Terry Major remembers a time, during a healthier economy, when he had a bigger department budget and more employees. “In years past, it was not uncommon to have staffing levels at 15,000 to 20,000 square feet per employee, which would be super,” says Major, the grounds, custodial, support services and fleet manager for Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Mo.

Currently, most of his cleaning workers are responsible for between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet each.

“Every time we lose staff, we stretch a little bit more,” Major says. Managers in all types of organizations face higher square-feet-to-staff ratios as a result of not filling vacant positions or organization expansion.

One of the challenges managers face in this situation is efficiently maintaining one of the most work-intensive, not to mention, appearance-critical areas: hard floors. With an unlimited budget, most managers could wash away their worries with the purchase of a few large automated machines.

But in many cases, other financial decision makers hold the cards for big-ticket items. The biggest challenge for cleaning managers is convincing the powers-that-be that a more expensive piece of equipment can be beneficial to the organization and staff.

Gather resources
Before making a purchasing request, managers need to do their homework.

First, they should collect data on current floor-care tasks, making note of the equipment used, its size, type of area cleaned, number of square feet within the area, number of workers performing the task, the time it takes to complete the work, and the employees’ per-hour wages. This data will help managers measure and compare equipment performance.

It is common knowledge that employee labor costs make up the bulk of any cleaning operation, so managers should look for ways equipment selection will optimize labor productivity.

If a manager is unsure of which type of equipment can increase productivity, there are benchmarks for making quick and simple comparisons. For example, the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) 447 Cleaning Times book lists cleaning times for just about any cleaning task, including hard floor care. Manufacturers often cite ISSA data in helping customers with equipment specifications.

For example, let’s say a manager wants to compare a 20-inch walk-behind, wheel-propelled automatic scrubber with a 36-inch ride-on auto scrubber. The walk-behind cleans 1,000 square feet in 6.47 minutes, or 999 square feet per hour. The rider cleans 1,000 square feet in 2.61 minutes, or 22,989 square feet per hour.

Thus, when cleaning a 60,000-square-foot area, the rider will take 2.61 hours and the walk-behind will take 6.47 hours. (Divide total square feet by square feet per hour to get the number of hours to clean the area.)

The ISSA cleaning times are approximate measures, but generally show end users the differences in the time it takes to strip, scrub and burnish floors using various sizes, speeds and types of equipment. Major suggests managers attend trade shows and search the Internet for equipment specs, testimonials and other information. Manufacturer sales reps usually have square-feet-per-hour statistics available for equipment.

Productivity rate
Using gathered data, managers can put together what is sometimes called a “productivity analysis” or “productivity evaluation.”

No matter the name, the formula generally is the same. Basically, by plugging in the right numbers, managers can come up with a number for annual labor savings and another number for how long it will take before the machine pays for itself.

Going back to the original example, the manager deciding between the 20-inch walk-behind machine and the 36-inch ride-on will save 3.86 minutes per 1,000 square feet with the riding machine. If he or she divides 3.86 by the current time per 1,000 square feet (6.47 min.), the end result will be a time savings percentage (60 percent).

Let’s say an employee spends 19.41 hours a week (6.47 multiplied by 3 days) scrubbing floors. When you multiply 19.41 by the time saving percentage (0.60), you come up with the labor hours saved weekly: 11.65. That number, multiplied by the employee’s hourly wage ($10.25) is the weekly labor savings ($119.41). To get the annual savings, he multiplies $119.41 by 52 weeks and gets $6,209.32.

Finally, managers should calculate equipment payback data. To figure out the “years to pay back,” divide the machine cost ($17,000) by the annual savings ($6,209.32): 2.7 years. Total savings can be found by multiplying annual savings by the machine life. Using the productivity calculations, managers can present their case in a way financial decision makers will understand.

Important points
Managers should be ready to answer one critical question: “What am I going to do with the time saved?”

Employees often feel threatened by increased productivity and administrators might wonder if a new piece of equipment could mean “getting rid of a body,” says Dave Ditty, director of product management for Nilfisk-Advance.

“We are not talking labor saving; it is time saving,” Ditty says. He says cleaning staff often do not have time to do tasks such as high dusting, carpet spotting, mat cleaning and more because so much time is spent focusing on floor care.

“Managers should tell [administrators] that they are going to enhance the look of the facility by doing the things they normally don’t have time to do,” Ditty says. “They should bring a list of those things and give it to [administrators] with their purchase proposal.”

When working with a short-staffed cleaning operation, managers can leverage labor savings for more efficient equipment.

For example, when one employee left Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., eight years ago, the cleaning department gained two robotic scrubbers.

“The the amount of square feet [one robot] can maintain replaces an [full-time employee],” says Karl Hickethier, director of housekeeping for the medical center. “And I’ve been saving $30,000 a year by not filling that position.”

When purchasing anything that costs more than $1,000, Hickethier first has to prove one of two things: the equipment will pay for itself within three years, or the equipment will save employee time.

“Administration wants to know: what are you using the equipment for, the longevity of the machine, how many years will it take for it to pay for itself, and — if you are not cutting staff — what are you going to use the time saved for?,” Hickethier says.

Since adding the robotic machines, he says the level of cleanliness within the medical center has improved. But the robots cannot take all the credit. Cleaning staff run the robots and stay in the vicinity of the machine while it runs. Employees clean baseboards, corners and elevator areas while the machine runs.

“There is a more even pace of getting work done,” he says. “You can run robotic equipment for six to eight hours with more consistency because you are not expecting manual labor to walk behind. And there is not a lot of downtime.”

Hickethier adds that employees are not as tired as they would be if they had to walk behind a machine for 6 to 8 hours, and they are more refreshed to do other work. He also reported fewer injuries since implementing the robotic equipment. Happy with his purchases, Hickethier says he is in the process of purchasing another robotic machine.

The equipment he has is delivering his productivity calculations, continuing to contribute to decreased employee injury rates and providing cleaner, more consistent results.




POSTED ON: 11/1/2003