Posts

University of Michigan Saves $2.1 Million Per Year and Improves Cleaning

[linkedin_share style=”none” float=”left”]

[fbshare type=”button” float=”left”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

 

 

Submitted by ProTeam
CGN Editorial

The ProTeam Super CoachVac was featured in a series of posters at University of Michigan to educate the community about the elements of the new cleaning program.

 

In 2009, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor started a five year rollout of a comprehensive, high-performance cleaning management system, ManageMen‘s Operating System 1®, (OS1). John Lawter, Associate Director of Plant Building and Ground Services, chose (OS1) to improve productivity in light of ongoing budget cuts.

“We knew we were facing multiple years of reductions so we offered up 10% over 5 years with an understanding we would have a couple of years reprieve to protect our new program.” said Lawter. And since implementing (OS1), “We have met that 10 percent goal of $2.1 million and managed to improve services at the same time.”

With 200 facilities to clean covering a total of 15 million sq. ft., Lawter’s staff has gone from cleaning 36,000 sq. ft. per custodian to 40,000 sq. ft. per custodian, while improving the health of the environment. One of the biggest tenets of (OS1) is to clean for health first, then appearance. It was this and the simplified workflow that appealed to Lawter who wanted more consistency and fewer products.

“(OS1) was the only operating system we could find that was comprehensive and had been tested in a University setting for better than 10 years,” said Lawter. “We visited those programs as part of our due diligence and were impressed.”

In (OS1), custodians specialize in specific tasks, and they do all tasks of a single function at one time. This reduces wasted time switching tools and backtracking. Vacuum specialists may vacuum for an entire shift using a backpack vacuum designed by ProTeam® to reduce strain to the user.

“Dr. Berry’s study at the University of North Carolina showed us that, used properly, the backpack vacuum was a more ergonomic and effective product than an upright,” said Lawter.

Lawter swapped a ramshackle collection of uprights of different ages and models for ProTeam’s 11-pound Super CoachVac®.

“There’s no beater bar to throw dust around,” said Lawter. “It reduces the amount of dust particles in the air.” Two of Lawter’s staff who suffered from allergies reported their symptoms noticeably improving after switching to the backpack vacuum. ProTeam is partnered with the American Lung Association in efforts to educate the public about the importance of healthy indoor air.

Prior to implementing (OS1), the biggest problem Lawter faced was inconsistent performance, a symptom of the zone cleaning system they were using previously.

“No two custodians clean exactly alike,” said Lawter. “So, when one custodian is responsible for everything in an area, there will naturally be differences in the level of service. Our customers noticed those inconsistencies.”

According to Jeffrey L. Campbell, Ph.D., Chair of the BYU Facility Management program, Most custodial operations: “1) have no quantifiable standards; 2) are based solely on appearance; 3) have little or no method of measuring effectiveness and performance; 4) are not based on actual research; and 5) are driven by chemical and equipment manufacturers.”

Campbell recorded the story of the University of Michigan’s cleaning success along with the University of North Carolina and two other universities that implemented (OS1) in the article “Cutting Costs and Improving Outcomes for Janitorial Services” which appeared in the September/October 2011 issue of Facilities Manager and was reprinted in the Cleaning Gazette Newsletter the following May.

“In an industry that has been around as long as public buildings themselves, janitorial methods have seen little progress. As a matter of fact, most janitors today use the same tools and processes that were used 50 years ago,” said Campbell.

In addition to the timesaving backpack vacuums, (OS1) reduced Lawter’s chemical inventory from 50 products to less than 10. Individual use portion packs ensure that custodians get what they need and only what they need to clean every day. For Lawter, this hugely simplified the process.

“We used to have a committee of 30 people that would meet once a month and review the latest and greatest new products that came down the line,” said Lawter. “It was very inefficient, time-consuming, expensive, and led to a proliferation of products out there being tested by our workforce. ManageMen has a research and development arm for (OS1) users that does that, so I don’t directly deal with salesman. I love that.”

John Walker, President of ManageMen and progenitor of (OS1), explains how the echo chamber of product claims in the cleaning industry is rarely substantiated by science. “Everyone sells productivity tools. People buy them to save money and time, but they never document that they did it,” said Walker. “The University of Michigan’s janitorial department is a pioneer in documenting over $2 million in savings. They gave it back to the university.”

As reported in the Cleaning Gazette Newsletter last July, Sightlines, a prominent facility management assistance firm, did a thorough evaluation of the University of Michigan in the fall of 2010. They compared the data to a database of 300 institutions of higher learning and a group of 10 peer universities chosen by the administration.

This survey was taken in the midst of the (OS1) rollout at the university. The custodial department had not yet reached the 80-percent audit they hoped for. They were still rated as the number one organization in cleanliness evaluations. The study also showed high production rates and low cost of materials in comparison to their peers and the greater database.

“They got to a 2.5 cleaning level on a 3.5 APPA budget,” said Walker. “And in the Sightlines study, they beat virtually everyone in the country and in their peer group after adopting (OS1). There has never been a collection of data like this.”

In their most recent (OS1) audit last month, the University of Michigan surpassed their goal of an 80 percent audit, reaching 83 and 87 percent. According to Walker, it is the work of people like Lawter and his staff in documenting the effectiveness of (OS1) that will someday take the cleaning industry by storm. When cleaning is standardized, workflows are simplified, and productive tools are utilized, unbelievable savings are possible. “You can reduce costs and improve results with this documented system,” said Walker.

‘Science As It Relates to (OS1)’ by Dr. Michael Berry

[fbshare type=”button”]

[linkedin_share style=”none”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

Dr. Berry delivering his presentation at the 2006 (OS1) Users Symposium in Midway, UT.

 

 

Over years of professional practice, teaching and scientific research Dr. Michael Berry is a true pioneer in identifying the foundational principles of what cleaning really means. His book, Protecting the Built Environment: Cleaning for Health, was ahead its time. Unfortunately those in the industry that should have taken hold of Berry’s principles have continued business-as-usual.

Most cleaners and janitorial operations are still cleaning the way they did 80 years ago. They are driven by equipment manufacturers and chemical companies that dictate the direction of the industry. There is no evidence based research. There is no common language or standards. The only focus of cleaning is appearance based with no thought about contaminants and indoor environmental problems.

Below is a link to the complete transcript of the presentation that  was delivered by  Michael Berry, PhD, at the 2006 Simon Institute Symposium.   In this presentation, Berry discusses the value of cleaning science; the effect of sick and mismanaged buildings; remediating the Frank Porter Graham building with a deep cleaning protocol and the findings from his 2006 publicly funded study of traditional housekeeping vs. the (OS1) cleaning process.  That study evaluated traditional housekeeping methods vs. a high performance cleaning program over the span of three months at The University of North Carolina.  It is also important to note that Berry also discusses key components of a high performance cleaning program in this presentation.

To read full transcript, please click here

Achieving Green Cleaning

Article from the March 2012 Issue of The Cleaning Gazette

There is a conflict in the professional cleaning industry. The green cleaning movement has pushed for cleaning products and practices that are free of toxins, poisons, endocrine disrupters and known carcinogens. Yet, recent outbreaks of infectious diseases and drug-resistant bacteria demand that pathogens be eliminated from the indoor built environment utilizing “kill” agents (read poisons).

In (OS1), we meet both requirements by utilizing an engineered cleaning process and a scientifically validated process for reducing pathogenic microorganisms. (OS1) strikes the right balance between being environmentally sustainable and controlling pathogenic microorganisms.

Benchmarking Best Practices

For twenty years, we have educated organizations about cleaning processes and products that ensure their worker’s health and safety. Aerosols and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were first reduced, then eliminated from the (OS1) program. They were replaced by Green Seal Certified chemicals that also provided a source reduction of landfill waste. Mixing chemicals was eliminated. All daily-use (OS1) cleaning chemicals come in pre measured packs so the worker just adds water. This eliminates the danger of chemical overexposure. Although to (OS1) users it is just common sense and education, this is an uncommon practice in the jan/san industry. In addition to safer chemical formulations and packaging, our (OS1) trained Coaches teach their employees chemistry basics including the pH scale, the “4 S’s of cleaning” and cleaning physics. They also train their employees on the correct application of cleaning tools and time. New, neutral pH disinfectants were introduced by PortionPac that effectively kill pathogens, but are safer on surfaces.

John Walker, President of ManageMen says:

“It’s all about knowing the surface and using the right chemical solvent on the soil that is present at the right time. Do it right the first time and you won’t damage surfaces and you won’t have to do it over.”

Disinfection requires not only the right solution, but friction as well, according the the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The tool of choice to provide that friction is the (OS1) specified Unger microfiber cloth. Microfiber razor-scrapes the surface. It actually cuts the bacteria away from the surface. The use of color-coded microfiber cloths helps prevent cross-contamination and communicates to the cleaning team who is following instructions. Microfiber is also easier to launder because the weave is so tight, pathogens are washed off the surface quite simply.

Maintaining Indoor Air Quality

Even with the presence of toxic cleaning chemicals reduced, indoor air quality can suffer without proper cleaning techniques and subsequently affect the health of cleaning workers and building occupants. It’s vital that contaminants in the air are captured at their source, before they enter our breathing zones. High efficiency vacuum filters and HEPA filters remove those invisible particulates that carry bacteria and mold spores.

Filters on vacuums clog frequently. When filters are dirty, clogged, and not changed often enough, they lose efficiency. Air quality is almost entirely a function of a custodian’s cleaning or polluting functions indoors, according to Dr. Berry’s UNC study. It is fundamental that the practices of indoor environmental management include tracking vacuum filter changes and cleaning.
Catch Dirt at the Door

“Something as simple as floor mats can also make a huge difference”, according to Dr. Michael Berry in the University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill, publicly funded study comparing “Traditional Housekeeping” with the (OS1) cleaning process in 2006.

In (OS1), we specify that the building must have at least a 15-20 foot walk-off mat. That’s at least five steps on a mat to clean your shoes. If you don’t use mats, dirt tracks into the building. Mats are designed to scrape soil from shoes, and carpets have a tendency to hide the dirt. We want to scrape and remove, not conceal dirt.

Cleaning Professionalism

The establishment of professionalism among (OS1) cleaning workers follows their training and certification. They are the true environmentalists of the indoor environment. (OS1) Users must establish themselves as the  “EnvironMentors” to the  building occupants in the indoor environments that we all share.

Cleaning Science

[fbshare type=”button”]

[linkedin_share style=”none”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

 

From the February 2012 issue of The Cleaning Gazette

What is mankind’s greatest invention? Is it our built environment?

Man’s oldest invention and one that every human enjoys to some extent is the protective built environment. Humans liberate themselves from the unfavorable effects of the natural environment by an ability to construct and maintain a protective environment. We maintain shelter against enemies including weather, extreme climate, storms, predators, disease, and exposure by the habitats we build, maintain, and clean.

The primary human habitat is a built environment and a sub-compartment of the natural environment. This built environment is the environment most humans occupy more than 90 percent of their time. It dominates the quality of human life and health. It is the environment over which we have the most control. The most important control is primarily through the process of cleaning.

Cleaning is a Science

To understand the important role of cleaning and the contributions it makes to human existence, we need to know three things:

  •  What is cleaning?
  • How does it it work?
  • Why it is important?

Cleaning science includes several subjects . They must be properly understood if we are to understand the field of cleaning and its impact on health? To properly discuss “cleaning,” we must emphasize the objectives and reasons for cleaning. We must also understand and emphasize their importance and value. The science of cleaning includes the following topics:

[ordered_list style=”decimal”]

1. Effective Cleaning Reduces Risk.Cleaning creates a healthy condition by reducing exposure and risk. It enables sanitation, it breaks the chain of infection and prevents illness. In addition to human health, cleaning protects valuable materials and equipment and maintains the value of property. Cleaning is insurance that prevents crisis and reduces the full range of costs related to property and real estate. Cleaning also manages waste and contributes to environmental protection and sustainability.

 

2. Chemistry of Cleaning. Many aspects of cleaning are based on chemical action. Knowing how chemicals work is fundamental to cleaning. The effect they have on various forms of matter, their protective or risk-reduction benefits , the toxic, unwanted, or unintended effects on humans or the natural environment are all important parts of cleaning science.

 

3. Cleaning in Special Environments. Cleaning is the organized process of removing or repositioning unwanted matter so human activities can take place in a particular built environment. Different environments require different cleaning processes.

 

4. Measuring Cleaning Effectiveness.Cleaning is measured in terms of the quantity of unwanted matter removed. Dr. Berry’s 2006 study at the University of North Carolina showed that effective cleaning when consistently implemented is cost effective and can lead to measurable environmental improvements as measured by reductions in particles, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and biological pollutants. The assessment of cleaning effectiveness can be accomplished through process audits, environmental sampling and measurement of dusts, fungi, bacteria, and indoor-air particulate matter. Sampling and measurement answers the question, “What happens when you clean?”

 

5. Determining Cleaning Data. In recent years, there have emerged comprehensive programs for efficacy testing of cleaning processes, products and technologies. Too frequently, limited or unsubstantiated claims are made with regard to the attributes of specific cleaning products. In the absence of process or systems testing, these claims cannot be validated. Without testing, tracking effectiveness, outside auditing of environmental sustainability, human activities may be polluting the built environment rather than cleaning it.

 

6. The Professional Language of Cleaning. Every profession and science has a unique vocabulary. A language, a set of definitions, concepts, and terms. For cleaning to truly become a professional, science-based industry recognized by government, health organizations, and other critical constituents, the language of cleaning science must be organized in a systematic manner. This includes seeing cleaning terminology in its proper hierarchy; agreeing on terms; and thereafter publishing and accepting those terms as norms. Antiquated cleaning and maintenance terms should be reviewed, assessed, rejuvenated, or rejected and replaced.

 

7. Cleaning Management. Effective cleaning starts with educated management competency, professionalism, and technical leadership. A well-managed and effective cleaning program includes the following quality-management components: process identification, evaluation, and continuous improvement; management by fact and knowledge for improvement; structured problem solving; effective communication at all levels; valuing human resources; benchmarking and performance measurement; and quality tools and technology. The effectiveness of the cleaning program resides in a well-defined and comprehensive cleaning objective; planned, scheduled, systematic cleaning workloading; the use of specialized, benchmarked cleaning equipment and technology that is tested and evaluated for effectiveness, best practices and safety. Most importantly there needs to be a focused and specialized basic and inservice training provided to the cleaners.

[/ordered_list]
Cleaning for health first, to be an achievable goal, demands that our industry have a firm foundation in science. It is only through this process—of benchmarking, auditing, disciplined research, critical peer review, and open presentation—that the cleaning industry will receive the recognition it deserves as a science-based profession that is not only focused upon, but able to provide, a healthy indoor environment.

Are Dirty Schools Making Kids Sick?

[fbshare type=”button”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

[linkedin_share style=”none”]

 

Two seemingly unrelated events were the subject of news stories in the early weeks of 2012. The first occurred on January 12, when the Vermont Senate gave final approval to Senate bill #92, a bill that requires public schools and “approved independent schools” to ensure that only environmentally preferable cleaning products are used to clean the schools. The bill will now make its way to the Governor’s desk for his signature which will transform the bill into law. Vermont’s state owned and leased buildings have already transitioned to “green” cleaning products as a result of the Clean State Program created by an executive order signed by Governor Douglas in 2004.

Banning Germ Killers in Schools

But the perhaps, unintended consequence of this legislation action goes further. It bans disinfectants and sanitizers in public schools. Is this really the lengths Vermont want to go to be “green”? If so it joins the states like California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Neveda, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. It is relevant to note that this legislation has been driven not by the medical community and public health experts but by state procurement officers and purchasing agents in league with the janitorial supply industry.

The Vermont bill allows for the use of disinfectants only when:

  1. Blood, body fluids or fecal soiling is present on any surface; (ignoring that most diseases are spread by invisible germs called pathogenic microorganisms and not visible accumulations listed in the Vermont legislation).
  2.  The State makes a case specific determination that failure to use a disinfectant would create a risk to public health and safety (like MRSA, Avian Flu, SARS, Whooping cough, measles, and the common cold).

Two days later, on Saturday January 14, Dr. Sanjay Gupta CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, aired a report in his series on Toxic America about the sorry, environmental health of schools in the United States. More schools than ever are making kids and school staff sick. While it’s tough to estimate how many toxic schools are in America, most research shows that at least a third or more of U.S. Schools have issues like mold, dust and other indoor air problems serious enough to cause respiratory illnesses like asthma in students and staff. Healthy Schools Network reports that as many as 55 million U.S. children may be attending public and private K-12 schools where poor air quality, hazardous chemicals and other unhealthy conditions can make everyone sick.

The U.S. EPA estimates that at least half of all schools in this country have indoor air quality problems caused by toxic chemical and pesticide use, chemical spills, mold infestations, asbestos, radon, lead in paint and drinking water, heavy metals and persistent toxics, such as mercury, CCA and PCBs.

Other highlights of Dr. Gupta’s story included:

  • A story about a woman who claims school air sickened her son for 53 days last school year
  • New York study finds correlation between building maintenance and illness
  • Studies estimate one-third of U.S. schools have mold, dust and other indoor air problems
  • Connecticut school so plagued with mold officials decided to tear it down

Now the Rest of the Story

Missing from both the Vermont and Dr. Gupta’s story was the recognition of the importance of cleaning and sanitation. There was no recognition that a proven process of cleaning and disinfections leads to improved health, comfort and educational performance.

In 2007, Michael Berry, PhD, wrote a booklet Healthy Schools are Clean, Dry and Productive. Largely ignored, this essay provides leadership for both the “school is making my kids sick” and the “green cleaning” groups. Berry points out that the “importance of a healthy school environment in enhancing the learning process is described in many studies. There is a direct connection between environmental quality, comfort, health and well-being, positive attitudes and behavior, and higher levels of education performance. The quality of the school environment shapes attitudes of students, teachers and staff. Attitudes affect teaching and learning behavior. Behavior affects performance. Educational performance determines future outcomes of individuals and society as a whole.”

Berry wrote:

We need to recognize that the main causes of environmentally related illness in schools are water, food sources for the various bio-pollutants, non-existent or ineffective cleaning, and poor ventilation. We should guard against becoming myopic when it comes to assessing environmental risk in school environments. Too often, we spend a large amount of time looking at air quality alone, especially in recent times with regard to mold. This narrow focus is necessary but by no means sufficient to protect the health of our children and their teachers and the quality of our school environments.

Should the states be banning disinfectants and sanitizers?

To protect health in schools, we need to take a close look at total exposure, and not solely focus on the air route of exposure. Bacteria that come from direct contact with other humans and surfaces cause over 80% of environmentally related illness. The main routes of exposure are dermal and ingestion, not air. Even air poses its most serious threats by delivering bacteria and viruses to sensitive receptors. Sufficiently concentrated airborne mold spore and other airborne allergens, such as cockroach antigen, frequently trigger allergic reactions in sensitized individuals, particularly asthmatics.

Disinfectant and sanitizers are by definition toxic. We use them to “kill” pathogens before they make humans sick. The purchasing agents and cleaning chemical supply marketing organizations who promote the complete ban on poisons and toxins in schools don’t understand what Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, declared in the 14th century “The dose makes the poison.” Using sanitizers are fundamental to food preparation, dishwashing and serving meals. Disinfection of potential cross-contamination points in lavatories, and other common touch points in schools are basic to proper cleaning and school hygiene.

Trainers should expect and be prepared to discuss the risk/benefit analysis of proper cleaning and sanitation. (OS1) has an unequalled dedication to environmental issues. But it also values the benefits associated with properly killing pathogenic microorganisms in the public facilities entrusted to us. The State of Vermont and Dr. Gupta should know about the following scientific studies on the importance of cleaning:

  • Frank Porter Graham Study
  • Alexander Krilov Study

They should also be promoting the benefits and the reported results by workers and patrons in (OS1) facilities like Dixon Middle School and University of Michigan. In 2012, the (OS1) user group will be focusing on three areas to “Protect Yourself” in facilities. They are:

  1. The reduction of asthma-type symptoms due to the performance level of (OS1) that provides negligible dust following the UNC cleaning protocol.
  2. Focus on proper use and application of germicidal chemicals.
  3. The opportunity to dramatically reduce humidity in schools by strategically using portable air drying equipment.

These three strategies are a messaging opportunity for the (OS1) trainers, (OS1) support manufacturers (particularly ProTeam, PortionPac & Dri-Eaz) and the Simon Institute.

Eight Green Cleaning Myths to Consider

We would like to share this fantasic article written by our friend Dr. Michael A. Berry for the January 2011 issue of Cleanfax Magazine. In this article, Berry discusses the eight myths to consider about “green cleaning” from a scientific perspective, and why high performance cleaning systems, such as (OS1), are the way to approach an effective cleaning result for the indoor enviornment.

To read the entire article, please click here.

 

Microbiology for Cleaning Workers Simplified – 2011 Edition

The Microbiology for Cleaning Workers Simplified book has been revised, re-editied and updated with new information. Co-written by John Walker and Dr. Jeffery Campbell, the newest version of this book offers 260 pages of information that was designed for the professional cleaning world.

All professional cleaners work in a jungle. An invisible jungle. A jungle of billions of microorganisms. Some are friendly, some are hostile, some are trying to (and eventually will) kill us. We are part of the jungle and home to millions of the micro-creatures who live on us, in us and around us in every nook and cranny we attempt to clean. The invisible jungle resides in the most pristine kitchen, the shiniest restroom and the cleanest smelling hospital or school. In these spotless environments, bad bugs ranging from MRSA to E. coli to coliform to salmonella are actively spreading from surface to surface, like chimpanzees swinging from bough to infected bough.

They are colonizing the plumbing, thriving on shelves and inhabiting the corners of counters. This book is not designed to be a medical manual. It’s is not a hospital reference book. It is not a technical scientific tome. It is a book designed to help cleaning workers. Housekeepers, janitors, custodians, trainers and their management who are concerned with the broad area of dealing with the problems of microorganisms, wherever they are found in the workplace. This book attempts to bridge the gap between science and common sense when it comes to cleaning facilities. Here are the sanitation basics, the vocabulary and the history of cleaning for health. It’s compiled to equip you to deal in a practical way with everyday cleaning and sanitation problems of facility operations. Once you master the basic knowledge, you can act professionally to provide the necessary health service to those who work in these facilities.

You can order your very on copy from the ManageMen online store, by clicking here.