Vacuuming Equation – A True Cost Analysis
by Bruce Stark
In an era of ever-tightening budgets and doing more with less, the ability to determine the true
cost of any service is critical. Vacuuming, in particular, consumes a significant portion of a
maintenance budget, and it can be difficult to calculate its true cost, but we in Building Services
Management at Colorado State University have spent the last five years doing just that. In the
process we discovered avenues for reducing costs and were able to invest more in both the
personnel and equipment required to provide vacuuming services.
The CSU Vacuuming Situation
Colorado State University (CSU) has 95 academic buildings totaling 4.9 million gross square
feet with more than 3.9 million square feet of cleanable space. The university has 131 full-time
employees to handle various custodial assignments including vacuuming carpet and a variety of
hard floors. Personnel are typically responsible for one function of the Team Cleaning® process,
though they are usually trained in several specialties. The ability of these individuals to clean
efficiently and maximize their time on the job is critical.
We have been living with a zero based budget for the past ten years. Our only increases have
been for new space and for state mandated salary increases. Therefore to offset increased costs
in cleaning chemicals, paper products, equipment, vehicles, training, etc., we have had to
implement more efficient processes to prevent reduction in staff and services.
Five years ago members of our facility management staff evaluated our vacuuming requirements,
methods and equipment. We read numerous articles on all vacuum models, studied ergonomic
test results and had an independent testing laboratory test for soil recovery and filtration using
different models. Finally, we had 12 custodians test various backpack and upright models. Our
research led us to purchase 50 backpack vacuums, the brand we found to be best based on our
research and analysis. With the purchase we also considered the cost of our initial investment,
anticipated maintenance costs, ease of use and expected return on investment. Since going to our
backpack fleet, we have found advantages and savings in numerous areas that contribute
significantly to both our operation and the bottom line.
Maintenance and Repairs
Maintenance is perhaps one of the easiest areas in which to calculate the true cost of vacuuming.
We spent $23,000 a year on repair parts with our upright fleet. Our expense for repair parts the
first year that we used backpack vacuums was $57, and we have had similar expenditures for
repair parts in subsequent years. This savings translates into one additional full-time employee
that we can hire or money that we can invest in other areas.
Our Team Cleaning approach - facilitated by the backpack vacuum - means that our personnel
become very familiar with their equipment. They play a significant role in identifying repair
issues before they become major problems. They look for signs of trouble and bring them to our
attention early so that we can minimize both our down time and our repair expenditures.
CSU has a repairperson that maintains records for each piece of equipment that is serviced and
the hours that it is operated. The backpack vacuums wear so well that we have sold other
Vacuuming Equation – A True Cost Analysis
Page 1
equipment that is no longer in use to other K-12 schools or higher education institutions. They
get equipment that still runs very well and we are able to reinvest the money from the sale into
new equipment.
Labor Rates
All vacuuming and other equipment at CSU is metered to help track the actual run time to
perform cleaning operations verses the estimated run time based on International Sanitary Supply
Association (ISSA) standards. The switch to backpack models has enabled our workers to nearly
double their productivity. Our increased productivity means that we are maximizing our
workers’ time and that we are not overstaffed with employees using inefficient methods.
Besides the inherent productivity gained by wearing the vacuum, we have realized significant
time saved because moving furniture has become virtually unnecessary. With the machine’s
power and the compact floor tool attached to the lightweight wand, our personnel can vacuum
easily right to the edge of chair or table legs and under furniture. We have successfully trimmed
labor expenses because we have the equipment that we need and because we invested in careful
planning regarding the use of the equipment and in training our employees.
Personnel and Training
Our building services staff is a very valuable resource, and it is our goal to keep them safe,
healthy, happy and employed long term. When determining true labor costs, we also look closely
at Workers Comp claims, daily time on the job, absences and overall morale.
Potential staff members undergo pre-employment testing regarding their body mechanics. This
establishes a baseline for their physical condition and allows us to eliminate up front any work
that would not be appropriate. This testing includes walking up stairs with a backpack vacuum.
Our employees have been very happy using the backpack vacuums. Admittedly, the staff
struggled somewhat during the first year of use as they adjusted to the equipment and its
operating requirements. During the last five years they have come to appreciate the productivity
and the effectiveness of the backpack models, and we would have a difficult time if we decided
to return to the use of upright machines.
In the last five years the number of Workers Compensation claims for those using backpack
vacuums have been notably fewer than when we had an upright fleet. Part of this, we believe,
can be attributed to the backpack features, light weight and the greater variety of motions used in
operation.
Our training program has been a key ingredient in reducing both our Workers Compensation
claims and in ensuring the positive mindset of our staff. Our facility professionals have worked
with the university’s Environmental Health Department staff on ergonomic training. This
includes a one-hour training class for new personnel as well as refresher courses during the year
for existing staff regarding the proper use of our backpack equipment. The cost for training each
employee varies depending on his or her charge-out rate. We need more time to assess our true
cost savings in this area, but we believe it is safe to say that our investment in properly training
our employees offsets the absences, inefficiency and Workers Comp claims that would otherwise
result from improper use of the vacuums.
Vacuuming Equation – A True Cost Analysis
Page 2
Soil Removal
All CSU faculty, staff and students are our clients, and we place great stock in their feedback
about our services. Since we have been using backpack vacuums, the quantity and frequency of
positive comments about the cleanliness of the floors has increased.
Sand and soil can be abrasive and deteriorate carpet fibers and other floor surfaces. More
efficient soil removal can add years to the acceptable appearance of the carpet, as can eliminating
the wear and tear caused by the beater bars and brushes on upright vacuums. Extending and
protecting the lifetime of our carpet has obvious and enormous financial implications.
In our testing of soil removal on hard floors we found that our 36-inch dust mops often just
moved the dirt around. While some of it was collected, smaller particles were hard to capture,
either being trapped in corners or re-released into the air. We have found that our backpack
vacuums capture more material than any other floor cleaning method we have employed. In our
days of using dust mops, we often needed to follow up with wet mopping to achieve the desired
level of cleanliness. Eliminating that step has saved us both labor and water costs. Given the
drought conditions Colorado has recently experienced, every gallon of water saved has been
important.
Filtration
The environment, including indoor air quality, is very important to our clients. Both dry mopping
hard floors and using vacuums with inefficient filtration systems end up recirculating dust
particles into the air. This negatively impacts the health of our facilities as well as increases our
labor for dusting. We have found that the multi-stage filtration system on our backpacks is as or
more efficient than anything on the market.
The Bottom Line
Today, CSU has 85 backpack vacuums, and we have eliminated the use of all upright and
canister models as well as all dust mops. Although we cannot pin down an exact dollar amount to
the savings we have realized since changing to backpack vacuums, it’s clear that we’ve made a
wise decision. With nearly doubling productivity, increasing our soil removal efficiency,
eliminating other labor tasks, extending our carpet life, and saving enormous amounts on repairs,
we have definitely recovered our initial investment over and over again. Our switch to a
backpack vacuum fleet has been a success from a financial, service and personnel perspective.
We’re confident it will continue to be for years to come.
Bruce Stark is Building Services Manager at Colorado State University. He has more than 17 years of facility
management experience. Stark was recently named to Cleaning Management magazine’s JanSan Dream Team.
© 2004 ProTeam
Vacuuming Equation – A True Cost Analysis
Page 3