GMP+ Training for Staff — Standard Requirements and Course Offering

Why training is required under the GMP+ system

The GMP+ standard is built on the assumption that a written description of procedures in documentation is not enough on its own — a quality system only works when the people actually doing the work understand why a given task is carried out in a particular way and what risk it is meant to control. That is why the standard's requirements on managing personnel, described in more detail on the page GMP+ standard requirements in the section on staff training, cover not only the obligation to provide training but also ensuring that employees' competences match the scope of their duties and are regularly kept up to date.

In audit practice, competence gaps are among the most frequently detected nonconformities — not because companies deliberately skip training, but because they treat it as a formality completed once, at the point of hiring, without revisiting the topic when procedures change or a new product line is introduced. When an auditor asks a production-floor employee about the purpose of a specific control step, that is exactly what is being checked — whether the knowledge described in the procedure has actually reached the person who performs it, or whether it has stayed only in the documentation.

A second reason training carries such weight under GMP+ is the staff turnover typical of the production and transport sectors. A new operator or warehouse worker, even one experienced in their trade, does not know the specifics of a particular site — its recipes, its critical points, its procedures for handling nonconformities. Without systematic induction training, a company risks having its key quality-system knowledge concentrated in the heads of a few long-serving employees, rather than reproducible regardless of who happens to be on shift at any given time.

Job roles and the scope of required training

The scope and depth of GMP+ training should be matched to a given role's actual impact on feed safety and quality, rather than being identical for every position. A production operator primarily needs practical familiarity with position-specific procedures — the control points on their section of the process, hygiene rules, and how to act when a deviation from the norm is noticed — but does not necessarily need to understand the full structure of the quality management system's documentation to the depth expected of a quality officer.

Warehouse staff need training focused on storage principles, separating incompatible products, batch marking and stock rotation, while a feed transport driver needs training on the requirements for load cleanliness and compatibility, checking the technical condition of the vehicle, and what to do if contamination is suspected during transport. A quality manager or quality officer needs the broadest scope — full knowledge of the standard, HACCP analysis principles, documentation management and oversight of the system as a whole, since they are the one accountable for the consistency of every element in front of the auditor.

Management, even if not directly involved in day-to-day procedures, should undergo training of a different character — focused on the role of the quality system in the company's operations, the consequences of nonconformities, and responsibility for providing the resources needed to maintain certification. A lack of engagement and understanding from senior management is one of the factors that, over time, weaken a quality system regardless of how well-trained the operational staff are — which is why good practice treats training for management as no less important than training for anyone else, rather than skipping it as "obvious".

Typical GMP+ training content

Regardless of the role, a typical GMP+ training session usually covers several common thematic blocks that differ mainly in the level of detail. The first is the basics of the standard — what GMP+ is, what its purpose is, how the structure of requirements looks and why the company decided to pursue certification (this context helps employees understand the point of the more detailed rules that follow). The second block covers the elements of HACCP analysis relevant to a given position — which hazards have been identified in the process the person is involved in, and which control points are meant to keep them in check.

Another recurring element is traceability — the rules for batch marking, documenting material flow, and why these records matter if a product recall becomes necessary. On top of that come position-specific procedures, personal and workplace hygiene rules, and — an area that is particularly often skipped in rushed, superficial training — how to handle nonconformities: who reports a suspected deviation and how, what happens to a batch pending clarification, and why reporting a problem promptly matters more than an employee's own informal attempt to resolve the situation.

A well-designed training session does not stop at conveying dry facts but connects them to concrete examples from participants' everyday work — for instance, discussing a real (though anonymised) situation in which failing to report a minor deviation led to a more serious quality problem. This kind of format is far more memorable than a lecture on theoretical rules alone, and it makes the knowledge easier to recall later in an actual situation on the production floor or in the warehouse.

Initial training vs periodic training

Initial training is carried out when a new employee is hired or when someone moves into a position with a different scope of quality-system duties — before that person begins independently performing tasks that affect feed safety. It usually covers the full scope of knowledge appropriate to the role and forms the foundation on which the employee's further knowledge is built.

Periodic (refresher) training has a different purpose — it does not reintroduce all the knowledge from scratch, but reminds participants of key principles, updates them on procedural changes made since the last training, and reinforces correct habits that tend to erode over time under the pressure of routine. The standard does not impose one fixed frequency for periodic training across all companies — it is up to each company, within its training plan, to set intervals appropriate to the nature of its positions, usually on a yearly or two-yearly cycle.

Beyond the regular cycle, there are situations where it is worth running refresher training earlier, independent of the set schedule: a significant change to a procedure or recipe, the introduction of new equipment or a new production line, a quality incident pointing to a gap in staff understanding of procedures, and internal or certification audit results suggesting that knowledge in a given area is insufficient. Good practice treats the training plan as a living document, updated in response to such signals, rather than a rigid schedule fixed once at the start of the year and left unchanged regardless of what happens at the company in the meantime.

Training formats — on-site, remote and on-the-job

On-site training at the client's premises has the advantage of letting the trainer refer directly to the realities of a particular site — specific production lines, warehouse layout or transport fleet — which helps participants connect the standard's general principles to their everyday work. It also allows for direct discussion and real-time questions, which can be especially valuable for harder topics such as HACCP analysis or how to handle nonconformities.

Remote (online) training works well for delivering theoretical knowledge — the basics of the standard, general requirements, traceability principles — and helps reduce the cost and time needed for organisation, particularly when training needs to reach people across several locations or a group of companies. Auditors do not question the remote format as such — what matters is whether the training actually covered the required scope and whether that can be documented, not how it was delivered. The limitation of the remote format is a reduced ability to verify practical, position-specific skills — it is hard to tell through a screen whether an operator can actually perform a specific control task correctly.

"On-the-job" training involves passing on knowledge and skills directly at the workplace, often through an experienced colleague or supervisor, while the task is actually being carried out. It is indispensable for learning practical manual skills and for recognising deviations "by eye" (an unusual smell or appearance in a raw material, for example), but on its own it does not replace full theoretical training — good practice combines both approaches, treating on-the-job training as a complement to, not a substitute for, initial training. In practice, blended solutions work best: a theoretical component delivered remotely or on-site, and a practical component delivered directly on the production floor or in the warehouse, under the guidance of a competent person.

Documenting training and verifying effectiveness

An attendance list alone only confirms that a person was physically present at a session — it does not prove they understood the material or can apply it in practice. That is why auditors increasingly look for evidence of training effectiveness that goes beyond mere attendance: a short knowledge test at the end of the session, a conversation verifying understanding of the key principles, or a competence assessment carried out by a supervisor once the employee is back on the job.

A competence assessment does not need to be an elaborate form — in many cases a short, structured observation of the person's work over the first few days after training, with a simple note on whether key tasks are performed in line with the procedure, is enough. What matters is that such verification is documented — even in a simple form — and linked to a specific person and a specific training session, rather than existing only as an informal, spoken assessment by a supervisor that cannot be reconstructed during an audit.

Complete training documentation typically includes the programme and subject scope, the date and duration, the trainer's details, the list of participants, and — for verifying effectiveness — the result of a knowledge test or competence assessment. All of this should be linked to the individual's training plan, so that during an audit the complete training history of any employee can be reconstructed within a few minutes — from initial training, through subsequent periodic training, to any additional training triggered by procedural changes. Auditors value this kind of transparency highly, since it shortens the time needed to verify this area during a visit and builds confidence in the reliability of the whole personnel management system.

Training for internal auditors

The GMP+ standard requires periodic internal audits, described in more detail on the page GMP+ standard requirements in the section on internal audit, and running them requires people with the right competences — not just knowledge of the standard, but also the ability to conduct an audit interview, ask the right questions, and assess conformity objectively without giving in to a colleague's "we've always done it this way" from another department.

Training for a future internal auditor differs in scope and format from training for other staff — besides full knowledge of the standard's requirements, it also covers the basics of auditing technique: how to plan an audit, how to formulate open questions that get the person being interviewed to genuinely describe the process (rather than simply confirm "yes, we do it according to the procedure"), how to classify and word nonconformities in a way that is concrete and verifiable, and how to remain objective towards one's own colleagues.

An important part of preparing an internal auditor is also practice — ideally, the first audits should be carried out together with a more experienced person before the new auditor starts running them independently. Companies that invest in properly preparing internal auditors gain a real tool for catching problems before the certification auditor sees them — which translates directly into fewer nonconformities and a smoother external audit.

Common competence gaps found during audits

Advisory experience shows that the most common competence gaps are less about a lack of general awareness that procedures exist, and more about not understanding why a given procedure looks the way it does. An employee can point out that "this form has to be filled in" without being able to explain what risk the form is meant to control — a clear sign that the training focused on the action rather than on its purpose.

A second recurring area is operators' and warehouse staff's knowledge of what to do when a deviation is detected — many employees know that something is "not right" but do not know exactly who to report it to or how, so minor problems end up being resolved informally, with no trace in the documentation, instead of going through the proper nonconformity management procedure. A third common area is management's knowledge — it happens that people in decision-making positions have only a general, surface-level understanding of the system's requirements, which makes it harder for them to make informed decisions about the resources needed to maintain certification.

It is also worth noting the gaps linked to seasonal staff turnover, typical of some production and warehouse sites — people hired for short periods are often trained hastily, on the assumption that they only perform simple tasks anyway. Yet it is precisely temporary staff, less familiar with the realities of the site, who more often make the mistakes visible during an audit — which shows that a shortened, but properly delivered and documented, scope of initial training for such people is a better solution than skipping the topic altogether.

Quality Assurance Poland's training offering

As part of our advisory work on GMP+ implementation and certification maintenance, we run training tailored to the specifics of each client — their certification scope, the procedures they actually use, and their structure of positions — rather than a generic presentation of the standard's requirements detached from the realities of a particular site. We build the training programme around the company's actual documentation and concrete examples from the feed sector, so participants immediately see how the principles being discussed connect to their own everyday work, rather than to an abstract standard text.

We agree the scope of training — whether that is an introduction to the system for new production staff, preparing a quality officer to manage the system independently, or preparing a team for the role of internal auditors — individually, in a conversation about the team's actual needs and the stage the company is at (preparing for first certification, maintaining certification after an audit, or filling knowledge gaps found in a nonconformity). This approach avoids the typical problem with off-the-shelf training — a situation where participants hear the standard's general principles but cannot later translate them into their own job.

One element we pay particular attention to is the practical dimension of training — not just conveying theoretical knowledge, but also working through situations participants may encounter in everyday work: how to correctly report a suspected nonconformity, how to read entries in position-specific documentation, how to ask questions during an internal audit. In our experience, this case-study-based approach, drawn from real feed-sector situations, translates far more effectively into lasting changes in the team's everyday habits than a one-off theoretical lecture.

How to order training

We start the training process with a short conversation about the company's needs — which roles need to be covered, what stage of implementation or certification maintenance the site is at, and whether there are specific areas where an internal or certification audit has revealed knowledge gaps. Based on that, we propose a subject scope and a format — on-site, remote or blended — best suited to the number of participants, their roles and their locations.

Once the scope and format are agreed, we prepare a training programme that draws, as far as possible, on the client's actual documentation and procedures, and then deliver the training on the agreed date. Afterwards, depending on need, we provide supporting materials and — if the client wishes — propose a simple way of verifying that the material was understood, which the company can use as evidence of training effectiveness in its own documentation. Training enquiries can be made through the form on the Contact page, by phone or by email — contact details are in the site footer.

It is worth getting in touch with reasonable lead time, especially for training covering several groups of employees or several locations at once, since properly preparing a programme based on the client's real procedures takes time to review the company's documentation in advance. Companies preparing for their first certification audit, described in more detail on the page GMP+ certification process, do well to schedule staff training with enough lead time before the planned audit date — so the knowledge has time to "settle" into everyday practice before it is checked by the auditor.

Glossary

Initial training

Training carried out when a new employee is hired or moved into a different position, covering the full scope of knowledge needed to independently perform the assigned duties in line with GMP+.

Periodic (refresher) training

Recurring training that reminds employees of and updates their knowledge, carried out at intervals set by the company in its training plan, and additionally after significant procedural changes or detected knowledge gaps.

Competence assessment

Verification of whether an employee, after training, can actually carry out their assigned tasks correctly, usually performed by a supervisor through observation of the work at the position.

Training plan

A document setting out which training is required for which roles and how often, forming the basis for planning and tracking training activity within the GMP+ system.

Evidence of training effectiveness

Documentation that goes beyond a mere attendance list — for example a knowledge test result or a competence assessment — confirming that a participant actually understood and can apply the material covered.

Internal auditor

An employee trained to independently conduct internal audits within the company, assessing process conformity with the standard's requirements objectively and independently of their day-to-day responsibility for the audited area.