Optimal approaches to the quality control checking of product labels

Abstract

Quality control checkers at fresh produce packaging facilities occasionally fail to detect incorrect information presented on labels. Despite being infrequent, such errors have significant financial and environmental repercussions. To understand why label-checking errors occur, observations and interviews were undertaken at a large packaging facility and followed up with a laboratorybased label-checking task. The observations highlighted the dynamic, complex environment in which label-checking took place, whilst the interviews revealed that operatives had not received formal training in label-checking. On the laboratory-based task, overall error detection accuracy was high but considerable individual differences were found between professional labelcheckers. Response times were shorter when participants failed to detect label errors, suggesting incomplete checking or ineffective checking strategies. Furthermore, eye movement recordings indicated that checkers who adopted a systematic approach to checking were more successful in detecting errors. The extent to which a label checker adopted a systematic approach was not found to correlate with the number of years of experience that they had accrued in labelchecking. To minimize the chances of label errors going undetected, explicit instruction and training, personnel selection and/or the use of software to guide performance towards a more systematic approach is recommended.

Factors affecting accuracy in the quality control checking of fresh produce labels: A situational and laboratory‐based exploration

“…The same limitations identified by Smith‐Spark et al () apply to the laboratory work reported in this paper. The simulated label‐checking task differed from the task as it is performed in the packhouse in several ways.…”

“…Past visual inspection work has indicated that inexperienced students tend to perform at a similar level to that of individuals who have had experience with the task through their job role (Wang et al, ). Consistent with this finding, Smith‐Spark et al () also found that the number of years of experience in label‐checking was not related to either the accuracy of performance or how strategic checkers were in their approach to the task. The contribution of prior experience to performance was investigated further in the current study by determining whether group differences existed between professional label checkers and university students naïve to the process of label‐checking in label‐checking accuracy.…”

“…Finally, the number of fields of information requiring checking has been purposefully restricted to seven for two reasons. First, previous work has shown that a larger amount of information to inspect is likely to result in poorer performance (Gallwey & Drury, ) so intertrial variation in the number of fields to be checked has been avoided in the label‐checking studies to date (Katz et al, ; Smith‐Spark et al, , , ). Second, poorer visual inspection performance has been found when errors are present in multiple fields rather than in single fields (see Gallwey & Drury, , for a review).…”

“…On the basis of the current data, two different approaches to improving performance suggest themselves: selecting label‐checking personnel based on their cognitive profile or changing label‐checking behavior in such a way that the chances of individual differences having an impact on performance are reduced significantly. Methods of achieving the latter have been considered in related work (Smith‐Spark et al, , ), in which label‐checking can be computer‐guided to constrain the approach taken to the task such that it follows a systematic, one field at a time pattern. In this way, the cognitive load associated with label‐checking is reduced and all fields of the label are checked.…”

“…These include aircraft inspection (Drury, ); airport X‐ray security inspection (Ghylin, Drury, & Schwaninger, ); telecommunications (Jameeson, ); inspection of small steel cylinders (Kleiner & Drury, ); the use of video magnifiers for inspecting electronic and mechanical components of consumer products (Lee, Man, & Chan, ); pharmaceutical and biological drug products (Melchore, ); contact lens inspection (Rao, Bowling, Khasawneh, Gramopadhye, & Melloy, ); circuit patterns, sheet steel or glass inspection, circuit board comparison (Wang & Drury, ); and simulated solder joint arrays (Wang, Lin, & Drury, ). However, despite the costly nature of human error in this domain, only a small amount of direct research has been carried out on product label‐checking (Smith‐Spark, Katz, Marchant, & Wilcockson, , , ). The research reported in this paper focused on one fresh produce packaging company which served a range of UK supermarkets.…”