A techno-managerial

approach in food
quality management
research
Pieternel A. Luning
a,
*
and
Willem J. Marcelis
b
&
a
Product Design and Quality Management Group,
Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences,
Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8129, NL-6700 EV
Wageningen, The Netherlands (Address: Product
Design and Quality Management Group, Wagenin-
gen University and Research Centre, Building 307,
Bomenweg 2, 6703 HD Wageningen,
Gelderland, The Netherlands.
Tel.: C31 317 482087; fax: C31 317 483669;
e-mail: pieternel.luning@wur.nl)
b
Management Studies Group, Department of Social
Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130,
6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
In this article it is discussed that food quality management
issues are much more complex than often assumed and that
it requires a specic research approach. It is argued that food
quality management deals with dynamic and complex food
systems and people systems involved in realising food
quality. A conceptual food quality relationship is developed,
assuming that food quality is a function of both food and
human behaviour and their interaction. The relationship
reects that food quality is dependent on both dynamic
properties of the food product, as related to applied
technological conditions, and dynamic properties of people,
as related to applied administrative conditions. A techno-
managerial approach to research food quality management
issues is derived, which involves the integrated analysis of
theories from technological and managerial sciences.
Introduction
The result of agribusiness and food industry, as the
combined action of individuals in the whole agri-food
production chain striving for food quality, is much more
uncertain than often is assumed (Luning, Marcelis, &
Jongen, 2002; Van der Spiegel, 2004; Van der Spiegel,
Luning, Ziggers, & Jongen, 2003, 2005). This is clearly
illustrated by the various serious affairs that occurred in
food chains in West Europe in the last decade. Examples
are bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and
classical swine fever (CSF) in 1997, the Belgian dioxin
affair in (1999) and dioxin in potato skins for animal
feed (in 2004), foot and mouth disease (FMD) in 2001,
the nitrophen and medroxyprogesteron acetate (MPA)
incidents in 2002, and Avian Inuenza in 2003 and 2005
(Agriholland, 2003; Crawford, 1999; Food Alert notica-
tion, 2004; LNV, 1997, 2001; USDA, 2001). The dioxin
crisis in 1999 in Belgium is very illustrative for the
uncertainty in production of safe and high quality food.
The origin of this crisis was traced back to the
production of ingredients for animal feed. Motor oil
was mixed deliberately or accidentally (still unknown)
with frying fat that was aimed for production of
ingredients for animal feed. The dioxin contamination
entered the food chain via animal feed and ultimately
resulted in a serious crisis for agribusiness and food
industry. The rst signal occurred in the beginning of the
year, when chickens got ill. However, it took up to July
before the origin of the dioxin contamination was traced
back. Very heavy measures had to be taken to regain
consumer trust, because there was much uncertainty
about the contamination route of dioxin, but also due to
the full media attention in combination with confusing
reports of ofcials. Ultimate costs were estimated on 1.54
billions US dollars for both the agricultural and food
sector (Belgian dioxin crisis, 1999). This example
illustrates that peoples decision-making behaviour in
combination with the technological complexity can have
unexpected dramatic consequences on food safety and
quality due to, amongst others, lack of knowledge of the
origin and mechanism of the hazard, lack of information
and improper communication.
In this paper, the mechanisms that may contribute to
the complexity of food quality management are analysed
and discussed. Subsequently, we propose and discuss a
techno-managerial research approach to analyse food
Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385
Viewpoint
0924-2244/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2006.01.012
* Corresponding author.
quality management issues in order to deal with this
complexity.
Complex systems in food quality management
Food quality management deals with both food quality
and quality management. It therefore concerns both the food
production systems and the people systems, which are
involved in realising food quality. To obtain a better
understanding of why these systems can be considered as
complex we use the systems hierarchy theory of Boulding
(1956) to characterise the different system levels involved in
food quality management.
The hierarchy of Boulding (1956) provided fundamental
insights in systems thinking. He distinguished nine system
levels. Each higher level includes all lower levels but new
functions are added and more information is needed. The
levels are shortly described below:
1 Frame-work system: a static structure, e.g. a stone. These
systems are also described as skeleton systems.
2 Clock-work system: a system with predetermined
motion, e.g. a clock. The factor time has been added,
resulting in simple dynamic systems.
3 Cybernetic system: closed-loop control system, e.g. a
thermostat. At this level through feedback information
one or more variables are kept at a constant level.
4 Open system: structurally self-maintaining, self-pro-
duction, e.g. biological cells. Here life starts with self-
maintaining and self-reproduction. At this level total
information is passed through the living system.
5 Lower organism system: differentiation in organs,
predetermined growth, reproduction, e.g. plants. At
this level the systems are able to group cells to organs
with predetermined nal forms and functions.
6 Animal system: consciousness, information collection,
brains guiding behaviour, i.e. animals. The animal
system adds to the plant system the ability to process
and store information. Special organs for information
retrieval are formed (ear, eye). Consciousness arises in
the form of images, knowledge structure and an
overview over the environment as a whole.
7 Human system: self-reection, knowledge, anticipation,
and symbolic language, i.e. human beings. At this level
self-reection is added. Human beings not only know,
but they know that they know. This ability is connected
with the ability to form a language and to symbolise.
Human beings are also aware of time and are thus able to
anticipate.
8 Social system: relationships, interests, communication,
culture, e.g. an organisation. Humans are only human in
a social situation, where he/she plays different roles. The
social organisation has its own variables, like values,
norms, goals, social relationships and different interests.
Culture arises within social organisations.
9 Transcendental system: non-material systems, e.g. the
idea of divinity. At the end there are non-material
systems of logic, axioms and belief, including questions
without information to answer them.
According to Boulding (1956), increasing system levels
correspond with a higher level of complexity. As a
consequence, these higher system levels do have a more
unpredictable behaviour. From the viewpoint of this
hierarchy, food systems belong to the levels 46, which
are living systems. So, these systems are rather complex,
compared to product systems without living materials.
People involved in quality management and the social
system where they are in, are classied in the higher levels
78.
Realising that food and human systems belong to the
higher system levels, an interesting problem is coming up.
People often perceive it as too difcult to understand and
analyse complex systems, and to predict their behaviour in
time. When people are confronted with ambiguity, they try
to ignore it or make sense of it in ways that reect their
own perception of the situation rather than the situation
itself (Teale, Dispenza, Flynn, & Currie, 2003).Therefore,
complex problems are commonly reduced to a lower
system level, which enables a straightforward choice of
solutions.
Likewise, despite its complexity, food quality manage-
ment is often assumed to be a rather controllable process
on the cybernetic system level (Luning et al., 2002).
Consequently, straightforward mechanisms of control are
introduced to manage the variation in outcome, which is
illustrated by the great attention that is paid to the
development and implementation of quality systems in
agribusiness and food industry (e.g. Efstratiadis, Karirti, &
Arvanitoyannis, 2000; Ropkins & Beck, 2000). These
quality systems are commonly based on procedures and
control circles as mechanism to control and assure quality.
After implementation, however, it often appears in
practice that the intended results are not obtained, without
full understanding of the reasons, which is illustrated in
Section 3.
Problems with quality systems
Literature on management of food quality is mainly
focused on development, application and integration of
quality systems. Much attention is paid to the performance
of HACCP, and screening literature revealed typical
observations, such as:
Problems related with the food production systems like,
difculties with identifying and prioritising chemical/
microbial hazards, and assessing critical points on a
scientic and quantitative basis due to, e.g. to lack of
scientic data, different approaches, and or variation in
(microbial) standards resulting in different assessments
on safety (Holt & Henson, 2000; Ropkins & Beck, 2000,
2003; Todd, 2003; Untermann, 1999).
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 379
Problems related to technological measuring and
equipment such as, no relevant monitoring systems
(Mitchell, 1998), use of wrong equipment (Walker,
Pritchard, & Forsythe, 2003), lack of equipment,
incorrect plant lay out, and poorly designed equipment
(Panisello & Quantick, 2001).
Problems due to improper food handler behaviour like
inappropriate corrective actions (Legnani, Leoni, Ber-
veglieri, Mirolo, & Alvaro, 2004; Motarjemi &
Kaferstein, 1999), and insufcient record-keeping and
documentation (Motarjemi & Kaferstein, 1999; Vela &
Fernandez, 2003; Walker et al., 2003).
Typical factors contributing to improper behaviour
involve lack of understanding the HACCP system
(Motarjemi & Kaferstein, 1999; Taylor & Kane, in
press), ineffective training (Howes, McEwen, Grifths,
& Harris, 1996), misperceptions on safety risks
(Clayton, Grifth, Price, & Peters, 2002), no commit-
ment of management (often reected in insufcient
support in time, money, training of employees, motiv-
ation) (Vela & Fernandez, 2003), psychological barriers
to HACCP implementation (like, HACCP is perceived
as difcult, burdensome, unnecessary and hindered by
staff and external problems) (Taylor & Taylor, 2004),
and lack of validation and verication of the HACCP
system (Taylor & Kane, in press).
Above ndings show problems originating from food
systems (like, complexity and variation of food products and
processes) and problems related to people (such as, differing
quality perceptions, poor commitment, or inappropriate
supporting conditions).
We conclude from these ndings that dealing with food
quality management as a cybernetic system, relying on
control mechanisms, seems to deny all kinds of
inuencing factors that can not be predicted with such
an approach. Consider, for example, unpredictable
behaviour of raw materials, and conicting individual
interests of people resulting in other behaviour than
expected (e.g. Gerats, 1990; Luning et al., 2002; Van der
Spiegel, 2004).
Characterising food quality management
Therefore, from a research point of view we need a more
sophisticated approach to prevent simplication of food and
human systems to cybernetic systems, and to explicitly
consider their real complexity to better predict their
behaviour and from that the outcome of these systems. In
this section, we typify the systems and subsequently
characterise food quality management.
Typifying systems
A food system is described here as the whole of
product properties (ranging from raw materials, ingredi-
ents to nal products) and proles of reaction processes
(i.e. microbial, chemical, biochemical, physical and
physiological food processes). Food behaviour is the
result of the outcomes of the food system over time. A
food system is subject to a food production system, which
is described as the whole of production activities and
technological conditions inuencing reaction processes in
order to realise desired product properties. These proper-
ties are perceived as quality attributes depending on
expectations and experiences of customers and consumers
(Van Trijp & Steenkamp, 2004). Food and food
production systems are typically living materials with
large variation, which change over time. Variability of
these systems can be ascribed to:
heterogeneity of food products (e.g. constituents not
homogenously distributed or locked in compartments)
(e.g. Pomeranz & Meloan, 1994).
large compositional variations due to cultivar/breeding
differences, seasonal inuences, weather and harvest-
ing conditions (e.g. Tijskens, Konopacki, Simcic, &
Hribar, 2000).
continuous decay of quality attributes due to a wide
range food processes each has its own behaviour
depending on applied processes (e.g. Van Boekel,
1998).
interactions between food compounds (e.g. Hidalgo &
Zamora, 2004) and with packaging (e.g. Helmroth,
Rijk, Dekker, & Jongen, 2002) and equipment
materials (e.g. Wolf, 2004).
So, food can be considered as a complex system with a
dynamic and variable behaviour, it changes in time and
changes may differ for similar food products. For example,
levels of glucosinolates in processed Brassica vegetables
upon consumption can vary a 100-fold, due to a variation of
510 in raw materials, a 510-fold variation caused by
industrial processing and storage and a 510-fold variation
by household preparation (Dekker, Verkerk, & Jongen,
2000).
Human systems are perceived here as people with certain
individual characteristics making decisions in order to reach
goals. Human behaviour is then described as the decision-
making outcomes of the human system over time. Simon
(1960) recognised that people do not always make decisions
with logic and rationality and introduced two concepts in his
administrative model, i.e. bounded rationality (i.e. incom-
plete information, limited knowledge) and satisfying
behaviour (i.e. choosing rst satisfactory alternative).
According to this approach, one is accepting that people
have their own way of dealing with problems, being more or
less subjective therein. As a consequence human behaviour
is rather unpredictable.
Human systems are subject to a management system,
which is described as a whole of managerial activities and
administrative conditions (e.g. organisational relationships,
available information) inuencing decision-making
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 380
activities. The resulting decisions are meant to initiate
actions towards people and towards the food production
system in order to manage them to realise food quality.
Characterising decision-making of people reveals that it is a
complex and dynamic process. Decision-making can be
inuenced by various aspects like type of information
(Holbrook & Moore, 1981; Paivio, 1991) personal
characteristics (Forgas & George, 2001; Seagal & Horne,
1997; Shepherd, 1985), motivation and ability (Gerats,
1990; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986; Wood, 2000) but also
organisational conditions, conicting interests, availability
of information and power (Forgas & George, 2001; Jacoby,
Johar, & Morrin, 1998; Kampfraath & Marcelis, 1981;
Mintzberg, 1983; 1993). Besides the complex and dynamic
character of decision-making of people, also organisational
conditions do have their own dynamics and life cycle, due to
a continuous changing environment that requires organis-
ations to adapt (Robbins, 2000). Therefore, under various
organisational conditions, decision-making will result in
different outcomes.
Considering above-mentioned aspects of food and human
systems, our conclusion is that food quality management
research should start with understanding behaviour of food
and human systems when trying to predict the outcome of
these systems in terms of quality.
Characterising food quality management
Teale et al. (2003) mentioned that in managerial
decision-making it is not uncommon to see a clockwork
universe and to be convinced that behaviour can be
predicted towards a predetermined end. They discussed
that, in analysing management problems, chaos theory may
contribute to a better understanding of behaviour, starting
with the consideration that systems are apparently
disordered. Within this perspective chaos theory is
concerned with ambiguity and uncertainty. Ambiguity is
described as a situation where there is no clear
interpretation of phenomena or events; available evidence
supports more than one interpretation. Uncertainty is the
situation where there is lack of information about
phenomena or events. Chaos theory implies that everything
is in essence chaotic, but the way a certain situation
develops will follow a certain law of nature (Teale et al.,
2003).
In Fig. 1 we propose a schematic representation of
ambiguity and uncertainty, where we consider higher
systems as more chaotic. We assume that systems at higher
levels are causing more ambiguity due to lack of
understanding of underlying factors and mechanisms.
Uncertainty is assumed to be only dependent on lack of
availability of information. Fig. 1 shows that in the
situation of order, low ambiguity and uncertainty exist
due to fully understood systems being fully informed about
them. A situation of order can be characterised by aspects
like: linearity, rationality and stability. More chaos will
result in more ambiguity and uncertainty. The ultimate
situation of chaos is one of non-linearity, irrationality and
instability.
From above perspective we conclude that food quality
management research and analysis should assume a
situation of relative chaos and not order, and recognise
ambiguity and uncertainty.
As mentioned above, both food and human systems do
have their own dynamic behaviour, and therefore they
are not fully predictable. However, conditioning will
generate organised and patterned behaviour (Kampfraath
& Marcelis, 1981; Teale et al., 2003). Conditioning is
aimed at reducing variation in dynamic behaviour and it
creates boundaries to constrain extremes in behaviour
outcomes. Accordingly, the dynamics of food properties
(e.g. variable content of vitamins) can be inuenced and
controlled by applying technological conditions (e.g.
breeding circumstances and or time-temperature

1. Frame-work
2. Clock-work
3. Cybernetic
4. Cell
5. Plant
6. Animal
7. Human
8. Social
9. Transcendental
Ambiguity
due to
lack of
under-
standing
System level Uncertainty
due to lack of information
Order
Chaos
Fig. 1. Managerial complexity, dependent on ambiguity and uncertainty.
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 381
processing conditions), which enables a better prediction
of food behaviour. Similarly, the dynamics of people
(e.g. different decisions) can be directed to a certain
extent by applying administrative conditions (e.g.
providing information or training), which enables a
better prediction of people behaviour (Kampfraath &
Marcelis, 1981; Robbins, 2000). Although variation in
food and human behaviour can be conditioned to a
certain extent, enabling a certain level of prediction and
control, it should be recognised that due to its complex-
ity it is not possible to fully predict the food quality
outcome. Even products in a properly maintained
production line with adequately trained and motivated
workers, the right raw materials, expert supervisors, and
quality control employees who know what they are
doing, cannot be perfectly uniform, without defects and
variation (Hubbard, 1996).
We conclude that analysis of behaviour of food and
human systems should be based on both system dynamics
and conditions to better predict the quality outcome.
Food quality relationship model
Based on the conclusions above, we hypothesise that the
realisation of food quality is dependent on both food and
human behaviour, as reected in the relationship below:
Food qualityZf (food behaviour, human behaviour), whereby
Food behaviourZf (food dynamics, technological conditions), and
Human behaviourZf (human dynamics, administrative conditions)
In this relationship we assume that food quality is
dependent on both dynamic properties of the food
product as related to applied technological conditions
and dynamic properties of people as related to applied
administrative conditions and that both systems might
affect each other.
More specically, food dynamics refers to variability
of its properties. It involves variation in composition of
food products (including raw materials, ingredients,
manufactured or fresh produce) like content of sugars,
avour concentration, initial contamination of bacteria,
and variation in behaviour proles of product inherent
microbial, chemical, physical, physiological and bio-
chemical processes. Examples of these processes are
growth or inactivation of pathogens, enzymatic reactions,
moisture diffusion, or respiration of fruits; these
processes change food properties and related quality
attributes (e.g. colour, taste, safety, etc.) in time.
Technological conditions are measures to inuence and
control compositional variation and dynamics of the wide
range of food processes. Examples of these conditions
involve, harvesting and handling circumstances, hygienic
design situation, processing conditions (e.g. time tem-
perature, pressure, etc.) packaging concepts or storage
conditions. The separate effects on quality of food
properties and processes as related to technological
conditions are mainly understood but not effects of
their interactions on quality.
Human dynamics refers to variability of decision-
making behaviour related to food quality management
issues. Crucial steps in decision-making involve for-
mation of perception, attitude, and choice intention,
respectively, and actual decision-making (e.g. Jacoby et
al., 1998; Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theoret, 1976).
These decision-making steps are inuenced by various
factors like, information, personal characteristics and
social/organisational circumstances. These factors con-
tribute to variation in decision outcomes (Robbins, 2000).
Administrative conditions are measures that are taken to
direct people behaviour in a certain way. Typical
examples of administrative conditions are organisational
structure, working conditions (ranging from physical
Technological
approach
Management
facts
Technological
approach
Management
aspects
managerial
approach
Managerial
approach
Technological
facts
Managerial
approach
Techno-managerial
approach
Technological
aspects
Techno-
Fig. 2. Schematic presentation of a techno-managerial approach.
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 382
facilities to team structures), procedures, management
techniques (e.g. quality function deployment) or com-
munication systems.
Techno-managerial research approach
From above we conclude that, to predict food quality one
should analyse food and human behaviour. We therefore
advocate a techno-managerial (TM) research approach,
which includes the integrative use of technological and
managerial theories, wherein technological theories are
explaining food behaviour and managerial theories are
explaining human behaviour, and integrative use refers to
integrating these theories due to the mutual inuence of food
and human behaviour on each other. Fig. 2 illustrates how a
techno-managerial research approach differs from a
managerial or a technological one. Typical for a managerial
approach is that technological aspects are considered as
given facts, whereas in a technological approach, manage-
ment aspects are considered as not changeable boundary
restrictions (Luning et al., 2002). We dene the techno-
managerial approach in the analysis and research of food
quality management as:
the integrative use of technological and managerial
theories, in order to explain and predict food quality from
food and human behaviour.
The techno-managerial approach is illustrated with a
research example. This example deals with a meat
company, covering the whole production chain. The
company was confronted with problems with Salmonella
in pig meat. Since Salmonella infection attains increasing
attention from both consumers and government, it is
expected that, legal requirements on salmonella-free
production and delivery in the pig meat chain need to be
implemented in the near future. In anticipation to these
requirements, top management wanted to know what would
be an appropriate quality system to deal with the risk of
salmonella infection.
From a technological perspective, amongst others, two
relevant models were selected to analyse the research issue.
The rst one was a general model indicating which
technological factors inuence food quality at each link in
the food chain (like breed choice, animal feeding and
housing, transport conditions of animals, hygienic con-
ditions in slaughterhouses and store rooms, food processing
parameters, packaging properties, and distribution and
storage facilities at retail and consumers place) (Luning et
al., 2002). The second, more specic model from Berends
(1998), distinguishes three groups of factors determining
Salmonella infection including (1) pig-related factors, like
age, health, immunity and stress, (2) agens-related factors,
like virulent factors and serotype specic plasmides, and
(3) external factors, like antibiotics, feed and hygiene.
Analysis of the research issue with these technological
models resulted in several solutions that had one
characteristic in common: technological measures. Typical
options for solutions were new medication, salmonella-free
feed, building new receipt rooms in the slaughterhouse, a
higher cleaning frequency in the slaughterhouse, and new
packaging materials.
From a managerial perspective three relevant models
were identied. One model on quality behaviour, validated
for slaughterhouse situations, indicates that actual decision-
making behaviour on quality issues is dependent on
disposition and ability to quality. Whereby disposition to
quality is inuenced by factors such as personal quality
standard, quality knowledge and observed standards of
colleagues, and ability to quality includes factors such as
skills and competences, availability of time and support of
supervisors (Gerats, 1990). The second model distinguishes
ve specic food quality management functions, respect-
ively, quality design, control, improvement, assurance, and
quality policy and strategy (Luning et al., 2002). The last
model revealed four critical factors for success in pig meat
chains, i.e. involvement of all partners in the chain, mutual
trust, right division of costs and returns, and open
information exchange (Brink et al., 1997).
Analysis of the research issue with these managerial
models resulted in several solutions that had one character-
istic in common: managerial measures. Typical options for
solutions included meetings between chain partners,
training of workers and supervisors, implementing an
information system, developing chain quality assurance
procedures and organising quality circles.
In addition to the importance of using different
disciplines, we propose that technological and managerial
models should be connected, in order to analyse how food
and human behaviour affect each other. Although in the
example of salmonella contamination in the pig meat chain,
both technological (T) and managerial (M) models seem to
be applicable and relevant, the effects of changing food and
human behaviour on each other has to be judged, because
food behaviour is assumed to be dependent, at least
partially, on human behaviour and vice versa.
For instance, the effect of new medication (T) will be
dependent on having a control system and appropriate
specic quality knowledge of people involved (M). The
effect of Salmonella-free feed (T) will depend on how the
feed is used at a farm, so the farms control system and
information exchange with the feed supplier will play a role
(M). Building new receipt rooms (T) will be effective only
when slaughterhouses organise an incoming pig control
system (M). The effect of a higher cleaning frequency in the
slaughterhouse (T) will merely be applicable when time is
really available and quality skills and competencies are
sufcient (M). As last example, the effect of new packaging
materials (T) depends on stores and consumers knowing
how to handle packed pig meat (M).
On the other hand the effect of managerial measures will
be dependent on technological inuences. In this case
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 383
meetings between chain partners (M) will be successful
when they really are inuencing each other, due to a
technological dependency (T). Training of workers and
supervisors (M) will be effective only when the technologi-
cal process really enables them to inuence product quality
(T) in their daily work situation. An information system is
meant to support decisions for action towards the production
process (M), but depends on being able to technologically
vary the product and or process (T). Quality assurance
procedures (M) do have more effect when it supports
predictability and controllability of the process (T). Finally,
quality circles (M) will fail when product and or process
mechanisms are too complex to clearly understand (T).
By systematically analysing in this way, the joint effects
of technological and managerial measures can be taken into
account. We assume that the effects on nal quality of
technological measures can be better predicted when
looking to related human behaviour, and vice versa.
In practice, various orientations are used for analysing
food quality management issues, depending on organis-
ations culture and individual beliefs of managers and
researchers. In situations where technology plays an
important role, often technological solutions are preferred
in order to make product quality and production processes
controllable, such as automation of processes and redesign
of products and processes. In other situations, managers and
researchers prefer changing culture and attitude of employ-
ees, because they strongly belief that this is the only way to
accomplish improvements. As a consequence, quality issues
are analysed according to characteristics of people and the
organisation. Solutions are searched in changing peoples
attitude and knowledge by means of training and changing
culture, and in describing responsibilities, procedures and
work instructions (Luning et al., 2002). These orientations
reect peoples priorities, which have been developed due
to their different education and experience (Brocklesby,
1997; Mingers, 1997).
From a methodological viewpoint, Mingers (1997)
advocated that using theories from different paradigms is
necessary to deal effectively with real world situations,
which are highly complex and multidimensional. Adopting
only one paradigm (e.g. only technological or managerial) is
inevitably gaining only a limited view of a particular
problem situation. Combining different methodologies is
expected to yield a better result than a single focus
(Mingers, 1997).
Conclusion
The complexity of food quality management tells us that
analysis and research should start with assuming uncertainty
and ambiguity. Our techno-managerial research approach
requires increase of information (to reduce uncertainty) and
enlargement of knowledge on underlying factors and
mechanisms (to reduce ambiguity) of both food and human
systems to enable a more accurate level of prediction.
We argued that understanding of how technological and
administrative conditions inuence food and human
behaviour, respectively, and how they affect each other,
will provide more insight in how food quality is realised and
can be managed. However, a certain level of unpredict-
ability has to be accepted due to the fact that in complex
dynamic systems one is not able to know and understand all
underlying mechanisms.
We conclude that a techno-managerial research approach
will support a more profound analysis of food quality
management issues and a better prediction of systems
behaviour, which may enable the development of more
appropriate solutions.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Prof. Dr M.J.A.S. Van Boekel (Head
of Product Design and quality Management group of
Wageningen University) and Dr G. Hagelaar (assistant
professor Management Studies group of Wageningen
University) for critical reading of the paper.
References
Berends, B. R. (1998). A risk assessment-like approach to the
modernization of meat inspection. PhD Thesis, Utrecht Univer-
sity, The Netherlands.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theoryThe skeleton of
science. Management Science, 2(3).
Brink, L., Oxley, J., McCarthy, M. M., Hobbs, J. E., Kerr, W. A., &
Klein, K. K. (1997). The Hog and Pork industries of Denmark and
The Netherlands: A competitiveness analysis.
Brocklesby, J. (1997). Becoming multimethodology literate: An
assessment of the cognitive difculties of working across
paradigms. In J. Mingers, & A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: The
theory and practice of combining management methodologies
(pp. 189216). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Clayton, D. A., Grifth, C. J., Price, P., & Peters, A. C. (2002). Food
handlers beliefs and self-reported practices. International
Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12, 2539.
Crawford, L. M. (1999). Implications of the Belgian dioxin crisis.
Food Technology, 53, 130.
Dekker, M., Verkerk, R., & Jongen, W. (2000). Predictive modelling
of health aspects in the food production chain: A case study on
glucosinolates in cabbage. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 11, 174181.
Efstratiadis, M. M., Karirti, A. C., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2000).
Implementation of ISO 9000 to the food industry: An overview.
International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 51(6),
459473.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective inuences on
judgments and behavior in organizations: An information
processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 86, 334.
Gerats, G. E. C. (1990). Working towards quality (in Dutch, with a
summary in English). PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht.
Helmroth, E., Rijk, R., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. (2002). Predictive
modelling of migration from packaging materials into food
products for regulatory purposes. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 13(2), 102109.
Hidalgo, F. J., & Zamora, R. (2004). Strecker-type degradation
produced by the lipid oxidation products 4,5-epoxy-2-
alkenals. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52,
71267131.
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 384
Holbrook, M. B., & Moore, W. L. (1981). Feature interactions in
consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations.
Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 103113.
Holt, G., & Henson, S. (2000). Quality assurance management in
small meat manufacturers. Food Control, 11, 319326.
Howes, M. S., McEwen, S., Grifths, M., & Harris, L. (1996). Food
handler certication by home study: Measuring changes in
knowledge and behaviour. Dairy Food and Environmental
Sanitation, 16, 737744.
Hubbard, M. R. (1996). Statistical quality control for the food
industry. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
Jacoby, J., Johar, G. V., & Morrin, M. (1998). Consumer behavior: A
quadrennium. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 319344.
Kampfraath, A. A., & Marcelis, W. J. (1981). Management and
organisation. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer (in Dutch).
Legnani, P., Leoni, E., Berveglieri, M., Mirolo, G., & Alvaro, N.
(2004). Hygienic control of mass catering establishments,
microbiological monitoring of food and equipment. Food
Control, 15, 205211.
Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2002). Food
quality management: A techno-managerial approach. Wagen-
ingen, (pp. 323). The Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.
Mingers, J. (1997). Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In J. Mingers,
& A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: The theory and practice of
combining management methodologies (pp. 120). Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organisations. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1993). The structuring of organisations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure
of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21(2), 246275.
Mitchell, R. T. (1998). Why HACCP fails? Food Control, 9, 23.
Motarjemi, Y., & Kaferstein, F. (1999). Food safety, hazard analysis
and critical control point and the increase in foodborne disease:
A paradox? Food Control, 10, 325333.
Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: The evolution of a theory. New
York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2001). Technical barriers to
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). Food Control,
12, 165173.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion:
Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood
model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 19). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Pomeranz, Y., & Meloan, C. E. (1994). Food analysis. Theory and
practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 778). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall .
Robbins, S. P. (2000). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ropkins, K., & Beck, A. J. (2000). Evaluation of worldwide
approaches to the use of HACCP to control food safety. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 11, 1021.
Ropkins, K., & Beck, A. J. (2003). Using HACCP to control organic
hazards in food wholesale, distribution, storage and retail.
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14, 374389.
Seagal, S., & Horne, D. (1997). Human dynamics: A new framework
for understanding people and realizing the potential in our
organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Pegasus Communications.
Shepherd, R. (1985). Dietary salt intake. Nutrition and Food
Science, 96, 1011.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Taylor, E., & Kane, K. (in press). Reducing the burden of HACCP on
SMEs. Food control.
Taylor, E. A., & Taylor, J. Z. (2004). Using qualitative psychology to
investigate HACCP implementation barriers. International
Journal of Environmental Health Research, 14, 5363.
Teale, M., Dispenza, V. Flynn, J., & Currie, D. (2003). In Manage-
ment decision-making. Towards an integrative approach (pp.
7498; 116152). Essex, UK: FT Prentice Hall.
Tijskens, L. M. M., Konopacki, P., Simcic, M., & Hribar, J., (2000)
. Biological variance in agricultural products. Colour of
apples as an example. In F. Artes, M. I. Gil, & M. A. Conesa
(Eds.), Proceedings IIR conference: Improving postharvest
technologies of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals, Murcia,
Spain (pp. 2543).
Todd, E. C. D. (2003). Microbiological safety standards and public
health goals to reduce foodborne disease. Meat Science, 66,
3343.
Untermann, F. (1999). Food safety management and misinterpreta-
tion of HACCP. Food Control, 10, 161167.
Van Boekel, M. A. J. S. (1998). Developments in technologies for
food production. In W. M. F. Jongen, & M. T. G. Meulenberg
(Eds.), Innovation of food production systems (pp. 87116).
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.
Van der Spiegel, M. (2004). Measuring effectiveness of food quality
management. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Nether-
lands, pp. 181.
Van der Spiegel, M., Luning, P. A., Ziggers, G. W., & Jongen,
W. M. F. (2003). Towards a conceptual model to measure
effectiveness of food quality systems. Trends in Food Science,
14(10), 424431.
Van der Spiegel, M., Luning, P. A., Ziggers, G. W., & Jongen,
W. M. F. (2005). Development of the instrument IMAQE-food to
measure effectiveness of food quality management. Inter-
national Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22(3),
234254.
Van Trijp, J. C. M., & Steenkamp, J. E. B. M. (2004). Consumer-
oriented new product development: Principles and practice. In
W. M. F. Jongen, & M. T. G. Meulenberg (Eds.), Innovation in
agri-food systems. Product quality and consumer acceptance
(pp. 87124). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen
Academic Publishers.
Vela, A. R., & Fernande z, J. M. (2003). Barriers for the development
and implementation of HACCP plans: Results from a Spanish
regional survey. Food Control, 14, 333337.
Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Hazard analysis
critical control point and prerequisite programme implemen-
tation in small and medium size business. Food Control, 14,
169174.
Wolf, A. (2004). Automation-hygienic design as an indicator of
quality. Fleischwirtschaft, 84(11), 3435.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social inuence.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 539570.
Internet references
AgriHolland (2003). Dossier classical avian inuenza, Available
from: http://www.agriholland.nl/dossiers/vogelpest/home.html
Belgian Dioxin crisis (1999) Available from: http://www.foodsafe-
tynetwork.ca/crisis/belgian-dioxin-crisis-feb01-00.htm
Food Alert notication (2004) Notication: 2004.15, RASFF
2004/555, Available from: http://www.fsai.ie/alerts/fa/fa_04/
fa20041105.asp
LNV (1997). Classical swine fever le, Available from: http://www.
minlnv.nl/varkenspest/dosidv03.htm
LNV (2001). BSE le Available from: http://www.minlnv.nl/infomart/
dossiers/bse
USDA (2001). Foot-and-Mouth disease Qs and As, Available from:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/qafmd301.html
P.A. Luning, W.J. Marcelis / Trends in Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 378385 385