When Colorado State University switched from zone to team cleaning the reaction was immediate.

"I had a purchasing agent say to me, ‘What did you do? It looked like the white knight came through here, and the custodians were all having fun!’" Bruce Stark, CSU’s Building Services Manager, recalled.

The Fort Collins school began the team-cleaning switch in 1998. Since then, Stark and his staff of 135 employees have been transitioning the university’s 107 buildings to the team system.

Stark is an admirer of the late Dr. W. Edwards Deming, a noted productivity expert. Deming believed productivity was the result of process, and that process is driven by management. Stark agreed.

"People think of productivity in terms of chemicals and equipment," he said. "Process and training are really the greater part."

With zone cleaning, parts of the campus received wonderful cleaning service and other areas did not. Bruce wanted to standardize cleaning campus-wide and improve cleaning processes as well. "Team cleaning gives everyone great service," Stark said. "It’s process driven instead of individual driven."

The team approach lets cleaning employees work as specialists. Each specialist is responsible for a particular job, such as:

· Vacuuming
· Restroom cleaning
· Light duty, etc.

The entire team works in sequence through each area of the building. "Team cleaning gives us a chance to put people where their strengths are," said Stark. "It creates a home for everybody and gives them a chance to succeed."

CSU cleaning workers were worried about making the change, in part because team cleaning typically uses backpack vacuums. Stark said, "We brought in vacuums from various manufacturers and had the staff test them. The testers would each wear a different vacuum for the whole shift and then write an evaluation."

Front line cleaning workers evaluated the vacuums on speed of work, quality of cleaning, and ergonomics. They selected a major brand as the most comfortable and powerful vacuum.

CSU officials took the testing a step further by sending the vacuums off to an independent laboratory for environmental testing. All twelve models were evaluated on soil removal and filtration efficiency. A leading manufacturer of backpack vacuums scored highest in both categories.

When tested with an empty filter bag, the backpack picked up 99.6 percent of a test soil comprised of silica sand and commercial grade talcum powder. The next closest competitor could only manage 90.2 percent.

Filtration efficiencies were also impressive. The best-scoring model features a multi-stage filtration system, 150 CFM, 100 inches of water lift, and - fitted with a high filtration disc - captures 99.79 percent of particles .3 micron and larger. Only a dedicated HEPA-filter vacuum designed for clean rooms was more effective at capturing fine particles.

"As buildings become tighter and tighter indoor air quality is so much more important," Stark said. "Our goal is not to move dirt around, it’s to actually collect and get rid of it."

Despite the high marks, some cleaning workers were still reluctant to make the switch. Some claimed they were under doctor’s orders not to use the machines. Others just had a hard time breaking the upright habit.

Stark stuck to his guns. "We’ve always been respectful of our staff. I think they know we wouldn’t do anything to harm them. If I can do things more efficiently I’m securing their job."

To relieve fears, Stark arranged for physical therapists to come in and show cleaning workers how the backpacks were designed to rest on the hips without straining the back.

The backpack vacuum weighs less than 11 pounds and is made of lightweight, high-density linear polyethylene. A padded waist belt, adjustable shoulder and sternum strap system makes the backpack easy to use and comfortable to wear. Cleaning crews reported the side-to-side motion was easier on the arms and upper body than the back and forth movement required for upright vacuum use.

A 56-inch aluminum wand helps cleaning workers reach under and around tables and chairs without moving furniture. Dusting and detailing tools are worn on the vacuum’s waist belt, keeping them at the worker’s fingertips for added convenience.

While cleaning quality improved, repair costs dropped dramatically. "Before, we were spending over $23,000 a year on parts for upright vacuums. We purchased our whole fleet of backpacks for less than our repair costs," Stark noted.

Using the team system, CSU replaced 130 upright vacuums with just 60 backpacks. Repair costs the first year were just $57 for all 60 vacuums. "In three and a half years I haven’t had to replace a motor yet," Stark said.

As the team transition progressed, CSU officials were astounded at the savings in time and labor. "At the very least, the backpacks are two to three times faster than an upright," Stark reported.

In labor costs alone, Bruce estimated the school saved $350,000 annually. Instead of trimming staff, Stark and his crews use the additional time to improve restroom care and keep first floor and other first impression areas looking their best.

CSU’s team cleaning program would make the white knight proud.

ProTeam
PO Box 7385
5118 N Sawyer Ave.
Boise, ID 83714
(800) 541-1456, Fax (208) 377-3014
www.pro-team.com