What is clean?

Is it the lack of visible dirt on a surface? Is it an environment that is appealing to customers or building occupants? Is it a germ-free environment?

Or is clean an office where all of the M&Ms hidden by building occupants to test their cleaners are picked up?

In an industry where the primary goal is to achieve cleanliness, there is a remarkable lack of consensus on just what “clean” means.

Industry educator Roger McFadden, a chemist and vice president of Coastwide Laboratories, Wilsonville, OR, recounts the tale of asking 10 cleaners to analyze the cleanliness of a bathroom in the building where they clean on a scale of one 1 to 10.

The 10 cleaners gave six different ratings for the restroom.

Cleaning professionals from New York to California and from Florida to the state of Washington all offered differing definitions of cleanliness when polled by CM/Cleaning & Maintenance Management.

They included:

· Finding all of the candy hidden by clients to test their capabilities

· No visible dirt in the facility

· Whatever the customer requests

· The removal of not only all visible dirt, but all bacteria and germs.

A problematic issue

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, defines clean as a) free from dirt or pollution; b) free from contamination or disease.

But in the working world, the definition of clean varies greatly — creating a moving target for cleaning professionals when starting a new account or job.

What each account defines as ‘clean’ should be clearly outlined in the contract signed with the contractor and each in-house management team should define what it deems clean to its cleaning staff.

The problem, many cleaning professionals told CM/Cleaning & Maintenance Management, is that all too often, “clean” is not defined.

Or it is defined, but building occupants still hold the cleaners to each of their personal takes on cleanliness.

“Every site has a thing that they really focus on. For some it's fingerprints on glass, for others it may be dusty window ledges,” said contractor Gerry Spathis, owner of Toronto, Canada-based Reliable Cleaning Systems.

For Seattle-based cleaning professional Kurt Coleman, owner of JanitorWorld, it’s a matter of making sure all of the hidden M & Ms are found — at least with one of his clients.

As this article is being written, Coleman is bidding for a contract that the current contractor may lose because he didn’t find M&Ms hidden by the building occupants to gauge how well a job his cleaners were doing.

“What is my prospect’s idea of ‘clean?’ To not find M&Ms on the floor when they come in Monday morning, that is all,” said Coleman.

A clear solution

A standard, McFadden said, would allow cleaning professionals to:

· Define to clients what ‘clean’ is

· Explain how they will achieve that standard

· Defend their work as long as they adhere to the standard

· Establish criteria by which all facilities can be judged.

McFadden said a standard would also:

· Give more respect to the industry: Lawyers don’t allow clients to dictate what level of service they will get and pay for

· Give contractors an facility managers a clearly defined code for their cleaners to achieve

· Allow cleaners who change jobs to not have to learn from scratch again.

“Our industry suffers from a lack of exact codes and precision. We allow everyone to write their own, and achieve their own levels and there is no standard. We must, as an industry, move forward with an industry standard," he said.

Added a US military contract evaluator –– who oversees facility issues at a major military base on the East Coast and who has been in search of a standard for clean “forever” — a standard would “take the issue of cleanliness out of the eyes of the beholder.”

Different interpretations

Of course, the standard would have be adjusted for facilities — the standard for an office would not be clean enough for a medical facility.

Seemingly, clean could be standardized into categories such as:

· Offices

· Medical facilities

· Laboratories

· Retail stores

· Hotels and motels.

Not so fast

Cleaning professionals offer a split opinion on the need for an industry standard, as well as the effectiveness one would have.

Some arguments raised include:

· Because custodians are often considered expendable at facilities, a standard would not be achievable for many — a certain number of cleaners would be needed to achieve the standard

· A standard could not take into account things that cleaners have no control over, but still impact a facility’s cleanliness — clutter left by a facility manager or building occupants; surfaces that need to be cleaned, but can’t because of the occupants, etc.

· Standards are subjective and will only confuse an already confusing issue when misapplied by building occupants

· Buildings and accounts have too many idiosyncrasies for a standard to be applicable on any significant level.

Others, such as Daniels, argue the concept is just not feasible because the industry is:

· Too fragmented

· Competitive

· Out of control.

The benefits of standardization

But those who support the concept say setting a standard would:

· Make it easier to communicate to staff and others what needs to be done and how to do it

· Offer help to contractors dealing with dictatorial customers who want to dictate service to the level that it may be dangerous or even illegal (in a medical setting, for example)

· Increase professionalism in the cleaning industry.

“It would just be nice to have this information readily available in one place when customers, clients, managers ask,” said Julia Kaminsky, director of housekeeping for ARAMARK at the 350-room FDIC Student Residence Center in Arlington, VA.

Added J. Devin Braithwaite, custodial Supervisor at Idaho Falls Temple, in Idaho Falls, ID, “It would be great for everyone to talk the same lingo. It makes great sense when working on computers, why not on cleaning?”

Who should tackle the task

Cleaning professionals polled as well as McFadden, said a standard should be the work of a cross-section of industry leaders.

They caution, though, that the leaders must include those who have actually cleaned, and not just consultants with no cleaning experience.