Standardising cleaning supplies can create new exceptions
By Ian Adams, Owner of Speciality Wipes
A contractor decides to reduce the number of cleaning wipes used across a mixed-use building. Several products are removed from the approved list and replaced with one general-purpose wipe. It’s cheaper to order in bulk, takes up less cupboard space and gives supervisors fewer stock lines to manage.
Then a cleaner takes that same wipe into the building’s server room. It’s on the trolley, it’s approved for the contract, and nobody has said otherwise.
But was it ever approved for that particular area?
That’s where I think standardising cleaning supplies can go wrong. The purchasing decision has changed what staff are using, but the cleaning procedure hasn’t been reviewed.
One Approved Product Doesn’t Suit Every Task
There’s a sensible argument for reducing the number of cleaning products on a contract. If two wipes do the same job to the required standard, keeping both in stock creates unnecessary work.
The problem comes when purchasing teams group products together because their descriptions sound similar.
A data centre is a good example. A cleaner might finish wiping desks in an adjoining office, then reach for the same pre-saturated wipe when cleaning an external server cabinet. But if that cabinet requires a specified dry, low-lint wipe, the office product isn’t automatically a suitable replacement.
Even two products described as low-lint aren’t necessarily the same. Their fibre release and absorbency can be different. The IEST’s guidance on evaluating wiping materials provides methods for assessing these characteristics rather than relying on product descriptions. This could be something such as a replacement wipe leaving small fibres caught around a server cabinet’s ventilation grille, even though the previous product didn’t.
I’d want to see that comparison before approving a replacement, particularly where the original wipe was selected to meet a specific contamination-control requirement.
The Extra Work Doesn’t Appear on the Purchasing Report
One thing I’d look for after a product change is how cleaners have adapted to it.
A supervisor might hear something as ordinary as “We’re having to finish those doors with a dry cloth because the new wipes leave streaks.”
The cleaner has found a way to get the job done, but the intended saving now looks rather different. Two wipes are being used instead of one, and the task takes longer.
Another possibility is that someone keeps ordering the previous product outside the approved purchasing system because they know it works better for a particular job.
Neither situation proves that consolidation always increases costs. However, both are worth investigating before claiming the new product range is more efficient.
I’d ask supervisors what happens during the cleaning shift, not just whether they’ve managed to reduce their weekly orders.
Make the Exceptions Easy to Recognise
I wouldn’t give every site complete freedom to choose its own products. That defeats the purpose of standardisation.
The problem usually comes when the specified wipes aren’t in the cupboard. A cleaner has the server room on their task sheet, but the only wipes available are the ones used throughout the rest of the building. It’s easy to see why they’d reach for those rather than leave the job unfinished.
Make the instructions specific enough to prevent this decision from being made on the spot. For example, the cleaning sheet could state that only a certain wipe is approved for external cabinet surfaces, with a matching stock code on the packaging. If it runs out, the supervisor should arrange an approved replacement instead of sending someone back with the multi-purpose wipes.
There’s a reason to be this particular. Dell’s enterprise equipment cleaning guidance warns against spraying liquids directly onto equipment and sets out restrictions on suitable cleaning materials. A cleaner might have permission to clean the room, but that doesn’t automatically mean they’re authorised to clean the equipment inside it.
A separate stock code and a clearly labelled storage location can then help prevent the specialist product from being confused with the standard range.
The important thing is that the cleaner shouldn’t have to make a technical judgement halfway through a shift because the specified product has disappeared from the cupboard.
Check Whether the Saving Survives the Cleaning Shift
When reviewing a standardised supply range, I’d start with the tasks that previously required different products.
Are cleaners using more wipes to finish them? Are they making additional passes? Has a discontinued product quietly reappeared in the stock cupboard?
These are practical questions that can uncover problems a purchasing spreadsheet won’t show.
I’d also make sure any proposed substitution involving cleaning chemicals has been properly assessed. The HSE’s guidance on substitution makes clear that alternatives should be assessed rather than assumed to be suitable.
Reducing unnecessary cleaning products is a worthwhile goal. But I’d rather keep a justified exception on the approved list than have staff create their own workarounds.
A shorter stock list is only an improvement if it doesn’t create more work for the people actually doing the cleaning.
Sources
https://www.iest.org/Standards-RPs/Recommended-Practices/IEST-RP-CC004