Is it a nonconformity if an auditor saw ant trails on wall inside the plant?

[Wes Bucey]

I agree that it would be taken seriously during an audit. I participated in an AIB (American Institute of Baking) audit of a food processing plant several years ago, and at that time if they found evidence of 5 insects (not types of insects, but individuals, ie: 5 ants), they would shut you down until the problem was adequately dealt with.

I do have one question...what is an ant trail?

Since the chemical trails laid down by certain kinds of ants (comes from glands emptying into the cloaca which discharge chemicals in amounts based on how much food a foraging ant has eaten itself) are invisible and only detectable by ants or sophisticated chemical analysis by humans, my surmise is there was a line of ants.

Something we (internal audit team) observed. Not sure if this should be reported as nonconformity. I will not definitely think twice if what we saw are cockroaches or rodents.

Thanks for asking.

Type of insect invader is not the criterion - ANY infiltration is bad in a food service, manufacturing, or storage environment, because it means there is an ingress location and sufficient food to attract enough foraging ants to make a trail. Since food (or water) is the primary attractant for any insect, it also means other insects could have same ingress. Whether the ultimate problem is diminishing the food supply for humans by eating or contaminating it, there is definitely a problem to be solved by professionals, not do-it-yourself!

I think that cleanliness of and housekeeping in such environment is critical for the business.
I am also thinking about to clean room environment.
Based upon this consideration , it could be a non conformity prbably vs your internal procedure for managing the condition of the environement where product is manufactured.

YEP!

I once observed ants in my hotel room, on the third floor of the hotel. Why do you think they were there? Was it in some procedure about housekeeping? Did they offer special rates for ants?

The fact is, insects like food. That and sex is all they do, pretty much. So, why are they on the inside walls? Searching for food (probably not sex). So wouldn't that indicate to the audit team they should do some investigating (it's what auditors do, actually).:mg:

I'd wager finding a housekeeping issue someplace...

Yeah (about not looking for sex) - ants often have flying sexually mature adults, and the "kids" don't tag along to watch.

Not audit team's job to find source of ingress OR what is attracting them. This is an objective observation (photos?) and it is up to management review to determine the course of action. This is a BAD thing and should get a VERY quick response from management. If this were the USA, dire governmental consequences would probably ensue for any situation left unattended by management.

 

[mguilbert]

KaPilo

I would write up as a non-conformity. Better you found it before an external auditor found it. This should as allow to set up a containment plan and work on its preventance in the future. If you can help, by all means do so, but remember that the ultimate responsiblity be on the person responsible for the corrective action. A little help can go along way in creating a working relationship of mutual respect and trust.

Hope this helps,

 

[AndyN]

KaPilo

I would write up as a non-conformity. Better you found it before an external auditor found it. This should as allow to set up a containment plan and work on its preventance in the future. If you can help, by all means do so, but remember that the ultimate responsiblity be on the person responsible for the corrective action. A little help can go along way in creating a working relationship of mutual respect and trust.

Hope this helps,

Could you, perhaps, give some guidance as to the wording? Often, we see poorly worded nc statements which are almost guaranteed to miss the point of corrective action!

If you've some experience of such situations, your examples would be very helpful...

 

[Wes Bucey]

Of course it is, Wes! That's the problem most auditors have - just pointing out the bloody obvious! Why not go and find out where the thing is coming from - much more helpful, without telling them how to fix it!

I got my PhD writing about trail laying ants. Simply, I sincerely doubt any audit team focusing on ISO-type compliance is knowledgeable enough to do the job that needs to be done. If they are, they could be making much more money working for an exterminator.

Are you stating categorically that you would expect even a third party auditor team to track it down? That would be like asking them to write up a nonconformance, perform the root cause analysis AND implement the corrective action.

 

[Al Rosen]

I once observed ants in my hotel room, on the third floor of the hotel. Why do you think they were there? Was it in some procedure about housekeeping? Did they offer special rates for ants?

The fact is, insects like food. That and sex is all they do, pretty much. So, why are they on the inside walls? Searching for food (probably not sex). So wouldn't that indicate to the audit team they should do some investigating (it's what auditors do, actually).:mg:

I'd wager finding a housekeeping issue someplace...

If it was a restaurant they would be there for the food. I guess since it was a hotel, they were there for the sex.

 

[AndyN]

Simply, I sincerely doubt any audit team focusing on ISO-type compliance is knowledgeable enough to do the job that needs to be done. If they are, they could be making much more money working for an exterminator.

Are you stating categorically that you would expect even a third party auditor team to track it down? That would be like asking them to write up a nonconformance, perform the root cause analysis AND implement the corrective action.

You've described a symptom of the ineffectual training of a many 2 - 5 day courses! They only teach compliance, not effectivity!

In this particular case, what's wrong with finding out where the ants were finding their food? It may be that there was a leak in some process due to poor maintenance, cleaning, lack of awareness by employees and not reporting it, whatever.

My point is, the auditors could at least try to pinpoint where the cause came from, a source. Why not? We hear daily that management don't get behind corrective actions, so why give them a nudge in the right direction?

 

[Marc]

<snip> In this particular case, what's wrong with finding out where the ants were finding their food? It may be that there was a leak in some process due to poor maintenance, cleaning, lack of awareness by employees and not reporting it, whatever.

My point is, the auditors could at least try to pinpoint where the cause came from, a source. Why not? We hear daily that management don't get behind corrective actions, so why give them a nudge in the right direction?

I agree with you to some degree. Here is my "...But..." statement:

Typically because the idea of an audit is not to do corrective action investigations. It has been pointed out that this was an internal audit. The "ant trails" may have even been out side the scope of the audit. But, in a place that manufactures food products the audit team was right, in my opinion, to note it because of the potential severity of an insect infestation. Not to mention - In general any employee who observed what they believe to be insect infestation should (I would think) report it. You don't have to be doing an internal audit to report what might be a serious problem in the facility. As to a brief "investigation" by the auditor(s), no problem. But - At that point the person or persons responsible for the area or areas involved should be brought in so there are no "misunderstandings" over an auditor poking his or her head into someones "turf". And it should be noted that the audit team is now out of the "auditing" mode and is now in the realm of the nonconformance and corrective action investigation mode.

So - What is the audit team's responsibility? It is to point out nonconformances and potential nonconformances (such as "observations"). It's duty is to present its findings to the appropriate person and/or department. From there the people / department responsible take the report and do what is necessary to correct the situation or to explain why it's not a problem.

Reasons auditors *shouldn't* try to investigate: An audit has a scope. I have never seen an audit where the auditors stopped the audit (for all intents and purposes) so that they, as auditors, could do the investigation. It's simply not the job of the auditor(s) to investigate the cause nonconformances. That is the reason there is (or should be) a nonconformance system.

Just my

 

[AndyN]

I hear you, Marc.

I can't agree, however, on the basis that what you have described has been at the very foundation of why (internal) audits get little support from management - IMHO. Most accredited auditor training (until I'm proven otherwise) is based on external auditor practices and they're all missing the point! Internal auditors are members of the company, not outsiders, so the concept of sticking their noses in on someone's turf points (if perceived that way) to some fundamental management issues, nothing to do with auditors, in my opinion.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm simply trying to echo what they say about investments: "Past performance shouldn't be an indicator of future performance". I'm simply offering an alternate to the 'status quo' in a lack luster situation regarding internal audits.

 

[Marc]

I do agree with the basics of what you say, Andy. Internal audits should be different than audits such as registrar or supplier or customer audits. The question becomes how far an internal audit team should go.

If it was my company I would give internal auditors latitude external auditors wouldn't get. For many years I have tried to differentiate there is a significant difference between external audits and internal audits. On the other hand, over the years training hasn't changed, but external audits have in many cases. These days there is more in the way of process auditing in many external audits, whereas in the past external audits were mostly focused on a standard, a customer requirement or other type of document of requirements.

I'm sure you remember that in the "old" days registrars audited compliance to the standard being audited to. It used to be pretty much a series of "Do you do this?" "Yes we do and this is how we comply with the requirements of the standard." conversations with the added "OK - Show me some evidence that you do it and it is effective." These days I think external audits are more "in depth" especially with the rise in popularity of the phrase "Process Approach" (I say "rise in popularity of the phrase" because the process approach is nothing new, and it wasn't new 10 years ago either).

There is still a lot of training, and belief, that internal audits should be to a standard or other type of requirements document as opposed to process documentation its self.

Even the "training" material for auditing I used to use which is posted here is woefully out of date and mainly from the external auditing aspect. I'm sure, however, over the next 5 years or so training programs will evolve to better represent what is happening in "the real world".

That, I believe, is one of the dilemmas that registrars face, especially with regard to the simpler standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

Back in the 1990's I did a lot of internal auditor training. While I wanted internal auditors to have a reasonable understanding of the standard being audited to, I always focused the training on process documentation rather than the requirements of the standard. I taught them (or tried to) that process documents are their domain. That said I should also explain that to me any system document is a "process" document. So - purchasing (for example rather than make a long list) has process documents (aka "procedures") for their processes. Part of an internal audit, when I taught my course, was any time they found a potential nonconformance was to call in the responsible party to discuss it prior to a write-up. In the case under discussion in this thread (ant trails), although outside the scope of the audit was serious enough that I would judge it appropriate to call in the responsible person or persons and have a brief discussion of whether it was or was not a problem. If it was a problem the auditor would write it up. If it wasn't, the auditor(s) would get on with their audit. To me the bottom line was the role of an internal auditor was *not* compliance to the standard being audited to, the role of the internal auditor was to ensure people were following systems/processes/procedures (whether documented or not).

I think we agree more than it may appear. Our only point of disagreement would be at what point the auditor(s) should break off and get on with their audit leaving those responsible to deal with the problem (assuming there was agreement that a problem existed).

 

[Wes Bucey]

For the record:
My objection to ANY auditor, internal or external, following through to trace the ingress of the insects, or even to track them to whatever food they were trailing to and from is no more in the scope of any audit than it would be in the scope to track the root cause of a product nonconformance. For what seems like eons, we have been parroting the mantra, "auditors do not audit their own processes."

What makes insect eradication fair game for an auditor when we do not advocate auditors, internal or external, delving into setup of processing machinery and determining (by their expertise) how to remedy the setup if the product is nonconforming?

Insect eradication is not simply a matter of recaulking window frames or door sills. The chemicals used in controlling insects require expertise in selection and application, lest a well-meaning amateur err, causing a worse problem by creating a hazardous environment for foodstuffs and directly affecting workers. Cases abound about insecticide poisoning of workers and consumers. A respected website briefly discusses insecticide poisoning. A recent case was reported where two young girls died from drinking tea made from contaminated tea leaves. The article doesn't delve into the source of contamination, but a spate of cases in the USA several years ago with a number of deaths and a great number of sickness and permanent disabilities was caused by a well-meaning agricultural worker "liberating" several barrels of broad spectrum insecticide meant for use in fields where sunlight normally degrades the toxins after a few weeks. This Good Samaritan then shared his largesse with poor folk in several counties who were beset by invading ants in their households. Those folks then sprayed enough insecticide in a 600 sq. ft. cabin which would have been sufficient for an acre (43,560 sq. ft.) outside. No sunlight in the cabins meant the toxins didn't degrade. People were breathing toxin stirred up in household dust, bare skin contact with contaminated clothes and bedding, etc.

A common problem today with the recent rise of bed bugs is misguided over application of insecticide, creating biohazards in homes, hotels, and motels.