Nature abhors a vacuum. Somebody please tell the cleaning industry. Housekeeping Solutions research shows that the cleaning industry, for the most part, operates in the absence of any uniform cleaning standard, regulation or guideline. Similarly, individual methods of measuring “clean” seem to be all over the place at the grass-roots level, with a variety of facility operations and other industry entities relying on their own guidelines due to the standards gap at the top.

The lack of a universal cleaning standard raises many questions — but one, in particular, stands out: Given the degree to which the service industry in general has embraced exotic methods for measuring, standardizing and improving service, why hasn’t the cleaning industry followed suit — particularly at the in-house level?

“We are way behind manufacturing and also other services industries,” says John Walker, president of Managemen, Salt Lake City. “We’re not very advanced; we’re not auditing like the ISO [International Standards Organization]. We’re very much a complaint-driven industry.”

Walker, along with other industry consultants, can make a case for consistent definitions and measurements within the cleaning industry. Most industry experts agree that cleaning professionals need to be working under a similar definition of clean, while identifying the best cleaning processes, tools and training.

Without standards, Walker says, a cleaning worker can be doing more “dirtying work” than cleaning by wiping school desks with a dirty rag and a dirty bucket of solution, for example.

Cleanliness is often defined by and subject to our sense of sight, smell and touch. For instance, if a surface looks clean, smells clean and feels clean, it is clean. Using an appearance-driven measurement yields varying results.

“There’s a lot of stuff we don’t see that can hurt us, like microorganisms,” Walker says, which in and of itself is enough motivation to campaign for a standard consensus.

“As far as I know, in the cleaning industry the only things that get recorded and measured are overtime hours, white-glove inspections and complaints,” he says. “If anyone is doing anything measurable, it’s in its infancy or on a very low level.”

So, why does the cleaning profession seemingly eschew standardization? The reasons, say the experts, vary. While some place blame squarely in the lap of housekeeping, others cite reasons beyond housekeeping’s control.

“Our industry consists of a large group of people who are very satisfied with the way things are going right now,” says Steve Spencer, facilities specialist in cleaning and interior maintenance for State Farm Insurance, Bloomington, Ill. “There is a reluctance to measure because once you start measuring, you have to do something about [the results]. I think people would rather stay in the dark.”

The industry also lacks spokespeople, one observer told us, as well as a game plan to raise public awareness regarding the link between health, safety and cleaning. Walker says some schools hesitate to call attention to cleaning-related risks or ineffective cleaning because they want money to go to other areas. Hospitals, he says, often address cleaning issues with medical solutions. For example: the mindset that fighting the spread of a virus falls under the realm of doctors rather than the environmental services department.

Some cleaning professionals argue that the industry abounds in attempts to measure cleaning efficiency and establish standards of “clean.” Many managers rely on their own customized “standards” and “practices,” often sharing benchmarks at the operational level. Similarly, some associations have made attempts to gauge “levels of cleaning;” other groups specialize in certification and training.

A guide for educational facilities
Educational facilities often use the Association for Higher Education Facilities Officers (APPA) “Custodial Service Levels” as a tool for assessing cleanliness of specific facility areas. There are five levels: Level 1 is the highest level, entitled “orderly spotlessness;” level 2 constitutes “ordinary tidiness;” level 3, “casual inattention;” level 4, “moderate dinginess;” and level 5, “unkempt neglect.”

Basically, if a cleaning manager wants to find out the level at which his department is functioning, he chooses an area off the APPA list, such as “classroom with carpet floor, high use.” Then, he figures out the square-feet-per-worker ratio, or what APPA calls the “staffing level.” A ratio of 5,100 square feet per worker is level 1. That means “floors and base moldings shine and/or are bright and clean; colors are fresh. There is not buildup in corners or along walls. All vertical and horizontal surfaces have a freshly cleaned or polished appearance and have no accumulation of dust, dirt, marks, streaks, smudges or fingerprints. Trash containers and pencil sharpeners are empty, clean and odor-free.”

APPA’s staffing levels can be useful as as a benchmark for showing organizations where cleaning operations stand and where levels might be relative to manpower.

The APPA staffing levels are used in a computer program at Washington State University, Pullman, Wash. Says Tom Parrish, custodial manager, “Our frequencies of cleaning are around an APPA level 3 and our staffing is around a level 4,” he says. “Basically, that tells me people are cleaning at a higher level than what we’re staffed for.”

But Parrish adds that staffing and service levels do not tell him much about the cleanliness of the building “without going out and looking.” Every building varies, so managers may need look beyond APPA’s guidelines for assessing cleanliness.

“Associations that suggest [measuring cleanliness] with productivity formulas based on the number of custodians and the size of a building often do not take into account the number of students in the building,” Spencer says, adding that productivity varies among staff, as well. “What if one custodian is sitting on his butt all day? What if some custodians get the work done faster [in the same size building] with fewer students and then watch TV the rest of the time?”

Spencer says an educational facility might use APPA’s levels because “bosses like data” — but the campus could still be dirty. “According to APPA,” he says, “they are cleaning at a high rate. It is so inexact.”

Certification
Associations and educational groups, like The International Executive Housekeepers Association (IEHA) and the Institute for Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC), offer certifications and education courses for cleaning professionals.

“IEHA certifications are extremely well-recognized by government facilities,” says Beth Risinger, CEO and executive director of IEHA. “Many of our members would not be working in the facilities they are without certification.”

The IEHA also offers several books written by health-care facilities, universities and other member facilities. Risinger says the books are published as “benchmarks” for other organizations.

Risinger says standards development has been on IEHA’s radar for the last 10 years, but so far, the organization has not been able to realistically finance a full-scale standards program. Risinger hopes the IEHA will be able to eventually provide members with more information.

“When I talk about developing standards, I mean developing job descriptions, how-tos for operations like vacuuming and floor care, how to clean an emergency room, an operating room, conference rooms and so on,” she says.

The IICRC, a nonprofit certifying group for the cleaning and restoration industry, offers 17 certifications. Examples of certifications include odor control technician, floor care (hard surfaces) technician and commercial carpet maintenance technician, among others.

The IICRC does not have its own schools and instructors, but the institute approves schools and instructors to teach and administer IICRC certification programs. Spencer warns that IICRC courses might not provide education on all aspects of a certain cleaning task because of the instructor’s background and interests. “A lot of courses are taught by truck-mount companies or cleaning chemical manufacturers,” he says.

The IICRC has published a few standards, among them a standard on professional upholstery cleaning and a standard for cleaning tile floor coverings.

The American Society for Healthcare Environmental Services also offers certifications, including the designation: Certified Healthcare Environmental Services Professional.

“The best way to see if those certifications mean anything is to ask [potential employers],” Spencer says. “Are they looking for employees with an IEHA certification? If people don’t recognize the certification as a value, then it doesn't have much value.”

Developing programs from within
Parrish says Washington State University is putting together “key performance indicators,” a systematic program used throughout the university. The program will use quantitative data to manage cleaning operations.

“It is something that we have needed for a long time,” Parrish says. “At present [we are working under] a subjective, non-quantitative call by the supervisor. We are looking at a simple way to quantify [cleaning].” He says he is trying to figure out what and how the organization is going to measure various aspects of cleaning.

“I think facilities should at least identify where their weaknesses are,” Parrish says. “I want to know: Are we heading in the right direction or regressing? If you don’t know your starting point, you don’t know where you’re going.”

“In manufacturing, for example, a part for an automobile either meets specs or it doesn’t. In the university maintenance department, if a fan fails, it fails; if it runs, it runs,” he says. “Cleaning is a whole different thing. It is so subjective.”

In developing Washington State’s “key performance indicators” for cleaning, Parrish has looked at other universities’ efforts to manage and quantify operations, such as the University of California, Berkeley’s “Balanced Scorecard.”

UC Berkeley models its Balanced Scorecard after “The Balanced Scorecard — Measures that Drive Performance,” by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, introduced in the Harvard Business Review more than 10 years ago. The Balanced Scorecard holds measured values: people, processes, resources and service. UC Berkeley’s custodial services director could not be reached for comment. Hundreds of organizations have implemented the Balanced Scorecard Web-enabled program, according to its Web site.

Another popular approach to measuring performance is using a numbers-based rating system. Take for example, Kaiser Permanente Hospitals’ “Quality Assurance Rating Scale.” Public areas are given a rating from one to four. Four points, excellent; three points, good; two points, fair; and one point, poor.

When rating floors and carpets, for example, four points means “floors are properly maintained. No soil, stains or debris.” Three points indicates “minimal maintenance is required.” Two points means “floor maintenance is required. Some visible soil on floor/carpet surfaces.” One point means “extensive floor care required.”

“The standard accepts the fact that certain things aren’t done based on our resources,” says Carl Soloman, senior maintenance operations consultant for Kaiser Permanente Hospitals, Oakland, Calif. “In office areas, for example, there might be fingerprints on glass for a couple of days.”

Kaiser Permanente has a checklist of things that have to be done in priority areas: patient rooms, operating rooms and emergency rooms. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and state health services departments require that health-care facilities environmental services departments have cleaning and disinfecting policies in place and in use.

Standards for the future?
One consultant to the cleaning industry recently launched an organization with the goal of establishing cleaning standards. David Frank, owner of KnowledgeWorx consulting firm, developed the American Institute for Cleaning Sciences (AICS), an independent, third-party organization.

“AICS will be something you can turn to that is not on a manufacturer’s payroll,” Frank says.

The institute will examine a facility’s cleaning processes, tools and techniques, training of workers while also assessing the cleanliness of the facility. “Organizations will use the AICS seal to distinguish themselves, to say their processes have been approved and accredited,” says Frank.

AICS also will provide accreditation to manufacturers for their training programs, not choosing one over another, but assessing each individually.

Frank used the British Institute for Cleaning Sciences (BICS) as a model. BICS was founded in 1961 as a networking organization for professional cleaners. In 1985, BICS established its first qualification for professional cleaners: “Cleaner Operators Proficiency Certificate.” Today, the group has standards for some 47 cleaning tasks.

Frank launched the AICS in October at the International Sanitary Supply Association trade show and conference. Frank says he has received mixed response so far.

“Some people have said ‘it’s about time’ and others are nervous,” Frank says. “It’s going to be a wait-and-see [process].”

Frank is passionate about AICS because he feels the cleaning industry needs an organization to assess and accredit cleaning operations, processes and manufacturer training programs. He says meeting these needs will help protect the health and safety of building occupants and workers while focusing on productivity and cost-effective cleaning.

“I haven’t seen a document yet that shows me standards,” Frank says. “I want to establish minimums. There is no documentation on what the minimums for cleaning are. The Carpet and Rug Institute has minimums for vacuums. It says all vacuums will have a filtration of ‘x’ as a minimum and remove this level of soil.”

A joint effort
“There is much work to be done in the industry,” Risinger says. “Even we [IEHA] need to be doing more than we have been.”

“If they don’t like the standards, at least they exist,” Frank says. “Standards add credibility and structure to an unstructured industry.”

Standardizing cleaning procedures may require a higher industry authority than currently exists. “We need some regulatory body, bigger than an association or an organization,” Walker says. “We need labor unions, government, taxing agencies and health organizations to get involved.”

Many observers feel that the cleaning industry doesn’t do a good job governing itself. If there isn’t a singular group or organization acting as a catalyst, change may have to be mandated.

“There are two things that drive change in the cleaning industry: legislation and money,” Spencer says. He cites bloodborne pathogens and AIDS as examples of issues the cleaning industry has addressed through prompting from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He adds that insurance companies may eventually force public buildings to take specific measures to prevent slip-and-fall accidents, just like insurance companies now charge three times more for mold coverage.

Standards for the cleaning industry may arrive piecemeal — it would be challenging to create a singular standard that could cover issues relating to various building missions: health care, education or industrial facilities, for example.

“Everybody’s got pieces,” Frank says. “You’ve got to tie it all together. My feeling is that standards are absolutely necessary to enhance the image of the industry, but [creating standards] is going to take time.”




POSTED ON: 11/1/2003