This video and the others below on this page presents an overview of the four key strategies for achieving performance-driven success.

The video outlines a four part, integrated, self-improving system that will assure that you achieve and exceed the goals that define your success. Further, this video will highlight why this performance-driven strategy is difference from traditional management models.

The performance-driven model is a time-tested system for achieving remarkable results. It is the product of 44 years of industry experience in over 152,000 buildings and over 900,000 inspections. It has delivered amazing performance in just about every industry category.

This video will explore how you can establish your unique definition of service program success. This definition of specific KPIs will serve as the basis for collecting performance information connected to what really matters – extraordinary, public, validated and actionable performance information. Further, this video will highlight the connection between APPA Standards and the Performance-Driven strategy for traditional task-frequency or performance specifications.

The defining success within the Performance-driven model means the appearance, happiness, environmental health, budgets and improvement strategies are explored as foundation KPIs.

Once a clear, objective and provable set of performance-driven KPIs are created, the challenge becomes how to measure your success indicators. Check out the follow-up videos for a real hands-on view of the best inspection system around.

General considerations

• “You measure a room bsaed on what you find”
• Have a standardized procedure for conducting inspections (to ensure consistency of results)
• Site-specific exceptions / customizations should be agreed upon by all parties involved

Planning each day’s inspections

• Define in advance what would be done (especially for large sites – have a plan for efficient travel between locations)
• Consider previous reports when choosing the exact locations to inspect (e.g. previous areas of concern and/or those not covered in prior inspections)
• If possible, inspect in the daytime (as the spaces would more likely be occupied, plus that it would be easier to see things)

Areas to avoid

• Construction zones, as they would not be a “fair” representation of the cleaning system (reschedule those areas for later)
• Locked rooms or other areas considered off-limits (these should be agreed upon beforehand)
• Vacant areas, as they are likely to be minimally cleaned until they actually become occupied

Common mistakes to avoid

• Expecting the cleaning program to be perfect (or inspections to solve all problems)
• Accepting poor quality by making up excuses (e.g. “they will clean this room later today”)
• Ignoring feedback or being impatient (remember that inspections are meant to improve the system, not find fault in specific individuals)
• Keeping the process a secret (in fact, the cleaners should be involved in the inspection process if possible– so that they can know which aspects can be improved)

• The goal of inspections is to get a representative sample that can fairly reflect the actual conditions of buildings.
• Statistical validity requires an adequate sample size. A possible rule of thumb is to start with one inspection per 10,000 square feet of floor space, but one also needs to consider the types and sizes of rooms and the cleaning staff– there should be at least one inspection within each cleaner’s responsible areas.
• Random sampling means that only the type of room to inspect should be determined beforehand; th exact location (floor and/or room) should not.
• One can use the inspection reports from EA-Inspect to verify whether the inspections are sufficiently representative. For example, lack of customer satisfaction interviews or the presence of many maintenance defects may be a concern. Likewise, reviewing the room type trends of prior reports is one way to see which types of rooms may require more attention.
• Getting a representative example is important for determining whether an issue is limited to specific locations / individuals, or system-wide. (For example, if corners and edges are a recurring issue everywhere, the root cause may be equipment-related.)

What to inspect / General considerations for recording defects

• In general, every type of item listed for a room should be inspected if possible. However, only a subset of the same type of item needs to be checked– one does not need to examine every single chair in a classroom or auditorium, for example. Broad groupings can also be used for ease of aggregate analysis (e.g. “Wall Box” as opposed to separating out the contents).
• If an item has no attributes indicating that it is not clean, it should be marked as “satisfactory”; otherwise, a specific defect should be recorded, and the defect must be provable in some way. Note that defects that occur on multiple items should be recorded separately for each type of item.
• If a type of item has multiple defects, use the most comprehensive description that is applicable to the situation. For example, dispensers within restrooms should first be checked to see whether they are properly stocked; “unstocked dispenser” takes higher priority over cleanliness issues, as it is assumed that the dispenser would also be cleaned as part of the restocking process. Likewise, an item that has dust, cobwebs, AND residue on it should be marked as ”residue,” as addressing the residue issue should also resolve the other two defects.

Guidelines for specific types of items

• Carpets and other floor surfaces should be treated separately from their corners and edges. If spots are found on carpets, check the condition of the spots; in most cases, those spots should be counted as routine cleaning defects unless they are wet (i.e. too recent to be the cleaning system’s fault), or are actually stains that could be removed despite being cleaned repeatedly (which would be marked as maintenance defects instead). Go to the 14-minute mark for descriptions of common defects for carpet corners and edges.
• Likewise, streaks on floors should be investigated further to determine whether they are a mopping issue or a project work issue (go to 15:29 for more details). For a list of common defects for floor corners and edges, go to 16:50.

Other considerations

• Certain defects are considered “maintenance” defects; they do NOT count against the overall cleanliness score because they are technically not caused by deficiencies in the regular cleaning process. (Common examples include non-functional equipment, leaking pipes, and rust.) One may also mark an item as “waived” to indicate “there is a cleaning-related defect, but we will not count it due to extenuating circumstances” (such as construction or other limitations to the extent that the item can be cleaned).
• The client may also further fine-tune the setup for a site via the usage of item weights, to indicate that certain items are more “important” than others. (Typically, floor surfaces would be given extra weight by treating them as the equivalent of 2+ items.)
• While customer satisfaction is subjective, it provides another measure of how cleanliness performance is perceived by a building’s occupants. Ideally, there should be at least 1 consumer rating per 4 rooms inspected; if possible, ask for more details on what people think the problem is (and when the problem occurs).

• Nationwide studies in the US have shown that strong management is key for cleaning performance, and performance-based contracts tend to deliver higher quality at lower costs than task / frequency or fixed-price contracts.
• The eSpecX app (formerly “Spec-Optimizer”) can be used for setting up performance-based specifications within minutes.
• The inspection reports from EA-Inspect can help identify systematic issues, as the underperforming areas would be highlighted in red.
• Inspections should not be done to merely find and fix problems; the goal should be improving the system as a whole and ultimately prevent (and even predict) problems.

This is the first of a two-part series on preparing for exploring the performance-based cleaning system. This video will highlight the differences between a traditional goal-setting and the performance-based model, and review the idea of using incentives and clarify performance-based cleaning principles.

• Performance-based contracting is not new: It has already been widely in use in the US, whether at the federal or state levels or by the private sector. In fact, it is expected to become even more prevalent in the future for various legal and practical reasons.
• In a performanced-based contract, the buyer specifies the desired results, and the price reflects specifications as opposed to specific tasks and frequencies. Incentives should be set up based on performance and include both bonuses and penalties, so that both parties win or lose together.
• Ultimately, performance is more important than the exact process, and continuous improvement should be the long-term goal.

This is the second of a two-part series on preparing for exploring the performance-based cleaning system. This video goes into the details of the 14 steps that comprise an effective performance-based cleaning system implementation:

What is the difference between a low price and a right price? A low price that compromises operational sustainability, mandates underperformance or compromises the strategic goals of the company is definitely the wrong low price.

The answer lies in the “4 Ps” of service price determination. This video explores a path for determining the difference between a Low Price and a Right Price.

This is the dawn of the Internet of Things (IoT), connected technology that will change the building services industry to its core.

You can stop “inspecting” to find and fix problems. Instead, you can “work on demand” based on condition alerts while reducing service cost by 40%; management will become more impacting and less complicated.

This video provides an introduction to the Internet of Things and how it could affect managers and providers of building services.

This video explores the reality of price-quality variability and how you think about pricing when rebidding building services.

This phenomon is termed Price Elasticity by economists; Vince Elliott calls it a “Fractured Banana.” In short, there is no single “best price”: There can be a wide range of possible prices for a certain level of quality, and additional labor provides diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Vince also mentions the eSpecX app (formerly “Spec-Optimizer”) for exploring the relation between price and quality.