| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dog-rat |
Posted - 05 Dec 2006 : 16:27:26
Does anyone know of a system for bar coding bait stations ? |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ben |
Posted - 19 Dec 2006 : 17:28:12
well it seems to me oneway or the other this sort of tec-ology is going to be in demand for the bigger sites and customer,s and if we dont like it we will just have to walk the walk lol
roll on the revolution lol.
you learn as you go |
| Matt the Rat |
Posted - 19 Dec 2006 : 12:28:01
t en, pmsl!
The cost saving that I can see is not having administrators deciphering reports to glean basic information and send it to a multiple site client.
As far as the technician on site is concerned, how long do you spend trying to pursuade your minimun wage paid person in a burger bar to improve their housekeeping? That extra couple of minutes spent sending important information to the decision maker could prevent call out visits and the need to nag!
No technician should be afraid to embrace new technology which has the potential to provide a better service to our customers, providing that technology does actually improve the service (by service, I include communication to the customer).
|
| blatta |
Posted - 19 Dec 2006 : 09:35:49
quote:
The only down side being the cost for an additional service
Ben, Check do not plan to use PDA's since I agree they add a cost to servicing that I believe is unwarranted (and by cost I mean cash for the units AND cost as in ongoing labour).
I would not introduce a system without first discussing with all of the staff. It has to be workable and, where possible, make the work for PCO's easier.
A laptop (and printer) can be a very heavy bit of kit to add to a PCO's bag, particularly if they are working in London on foot. Obviously you are discussing having them in the car which would be fine most of the time but can still be very inconvenient if you cannot park near the job.
Regards
Shiny backside to trousers (shinier than I would like). |
| ben |
Posted - 18 Dec 2006 : 23:55:36
no negatives for the customer but more work for the poor sod on site who has to write reports then fill in an e- one when they have work to keep up with and are once again filling in more paperwork then pest control. it seems to me that pest controllers have to spend more time on looking good then ridding a site of its pests. theres to many people sitting in offices thinking of new ways to sell the same job as cheaply as they can at the cost of the pc,s time. if pc companies want to invest in e reporting then what it wrong with a good old laptop and printer where you can leave a full hard copy on site and enter data live all at the same time.
i tell you what cost!
get off your backsides and spend a few weeks (not a few days) in the field and see how much time a pc can lose using one of these systems.
ben
you learn as you go |
| blatta |
Posted - 18 Dec 2006 : 18:24:22
Happy with that Matt
A few basics / summary put in via PDA whilst the main report on site. No negatives for the customer, only positives, adding to the overall service provided.
The only down side being the cost for an additional service.
|
| Matt the Rat |
Posted - 18 Dec 2006 : 18:03:49
Lewis, my whole point is, why not do a decent handwritten report AND send a potted basic version via PDA? If there are big problems on site, that should be enough to prompt the decision makers to investigate further.........What I am against, is the very basic reports printed from PDA and left on site. We need to use technology to improve the service we offer, rather than try and use technology to cut corners. |
| blatta |
Posted - 16 Dec 2006 : 20:54:59
Af,
I am aware of the keyboards but cannot see all the technicians in large companies being issued with them.
If they were and the PCO's used them then potentially a decent report could be written. But until that time... |
| apodemus flavicolis |
Posted - 16 Dec 2006 : 17:26:08
Blatta
Try the following link
http://www.widget.co.uk/asp/prodtype.asp?prodtype=78
|
| blatta |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 18:51:46
Matt TR
You have made a positive point for PDA's whilst at the same time highlighting one of their main failings:
Positive - realtime reporting.
Negative - quote:
Lets not forget that the more information we can provide the decision makers
. Trying to write a detailed report with a PDA is a nightmare; there are the 'drop down tab' versions which prevent the PCO from saying anything but generic comments and the idea of writing a decent report from scratch |
| Matt the Rat |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 18:32:28
As has been pointed out, reports are only as good as the technician writing them, but a big advantage of PDA based systems is realtime reporting, especially for multiple site customers.
Bar coded boxes and monitors? What does that tell you? There is still far too much emphasis on monitors in this industry, and its only when we all stop focussing on them that we will shake off the box checkers and start providing proper inspection and treatments.
Lets not forget that the more information we can provide the decision makers, and the quicker we can provide it, the faster the solutions can be put in place. |
| blatta |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 17:00:32
Simmo
Graphs / trending - I agree that the majority of the information provided this way is useless rubbish that can actually mislead the person looking at it. What I still maintain is that alot of third party auditors like (and expect) graphs. If these can be produced quickly with little effort then great, it keeps them happy There is nothing worse than having to spend a lot of time producing irrelevent rubbish for auditors who check that it is in the file and then tick their 'trending provided' box
Dograt - Is it a food production site?
If it is then you will probably be required to:
1. have Biologist inspections in addition to the Routine inspections.
2. EFK's will need 'Tray Analysis', quarterly.
3. Follow up visits for internal rodent activity = every alternate day for two clear visits.
I can provide you with some more info if required. Call me if it is a food site, I may be able to give you some more 'likely' requirements. The actual BRC Global Standard is very vague. |
| Dog-rat |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 16:48:14
Thanks John
will do that |
| Simmo |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 16:09:59
BRC is the British Retail Consortium. They have established a standard (I think the latest version is the BRC Global Standard) covering all aspects of food safety. Pest control is one (very) small part of this. You can buy a copy of the standard from BRC at great cost, but I suggest you have a look at your customers copy when you are next at a site that works to it.
BRC do not carry out audits themselves. Instead, numerous thrid party auditors audit to the standard, sometimes producing their own, slightly modified, version of it. Some of the bodies that audit to BRC are EFSIS, CMi, AIB (in addition to auditing to their own standard) Allied Technical Centre and Northern Foods (audit their own sites). There are several others also. |
| Dog-rat |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 15:23:48
Well Thanks for all the input so far, I have to say for me looking at everything as a whole from my Position it is not feasible for me to provide a bar code or/and a online report system, the cost for just one or two customers is to significant.
I will be sticking with the good old quality service line and PAPERWORK
As a matter of interest the BRC keeps getting mentioned and although I have one or two sites that have been audited by them I have never been aware of any specific pest control requirements that they have, anyone know of any ? |
| Simmo |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 14:05:26
Been away for a while so trying to catch up with discussion again!!
Blatta
The facility to filter reports online to direct info to relevant departments is certainly a useful idea. It is not one that I have seen to date however, so I suspect that you will soon be directing me to your system!
Concerning trending graphs produced automatically from the e-based monitoring data��.aaarrrrggghhh. Those I have seen so far look lovely and are all brightly coloured but as graphical presentation of data they mean bugger all. Let me provide just one example. You inspect moth traps as part of the routine inspection and record the counts online. The graph is plotted from the results. However, inspection intervals vary, sometimes by several weeks, but the e-system has no way of taking this into account. Result? The graphs are meaningless. You cannot plot data without some form of human interpretation. None of the systems that I have seen so far allow this.
Apodemus
Yes, as an auditor I do want the information handed to me on a plate. Remember that I am auditing the system on behalf of my customer, the food manufacturer. I do this in order to pre-empt possible problems when they get audited by M&S;, AIB, BRC etc. Would you really expect an auditor from one of those bodies to start exporting data to excel spreadsheets and filtering it??? Get real.
Agree absolutely about the value of these systems in presenting generic data such as data sheets, training records etc. You�ll see from the article I wrote on this subject that this is one of the plus points of these systems.
I�m not complaining because these systems are new, but because they are often not providing information in a way that the customer can actually use it easily. Note, I am not saying that all of these systems are all at equal fault. Some work acceptably, but some are so horribly over complicated that they are unusable.
Bigbully
As a consultant I am not the service provider so am not under pressure to intro barcode technology. To my knowledge none of the auditing bodies have yet expressed any preference for these systems, but I have anecdotal reports from several sources to say that when such auditors have tried to review the e-records it is not unheard of them to give up. After all, pest control is just a small part of a BRC audit, so the auditor is unlikely to start exporting and sorting information, is he apodemus?
Does anyone know of a food manufacturing related chat forum where some feedback from the end-users could be sought?
|
| Bigbully |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 08:57:36
Agreed that the barcode system is open to abuse as is, I should think, any recording system. When we used ours it was useful for consolidating and collecting data that would otherwise have been entered onto a database anyway (ie saves double recording).
Simmo and Blatta - are you under pressure from your clients to introduce electronic / web-based systems? If so do they say what they think their perceived benefits are? Do "end-clients" such as M&S; demand systems like these to be used by their suppliers? |
| Dog-rat |
Posted - 15 Dec 2006 : 07:47:10
Knowing how some of the techs I had in my last job could "Work" there hand helds, I would put nothing passed some techs  |
| nigel |
Posted - 14 Dec 2006 : 21:18:31
Believe it or not you can actually download a free software programme for printing your own barcodes.
So I would not be surprised Dusty |
| Dusty |
Posted - 14 Dec 2006 : 21:13:47
Nigel, perhaps not even that much. Some time ago I was reading an article where a scam using photocopied bar codes was being used (wasnt a pest control situation) The reason? The employee wasnt given enough time to carry out the inspections.
Don't feed them, get Rid of them |
| nigel |
Posted - 14 Dec 2006 : 21:05:55
quote:
My arguement is that E-reporting in itself is not at fault but the users
Which is why in my earlier thread I said the only information you can trust on a e-report is that box "A" was scanned on day "B" at time "C" as the scanner actually acts as an independent "witness" to this fact. Everything else could just as easily be a great work of fiction (same for paper reports). That is all the information I would trust on an e-report.
|
