For laboratory managers supporting manufacturing operations, data can be one of the earliest indicators that a process problem is developing. The value of that data, however, depends on what happens after the result is reported. Laboratory leaders can play an important role in translating recurring findings into information that manufacturing teams can understand and act on. This requires connecting laboratory evidence with operational realities while maintaining the objectivity and independence of the laboratory function.
Communication gaps can become visible through recurring out-of-specification results, delayed investigations, repeated deviations, or a growing disconnect between laboratory findings and what is happening on the production floor. Recognizing these patterns is an important first step toward preventive action. A recurring laboratory result can be an early signal that a process or communication issue requires attention.
When recurring results point to a larger problem
While supporting quality and continuous improvement activities in food manufacturing, I saw firsthand how a recurring quality issue that initially appeared to be a straightforward compliance problem was ultimately connected to a gap in communication and process understanding. Although the quality laboratory consistently identified the same pattern through routine testing, resolving the issue required translating those findings into practical actions on the production floor.
The production line involved a yeast-leavened cracker product where dough fermentation was important for maintaining consistent final product quality. The laboratory began seeing a recurring pattern of low dough pH when dough remained in the fermentation area longer than intended. As fermentation continued beyond the desired range, the final product could develop a sour flavor.
Although the technical mechanism was clear, the operational impact was significant. The quality laboratory repeatedly detected low-pH deviations, while production teams worked under constant pressure to maintain efficiency and output targets. Product waste increased as off-specification product had to be discarded, consumer complaints related to flavor inconsistency continued, and repeated laboratory findings pointed to the same underlying trend.
At first, the response was procedural: reinforce the rotation system and remind operators to follow the established process more carefully. However, despite repeated communication and corrective actions, the issue recurred. This raised an important question: If the procedure was being communicated, why was the problem continuing?
Over time, it became clear that this was not simply a compliance problem. Many operators had years of experience on the line and were highly skilled in managing day-to-day production activities. Some had been running the same process for more than a decade. From their perspective, they were working according to an established way of operating that had become familiar over the years.
This highlighted a gap between what the laboratory data were showing and how the process was understood on the production floor. The issue was not necessarily a lack of willingness to follow procedures, but a gap in understanding how routine process decisions could influence final product quality.
When recurring laboratory results do not lead to changes on the production floor, the next step may not be another compliance reminder, but a different way to communicate what the data mean, what risk they signal, and what action should follow.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Turning laboratory findings into action
The turning point came when laboratory leadership recognized that reporting the same deviation repeatedly was not enough. Instead, recurring laboratory findings needed to trigger a structured review of the relationship between the analytical result and the manufacturing process. The laboratory first needed to confirm the result was reliable, then worked with manufacturing to determine where the finding intersected with process conditions and whether previous corrective actions had addressed the underlying cause or reinforced existing procedures. This review also created an opportunity to understand whether operators understood the scientific reason behind the control and to incorporate their observations about actual production conditions. Finally, defining a measurable indicator of improvement provided a way to determine whether the intervention had been effective.
To support this effort, the company brought in external specialists with expertise in dough making to provide additional training. The laboratory team participated in the training and discussions with operators, helping connect the technical information to the recurring quality issues identified through laboratory testing. This helped operators better understand how process decisions could affect final product quality.
Interested in lab leadership?
My role was to help bridge the gap between the laboratory findings and what was happening on the production floor. I explained that the repeated low-pH results were signals of what was happening during dough making and could eventually lead to product waste, additional testing, and consumer complaints. We also discussed the broader operational and financial impact of the issue and why improving the initial dough-making steps was important for overall process performance.
This approach shifted the conversation from whether a procedure was being followed to what was happening in the process and why it mattered. Operators could ask questions, share observations from the production floor, and connect laboratory findings to their day-to-day decisions.
What changed after the lab and production teams aligned
After the training and ongoing communication between the laboratory and production teams, dough-making quality issues became less frequent. The quality laboratory also saw a reduction in the number of final-product samples that required pH testing. At the same time, consumer complaints related to the issue declined.
The results showed that laboratory data add value beyond detecting problems. When recurring findings are connected to process understanding and operational decisions, laboratory data can help guide preventive action, prioritize investigations, and identify risks before they develop into larger quality failures.
Once operators understood the relationship between fermentation control and final product quality, monitoring became more proactive and potential issues were identified earlier. Conversations between quality and manufacturing also became more open, practical, and solution-oriented.
Some of the initial hesitation also began to change. As operators gained a better understanding of the science behind the process—and saw that their practical experience was valued—they became more engaged in identifying potential issues and contributing their own observations during troubleshooting and continuous improvement efforts. This two-way exchange of knowledge strengthened collaboration between the laboratory and the production floor and created greater shared ownership of quality improvement.
Where the lab’s role begins and ends
Laboratory managers can encourage their teams to play an active role in investigations rather than limiting their involvement to testing and reporting results. At the same time, this involvement needs to have clear boundaries. The laboratory is responsible for establishing what the data show and whether the result is valid. Manufacturing provides the process context and owns the process controls. When a recurring laboratory finding may be related to process conditions, the laboratory and manufacturing teams can work together to investigate that relationship.
Collaboration with manufacturing does not mean changing or overlooking laboratory results to support production goals. The laboratory must remain independent and communicate objective findings clearly, while manufacturing remains responsible for its process controls.
In practice, laboratory leaders can strengthen collaboration by:
- Involving operators in root-cause investigations and listening to their observations about actual production conditions.
- Involving laboratory staff in investigations when recurring laboratory findings may be related to process conditions.
- Maintaining clear boundaries between laboratory and manufacturing responsibilities while working together to address recurring issues.
The most valuable laboratory result is not necessarily the one that identifies a problem. It is the one that helps an organization understand the problem early enough—and clearly enough—to do something about it.
