[Problems & Solutions] Answers to your tough pest questions

BETTER TRAINING?

Q: I recently attended a meeting and
there were researchers giving presentations on the changing technology and how we can deal with the increased need for qualified technicians. Our company is not huge, but I feel we do a good job of training. I found the information provided interesting, but how do I integrate it into my training programs?

A: I have found that many companies have training programs that are redundant, uninteresting and probably not effective. That being said, at least some companies have training programs. This means they actually spend time getting their people to sit down and ask them to pay attention to a topic for a given amount of time.

Training is what you make it! It can be boring, it can be (and most likely is) redundant. That is the challenge (at least to me): make things interesting for the person being trained. I believe there are a variety of ways you can do this. I like to promote interaction during training classes, whether they are a one-hour long, a half-day or a full-day course. You have to have a way to make people pay attention and retain some information.

Here are some ways to do this. Make attendees take notes. Give technicians outlines of the agenda with questions attached that they can answer as they go through the training. This means taking time to plan out your classes and sessions. If your company utilizes outside training opportunities (i.e., consultants, manufacturer representatives, distributors, etc.), ask the presenters to submit questions or outlines prior to the meeting. This is not a test per se but it makes the people participating in the training pay more attention (especially in those early morning sessions).

Use a variety of media. Depending on your office, slides, videos, PowerPoint presentations, DVDs and even material downloaded from the Internet can be useful training materials. There are some excellent tools from PCT and Pest Control magazines, PestWeb, Whitmire Micro-Gen and others.

Field work. Consider using live specimens or taking technicians for a tour of the building to see what they can find inside or out. Let them make suggestions on control methods, selection of pesticides to be used and discuss IPM methods other than pesticides.

Use pest ID books. I believe there should be an occasional session where the technicians have to look up information of different pests specimens and report what they find.

Get them up in the meeting. Give technicians an opportunity to address others in the training session. Probably the best way to do this is with specimen/field guide training, or explaining a certain application method.

Have demonstrations of new equipment from distributors’ representatives. Take advantage of this resource. Take articles from PCT or other magazines and distribute them prior to meeting and discuss these in the sessions.

In other words, use your imagination to keep things interesting. A challenge in the future will be the increasing amounts of technological information. The increasing use of bar coding and data collection devices will require technicians to learn about some of these new devices but many have yet to learn the value of these new tools in their service. Some folks will adjust quickly but others won’t keep up on any research reports — you’ll then have to evaluate their place in your business. This is not the easiest thing to do. Integrating or discussing specific findings can be of interest to some but boring to others so selection of the appropriate information will be important for the success of the training session.

Training will always have the basics: learning what the pests are and some information about their biology is (and always will be) important. Training programs should develop along "situational awareness" guidelines. There are many things that can make pest control work repetitive. But there are always problems that arise that we do not see often or maybe have never seen. Technicians should document these and relate them to others in the training classes.

Don’t forget to emphasize that the reason we have training (other then to impart some knowledge about what we do and why) is so that we have documentation that helps us validate our work to regulatory officials, lawyers, etc., should we ever need it.

TERMINOLOGY DIFFERENCES

Q: I have heard the terms "nuisance" and
"structural pests" used in the industry and recently I heard a talk where the presenter referred to the pests (ants) as structural pests. These were not carpenter ants but normal run-of-the-mill ants. What is the distinction between these terms?

A: run of the mill! You better not let an entomologist hear you say that! We have tended to classify pests into groups — "structural" are those that can damage structural elements of a building, and/or weaken or destroy the structural integrity of the wood. There are, of course, the usual suspects: termites, wood borers, carpenter ants and carpenter bees. Other pests are usually called "nuisance" (although let’s not forget health related pests). By definition set forth in federal law, pests can be defined as just about anything that you do not want around: plants and/or animals. So, for the most part, we should probably classify pests into structural, nuisance and health related.

As for the presenter you heard I don’t know what they were trying to say. Sometimes we just get caught up in the use of jargon in the industry. Or maybe those ants he/she was talking about were involved in damaging structural wood. I have seen ants (other then carpenter ants) that have damaged wood.

The author is president of George Rambo Consulting Services, Central, S.C. Fax questions to him at 864/654-2447 or via e-mail at grambo@giemedia.com.