Trimming cleaning budgets at schools and universities has become more controversial in recent years. The days of undervaluing the importance of cleaning appear to be coming to an end. Most facility managers are now aware of the important role cleaning plays in health, morale and actual student performance. This awareness is all the more evident and important now that so many facilities are adopting “Green” cleaning systems.

Nevertheless, when schools have difficulty meeting costs and expenditures and need to look for opportunities to trim their budgets, cleaning is still invariably on the chopping block. This is most likely because cleaning is less tangible than many other items in the budget. If an institution were to cut its music department for instance, many people would immediately notice and become upset. But if the cleaning budget were to be pruned instead, few would notice, at least initially. Complaints would be likely to be few and far between until health consequences surfaced or the appearance of the facility became too poor to escape notice.

The best way to gauge the cost-effectiveness of a new cleaning approach is often rather simple: Has worker productivity increased? Are cleaning tasks being performed more quickly?

Since cleaning budgets are always likely to attract scrutiny and may often be reduced, facility managers should be aware that there are ways to get more “bang” for their cleaning buck. There are actually several cleaning strategies that have proven successful at increasing productivity, reducing costs and providing satisfactory, if not improved, cleaning performance.

Cleaning managers, however, must do their research and experiment to discover what will work best for their individual needs. What works in one facility may not necessarily work well in another. Also, managers may find that they can incorporate new cleaning systems and strategies in certain buildings, for instance new buildings, while they may not be able to do so in older locations. Some of this may be because cleaning professionals have adopted certain cleaning habits and patterns in older building or facilities they have cleaned for many years that are hard to change. Additionally, in some situations, new automated cleaning equipment may not be maneuverable in older facilities. Experimentation, some trial and error, training and education may be necessary to see what will work and where.

Cleaning Systems
Ask most people, including many facility managers how cleaning professionals typically work and they will likely reply:
• One person carries cleaning supplies and equipment to a specific building or area in a building
• That individual then cleans the area as instructed
• The work is performed after business hours
• Cleaning products are returned to a central location when the shift is over

This way of working is referred to as “zone cleaning,” and it is the oldest style of professional cleaning. It is also still the most common form of cleaning. It is estimated that approximately 80 to 90 percent of all cleaning is zone cleaning.

Workers often prefer zone cleaning because it gives them a sense of ownership. They begin to know their area intimately and often know the tenants as well. In addition, security is less of a concern with zone cleaning because fewer people need keys to the facility. And because the custodian performs and is responsible for a variety of cleaning tasks, there is often less boredom, a problem sometimes associated with janitorial positions.

However, despite the benefits of zone cleaning such as reduced investment in equipment, there are several other approaches to facility maintenance and cleaning and these options often offer benefits of their own.

Specialist or Team Cleaning. - This type of cleaning typically involves four cleaning “specialists” (vacuum, restroom, trash and utility although there are sometimes additional “specialists”). This method evolved from the traditional zone cleaning approach about 15 years ago and was originally designed for custodians that work three-and four-hour shifts in smaller locations or specific parts of a larger facility. Essentially, this approach relies on a division of labor.

Specialist or team cleaning systems have garnered the most interest
in educational facilities, especially large universities. However, due to the necessary change in work habits, it has often been greeted with reluctance by cleaning professionals. Some facilities that attempt a  specialist cleaning approach return to more traditional cleaning systems in a relatively short period of time. Despite the benefits of improved worker productivity and the possibility of lower labor costs, it is important that facility management communicate the system well and constantly work with employees until a comfort level with the system is realized.

Day Cleaning - This system has become more popular in recent years for several reasons. It allows managers to choose workers from a variety of demographics, including retired people who want to keep working or stay-at-home moms who need to work while their children are at school. Facility managers often find that these workers are very dependable. Studies show it can save energy because use of lights, HVAC and other electronics is reduced. Additionally, day cleaning has been found to reduce turnover, theft, complaints and security concerns.

If facility managers decide to test different cleaning strategies, they must first make sure cleaning workers are well-trained regarding the new system.

However, because of the activity and noise often involved in cleaning, office staff members see day cleaning as an intrusion. The system appears to be most successful in single-tenant locations and close relationships often emerge between custodians and building occupants. Blended Cleaning - This system combines specialist and zone cleaning. In blended cleaning, instead of four “specialists” performing separate duties, one custodian may be responsible for trash collection, dusting and vacuuming while another worker handles restroom and utility or project work. Blended cleaning can offer the benefits of both zone cleaning — since the workers are responsible for their own locations — and team cleaning. Because it speeds up the cleaning process, this approach seems to work well in locations cleaned during the day but is also used for traditional evening cleaning.

Collaborative Cleaning. - This form of cleaning involves the building’s tenants in the cleaning process. Collaborative cleaning is often found in schools and universities, as well as in single-tenant situations. An example of collaborative cleaning is having all of the building occupants place their trash cans in the same area, allowing for quick and easy pickup by the custodian. The building staff does part of the task and the custodian does the rest.

Simple mathematics can show how beneficial collaborative cleaning can be. If a location has 100 trash cans, it can take a custodian one minute to gather, empty and then return each can, meaning the entire task will require 100 minutes to complete. If this one chore is eliminated via collaborative cleaning, it can mean savings that quickly add up.

Skip Cleaning - With this system, tasks are prioritized. For
instance, it may be determined that some areas of a facility only
need to be cleaned once or twice per week. Having such areas
cleaned nightly is unnecessary, costly and time-consuming. In
most skip cleaning situations, restrooms and kitchen areas are
cleaned during each custodial visit but trash collection, vacuuming
and dusting may be performed only one to three times per week
instead of daily.

The Right Strategy
As mentioned earlier, there is no right system for all locations.
For instance, administrators at the University of Texas have found
that it is much easier to incorporate specialist cleaning into new
buildings rather than in older ones. In older buildings, cleaning workers often develop closeness to the areas they clean and want to remain responsible for that area. As a result, the university’s focus has shifted to finding the system or combination of systems that performs best for each specific location.

Whichever strategy or combination thereof is finally chosen, it is important that managers and administrators evaluate the pros and cons of each including the financial repercussions of their choices. Managers should note that success is much more likely if their cleaning workers are comfortable with the selected system.

The cost-effectiveness of a new system is obviously also of enormous importance. The best way to gauge the cost-effectiveness of a new cleaning approach is often rather simple: has worker productivity increased? Are cleaning tasks being performed more quickly?

According to Jim Harris Sr., a strong advocate for specialist cleaning and president of Janitronics Building Services, a major contract cleaning firm in New York State, a productivity increase of “up to 50 percent is attainable in a variety of cleaning situations [with specialist cleaning], from schools to health care to sports facilities… and this is not always monetary. The cleaning staff may be able to do more cleaning… than before.”

Other experts and managers have found they can attain similar productivity gains by incorporating other forms of cleaning, especially skip and collaborative cleaning. These methods allow them more flexibility without the need for the training typically necessary with specialist cleaning since no additional specific task or work flow modifications are being made. Additionally, they may not need to purchase specific types of cleaning equipment. For instance, some experts believe only a backpack vacuum cleaner should be used when performing specialist cleaning tasks because it can clean both hard surface and carpeted floors. This allows one worker to be responsible for all floors as well as to perform high and low dusting in a variety of areas. But backpack vacuums are not a necessary requirement of other cleaning systems and cleaning approaches that do not require the purchase of specialized equipment may be more cost-effective for some facilities.

The Test of Time
If facility managers decide to test different cleaning strategies, they must first make sure cleaning workers are well-trained regarding the new system. This is critical when evaluating a new cleaning approach.

Managers must also give a new approach time before judging its effectiveness. There is often some reluctance among cleaning professionals to change cleaning strategies, even when workers are directly involved with selecting the new approach. Typically, administrators should not evaluate a new cleaning strategy for effectiveness and cost savings until at least six months have passed.

Rick Parillo was the director of environmental services at a large
New York–area hospital.

Back to top ▲