By Randy K. Porter
do not meet the timeframe for a positive return
on investment are many times not funded.
This business philosophy, which looks at
sanitary design solely from a capital perspec-
tive, may make the inclusion of sound sanitary
design principles in a project a challenge. On
many occasions, the capital cost of including
sound sanitary design principles in a project’s
scope translates into the project’s ROI not
meeting the organization’s requirements and,
consequently, into the project not being funded.
As a result of a project not meeting an organiza-
tion’s ROI requirements, some of the sound
sanitary design principles may be pulled from
the project’s scope (along with other project
items) so that the project will be capable of
meeting the required ROI and receive funding.
One consequence of such an action is that the
organization’s level of risk may increase, and
the organization may lose additional operational advantages that sound sanitary design
principles provide. While project scope adjustments are a normal process to which all projects are subjected in an effort to better manage
capital allocations, many times, sanitary design
principles are removed to make the project
more attractive for funding.
Many believe that sanitary design principles
only support the organization’s food safety pro-
gram and that food safety risks can be managed
via procedures rather than by spending capital.
While this method can certainly work and be
effective, it almost certainly presents a higher-
risk profile for the organization.
