The Great Debate: Privatization ing commercial segments: Hospitality, 10 percent; education, 15 percent; health care, 20 percent; government, 40 percent; office buildings, 90 percent; industrial facilities, 40 percent.” There are a seemingly unlimited number of BSCs willing to work for the lowest pos-sible price point simply to sustain work. Because of their ability to work for less, they can often undercut in-house opera-tions, something bean counters find irre-sistible. The ongoing challenge is determining which approach is the best for your orga-nization and not becoming blinded and entrenched in any one technique when the JanSan atmosphere is ever changing. in-house employee is any more trustworthy than his or her contracted counterpart, but public perception seems to think so. There are always those select few who go above and beyond their responsibilities, but contractors and in-house operations alike will generally perform to their level of expectation. “If the expectation is to take out the trash, run a vacuum and wipe down the bathrooms, then that is all they will likely receive,” notes Peter Sheldon, vice presi-dent of operations for Coverall Health-Based Cleaning System. “Conversely, if the expectation is that an effective cleaning program focused on reducing health risks through hygienic protocol is established and results and benefits are quantified, then and only then will they change the face of both contractors and in-house operations.” However, these benefits are no different than those of a long tenured BSC to whom services have been outsourced. “We have customer relationships that extend decades, and the personnel in those facilities develop the same sense of loyalty, the same bond and the same operational understanding as in-house custodial work-ers,” concludes Kelly. Privatization increases competition between in-house staffs and BSCs, help-ing raise the professionalism of the industry as a whole. The onus for this dialogue, according to Kelly, should be shared between the BSC and the facility management team to determine the ideal situation to maximize productivity, cleanliness and the health, security and overall wellbeing of workers and building occupants. If your in-house staff cannot produce such results, it might be time to speak with a contractor. In the case that the contractor is falling short, it could be time to kick the company to the curb and rehire dedicated in-house personnel. Bucking The Trend Despite the increase in outsourcing custo-dial and maintenance services and quali-fied in-house cleaners losing their jobs, many facilities and organizations are pas-sionate about the value of having staff members maintain the building. Generally, an in-house professional has a higher level of buy-in compared to an outside contractor. Therefore, such factors as going green, training, changes to cleaning regimens and staff meetings are easier to implement. “The benefit we gain from our in-house custodial staff is that the workers get to know their customers — our students,” states Carl Bowman, assistant director of operations for the Custodial Services department at Ohio State University (OSU). “They take ownership of the areas in which they work.” Bowman shares a similar sentiment to many parents with concerns pertaining to the outsourcing of custodial operations by the schools their children attend in noting that it is a security matter for the students who see the same faces each day. “We’ve had housekeepers who become another set of eyes; they see things — both good and bad — that help the administra-tion stay on top of potential situations,” continues Bowman. Because of the high turnover rate experi-enced with some contractors, in addition to the practice of worker rotation, safety and security risks can increase. That is not to say, however, that a veteran Sitting On The Fence So, which is the ideal operation: In-house service providers or contractors? The answer depends greatly on the expe-rience you have had with one or the other. “Choosing the wrong vendor by not checking references is a common mistake,” adds Aliperti. “Making the decision solely on price is another pitfall.” While price is — and likely always will be — king in the JanSan industry, all fac-ets need to be taken into consideration to determine the overall value of either option. “Too often, the decision for a facility lies with the purchasing department, whose sole objective is cost reduction,” explains Sheldon. “The decision should focus on how to create the healthiest environment for staff and patrons. This type of shift in thinking must be driven at the highest level of the organization.” Of course, it is not out of the realm of possibility for both in-house professionals and contract employees to coexist, bring-ing forth their unique strengths to provide service of the utmost quality. “If a facility has a long tenured custodial staff and management team, these workers tend to be loyal, caring of the facility and its denizens, and motivated by the bond they may feel toward co-workers, visitors, etc.,” proclaims David Kelly, regional director for Jani-King of Baltimore. The Stage Is Yours Where do you stand on the privatization versus in-house staff debate? Understanding that each model has its benefits and faults, which do you think is better for the industry as a whole? Which model offers more value and which produces superior results? Have you had experience — either positive or negative — with outsourc-ing? Well, add more substance to this debate by sounding off on the CMM Online Bulletin Board at CMMOnline. com/Community. You can opine by selecting the “Discussion: Privatization” string on the left-hand side and posting a reply. CM 16 CM/Cleaning & Maintenance Management ® • August 2011
CMM – Archives Aug 2011: 16
