Key takeaways:
- Manufacturers may be collecting more data than ever before, but research suggests much of it is not reaching the people who need it most, potentially contributing to downtime, higher costs and delayed decision-making.
- • New research from Vilnius University found that employees at the highest risk of burnout reported memory problems, declining concentration and difficulty focusing – capabilities that are critical to maintaining food safety and quality standards.
- • As reporting requirements and operational complexity increase, manufacturers may need to focus not only on generating data but also on ensuring employees have the time, support and capacity to act on it effectively.
For years, producers have been encouraged to embrace data as the solution to many of their biggest operational challenges. Greater visibility should lead to faster decisionmaking. More information should help businesses identify inefficiencies, reduce waste and respond more quickly to emerging problems. Digital transformation, meanwhile, has promised to connect systems, eliminate blind spots and deliver the kind of real-time intelligence previous generations of manufacturers could only dream of.
Yet despite unprecedented access to operational data, many food and beverage manufacturers continue to face familiar problems: downtime remains stubbornly difficult to eliminate; quality issues still emerge unexpectedly; labour shortages continue to place pressure on production teams. At the same time, compliance requirements have become more demanding, reporting obligations have expanded and workers are being asked to manage increasingly complex responsibilities.
Two recent studies suggest the problem may not be that manufacturers lack information. Instead, they raise the possibility that businesses are creating environments in which employees are being asked to process more info than they can realistically absorb, interpret and act upon.
Research from manufacturing intelligence provider OFS found UK manufacturing operators spend an average of 21 minutes every shift manually logging info, transcribing data and preparing reports. Meanwhile, a separate study led by Prof Jurgita Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė, head of the Centre for Research on Organisational Psychology at Vilnius University in Lithuania, found that employees at the highest risk of burnout increasingly reported memory problems, declining concentration and difficulty focusing – symptoms that researchers say may indicate serious impairment of day-to-day functioning.
Neither study examined food safety directly. However, when viewed together, they raise important questions about an issue that sits at the heart of every manufacturing operation. In an industry where workers are expected to manage allergen controls, verify sanitation procedures, maintain traceability records, monitor critical quality checks and respond to emerging risks, what happens when info begins to outpace attention?
More data, more reporting, more complexity
The OFS research paints a striking picture of the modern manufacturing environment and highlights the growing gap between collecting info and using it effectively.
Despite years of investment in digitalisation, many manufacturers remain heavily reliant on manual reporting processes. The study found that 68% of manufacturers spend up to 30 minutes per shift on reporting and admin activities, while a further 14% spend more than half an hour every shift carrying out reporting tasks. Only 8% of respondents described their reporting systems as fully automated.
When viewed in isolation, those figures may appear to represent little more than an admin inconvenience. However, the cumulative impact is substantial. OFS estimates that the average site loses around 380 hours every year to manual reporting activities alone, time that could otherwise be spent identifying problems, improving processes or supporting production performance.
More revealing still is what happens once the info has been collected.
According to the study, frontline teams currently use less than 40% of the operational data manufacturers gather. Nearly one-third of businesses report that operators use just 0-25% of available info when making decisions during shifts, while only 26% provide workers with full real-time access to production performance data.
That disconnect between info generation and info use appears to be contributing to wider operational challenges. Nearly half of manufacturers surveyed (46%) reported production downtime linked to delayed visibility and unresolved issues. A further 41% cited increased operational costs, while one-third said delayed issue detection had contributed to missed delivery deadlines and lost revenue. More than one in five production issues took longer than a shift to become visible to management, while some took several days to surface.
Delayed visibility can have implications for manufacturers that extend well beyond productivity metrics. The longer it takes for an emerging issue to be identified, escalated and addressed, the greater the potential impact on product quality, compliance and consumer trust.
James Magee, CEO of OFS, believes many businesses have confused data collection with genuine digital transformation. “Manufacturers often think they have digitised because the data eventually ends up in a dashboard somewhere,” he notes. “But if operators are still manually transferring information between systems, escalating issues through supervisors and spending nearly half an hour every shift on admin, the reality on the ground is still highly manual.”
His concern isn’t that manufacturers lack info but that they’re struggling to derive value from it. “The bigger issue is that people are spending time feeding systems instead of using insight to improve output, reduce waste or solve problems earlier,” he adds. “Manufacturers do not necessarily have a data problem anymore. They increasingly have a usability and visibility problem.”
For all the investment flowing into digital transformation, the findings suggest many producers still struggle with a basic challenge: getting the right information to the right people at the right time. Collecting data is one thing. Ensuring it helps operators identify problems, respond more quickly and make better decisions is something else entirely.
What happens when burnout starts affecting cognitive performance?
The Vilnius University research explores that human dimension in greater detail.
The study involved nearly 150 employees from a variety of organisations and occupations. Eleven participants had received a formal burnout diagnosis from a doctor, psychiatrist or psychotherapist, while another 130 reported suspecting they were experiencing burnout symptoms. Analysis revealed that slightly more than half of those concerns were justified, placing respondents in the study’s high-risk burnout category, while a further quarter were classified as medium risk.
What makes the findings particularly noteworthy is that the vast majority of these employees hadn’t stepped away from work. Participants remained employed and rated their average work ability at 6.5 out of 10 despite reporting severe fatigue, emotional exhaustion, difficulty relaxing and declining motivation.
As burnout intensified, the symptoms evolved.
Employees in lower-risk groups were more likely to cite excessive workloads, lack of feedback, indifferent management and limited opportunities for professional development. Those in medium-risk groups increasingly reported physical symptoms including disrupted sleep, persistent weakness, headaches, nausea and stomach problems.
However, among employees in the highest-risk category, cognitive difficulties became increasingly prominent. Participants described worsening memory, declining concentration, difficulty focusing and a growing sense that everyday tasks required significantly greater effort than before.
“The most serious and telling signs – memory problems, difficulty focusing, and declining concentration – suggest that burnout may already be severely affecting a person’s functioning and signal that immediate action is required,” says Prof Lazauskaitė-Zabielskė.
In the food environment, that observation deserves careful attention.
Food safety systems ultimately rely on people making good decisions consistently. Whether employees are verifying allergen changeovers, completing quality checks, reviewing sanitation records, monitoring critical control points or investigating deviations, they’re routinely required to process information accurately and respond appropriately. When concentration begins to deteriorate, the risk isn’t simply that productivity suffers. The possibility of errors, omissions and missed warning signs may also increase.
The research revealed another concerning finding. Among participants who suspected they were experiencing burnout, 85% hadn’t sought professional help. Nearly one-third believed they could manage on their own, while others cited lack of trust, limited access to support or concerns about how seeking help could affect their careers.
Employees in the highest-risk category were particularly likely to mention stigma, fear of professional consequences and a belief that support would not help.
In other words, many of the people experiencing the greatest difficulties may also be the least likely to seek assistance.
Why human attention may be manufacturer’s most undervalued resource
Viewed separately, the OFS and Vilnius studies examine different issues. One focuses on operational data and reporting processes. The other examines burnout and employee wellbeing. Viewed together and they point towards a common challenge.
Manufacturers are operating in an environment where employees face increasing reporting requirements, growing compliance obligations, persistent labour shortages and constant pressure to improve performance. At the same time, businesses continue to generate ever-greater volumes of information in the belief that more visibility will lead to better outcomes.
But the reality may be more nuanced. Information only becomes valuable when people can absorb it, interpret it and act upon it effectively. If employees are spending significant amounts of time entering data, navigating multiple systems and managing growing administrative workloads, there’s a risk that the very info intended to improve performance begins competing for the attention required to use it.
The Vilnius research found that nearly half of participants believed organisational support offered the most effective protection against burnout. Respondents highlighted supportive leadership, manageable workloads, transparent decisionmaking, positive feedback, teamwork and healthier work-life balance as the factors most likely to reduce burnout risk.
Similarly, the OFS findings suggest businesses may need to scrutinise how info flows through their organisations. If operators are spending valuable time feeding systems while less than 40% of collected data is actually informing decisions, there may be opportunities to simplify processes, improve visibility and remove unnecessary administrative burdens.
Employment specialists increasingly point to workforce planning, communication and scheduling as critical elements of operational resilience. Better forecasting can reduce pressure on teams, while clearer communication and more effective scheduling can help ensure employees aren’t constantly operating at the limits of their capacity.
Food manufacturers have spent years investing in smarter machinery, smarter software and smarter systems. Yet both studies suggest the next challenge may be far less technological. If workers are overwhelmed by the volume of information they’re expected to process, the consequences can extend beyond productivity and into areas that matter most to manufacturers, including quality, compliance and food safety.
The industry has become exceptionally good at collecting data. The more uncomfortable truth may be that the next food safety challenge isn’t a lack of information but ensuring the people responsible for interpreting it aren’t overwhelmed by it.
