A CASE STUDY
A cutting edge chemical dispensing system has many features and benefits for chemical providers. Once installed, the range of benefits encompass improved efficiency, enhanced health and safety, along with significant environmental and sustainability gains. Initial customer preference may revolve around all, or just one specific aspect of these benefits, but ultimately must be balanced against the price.
The initial purchase price of the equipment is an important consideration; however, this outlay is only part of the total operating expenses that an on-premise laundry, or industrial laundry owner must contend with. In fact, a 2011 study by Kline & Company found that commercial/industrial laundries spend 37% of their total operating budget on labour and 30% on utilities – only 17% is devoted to the chemical. Therefore, a chemistry and dispensing program that reduces labour, water, and energy may be worth more to the end-user.
Similarly, chemical providers have significant costs in maintaining and servicing their accounts (taking care of dispensers, refilling chemicals, and checking on cleaning results) and certain dispensers can reduce these costs more than others.
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) combines all the costs – direct and indirect – of purchasing, installing, operating and maintaining a chemical dispensing system over a defined time frame. TCO is an easy to understand summary that enables formalising a budget, forward planning, cost forecasts, and the regulation of chemical use.
As a chemical provider who wants to stay one step ahead of the competition, it shows your customers that your focus is on improving customer service and is an excellent tool in defending your business. As a facility in an industry of tight margins, being aware of TCO allows you to maximise your assets to ensure you remain competitive.
What follows illustrates some of the benefits from installing a more sophisticated chemical dispensing system that is built to optimise your total cost of ownership.
www.tomorrowscleaning.com
A longstanding chemical and equipment provider using a peristaltic multi-washer dispensing system was suffering from consistent maintenance problems, as well as related emergency call outs from failures of simple items like check valves or squeeze tubes. From minor leaks to major tube failures, they experienced considerable negative impact on customer satisfaction, maintenance costs and productivity levels. There was a pressing need to find a more reliable and innovative solution.
They decided the system they required should not be maintenance intensive, and it should help reduce the service load and the number of emergency calls. In search of a compact and more reliable system, the company identified a Dositec Electromagnetic chemical dispensing system from Hydro as the best solution due to its size, reasonable cost and advanced features and capabilities.
High-quality construction, a low- maintenance electromagnetic diaphragm pump, a rotameter for proof of delivery and remote data access helped to confirm their choice. As their selected system doesn’t use peristaltic pumps, it eliminates the most common maintenance tasks — changing squeeze tubes and recalibrating the dispenser. It can dispense up to eight chemicals to as many as six washing machines and is economical. Hydro estimates that this alone can save customers up to £140 per dispenser/washer per year in parts and labour costs.
With the previous dispensing systems, the provider was losing money by frequently replacing broken parts and spending time and labour to address emergency issues, so significant cost savings were a clear result with the more reliable Dositec unit. It is estimated that the new system has saved over £3000 per year when factoring in squeeze tube parts, lost chemical revenue and maintenance.
Remote monitoring and control capabilities gives the company access to critical chemical data, allowing them to adjust formulas, volume of washes and average projection rate from anywhere an internet connection is available. The remote management functionality enables rapid resolution to wash result issues with on-the-spot
formula adjustments reducing chemical maintenance and response costs by approximately 80% in comparison to the previous system.
For example, if the productivity report indicates that a washer is running a formula at an abnormal production rate, the facility supervisor can take immediate corrective action. Until recently, few manufacturers were offering this type of system, which drove costs up and limited innovation and customer service.
As the industry and its technology continues to evolve, customers expect their vendors to as well. This expectation of evolution is both compatible with, and a driving force behind the business advantages of defining TCO.
Laundry operators expect equipment to provide data and alarms to help them run a more efficient facility. They also value equipment that is safe, accurate, compact and easy to use. If you supply an outdated and unreliable dispensing system that only allows your customers to satisfy only part of the TCO equation, they might lose accounts and begin shopping elsewhere for their dispensing solutions.
A satisfying conclusion
The multi-washer system reduced TCO by improving chemical dosing accuracy, saving water, reducing rewash, minimising end-user down time, and eliminating costly maintenance associated with squeeze tubes. Some of the biggest advantages are for the end-user in terms of costs savings and health and safety benefits, such as less exposure to dangerous concentrated chemicals. The reduction in consumption means the system is likely to pay for itself very quickly.
There are also savings from previously lost chemical revenues, saving on shipping costs – since concentrated products require less packaging than ready-mixed chemicals – and installation time. Financial control and reduction in TCO makes the choice of a sophisticated chemical dosing system a necessity and the main driver of customer satisfaction in the laundry industry.
www.hydrosystemseurope.com CHEMICALS & DOSING EQUIPMENT | 61
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
