Sensor based cleaning

Different types of sensor-based cleaning can be implemented with soobr. Which implementation variant is chosen and is operationally feasible must be decided by the customer together with the service provider. In this article, soobr lists the possible variants and thus offers a decision-making aid.

All of the variants listed are already in use at various business 
already applied to different business units.

Frequency-approximating cleaning

Sensor-based cleaning with frequency-approximating cleaning is the variant with the smallest impact on operations. With this variant, an attempt is made to set a sensor limit that corresponds as closely as possible to the desired frequency at normal utilization. This can be determined at the area type level or at the area level. The cleaning frequency is only increased or decreased in the case of deviating utilization.

Example (area level)

A cleaning of 2x per week is carried out in meeting room A without sensors. When switching to sensors, the number of Ø events/day is taken from soobr and stored for this area

.

Advantages

• The implementation is close to an implementation without sensors, as it tries to keep the frequency at normal occupancy.
• The influence on the operation is smaller than with the following variants.

Disadvantages

• Savings tend to be lower than with other variants.
• Limits have to be checked periodically, since a permanently deviating usage results in a different cleaning frequency and this is not desirable with this variant.

Cleaning according to hours of use (occupancy)

In contrast to frequency-based cleaning, cleaning by hours of use involves a different arrangement between the client and the service provider. Instead of the frequency for sensor-based cleaning, the hours of use (occupancy) per area type are determined. These usage hours are entered as sensor limits per area type. This means that frequency compliance is no longer directly targeted. Nevertheless, when calculating these hours of use, a frequency approximation should be aimed for.

Example

A cleaning of 2x per week is carried out in meeting room A without sensors. The client determines together with the service provider after which number of usage hours the cleaning should be triggered. For example, cleaning should be triggered after 8 hours of use.

Advantages

• Savings tend to be greater than with frequency-based cleaning.
• Standardization of sensor limits across the entire portfolio as a substitute for frequencies.
• Clear sensor limits as a possible part of the contract.
• Comparability of the effective cleaning frequency of the surfaces, since no individual sensor limits were applied.

Disadvantages

• New contract basis must be developed.
• The influence on the operational business has to be checked. Stronger fluctuations over the maximum cleaning tour time may have to be taken into account.

Fixed minimum frequency with possible additional cleaning during use

In contrast to the exclusively sensor-based cleaning, two contract components are included in this implementation. A fixed full cleaning, which is not dependent on the sensors, and a possible control cleaning during use. If a full cleaning is carried out, the sensor events are reset. Different performance figures must be stored for the cleanings.

Example

A full cleaning of 1x per week is defined and a control cleaning after use of 8 hours.

Advantages

• Both a fixed minimum frequency and a sensor limit can be part of the contract.
• Depending on the type of contract, sensor cleaning can be billed separately.

Disadvantages

• Splitting of the performance numbers.

Other variants

Cleaning when used, overall performance reduced

With a low limit and a lower cleaning frequency, a cleaning can be achieved which triggers a quick control cleaning after a short usage and then a full cleaning every week instead of a higher frequency full cleaning. Different performance figures must be stored for the cleanings.

Example

An area is cleaned without sensors 3x per week with a full cleaning. With the sensors, a control cleaning with a higher performance number is to be triggered after one hour of use. The full cleaning is triggered only 1x per week with a lower performance number.

Advantages

• Both a fixed minimum frequency and a sensor limit can be part of the contract.
• In contrast to the fixed frequencies, the cleaning frequency during use can even be increased, if necessary, without increasing the effort. The expenses are covered by the reduced full cleaning.

Disadvantages

• Splitting of the performance figures.
• Possibly greater walking distances for shorter cleaning times (possible reduction in savings).

Fixed control cleaning with dynamic full cleaning

For business units with a desired very high cleaning standard, the control cleaning can be executed frequency-based and the full cleaning can be triggered dynamically via a sensor limit. In this case, different performance numbers must be stored for the cleanings.

Example

Without sensors the full cleaning is executed 5x per week. With sensors, control cleaning is performed 5 times per week and full cleaning is performed when the sensor limit is reached.

Advantages

• High quality requirements can be met. There is usually no visible change for the end customer, as the area is still walked on daily.

Disadvantages

• Savings are only possible on the low frequency.

Additional cleaning of sensitive areas

Instead of or in addition to normal sensor-based cleaning, additional cleaning can be triggered when sensitive surfaces are used. For example, in customer restrooms if they exceed a certain usage.

Other important information

Usage time before the start of cleaning

When selecting the limit, it must be taken into account that only uses that were booked at least 1 hour before the start of cleaning are taken into account for triggering the cleaning of a surface.

Example: A surface is to be cleaned after 8 hours of use. The usage of the 8 hours is reached at 17:30. Cleaning starts at 18:00, so the area is not scheduled because the limit should have been reached already at 17:00 for the area to be considered for cleaning.

Fluctuation in the utilization of the cleaning tours

Due to the workload in the business entity, there may be fluctuations in the cleaning tours. With the worklist and the max. cleaning tour duration, soobr has the solution to compensate for such fluctuations. Especially with the backlog it can happen that areas, which are triggered by sensor limits, are not scheduled in the cleaning tour, because the cleaning tour has already reached the maximum duration. Such areas will then be scheduled on subsequent days.

Other possibilities for balancing the working time are also own activity numbers on the periodic activities, which in this case are only scheduled if there is less work with higher priority.

Fallback

Each sensor limit automatically has a fallback. If the sensor limit is not reached after a certain time, a cleaning is still triggered. This can be assumed as minimum frequency in all cases.