fact-based management Comparison Of Key Industry Performance Metrics An abbreviated view of some of our findings. By: Vince Elliott I I had a request from a client to compare his performance to indus-try key performance metrics under traditional task/frequency and performance-based specification relationships. In the course of this study, we visited 371 buildings in 80 sites from our client base throughout the United States. There were 159 buildings using non-performance, traditional spec-ifications and 212 buildings using performance-based specifications. The properties studied comprised over 53,205,486 of total square feet of cleanable space overall with 21,444,477 square feet found in performance-based facilities and 31,761,009 square feet found with traditional specifications. In those properties, we conducted 2,752 room evaluations of 44,596 items, based on a 10 point attribute assessment; and, we also conducted 634 on-site interviews. These interviews occurred more often in traditionally based build-ings with 491 interviews conducted there. We found that 62.9 percent of these properties were unionized fa-cilities and the balance did not have a union. We set out to study a wide cross-section of properties with the primary focus on the type of specification used. The property types included colleges and universities, utilities, air-ports, commercial office properties, healthcare facilities, retail prop-erties and bank properties. About 58.8 percent of these properties used traditional specifica-tions and 42.2 percent used performance-based specifications. Cleaning Process Failures We tracked eight types of the cleaning tasks used in these properties. These included litter removal, dusting, attention to detail, streaks, appropriate gloss or shine, soil/problem buildup, spots and effective vacuuming. For properties using traditional specifications, cleaning process failure occurred most often for spots, streaking and dusting — all of which relate to a failure of regular cleaning tasks. Likewise, performance-based properties exhibited the same pro-cess failure, although to a lesser degree. Occupant Satisfaction We found higher levels for occupant satisfaction levels in perfor-mance-based properties based on customer responses to our in-terviews. For all facilities, as a whole, occupant satisfaction levels reached 77.0 percent on a 0 percent to 100 percent scale based on our on-site verifications. Traditional specification properties rated a 75.4 percent satisfac-tion level, while performance-based specification properties deliv-ered an 81.5 percent occupant satisfaction level. Productivity ■ Night Productivity: The regular work shift was the night shift in most cases, where the actual cleaning typically took place. Night shift productivity under traditional specifications aver-aged 4,518 square feet per person per hour. Productivity under performance-based specifications averaged 5,708 square feet per person per hour, with a high of 7,258 square feet per person per hour where travel was augmented by mechanical means. ■ Day Productivity: Facility day shift tasks consisted of general policing, restroom restocking and spotting and emergency response. Day shift productivity under traditional specifica-tions was 23,016 square feet per person per hour. Productivity under performance-based specifications averaged 28,308 square feet per person per hour, with a high of 38,550 square feet per person per hour, where travel was also enhanced by a mechanical means. CM Findings ■ Facility Cleanliness: Overall, performance-based properties exhibited higher levels for cleanliness appearance based on customer-driven attribute metrics. For all facilities, as a whole, cleanliness appearance rated 68.8 percent defect free on a 0 to 100 percent scale, based on our on-site assess-ment. Traditional specification properties rated a 60.2 per-cent cleanliness appearance level, while performance-based specifications delivered an 82.5 percent cleanliness appear-ance level. ■ Room Cleanliness: While we inspected a wide cross-section of rooms, we used 13 types of rooms as indicators for prop-erty-wide cleanliness findings. Of the 13 room types found in traditionally cleaned properties, only one room type (recep-tion/waiting areas) met cleanliness targets set — about 7.6 percent. By contrast, performance-based properties showed 13 out of 13 room types meeting customer set cleanliness expectations. Vince Elliott is the founder, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Elliott Affiliates Ltd. of Hunt Valley, Maryland. For more information on consulting and performance-based measurement, visit www.EALtd.com. Elliott is also the founder of the Chemical Free Cleaning Network (CFCN). More information about that initiative can be found at www.CFCN.info. 44 CM/Cleaning & Maintenance Management ® • May 2013
CMM – Archives May 2013: 44
