EXPERT ADVICE
KISS COMPLEXITY GOODBYE
Technology and information risks overwhelming some cleaning managers, but James
White, Managing Director of Denis Rawlins Ltd, argues that measurably reliable and low- cost cleaning is simply achieved by focusing on the essentials.
The pace of technological change can seem dizzying. Ever more sophisticated cleaning equipment, on-board telemetry, apps and data analysis software, and smart buildings are challenging cleaning managers and contractors. They can be forgiven for feeling overwhelmed, being distracted from the everyday realities of delivering consistently reliable cleaning, of not being able to tell whether the ‘latest’ gizmo is a game-changer or a gimmick.
This is not a tirade against technology or change. As a company we, as much as anyone in our industry, are embracing innovation. Not new technical wizardry for the sake of novelty. But applied innovation that helps cleaning operatives do their job better, quicker, cheaper.
That’s why we’ve campaigned to ‘Chop the Mop’ and champion a science- based approach to cleaning.
So this is not a ‘back to basics’ plea (with those unfortunate echoes of a well-meaning but floundering PM). It’s what some politicians today call an ‘evidence-based approach’.
But let’s put any political differences aside and ‘Keep It Simple Stupid!’. KISS should be a touchstone for our approach to cleaning. Measure what matters and only go for a more advanced solution if the results justify the additional cost and complexity.
Take our old adversary, the mop. It’s a simple method, but it’s also obvious that slopping bucket water that has rinsed a soiled mop head back onto a floor is going to spread, not remove, contamination. Measurement confirms that even a mop head made from microfibre (a technically advanced material with greater benefits in other applications) drags soils back into ‘cleaned’ areas.
60 | Tomorrow’s Cleaning
But we also need to measure the time taken by operatives and the cost of labour (not to mention the often excessive use of solutions and disinfectants). Then the apparent economies of manual mopping will be shown to be false.
“As we’ve discovered,
innovation comes in many forms –
some of them more low-tech and even manual.”
It depends, of course, on how cost- effective the other options actually are. Again, we shouldn’t assume. Ask for a demonstration and evidence of running costs. Glossy brochures and snazzy features can be beguiling, but sophisticated engineering comes at a cost. The higher the capital and lifetime costs, the longer the payback period. Some machines will be over-specified for the task, and there may be equally effective but less high-tech options.
There are systems that use basic component pumps and motors, but in innovative ways. Thus, an uncomplicated cross-over cleaning system can build from a trolley dispensing bucket into a fully automatic method for vacuuming away the soils and used cleaning solution.
In scientific tests, this OmniFlex™ system in its AutoVac form removed 99% of bacteria in a test solution on the floor, while microfibre mopping left three quarters of the contamination
behind. What’s more, the simpler machine matched the performance of a scrubber dryer.
Given the gulf in the pair’s acquisition and lifetime costs, this is highly significant for return on investment.
As we’ve discovered, innovation comes in many forms – some of them more low-tech and even manual.
Escalator cleaning provides an example. This tends to be the preserve of relatively expensive specialist cleaning kit or contractors, so that either cleaning budgets or frequencies may suffer. Yet there is a manual method that can do a better job, quickly and for less. For the REN™ Clean system, the cost per escalator clean can be less than £9; (that’s £2.50 for 15 minutes of labour plus an ongoing consumable cost of less than £6.50).
In this case the technical innovation is in the system’s engineered sponge pad. It slots into the gaps in the escalator’s tread plate and the lone operator simply holds it in place as the oncoming treads pass through. All soils are removed, leaving steps that are not only visibly clean, but traction under foot is noticeably better.
Whatever the floor cleaning method, it all comes down to the cleaning cost per square metre, and the standards of cleanliness achieved. If routine cleaning leaves surfaces that are hygienically clean, then it also negates the need for expensive deep cleans.
So the hard-headed manager shouldn’t be distracted by flashy technology or fret about digital data overload. Better to trust instead in a calculator, the science of ATP testing and common sense.
www.rawlins.co.uk twitter.com/TomoCleaning
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76