
actions, find out why and how
– Use most time on what the company finds important
– Possibility of acquiring new angles and ideas that one
may not be aware of beforehand
• Weaknesses
– Transcribing is time-consuming; data processing is
extensive
– One interview guide per company type
Summary
• Qualitative personal in-depth interview about current
practices
• Reasons and motivations
• Few persons/companies to interview
• To be recorded and transcribed
23
24
Internal traceability system implementation in the Polish fish processing pla
Olga Szulecka, Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia
25
26
Agenda
• Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia
The internal traceability system • Traceability - requirements
implementation • Aim of the project
in the Polish fish processing plant • Methodology
• Benefits
Olga Szulecka • Conclusions
Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia
25-26.02.2009 Tromsø
Sea Fisheries Institute

Traceability - Reg. No 178/2002
in Gdynia
1. The traceability of food, feed, food-producing animals, and any
• The SFI in Gdynia is the oldest marine and other substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into
fisheries research institute in Poland. a food or feed shall be established at all stages of production,
processing and distribution.
• The SFI conducts scientific research in the fields
of fishery oceanography and marine ecology, 2. Food and feed business operators shall be able to identify any
person from whom they have been supplied with a food, a feed, a
processing technology and mechanization, food food-producing animal, or any substance intended to be, or
and environment chemistry and fishery expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed.
To this end, such operators shall have in place systems and
economics. procedures which allow for this information to be made available to
• The SFI also acts in an advisory the competent authorities on demand.
capacity for the Ministry 3. Food and feed business operators shall have in place systems and
of Agriculture and Rural procedures to identify the other businesses to which their products
Development. have been supplied. This information shall be made available to the
competent authorities on demand.
(…)
Traceability - Reg. No 178/2002

• Legislation requires the external
The presented pilot project:
traceability system implementation.
„The implementation of fish raw materials and
• The internal traceability system is not
products traceability system” was co-financed
directly required by the food law but
from European Union fund the Financial
without internal system it is difficult to
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.
detect the cause of the danger and
selectively withdraw only the unsafe
product batches.
27
Aim of the project Stages of the implementation
1. Analysis of production processes (interviews with the
employees, observation);
2. Preparation of:
• the identification and collecting data principles in
The main aim of the project was the according to GS1 standard for fish production chain;
implementation of advanced, electronic, • the technical specification of the equipment and software
used in the project;
based on the GS1 standard traceability • the functional guidelines for system application in co-
system in the medium Polish fish operation with the computer company;
3. Installation of the equipment;
processing plant. 4. Training of the management and production staff;
5. Preparation of the procedure and testing the effectiveness of
traceability system - tracking from the raw material batch to
the final products batches and in opposite direction (record
searching).
Scope of the system Process mapping

• During the production process analysis of
The system comprises all the stages in the the interviews with the managers and
production employees were carried out.
production process for example: reception
of the raw materials, primary processing • The information was compared with the
observations.
(e.g. heading, gutting, filleting), freezing,
pre-smoking or pre-frying storage and • The results enabled to prepare the flow
diagrams and to determine the process
distribution. stages in which the data must be
recorded.
Methodology Methodology
During the traceability system implementation the Standard GS1 was used to established the
following European standards were used: structure of:
• CEN:CWA 14659:2003 Traceability of fishery • localization numbers;
products – Specification of the information to be • production staff numbers;
recorded in farmed fish distribution chains. • logistic labels with GS1-128 barcode.
• CEN:CWA 14660:2003 Traceability of fishery
Standard GS1 was also used for defining
products – Specification of the information to be
which data must be recorded in particular
recorded in captured fish distribution chains.
stages of production and which data must
be transfered between the stages.
28
GS1 Standard
GS1 standard - Application Identifiers (AI)
During the whole production process (from the • AI 00 - SSCC - Serial Shipping Container
reception to the final distribution) the pallets with Code. AI 00 was used to identify the
raw materials, semi products and final products pallets with raw materials and products;
obtain the labels with GS1-128 barcodes what • AI 01 - GTIN - Global Trade Item Number,
enables to identify the particular product. was used to identify product in particular type
All used data structures are compatible with the of packaging;
GS1 standard what facilitates the data transfer • AI 02 - Content - Identifier of Trade Items
between the operators in the international trade. contained in the logistic item;
• AI 10 - Production Batch Number. In the
implemented system AI 10 has 8-12 digits.
Application Identifiers Logistic label

• AI 15 - Best before date;
• Data on the label:
• AI 31nn - Quantity. In the implemented Whole fresh sprat
system AI 3103 was used to present the net – Content - GTIN -

weigh of fish boxes; Global Trade Item
• AI 37 - Count - Number of Trade Items Number;
contained in the logistic item. AI 37 was used – Net weight;
to present the number of boxes with fish on – Count;
the pallet; – Batch;
• AI 90-99 - Internal information. Those – SSCC – Serial
numbers were used for coding the numbers
for particular localization of production stages Shipping Container
and particular employees. Code.
Software Equipment
• BcsTiger software was used in the • Barcode printers,
implemented traceability system.
• BcsTiger supports the production and
• Wireless terminals with Access points,
storage operation management.
• The software was prepared in according to
Microsoft .NET framework 1.1 technology • Panel computers,
and MS SQL Server.
• PC computer – data base server.
29
Methodology
Benefits
of the verification
• Quick access (less than 3 min.) to the information about
each raw material or product batch;
• In the case of recall the small particular batch of product • During the verification process 40 batches of raw materials
can be quickly and efficiently withdraw from the supply were traced to the final products batches and 50 batches of
chain; products were traced back to the raw material batches;
• Resignation from the of majority of paper document TRACKING
fulfilment; Raw material Semi-product Final product
• Better management of production processes using the
lots of system reports; Raw material Semi-product Final product
• Flexible response for changes (e.g. new products or TRACING
suppliers); • The information about particular batches was obtained from
• Possibility of integration with WMS system. the labels or reception and distribution documents.
Results Conclusions
• The 35 from the 40 (87,5%) surveyed raw material batches
and 46 from the 50 (92%) surveyed product batches were • The verification of the implemented traceability
system confirms that almost all of the raw
traced efficiently. material and final product batches were traced
• The verification of the Percentage of the proper fish raw efficiently.
material and product batches
implemented traceability [%]
• The traceability system implemented in the
100
system confirms that more 90
80 Polish fish processing plant is efficient and in the
then 87% of the batches 70
60 case of recall the small particular batch of
50
were traced efficiently and 40
30
product can be quickly and efficiently withdrawn
also all the information about 20
10
0
from the supply chain.
the particular product batch percentage of the proper raw
material batches
percentage of the proper
product batches
• The presented system can be easily adapted in
was obtained in less then the other fish processing plant and also in other
three minutes. industry operator in the supply chain.
30
Traceability in the Danish Fish Sector - a tool for sustainable and legitimate
fishing operations
Erling Larsen, DTU Aqua
31
32
Traceability in the Danish fish Traceability is…
s
all
rec
sector … used for re
gulation nw
i t h
tio
nec
A tool for sustainable and … a lot of things –
gi
nc
ondepending
… n ee
who you ask:
detracking
d for
• Simple physical
ki n tracing and proof product
c ductio
ligitimate fishing operations entities
an
d tra n plan
ning
i n•g Instrument for regulation and control
a c … used for fis
tr h quota cont
Erling P. Larsen … • Complete information management systems rol
… anhandling
element product
in food safety
properties
DTU Aqua telling
story
• Part of supply chain management rsystems u nique
Senior adviser scientist … nee fo
full and
dincluding
ed for
distrib … use
supply chain modelling optimization
National Institute for Aquatic ution
plann
ing
Resources
Workshop Tromsø 25-26 1 Workshop Tromsø 25-26 2
February 2009 February 2009
• We need to consider traceability basics:

– Batches and batch transformations – splitting, joining,
Generic traceability model
– Unique identification of relevant entities – number • Improved understanding of
systems, etc. traceability
– Communication systems – barcodes, RFID tags, paper • Splitting of basic traceability
notes, etc. issues and purpose specific
• … but also traceability purposes: data
– Recall: e.g. batch sizes should probably not be too big.
– Efficient recall: e.g., relevant data regarding • Use of model for:
contamination, etc. – Holistic analyses of
– Story telling: e.g., if the ”story telling” is provided by traceability
simple printed labels, then advanced communication – Local analyses of needs
may not be needed. for specific traceability
• … resulting in specific traceability requirements: issues
– Batch sizes, identification systems, data parameters,
Workshop Tromsø 25-26 3
– Traceability requirements
etc. February 2009 February 2009
Traceability and The project

Supply Chains • How can we design a system defining a
platform that
• supports an EU policy relying on
correct catch registrations ?
Future:
• Supports the intended ban on discards
• Holistic supply chain management
?
• Exploiting existing and new traceability data • encourage the fishing vessels not to
• Analysis and modelling of value adding circumvent the rules ?
activities
• verifies without any doubt and dispute -
• Mathematical optimization and simulation
that fishery is sustainable ?
Workshop Tromsø 25-26 5 • ..and legal ? Workshop Tromsø 25-26 6
33
Fase Timer Tidsplan 09
SIF organisationsplan 1. Projekt fokus 245 Januar-marts
2. Status på fiskeridata i 890 Januar-maj
dag
3. Konceptbeskrivelse 293 Maj
4. Eksisterende IT 566 Maj-september
systemer
5. Demoversioner 400 August-
september
6. Præsentationsseminar 230 Oktober
7. Kravspecifikation 1035 Maj-december
NFN external chain

Terminologies traceability
• Traceability : all apply to 178/2002 Fishermen
Fishermen Suppliers
Suppliers Services
Services Suppliers
Suppliers
Retail
Retail chain
chain
Buyer
Buyer Transport
Transport Processing
Processing Storage
Storage Transport
Transport Eksporter
Eksporter Transport
Transport
Producer
Producer Distributor
Distributor Restaurant
Restaurant
Raw material supplier Distributor Distributor
„one step down“ „one step up“ „one step down“
Producer Producer Restaurant

„one step up“
„one step up“ „one step down“
Fulfilled by
Laboratories
Laboratories
Distributor
Enquiries by “one step down” • Traceability to Authorities
Authorities
authorities final customer
not required by
law
Database Database NFN
NFN Traceability
Traceability system
system
Data input:
Compulsory: Received batch ID, Item type, Batch ID, time stamp
Optional: Storytelling, quality features
Specification of overall FAO areas (From FAO.org)
Eksempel på udviklet Map-service:
Specification of the FAO area 27IIId (Baltic Sea) is made in this map (From FAO.org)
Find kortet på hjemmesiden:

www.seafoodplus.org
34
Tak for opmærksomheden

February 2009
35
36
Traceability Profiling for fruit and vegetable SMEs in developing countries
Gwynne Foster, Consumer Goods, Council of South Africa
37
38
Presentation
Traceability Profiling:
• Comments on costing
Fruit & vegetable SMEs in
• Positioning the methods
developing countries
• Experiences with Fruit&Veg SMEs
Traceability Methods Workshop
25-26 February 2009 • Strengths and weaknesses
Gwynne Foster • Improvements

SA Fresh Produce Traceability Project
Consumer Goods Council of South Africa
Comments on Costing Positioning the methods

Experience in SA, East Africa and findings in FAO studies
• The Food Hygiene Act (882/2004) has greater influence • Profiling approach and characteristics
than the Food Safety Act (178/2002)
– Third country governments are held accountable to EU • Workunit profiles
– Export requirements are set to meet EU requirements
– The EC Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audits national systems • Interchange profiles
• Traceability is bundled into food safety • Traceability control points
• Compliance costs are usually at organisation level
– Standards are viewed as trade barriers – benefits are seldom
• Assurance and project management
discussed or achieved due to incomplete implementation
– The domino effect of supply chain demands hurts the small guys
who cannot afford the additional costs
• The SA FPTP target for cost-benefits is thus the SME!
Profiling approach and characteristics Profiling approach and characteristics

• Facilitated sessions • Facilitated sessions / Graphic profiling techniques
• A framework for analysis / Adjusted to suit the situation
• Graphic profiling techniques
• Core elements:
• A framework for analysis – Entities: Anything that has purpose and which can
be described
• Adjusted to suit the requirements, situation
– Interfaces: Anything exchanged between entities
and/or participants
– Contexts: The structure of the (present) analysis
• Each with its own profiling techniques

• The techniques apply equally well to supply
chains, business, data and technical apps
39
Profiling approach and characteristics Profiling approach and characteristics
• Facilitated sessions / Graphic profiling techniques • Facilitated sessions / Graphic profiling techniques
• A framework for analysis / Adjusted to suit the situation • A framework for analysis / Adjusted to suit the situation
• Work with “entities”, “interfaces” and “contexts” • Work with “entities”, “interfaces” and “contexts”
• Apply equally to business, data and technical apps • Apply equally to business, data and technical apps
• Everyone is equal within the session • Everyone is equal within the session
• Keep a running “issues board” for other items
• Keep a running “issues board” for other • Records of sessions are factual and anonymous
items and things that come to mind • The facilitator owns the outcome and issues
• Records of sessions are factual • The scope of the exercise and sessions will
• Source of information is anonymous other determine how results are recorded and
than the list of participants the nature of the documentation system(s)
Origin and evolution of profiling Generic template for F&V export supply chain
Spreadsheets / CAD /
Drying
Critical path context Agri- Facility
• Broadly based on IPO-4Gen-JRP-JAD-RAD principles Production Off-Farm
Unit Pack House Processing
• Mossgas (oil platform) engineeringCustom-built database
project (1987-89) & Cold Store Plant & Sea Port
system “Universe” Factory Terminal
E
IPO =process
• Business Input–Process–Output
reengineering inanalysis
preparation for On-Farm
X
P
4Gen = 4th generation system builders “Universe II” Pack House O
enterprise systems implementations (1990-92) & Cold Store Cold Store Fresh
R
T
JRP = Joint Requirements Planning Air Port S
Produce
• Fruit supply chain pallet tracking and EDI (1992-96) Terminal
JAD = Joint Application Design Market &
• Preparation for deregulation
RAD = Rapid fruit Mind-mapping
ApplicationofDevelopment
tool
exports (1997-98) Container
Depot Collection &
Facilities E
X
P
Storage Retail O
• Retailer group’s data integrity requirements in Containers
Facility Distribution R
T
S Diversions &
preparation for change of enterprise systems (2000-02) Inputs
Centre Rejections
• Wine industry info communication protocols (2006-07) At various stages Transport Operator
• Traceability of SME fruit exports (just starting…) At various stages Exporter
At various stages Freight Forwarder
All use(d) generic templates! At various stages Inspection and Certification
Generic template for processes and flows Workunit profiles

To local
Select
Crop protection / municipal
growing Transport to on-
Irrigation pest and weed Harvesting market
site & farm packhouse
• Workunit: Any entity that performs activities in

control
planting
order to achieve a specific outcome.

Transport to off- Product Rinsing/Brushing
Drenching Degreening Pre-Sorting Washing
farm packhouse Receiving (Soap Curtain)
Legend Wet tea packed Removing of sand

Tea: Weighing Cutting Bruising Fermentation
FBAG – Primary production
and on-farm produce
handling facilities
Transport to on-
farm drying lane
in hessian bags stones and metal
• Workunit profiling helps multiple parties and
Tree Fruit:
Not everyone relates their own

FBAT – Airport Terminal
Transport to
commercial drying
lane
Vine Fruit
Lye dip/
drench
Spreading of
fruit in a single
Drying: nets, cement slabs,
drying racks, drying
Spraying of
fungicides after
diverse disciplines to decide /agree /get into
FBCD – Container Depot layer structures / wire mats rain.
position and needs to those of

FBCO – Cold storage
facility
Transport to
Receiving and
storage at Washing
Sort and Chopping/
Can filling
Steam
step with needs, expectations, priorities.
canning factory grade slicing / peeling exhausting
the supply chain!

FBEX - Exporter canning facility
FBPH – On-farm
Packhouse Trimming,
• This is proving to be a useful tool for bringing
Transport to frozen Metal
Receiving Storage cutting, Blanching Cooling Sorting
FBPO – Off farm
packhouse
product facility
peeling etc.
detection
SME producers and processors on board with
FBPP – Processing facility Road transport of
FBSI - Silo
Transport to grain
storage facility
(silo complex)
Receiving Grading Intake
In-storage
fumigation
Dispatch
grain
Rail transport of grain

requirements of retailers and record keeping.
FBST – Seaport terminal
Transport to Packing &

Grading and
groundnut packing Receiving Storage De-hulling Storage -
FBTO – Transport Operator selection
facility Dispatch
? – Dry storage facility
? – Drying lane / drying

Transport to jam, Pasteurization =/- Sugar & other
jelly / marmalade Receiving Cleaning, crushing / Sieve to
facility 100˚C & cooled to < ingredients
processing facility chopping remove skin
0˚C. added
40
Workunit Profiles Interchange Profiles
Desired outcomes Desired outcomes
Job / Tasks / Infrastructure /
Activities Rules Tools
A core targetof the
group would
game
participate
Usage / in all sessions!
Skills /
Applications Knowledge
Information / Attributes / Standards / Records

Person / People
Environment
Supply Chain(s) / Data interchange(s)
Costs / Benefits / What-if scenarios
Interchange Profiles Interchange Profiles

C C
B B
A A
From What To whom Factors Rules What ifs From What To whom Factors Rules What ifs
Goods or Workunit No Goods or
Document or Party No Document or
Message or Location No Message or
File… Relevant id… File…

C C
B B
A A
Workunit No Goods or Workunit No Workunit No Goods or Workunit No Triggers
Party No Document or Party No Party No Document or Party No Timing
Location No Message or Location No Location No Message or Location No Accuracy
Relevant id… File… Relevant id… Relevant id… File… Relevant id… Completeness
41
C C
B B
A A
Basis for performance factors, measures and SLAs

Workunit No Goods or Workunit No Triggers Associated Workunit No Goods Workunit No Triggers Associated Hi-Lo scenarios
Party No Document or Party No Timing with each

This is where the dominant players
Party No Document Party No Timing with each Trends
Location No Message or Location No Accuracy workunit / Location No Message Location No Accuracy workunit / Tolerence levels
Relevant id… File… Relevant id… Completeness factor

and factors come to the fore!
Relevant id… File… Relevant id… Completeness factor Fallback…
High-level representation of physical flows in export wine supply chain Traceability Control Points (TCPs
(TCPs))
TRACEABILITY REFERENCES
Useful once participants and processes are identified
TR05
Tasting panel &
TR06
TR16
• A TCP occurs at any point at which there is a
laboratory Bulk buyer
TR03 Inputs:
4 Negociant 14
Bottling
plant
TR19
change to a product or its circumstances
TR07
TR01 TR02 TR04

3
9
TR12 TR13 TR14
15
TR17 16
On-trade
TR20
that could affect traceability of that product
17
Wine grape Consolidation Shipping Overseas Distribution
Nursery 1 2 Cellar 8 10 SA port 11 12 13 Consumer
farmer warehouse
TR11
line port warehouse
Logistics Service Provider

16
TR18
17
• TCP analysis can be applied at all levels of
5 6
TR08
Bottling
Logistics Service
Provider
7 TR10
TR15 Off-trade
supply chains, processes and data systems
plant Overseas agent /
Inputs: partner
Fertiliser, ...
TR03 Inputs:
TR09 • Can use generic templates to illustrate the
Bottles, boxes,
cartons, closures,
lables,... concept and get a rough sketch of processes
TR03 TRnn = Traceability Operator/Partner Reference
and supply chain entities
The outcomes are conventional, with
credible underlying detail and buy-in.
Traceability Control Points (TCPs

(TCPs))
• A change in any one of the following factors

could give rise to a traceability control point.
– Identity
– Location
– Ownership
– Responsibility
– Form or Composition
– Packaging
– Constitution
• Linking to specific products and Time are
critical factors.
42
Drench (Composition)
Arrival at packhouse (Location, Responsibility?)
Bin tip (Identity, Constitution, Composition, Ownership?)
Offloading (Location, Responsibility)
Packing (Identity, Composition, Ownership?)
Palletising (Identity, Constitution)
43
Containerisation (Identity, Constitution, Location,
Responsibility?, Ownership?)
Cold storage (Location, Composition?)
Assurance and project management Presentation

Turn everything into a project
• Standards questionnaires taken as the baseline • Positioning the methods
– (GlobalGAP, TNC, ETI, Fair Trade, GS1 Traceability,…)
• Within a business entity, each standard is treated as a

project and each item is managed as a project task • Experiences with Fruit&Veg SMEs
• Responses to audit questions and follow-up actions
are recorded and prioritised for implementation • Strengths and weaknesses
• Audit/assurance system (ICMAS from Capespan) • Improvements
• Preset all answers to “No” for SME assessments
44
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Meeting the requirements of
traceability and relevant vital
records is beyond the experience
and capacity of most small-
small-scale
fruit & vegetable farmers
Orchard number
Experiences with a group of farmers Variety Type of fruit
Year of planting Experiment/Trial
in the Western Cape led to a Size of orchard number
community-based
“traceability services centre”.
“2” is not
unique
The services centre

also allocates a GS1
Global Location
Numbers (GLN) to The services centre might
each orchard allocate a GLN to an
orchard block, a row or
even an individual tree
Resi-
den- Each row of
tial The dam has a GLN.
Dam almonds has its
A water sampling plan has
own GLN
been agreed with the X
municipality. Almonds
Fruit Test results and X Fruit
treatments are recorded X Veges
X
against the GLN.
- As evidence that irrigation water X
was safe when used.
- As a basis for monitoring trends
and managing problems.
45
20 producers, some of
Each farm
whom production unit
collectively.
Each product-row
and each producer is
is allocated a GLN
allocated a GLN.
Fruit
Butternuts
Presentation
• Positioning the methods
• Experiences with Fruit&Veg SMEs
• Strengths and weaknesses

• Improvements?
Products next (year)…
Strengths and weaknesses Strengths and Weaknesses

+ The profiling approach is efficient and flexible
- Quality and focus of orchestration determines the
+ People enjoy learning about their businesses rate of progress and value of the results
+ The session outcomes are usually accepted and
- Not easy to transfer trust or change facilitators
provide a basis for next steps
- Not easy to transfer the knowledge gained
+ Easy to call a session
- Maintenance is an issue in large projects
+ And easy to stop a session that isn’t working
+ Information gathered is precise and relevant - Not in the books and so it needs championing
+ Intelligence is gained through the issues board - Needs a strong support team to keep focus
+ Highlights things that don’t work well - Needs strong commitment and intent to respond to
the intelligence
+ Highlights overlaps, gaps and redundancies Qualifications
46
Improvements?
• Formalise the profiling discipline and procedures

• Develop documentation support tools
• Develop training for facilitation teams
?
• Deskill the facilitation . . . ?
• Determine the characteristics of a good profiler
• Revise in the light of this workshop!
Thank you!
Framework and components

Procuring profitable
Applying due
diligence
Factor assessments
orders and achieving Marketing Applying necessary
reliable delivery in and market Food safety
& traceability controls
line with expectations management
Proving compliance
Standards with standards
Producing desired
products profitably Local management
and sustainably Exports Developing skills
Factor requirements
Auditing & Developing skills
Developing skills
Assurance and building
and building
Developing skills
Developing
and skills
building
required capacity
Developing Production and
and building
required capacity
building
required
required capacity
capacity
successful and required capacity
competent farmers
Developing quality
products
Developing
successful and
profitable farming
Plant
Farmer(s)
products
Farm
Animal
products
Education,
training &
mentoring
For each factor…
factor…
Desired Outcomes
operations
Supply chains
Record keeping and information services
Planning, implementation and project services
Business support and financial services
SKILLS & Reading, writing Information Agriculture (& Business (& Values &
KNOWLEDGE numeracy systems records) records) attitude
Competent Aim
Aim Aim
Aim Aim
Aim Aim
Aim Aim
Aim
S
X
Capable
U
Able Training
Standard
OK training courses X and
and capacity building programmes P
in line with desired outcome and specific P
Aware capacity
OK
needs highlighted in theXcompetency
building programmes
OK profile
O ?
Unaware OK X OK OK X R
T
ABET TECHNICAL BEST
Personal
Personal
LIFESKILLS
skills
FUNDAMENTALS
competencies
Professional
BUSINESS
skills
PRACTICAL
Entrepreneurial
AGRIPLANNER
skills OTHER…
OTHER…
47
48
Development of traceability applications in Iceland
Sveinn Margeirsson, MATIS
49
50
(
)*#
)+

!#

"! !
,#

!"# -.!!
!

$ #

%
!

/
!

& '

0 2##
0( 80#4195

1 2# #3!4 %
56
1 2#### #!63#6 ) +( 3
4:15
4 3! .! #5 • ;

1+4&+3
<5
1 3!
!# #6 • #4#<2#5
1 3
$#
!# #6

• ! 4) +</-*%&+3
%#%5
4 % % % 5
1 2## # 6 • 333+3

1 2## #36 • 333 #
1 2#3#7!# #6 • 333
1 2#### #62##3+6 • 333
1 3# # 6
1 2# ##62##!
# #
!# 4915

## 6 • *
/-*
• 3
• +

0= 0=4*!

5
4!

>#3#!
?5
2#### #!6
!

1 3!
!# #6
@!
+!
!
1 3
$#
!# #6

!

,
1 2## # 6"
3#!45
2# # # 6 "
3# ! 45

1 2#3#7!# #6
0!7 !6
1 3# # 6
A

4/""0 5
1 2# ##62##!
#
#
# 6
)
7
#!
!45!

.! !#3+%!

51
0 0)"4*!
5
2#### #!6

/! 42)#5( @ 1.15
1 3!
!# #6
@
+!
!! 1.1
1 3
$#
!# #6

1.05

1 2## # 6"
3#!!

2# # # 6 "
3# ! ! 1

#2)#3B!11
1 2#3#7!# #6 0.95
"! #

3# # 6 0.9
2001
2002
&+!#.! #!3# 2003
0.85 2004
1 2# ##62##!
#
#
# 6 0.8
4

.! 5 0.75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

) + ) +1 !!

1 3
!
3
2#### #!6
/! 42)#85(
A4&"5"##
!
1 3!
!# #6
/! !
+4
5!!
1 3
$#
!# #6

! #

(
! #

(

1 2## # 6
3#!

3 4&+3
#/-*5
1 2#3#7!# #6
#( C+
3# # 6
& 3
4
#!#5A!
),@

1 2# ##62##!
#
#
# 6
;!;!
),@

) +( !

= ) +( !
4@ %0
5

52
) +( *!
D4@ %0
5 #
!# 491
5

#
) +
!#

E3</+3
!#
<"!4

+
!
5

"
!( &

=19<#
:19<01
91=< ( 1

91=</B! ( !#

=<)!#
(
3#+
4+5

53
54
Identification, monitoring and traceability of ice cream products
in the supply chain
Roy Doornbos, ITENE
55
56
RFID in ITENE
ITENE has the knowledge and experience to develop RFID

soltions and is able to integrate RFID in packaging
References:
Identification, monitorization and Member of AENOR (Spanish Association for Standardisation and
traceability of products in the cold Certification) in workgroup AEN/CTN49/GT9
supply chain Pilot in production of a customer in ceramics
Pilot in cold food supply chain; ice-cream manufacturers and
FMCG Distribution Centre
SmartLog: intelligent supply chain in distribution of FMCG
Participation in European funded proyect in the
cold/frozen fish and chicken supply chain
Tromsø, 25-26 February 2009
• Integrating RFID tags into packing
• Mapping temperature in the Chile-Spain fresh hake supply chain
Roy Doornbos
Index Chill-On
• FP6 project Chill-On The project CHILL-ON is partly financed by the European Commission
within the 6th Framework Program and proposes to develop a holistic
• Identification and monitorization of approach ensuring food quality, safety and traceability throughout
Ice cream products in the supply the entire food supply chain. The 31 participants aim to provide
chain: the “Why´s and How´s”
stakeholders along the frozen and chilled food supply chain with a
• Field trial – Monitoring Ice Cream system that ensures fulfillment of European legislation and applies
in the Spanish cold supply chain current standards.
2 5
RFID in ITENE Chill-On
QMRA – Quantitative Microbial Risk BSI – Bubble Slurry Ice: Liquid ice with MBDs – Molecular Biological
ice crystals smaller than 5μm inside the
Services Assessment. The mathematical forecast
model, takes into consideration the
cooling medium, instead of on the
crystallizer's walls.
Diagnostics: Microbiological analyses
to detect food borne pathogens and
characteristics of a product in order to spoilage bacteria. Existing and new
RFID system testing and performace predict the progeny of bacteria. The nanomaterials will be applied in
evaluation result makes it possible to estimate complex food matrices. The enhanced
Dynamic Door Portal and Conveyor whether the product will be sensitivity of the detection of target
test (in accordance with ) contaminated to an unacceptable degree sequences is prerequisite for a
Site assessment service at the forwarding steps of the supply reliable and reproducible quantitative
RFID tagging strategy service chain. PCR measurement of contaminants.
RFID system design

RFID-TTI – Radio Frequency
RFID hardware evaluation service QMRA
Identification. For the identification of a DSS – Decision-Support-
RFID software evalution product's location. RFID and TTI are not Cooling & System: To identify the mos
DSS critical points and predict
Collision avoidance used as stand alone technology only. Packaging
microbial risks in the food
Measuring services Combining both is the technological supply chain a novel QMRA-
HACCP tool will be
Consulting, training and education challenge in the project.
TTI developed and implemente
into a DSS to achieve real
Identification and traceability time inputs for the risk
TTI – Time-Temperatur-Indicator: TTIs Traceability
knowledge portal for customers assessment.
help determine "sell-by-dates" without System
RFID Warehouse Management additional information about how the BSI RFID
System evaluation
product was stored.
3 6
57
The Fresh Hake Supply The Fresh Hake Supply
Chain Chile-Spain Chain Chile-Spain
40
EPS BOX 1(Ambient)-Rear
30 EPS BOX 2(Ambient)-Middle
Almacenamiento
Captura y previo al Almacenamiento Minorista EPS BOX 3(Ambient)-Front
preprocesado transporte aéreo posterior al 20
transporte aereo
10
Unloading at the vessel

Procesado Transporte Aduana -10
Mayorista
principal al
aeropuerto -20
-30
12:00:00
19:00:00
02:00:00
09:00:00
16:00:00
23:00:00
06:00:00
13:00:00
20:00:00
03:00:00
10:00:00
17:00:00
00:00:00
07:00:00
Enfriamiento y Recepción y Inspección
Transporte al
envasado almacenado sanitaria mayorista
02/05/2008 03/05/2008 03/05/2008 04/05/2008 05/05/2008 05/05/2008 06/05/2008
Dataloggers data
Puntos críticos en la cadena
7 10

Chain Chile-Spain Chain Chile-Spain
Time-Temprerature mapping
8 11

Chain Chile-Spain Temperature Mapping Chain Chile-Spain
Other tasks within the Chill-On project are e.g.:

• Optimize packaging
• Heat transfer modelling
EPS Packaging with fresh water ice

• Integrating RFID tags and TTI into packaging
Unloading at the vessel
Loading in the truck
Datalogger (iButton) placed inside Packaging with integrated RFID.

Source: Promens Iberia
product
9 12
58
The Fresh Hake Supply Identification, monitorization and traceability
Chain Chile-Spain of ice cream products in the supply chain
• How ?
Methods used:
• Using RFID, GPS, GPRS/UMTS and
• desk research Tsensor
• interviews • Analyse ice cream supply chain and
• questionnaires agents involved
• to come: field trials, field trial validation • Possible use of indicators like Cool
Chain Quality Indicators (CCQI)
• Truck transport CCQI
• Long term storage CCQI
• Short term storage/DC CCQI
• Retailer CCQI
• Define critical ´hot spots´in the chain:
time/temperature mapping
13 16
Identification, monitorization and traceability Business Case

of ice cream products in the supply chain
RFID in the Cold Food Supply Chain:
Time-Temprerature mapping
14 17
Identification, monitorization and traceability Business Case

of ice cream products in the supply chain

• Why ?
• Ice crystals are very sensitive to
temperature fluctuations: even at a Project participants: Ice Cream Factory Comaker,
constant temperature they change Grupo Mazo, Consum
• There are many critical ´hot spots´in the Objective: improve traceability of products and monitor
supply chain: during loading, unloading of its temperature
the cargo etc. Initial situation: ice cream manufacturer expedition
• Guarantee product quality area
• All agents in the supply chain have their
responsibility: transparency not only for
the products…
• … and last but not not least: optimize
processes
15 18
59
Business Case Business Case
RFID in the Cold Food Supply Chain: RFID in the Cold Food Supply Chain:
Proposed blueprint
Tags RFID with Tsensor at pallet level
On-board system with RFID reader in truck
Central server
19 22
20 23
Temperaturas RFiD
15
10
0
8 :09 8 :38 9 :07 9 :36 1 0:04 1 0:3 3 1 1:0 2 1 1:3 1 1 2:00 1 2:28
Temperatura (ºC)
AST1 26
-5 AST1 32
AST1 43
AST1 45
- 10 AST1 44
- 15
- 20
- 25
- 30
Tiemp o
21 24
60
Takk!
Roy Doornbos – rdoornbos@itene.com
25
61
62
3 Cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of
traceability systems
63
64
Global traceability standards for food supply chain - Traceback perspective
Tomasz Dowgielewicz, ILIM
65
66
Agenda
Global Traceability Standards
• Standards identification process and methods
for Food Supply Chain
• Product identification
– Recall scope
Traceback perspective • Goals and problems
Institute of Logistics and Warehousing

Tomasz Kawecki
www.traceback-ip.eu Institute of Logistics and Warehousing www.traceback-ip.eu Institute of Logistics and Warehousing
Standards identification Party identification

GS1 GLN
Business Party ID DUNS
Credit Rating Agencies IDs
International Suppliers Network ID
ISIN
• Research on traceability related standards International identifiers

Financial Sector ID
CUSIP
ISO 9362 - BIC - SWIFT code
ISO 10383 - MIC code
– Products identification ISO 16372 - IBEI
European Business Register GLN
Party identifiers
– Parties identification (all locations) Tax registration ID
Statistics registration ID
– Transport means identification National identifiers National registries ID
Credit Rating Agencies ID
– Other areas Financial - National Securities Identifying Number
• Questionnaire and interviews in STANDARD NAME

GS1 GLN
D-U-N-S
AREA
Business
Business
ISSUER
CRA legacy
PAYMENT
+
-
companies ISN
EBR
Business
Business
CRA legacy
National Registries
+
+
BIC Code (ISO 9362) Finance Standardizing Body NA
MIC Code (ISO 10383) Finance Standardizing Body NA
CUSIP “Prefix" Finance Standardizing Body NA
BEI ISO 16372 Finance Standardizing Body NA
ISIN Finance Standardizing Body NA
Interviews Products / items identification
• Questionnaire and interviews in companies receiving storage production completation transport
• Direct questions on standards

raw materials
• Business process questions
semi-finished
• Other traceability related questions 1. How are products identified ?
components 2. Where is the data stored ?
3. How long is it stored ?
final goods
4. Is it transferred ?
packaging
pallets
67
Party – location identification Interview outcomes
• Business processes models

Suppliers Receivers Locations Subcontractors
• Traceability information items identified
Cooperators identification • Standards application areas identified
Mandatory identification
data
Situtation in companies:
Global identifiers
Contact persons
• Mostly paper based traceability – HACCP
Data storage • Market leaders have already sofisticated tools for
Transportation means
internal traceability
identifiers • Different levels of identification
Data link : party -
product
Example – information items and standards

Example: Milk processing
Business Information
Process Standard
actors element
Traceability Reference Model

Data Requirement Specific Standards Cat
Product identification name * string M

• Provided detail analysis
Product identification code * GS1: GTIN M
• Data elements defined and listed
INTERNAL NUMBERS / PRODUCTION
number * T
DATE
Possibility: Quantity* number T
ADOPT STANDARDS TO THE ELEMENTS Unit of measure * ISO SI SYSTEM/ UNECE Rec. 20 M
Variety string T
Origin string T
Category /Class string T
Size number T
Packaging date * CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T
Best before / end CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T
68
SUPPPLIERS OF RAW
Use by date CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T MATERIALS AND
PRODUCER
Display until CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T PACKAGING
Data
GLN3
GLN1b
Product temperature number T Identifier
Description Symbology
GLN1a
Harvesting order code string T
Supplier identification * name / code GS1: GLN / DUNS / VAT no / Address M Serial Shipping Container Code – for logistics purposes to identify:
SSCC palettes, container, crates, boxes etc. GS1-128
Ship from location * name /code GS1: GLN / DUNS / VAT no / Address M
Identifiaction of delivered raw Identifiaction of manufactured
Homogeneous Cultivation Unit Identif. * string T materials and packagings
GLN2 GLN4
Global Trade goods– –for
Item Number retail and trade units,
identification of trade units like: EAN-13, GS1-
Sowing date */hour CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T GTIN,
GTINSSCC, lot number boxes, crates, single items etc. pallets 128, Data Bar
Receive date */hour CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM T GTIN, SSCC, lot number
“Food player” identification * name/code GS1: GLN / DUNS / VAT no / Address M Global Trade Item Number plus – GTIN plus identification of
GS1-128, Data
WHOLESALER
“Food player” address UN CEFATC / GS1 M GTIN+ attribute of GTIN like: GTIN + lot number, GTIN + BBD (best before
Bar, Data
CONSUMER
Purchase order code string T date), GTIN + PD (production date)
GLN7 Matrix GLN5
Delivery note code string
Serialized Global Trade Item Number – GTIN with serial number
GLN6of
Consignee identification* name*/code GS1: GLN / DUNS / VAT no / Address M GS1-128, Data
SGTIN this GTIN RETAILER Bar, Data
Ship to location * name /code GS1: GLN / DUNS / VAT no / Address M Matrix
Ship date */ hour CCYY-MM-DD HH-MM M Use of symbols which are on
Global Location Number –Use for of symbols on of
identification thelocation in the
the delivered goods and pallets
ISO/IEC 15459 / ISO 17363 / delivered goodslike:
and entity,
pallets greenhouse,
Transport identification* name/code M GLN context of physical or formal location, + identification of dispatched
GS1-128
GS1: GRAI / ISO 13556:1998 / ISO 3779:1983 GTIN, SSCC, lot number
cultivation unit traded units and pallets
GTIN, SSCC, lot number
Identification levels Recall / withdrawal scope

SSCC
(S) GTIN (+)
(S) GTIN (+)
Single item level
identification is very
hard to achieve
Case Item
Palette
The closer to that level
Company
1
Company
2
Company
3
we come the lower the
costs are in withdrawal
processes
Palette Case Item
Conclusions
• Data for traceability purposes should be (and can be)

transferred with business data
• More detailed identification provides more accurate TRACEBACK
withdrawal – lower cost.
• Standard identifiers are vital – but sometimes generate THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
cost - traceability systems should provide solutions for
both – global identifiers and own identification schemes
QUESTIONS ?
69
70
On the Use of Stochastic Simulation to Measure Traceback Solutions
Economic Impact”
Andres Silva, University of Kent
71
72
Motivation
TRACEBACK
Contract n° FP6-2005-FOOD-036300
What are we looking for?
On the Use of Stochastic Simulation Who are our consumers?

to Measure the Impact of
Traceback Solutions
What is our central message?
Andres Silva
Kent Business School
University of Kent
Central Message Presentation Outline
Definition of Stochastic Simulation Definition of Stochastic Simulation
• Quantitative methodology that estimates how likely Attributes

can an event happen and the magnitude of its
consequences. Quantitative approach
Business oriented
Supported academically
• We need to determine the distributions of the variables
Association of output and probabilities: risk
under study and later on; the software generates a
Scenario analysis: hypothetical conditions
distribution of possible outputs.
User friendly outputs
Customization to firm or chain levels
73
Ilustrative Example Ilustrative Example
Impact of Traceback Solution in Inventory Control Impact of Traceback Solution in Inventory Control
Company: Tomato processing company Assumptions: Five quality of products

Device: Accuracy test at the entrance level Inventory order under a threshold level
Costs: Product cost
Operational benefit: Increase quality certainty supply Storage costs
Simulation variable: Profit Order costs
Unsatisfied demand penalty cost
Ilustrative Example Ilustrative Example
Scenario Test
Accuracy
1 45%
2 55%
3 65%
4 75%
5 85%
Cut Off: 0 and 2,000 pounds per week
Stochastic Simulation in Traceback Stochastic Simulation in Traceback
Five real case applications:
1. We want to model the most critical variables for the

company.
2. Coordination with pilot testing, devices developers and
diffusion WPs.
Ammonia content in dairy processing plant

(work in progress)
74
Summary Thanks
Using stochastic simulation, we are able to Contact Information

quantify and show in a graphical way to Marian Garcia m.garcia@kent.ac.uk
internal and external consumers the impacts of
Traceback solutions in terms of profit and time saving. Patrick Stolt patrik.stolt@ltj.slu.se
Andres Silva as454@kent.ac.uk
75
76
Cost-benefit analysis of implementing traceability - a case study
Mai Thi Tuyet Nga, University of Iceland
77
78
` What method was used?
` What are the characteristics of the method used?
` How is the data obtained? (interviews, surveys,
questionnaires, observation, record searching, etc.)
` How to ensure valid and representative data using this
method?
` How to analyze the data collected using this method?
` Where did the method come from?
` What other methods were considered?
` What was the experience using this method?
Nga Mai ` What are the strengths of this method? What are the
University of Iceland weaknesses?
` How can the method be improved?
` What type of method is needed in this area? What properties
should the ideal method have?
WORKSHOP on ”Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and CBA
1 WORKSHOP on ”Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and CBA 2
` Cost benefits analysis concept ` Calculate benefits
` Benefits of traceability: ` Calculate costs

◦ Willingness to pay (WTP) as a measure of benefits ` Discount all benefits and costs to present
valueÆ
` Opportunity costs
Net present value (NPV) of project
` Net present value (NPV) model for calculation in
(implementation of traceability) > 0 Æ
cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
recommended
` Case study
Compare between alternatives Æ recommend the
one with the highest NPV
WORKSHOP on ”Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and CBA 3 WORKSHOP on ”Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping and CBA 4
` Market and Revenue Growth (e.g. competitive

advantage, sustainable issues)
` Recall cost reduction (reduce scope and time of
recall)
` Claim, lawsuit and liability inssurance cost
reduction
` Labour cost reduction
` Process improvement (reduce tied up inventory
costs, reduce spoilage, improve quality, reduce cost of
material procurement, movement and storage; implement
JIT management of manufacturing; improve planning,
lower cost of distribution systems, etc.)
(Can-trace, 2004)
79
` RFID tags
` RFID readers
` Software
` Data accumulator (laptop)
` Changes to current processes
` Education & Change Management
` Outside Consultants
` Policy Development, Compliance and Audit
` Implementation Services (Internet; power)
` (Tag loss replacement)
` Formula:
` Where
◦ t - the time of the cash flow;
◦ n - the total time of the project;
◦ r - the discount rate (the rate of return that could
be earned on an investment in the financial
markets with similar risk);
◦ NBt - the net benefits at time t; NBt = Bt - Ct
◦ Bt - the benefits arise at time t;
◦ Ct - the costs arise at time t.
` One of alternatives to NPV is the Payback

Period method which determines the point in ` A one-page questionnaire was sent out to
time at which cumulative net cashflows technology developing partners to get the
exceed zero. This method has several major costs of traceability systems/solutions.
weaknesses: ` Interviews was conducted with seafood
◦ it does not discount cashflows; processing/trading companies to get the
◦ it does not take account of cashflows beyond the estimated/expected benefits of implementing
payback period, which might be large enough to traceability systems/solutions. A five-page
affect the desirability of undertaking the project; questionnaire with 7 sections and 21
◦ it is a measure of time, not a measure of value, thus questions was used for the interviews.
it does not give a true economic picture.
80
` Net present value as a main criteria ` A default real discount rate of 4.5% was used;
` Marginal, not average (overhead), benefits and sensitivity analysis was performed with the
costs were used in the analysis (Business- discount rate between 2.4 and 7% (Evans and
Analysis-Team, 2005; HM-Treasury, 2007). Sezer, 2005);
` Before-tax/pre-tax real “dollars” and real ` Time frame of the system is 5 years
discount rate were used. ` The first cash flow occurs at the end of each
year (from the first year).
81
Thank you
82
Economic Evaluation of Technological Innovations in Food Traceability
Systems
Freddy Brofman, University of Kent
83
84
Presentation Outline
Economic Evaluation
of Technological
1. Research Background
Innovations in Food 2. Research Aim
Traceability Systems 3. How does Technological Innovations in Food Traceability Systems Affect
Firm Performance?
Freddy M. Brofman E. 4. The Research and its Link to Cost-Benefit Analysis
5. Case Study Method
Dr. Marian Garcia Martinez
6. Conclution
Dr. Diogo M. Souza Monteiro
Research Background Research Aim
Just like bicycles food traceability systems are not new; they have evolved
over time.
How does implementation of technological innovations in food traceability
systems affect firm performance?
These ‘new’ technological evolution needs to generate value to the

implementing firm to survive.
How does Technological Innovations in

Impact of Innovating Identification
Food Traceability Systems affect Firm
Technologies
Performance?
Food Traceability
System Impact on Efficiency Performance of the Firm
(6) Partners’ Food Revenue Cost
Traceability System (4) Commutation Account margin savings Source:
Technologies (5) Firm
Performance Sales costs + Starbird and Amanor-Boadu (2006)
(1) Implementation
Lost sales + Saatkamp et al. (1997)
of Technological (3) Information
Innovation Technologies Production appraisal costs + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
Recall/withdrawal costs + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
(2) Identification Efficiency Effectiveness
Technologies Performance Performance
85
Impact of Innovating Identification Impact of Innovating Information
Technologies Technologies
Impact on Effectiveness Performance of the Firm

Expected
Account impact Source:
Ability to protect the reputation Impact on Efficiency Performance of the Firm
+ Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
of the product Revenue Cost
Ability to improve how firm is Account margin savings Adapted from:
+ Sparling et al. (2006)
perceived by regulators Inventory costs + Scheer (2006)
Ability to manufacture new
- Sparling et al. (2006)
products
Ability to manufacture different
- Koenderink and Hulzebos (2006)
products
Impact of Innovating Information Impact of Innovating Information

Account Expected impact Adapted from:
Customer relations Impact on Effectiveness Performance of the Firm
Ability to assure product claims + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008) Account Expected impact Adapted from:
Ability to asses customer Supplier relations
+ Chryssochoidis et al. (2008) Ability to assess supplier
performance + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
Ability to protect brand + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008) performance
Ability to avoid liabilities affecting Regulator relations
+ Chryssochoidis et al. (2008) Ability to meet regulatory
goodwill + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
Ability to access new markets + Sparling et al. (2006) requirements
Ability to increase share of existing Ability to meet regulatory
+ Sparling et al. (2006) + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
market requirements faster
Ability to enhance product and
service quality
Impact of Innovating Communication Impact of Innovating Communication


Account Expected impact Adapted from:
Ability to asses customer
Impact on Efficiency Performance of the Firm + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
performance
Revenue Cost Ability to communicate reliable and
Account margin savings Adapted from: + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
faster with customer
Procurement costs + Bottani and Rizzi (2008) Ability to asses supplier performance + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008)
Recall/withdrawal costs + Chryssochoidis et al. (2008) Ability to communicate reliable and
faster with supplier
Ability to communicate reliable and
faster with regulator
86
The Research and its Link to Cost-Benefit Case Study Method: Why this Method of
Analysis Economic Evaluation?
Revenue
Accounting Purchased Inputs Depreciation on Profit

perspective Capital
Purchased Alternative Rent on Economic

Economic Inputs Use Price of Priced Profit
perspective Resources Resources
At least 4 case studies
Payments for Payment for Bundles of Scarce Resources
Payments Commodities in
perspective Elastic Supply
Source: Lippman and Rumelt (2003)
Case Study Method: Documents and Case Study Method: Documents and
Managers’ Perceptions as a Source of Interviews as a Data Collection Method?
Data?
Open-Ended
Interviews
Triangularization
Data Mismeasurement Time Lag
Documents Survey
Interviews
Case Study Method: Data Analysis Case Study Method: How to Analyze
Strategy? Data to Perform an Economic
Define and Design Prepare, Collect and Analyze Analyze and Conclude
Evaluation?
Conduct 1st Write Individual Draw Cross-Case

Case Study Case Report Conclusions
Select Cases Conduct 2nd Write Individual Modify Theory

Case Study Case Report
Content Analysis
Develop
Theory Conduct 3rd Write Individual
Design Data Write Cross-Case
Collection Protocol Report
th
Conduct N Write Individual
Source: Adapted from Yin (2009)
87
Conclusion Thank you!
• Literature states that the changes in the different technologies that

conform the system will affect firm performance.
Freddy Brofman Dr. Marian Garcia Martinez Dr. Diogo M. Souza Monteiro
• The research proposed to use case studies and content analysis to Student Researcher Senior Lecturer Lecturer
perform economic evaluation.
Kent Business School Kent Business School Kent Business School
University Of Kent University of Kent University of Kent
• In the long run it would be a good practice to confirm if the manager’ D.M.Souza-
perceptions are true. fmb7@kent.ac.uk M.Garcia@kent.ac.uk Monteiro@kent.ac.uk
88
An information model to manage traceability data in service based systems
Michele Puccio, Engineering Ingegneria Informatica
89
90
Outline
An information model to manage traceability
data in service-based systems Engineering: about us
The context: TRACEBACK
Traceability information model
Michele Puccio How to use it
Research and Development Department
Intelligent Systems Unit Conclusion
ENGINEERING Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
Palermo, Italy
Traceability Methods Workshop

Tromsø, 25th-26th February 2009
www.traceback-ip.eu www.traceback-ip.eu
Engineering: about us Engineering: R&D Department
• The Engineering Group has 16 companies, 37 • The Intelligent Systems Unit is involved in
branches in Italy and abroad, more than 6.000 several research projects focused on:
IT professionals; – software engineering
• Finance, central public administration, local • Agent-Oriented Computing
public administration and healthcare, energy & • Service-Oriented Computing
• Autonomic computing
utilities, industry, telco are the market covered
• Intelligent Business Process Management
by the commercial offer;
– Application domains
• 250 researchers and 50 million Euros invested in • Food
the past three years in research projects. • Supply chain management
• Logistics
• Finance
The context: TRACEBACK The context: TRACEBACK
• TRACEBACK project aims at developing an

integrated solution to traceability in food
supply chains and companies, while specifically
addressing the tomato and feed-dairy products
and sectors;
• Engineering is one of the ICT partners of the
project and is responsible of the definition of the
Reference Architecture for Traceability
Information Systems (RATIS).
91
RATIS RATIS
• The Reference Architecture for Traceability • RATIS specifications • The RATIS

Information Systems aims at providing an asset have a reference Technological Suite
base for collaborative and distributed service- implementation: the is intended to be
oriented traceability information systems supporting: RATIS Framework. used by software and
– creation, acquisition, and recording of relevant service developers,
traceability data along the entire supply chain; system integrators
– storage of traceability data in distributed and and service providers
(semantically) interoperating repositories; who to implement
– semantically-sound exchange and sharing of traceability systems
traceability information among parties and services.
– exploitation, browsing and querying of traceability
information
RATIS Traceability Information Model
• A model to capture, manage and share

traceability data among the whole supply chain;
• It is a mean to catch relevant data from
traceability processes and to make it available
for an ICT (service-based) infrastructure;
• A general model: it does not mean an universal
model;
• It is formally defined using the UML semantic
and notation;
• It can be specialized for any specific supply
chain.
Traceability Information Model Traceability Information Model
• A core ontology defining the main entities • A set of data structures (Events) covering all
involved in traceability processes: traceability aspects of a supply chain process:
92
Traceability Information Model How we built the model
• Each Event is defined with all the information • Requirements analysis:

needed: – Creativity workshop with involved stakeholders;
– Stakeholders interviews;
– i* modeling to identify goals;
– Use cases walkthrough;
– Supply chain analysis, i.e. TRM and Trace Points
– Traceability state of the art.
How to use it How to use it
• The main objective of the model is to enable • Services are the key factor enabling
information sharing among the supply chain; information sharing in the supply chain;
• It will be exploited as the base ontology for • Information sharing is different from the
the definition of Logical Services; information exchange between two food
players:
– Traceability information is shared through service
invocation;
– Traceability information is made available through
service invocation to all the authorized
stakeholders.
How to use it Events generation
• Starting from a (formal) traceability process • Traceability Events

description (e.g. Trace Point), we identify can be generated
when a specific Event should be generated; starting from several
• According to the specific process under information sources:
consideration, we define which data the Event – Manual input
should manage; – Legacy systems
– Mapping/transformat
• We orchestrate the right service invocation in ion from interchange
order to manage the process. languages:
• GS1 XML;
• TraceCoreXML;
• ….
93
Events exploitation Model validation
• Generated events • We are validating the model in the two supply

can be used and chains involved in the TRACEBACK project
exploited for several – Feed/diary;
objectives: – Tomato;
– Information retrieval; • We expect feedbacks to verify the
– Data analysis; completeness of the model and to improve
– Risk management; the overall approach.
– Added value
services;
– ….
Conclusion
• An information model to manage traceability Thank you

data;
• A set of Services Specifications to store, share
and exploit traceability data;
Michele Puccio
• A validation process is in progress Research and Development Department
Intelligent Systems Unit
• … ENGINEERING Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
Palermo, Italy
michele.puccio@eng.it
www.eng.it
94
4 Discussion
Following the workshop we wished to summarise what we thought were some of the more
important areas of discussion. We must point out that it is only possible to represent part of
the actual discussion here.
4.1 Food Traceability Process Mapping

In most of the process mapping methods, both those which have been tested and those
which are planned, some form of questionnaire and structured interview was used.
Presentations and subsequent discussions around these methods centred around the
following issues;
What method is most appropriate for which type of mapping?
How do you get the information which is most relevant, how do you get the data needed in
each specific study?
• What is the most efficient way of collecting data (one person structured interview, two
person structured interview, less formal interviews based on interview guides,
surveys, questionnaires, etc.)?
• Should you interview employees in the company or value chain together or
separately?
• Is the role of the process mapping to take a descriptive snapshot of current practise,
or is it to aid in the implementing of a new, and often electronic, traceability system.
This has implications for the type of questionnaire which is suitable.
• Should the process mapping method include all exchanges with the interviewees,
including the initial exchanges, the set-up and surroundings of the meetings, the
choice of participants and agenda, the overall investigation of the company, the
presentation material, the graphs drawn, etc. Alternatively, should the aim be to have
or develop a process mapping method where only the core part of the investigation /
interview is specified.
• Some process mapping methods focus on the identifiers and the transformations, not
the parameters connected to the identifiers, so additional questions need to be
formulated if you want to investigate something related to the value of the
parameters (hygiene, recall readiness, sustainability, resource use, etc.)
It was also noted that the scope of each method needs to be clarified. One area which was
highlighted was the need for methods to specify whether they take into account the needs of
software developers when gathering information since information technology is seen to be
an important part of many food traceability systems. Another area of importance is to what
extent and how the different methods can be used comparatively or together. The ‘level’
(single product, company or supply chain) of process mapping was also discussed and is
thought to be a fruitful area for further work.
Representation of data gathered during process mapping was also an important debate.
Many of the methods presented used some form of graphical representation. This graphical
representation was not only used for analysis, but also in order to enable the companies
involved in projects to validate the data gathered. Discussion here centred on the possibility
of standardising such diagrams and using them as a tool for comparison. A similar debate
took place regarding the vocabulary used in traceability, for example the definition of ‘critical
95
traceability point’. A need was identified for establishing a forum for further discussion and
development of these ideas.
4.2 Cost/benefit calculations related to implementation of traceability

systems
The main debate in this discussion revolved around when it was most useful and practical to
conduct a cost benefit analysis and what factors should be included.
For many of the participants cost benefit was viewed as a tool for companies to use when
implementing traceability.
We observed that there were many different variables which could be taken into account
when carrying out cost benefit and different ways of modelling these factors.
Discussions on the cost benefit methods centred around:
• Ex ante methods compared to ex post methods

• How in particular to quantify and calculate benefits
• National and sectorial differences related to depreciation over time
• Existing courses, books and publications related to cost benefit methods
Also for cost benefit methods a need was identified for establishing a forum for further
discussion and exchange of ideas and results.
96
5 Conclusion
During the two days of the workshop there was much useful and interesting information
exchange. It is clear that there is potential for a lot more cooperation in this area and that a
lot more may be done with respect to formalization of knowledge and scientific publication,
especially for process mapping methods.
The workshop participants are all looking forward to exciting and fruitful cooperation in these
areas in the coming years, and we hope that some institute or project will take it upon
themselves to arrange a follow-up workshop in a year or two.
97
98
6 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the TRACE project for funding this workshop, Nofima’s staff for their
hospitality, the enthusiastic participation shown by all involved and the weather patterns for
bringing some wonderful weather conditions.
99
100
7 References
Carriquiry, M. & B.S. Babcock (2007). Reputations, market structure, and the choice of
quality assurance systems in the food industry. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 89, pp. 12–23.
Caswell, J. A. (2000). Labelling policy for GMO's: To Each His Own? AgBioForum, 3, pp. 53–
57.
Elbers, A.R.W., H. Moser, H. Ekker, H.M. Crauwels, P.A.A. Stegeman, J.A. Smak, J.A. &
F.H. Pluimers (2001). Tracing systems used during the epidemic of classical swine
fever in the Netherlands, 1997–1998. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office
International Des Epizooties, 20, pp. 614–629.
Fallon, M. (2001). Traceability of poultry and poultry products. Revue Scientifique Et
Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties, 20, pp. 538–546.
Hobbs, J.E. (2004). Information Asymmetry and the Role of Traceability Systems.
Agribusiness, 20, pp 397–-415.
Madec, F., R. Geers, P. Vesseur, N. Kjeldsen & T. Blaha (2001). Traceability in the pig
production chain. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des
Epizooties, 20, pp. 523–537.
Ozawa, Y., B.L. Ong & S.H. AN (2001). Traceback systems used during recent epizootics in
Asia. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties, 20,
pp. 605–613.
Sporleder, T.L. & P.D. Goldsmith (2001). Alternative Firm Strategies for Signaling Quality in
the Food System. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D
Agroeconomie, 49, pp. 591–604.
Sporleder, T.L. & L.E. Moss (2002). Knowledge management in the global food system:
Network embeddedness and social capital. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 84, pp. 1345–1352.
101
Lively discussion during the workshop
ISBN 978 82-7251-679-5
ISSN 1890-579X

Traceability

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Traceability

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report 15/2009y Published March 2009

Harmonizing methods for food traceability process mapping

Kathryn Anne-Marie Donnelly and Petter Olsen

Business reg. no.: NO 964 441 898 VAT

ISBN: Report no: Accessibility:

By agreement with: Contractors ref.:

Petter Olsen, Nofima

This presentation Definition - ISO 8402

ISO 9000: What traceability is and isn’t:

This is the traceability (BRC, IFS,

European Commission -DG Research

Detailed view of TRACE activities per chain

Fork Demonstration Farm

Batches, TUs and LUs

Trade units 15510

Trade units 18771

Received Internal Sent Transformation

9 sets of questions – go against the flow (or not)

Sample form 4 – Production ends (T) Question types

Questions related to durations Questions related to transformations

Process mapping publications

Petter Olsen 25/02/09 - ©Nofima Market - May be copied if source is acknowledged

Jorge Molina, Ainia

Outline of the Presentation

ainia ainia: about us

2 - Tracepoints in Traceability Methods

3 - Traceability Methods Comparative

“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”

Thanks to… ainia: about us

Our mission is to actively participate in the attainment of excellence in companies

Thanks to the support of EU projects… 190 professionals on the staff

70 % doctors and university graduates

“Traceability Methods Workshop”

The presentation is focused to the analysis and performance

Scope of the Presentation Some Methods Overview

Food Chain/Business/Process Data Model Information Flows /Events…

Description of Several EU EU Research Project.

Supply Chain Supply Chain

Analysis of Fundación Chile Food processes.

“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”

Tested in meat sector (processed), wine sector, vegetables

“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”

“Avante” Scope: Food Items “Avante” Scope: Food Players

Food Items Scope Processes Scope

Food Chain Configuration Level

Producto Producto Producto Producto

Registro Control Campo Llenado y Control Depósito

Registro Entrada Mostos/Vinos Control Correcciones

Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project

“Traceability Methods Workshop”

Example Process Mapping: Traceability Conceptual Model

Agrupación de Etiquetado de 13.330 botellas

Part 2: Tracepoints in Traceability Methods

“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”

Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis Tracepoints an overview

We can define Tracepoint as an action or event related to a process

Input data Output data

This is a very good option to model internal operations and in

Tracepoints an overview Tracepoints as a Tool for Traceability Analysis

Some Processes associated… Some Processes associated…

Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project

“Traceability Methods Workshop” “Traceability Methods Workshop”

Tracepoints description: example Tracepoints description: example

Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project Acknowledgement EU TRACEBACK Project