A Baseline Study of the Effects of (OS1) on Custodial Safety

A Facility Management Research Capstone Project Conducted at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Jeffery L. Campbell Ph. D. Anne Moser Marcus Weenig Brandon Wilkinson June 2003

 (OS1) Users Symposium 2003

Abstract According to the 2001 Bureau of Labor Statistics, janitors and cleaners has the fifth highest occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States. ManageMen, a Salt Lake City custodial consulting company, developed a process called Operating System One (OS1) to increase custodial efficiency and safety. Qualitative research was conducted with three current users of (OS1): Boeing, Seattle, WA, Sandia National Laboratories and University of New Mexico, both of Albuquerque, NM. The research compared the pre-(OS1) custodial recordable accidents, incidents and lost work days with post-(OS1) implementation accidents, incidents and lost work days. The research findings show that with the implementation of (OS1), recordable accidents and lost work days due to injuries were reduced significantly. The study also showed a reduction in cost to operate a custodial department using (OS1).

Purpose of Study The purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety aspects of a new approach to commercial and institutional cleaning developed by ManageMen, a custodial consulting company in Salt Lake City, UT. The principle behind ManageMen is Mr. John Walker. The process called Operating System One (OS1) was designed to provide a more efficient and safer cleaning process. According to the 2001 Bureau of Labor Statistics, the custodial industry has the fifth highest work related injuries in the United States (BLS, 2001) accounting for over 38,600 injuries required time away from work. In response to these statistics, ManageMen developed a system that they believed would reduce costs, enhance productivity and lower the rate of on-the-job accidents, incidents and days away form the job. This process was first implemented in 1992 at the Delta Center in Salt Lake City, UT. The Delta Center is used primarily as a basketball and major events arena. The (OS1) initial implementation at the Delta Center and other facilities showed that the process, product, and equipment decreased worker related injuries. Since 1992, many other national companies of all sizes have implemented the (OS1) system with favorable safety results. As of 2002, there was no validation of John Walkers theory that (OS1) could improve custodial safety. In addition, users of (OS1) did not have any benchmarking data to use against their own custodial metrics. Thus, current and future users of (OS1) were interested in validating (OS1) safety records to industry standards. (OS1) data and information at Boeing, Sandia National Laboratories, and University of New Mexico provided information to create a baseline to compare pre-(OS1) custodial incidents, accidents and days away with post-(OS1) implementation of custodial incidents, accidents and days away. These three enterprises have varying degrees of implementation of (OS1) and each provide a different perspective from diverse industries.
3

Review of Literature All occupations involve some risk or hazard in the workplace. According to the 2001 Bureau of Labor Statistics, janitors and cleaners has the fifth most hazardous job (BLS, 2001) among all job classifications. In addition to musculoskeletal injuries, custodians face a wide variety of possible dangers including back and neck pains, slips or falls, bumps, bruises, sprains, and chemical hazards. Janitors and cleaners reported 38,600 occupational injuries and illnesses involving time away in 2001. This represents 2.51% of total injuries and illnesses reported. (See Appendix A, Exhibit A, Number of occupational injuries and illnesses involving time away from work, 2001). Four out of ten injuries are reported as sprains and strains that most often involve the back. (See Appendix A, Exhibit B, Number of occupational injuries and illnesses involving time away from work by selected nature of injury and illness, 2001.) 65.7% of injuries occurred to men while their work share was only 58.7%. 65% of all injuries were from the age range of 20-44. Of the 1,537,600 injuries and illnesses Medi reported in 2001 for all occupations, 522,500 Total an 2 or 37.5% were musculoskeletal disorders 1 day 3-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31 + Ran Occupatio Cases day s days days days days days Days (MSD). Work injuries cost Americans $132.1 k n billion in 2001 (National Safety Council, 2001). Janitors and cleaners reported 52,600 Total Cases 100.0 15 13 19.8 12.6 11.1 6.3 22.0 6.0 Truck injuries or illnesses with 12,600 or 24% being 1 drivers 100.0 11.1 10 18.5 11.6 11.4 7.3 29.9 10.0 MSDs. The median days away from work for Nursing aides, janitors and cleaners are six. (See Appendix 2 orderlies 100.0 17 16 22.2 13.5 10.3 4.5 16.4 5.0 Laborers, A, Exhibit C, Number of work-related constructio musculoskeletal disorders involving time 3 n 100.0 17 12 20.1 12.6 11.9 6.2 20 6.0 constructio away and median days, 2001.) Janitors and 4 n laborers 100.0 14 13 19.8 11.6 10.2 8.1 23.7 7.0 cleaners lost work days or otherwise called days away are broken down into the following major divisions: Private Sector 38.6 %, Services, 20.9%, Finance/Real Estate 5.3%, Manufacturing 5.2% and Retail 4.8%. (See Appendix A, Exhibit D, Occupational injuries and illnesses days away from work by selected occupation and industry divisions, 2001)

The National Safety Councils 2001 report provides the following information about workplace deaths and injuries. There were 5,300 workplace fatalities in 2001 due to unintentional injuries. There were 3.9 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2001. On the job, 3.9 million American workers suffered disabling injuries in 2001. Motor vehicle crashes accounted for 2,200 of the 5,300 workplace fatalities. Work injuries cost Americans $132.1 billion in 2001. That amounts to $970 per worker. Nearly 9 out of 10 deaths and about three-fifths of the disabling injuries suffered by American workers in 2001 occurred off-the-job. The U. S. Department of Labor (BLS 2000) estimates that businesses spend $15 to $20 billion per year just for MSDSs. It has also been reported that (Rogers 2000) that average cost for a workers first back injury is $11,000. Reoccurring back injuries cost approximately $5,000. There is no question that the costs of injuries and illnesses are high. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine the costs of each of the three enterprises that have been interviewed. It is suggested that subsequent studies could research this area in more detail. There are many factors that account for the total cost to employers for injuries, illnesses and lost work or restricted days away from the job. Every employer tends to account and report injuries differently. OHSA and regulatory conditions also drive different methods of reporting accidents and costs. Every injury or illness is unique, thus it is very difficult to define and conclude the average cost of recordable injuries and days away. A description of the National Safety Council's current cost estimating procedures may be found in the Technical Appendix of Injury Facts, 2002 Edition. It is also important to note the average number of days away that janitors and cleaners spend. Refer to Figure 1, Percent of distribution of days away from work by selected occupations. (2001, Bureau of Labor Statistics) Figure 1, Percent of distribution of days away from work by selected occupations The days away are fairly evenly distributed among the seven categories. 62.5% of the days away are 10 days or less. 11.6% are away between 11 and 20 days and 5.8% are away between 21 and 30 days. It is important to note that 20% are away over 30 days. The median days away for injuries and illnesses for janitors and cleaners are six. CM e-News who provides online news for the cleaning and maintenance industry states that, cleaning professionals are more at risk than the general population to contract a deadly lung disease (McCagg, 2002). The Environmental Protection Agency determined that 41% of cleaning chemicals are dangerous and 6% are too dangerous to use, including some toilet bowl cleaners, floor strippers and high strength degreasers. Expert advise recommends reading and
5

follow label directions, avoidance of sniffing chemicals for identification, using gloves and other protective equipment, allowing for proper ventilation, rinsing empty containers prior to disposal, keeping lids on before moving or transporting and avoiding use of jet stream sprays. There are many regulations and more in development to help prevent and minimize custodial accidents. OSHA has established several guidelines and facility mangers and cleaning supervisors who fail to train workers properly may be at risk for federal fines. One example is proper trash disposal. The hazards consist of dangers such as exposure to sharp material and infectious material found in the trash. 400 cleaners were struck by improperly disposed needles during the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia (C&M 2001).

Research Procedures and Methods Due to this being a new field of study with limited data available it was determined to conduct in-depth qualitative interviews and gather what initial data was presently available. Four general interview sessions were held with ManageMen, Boeing, Sandia National Laboratories and University of New Mexico. A meeting with John Walker and ManageMen was initially held to define the scope of the research. Walker provided background information of (OS1) and clarified its processes. A literature review for previous studies concerning custodial safety was conducted. Site visits were made to Boeing in Seattle, WA, Sandia National Laboratories, and University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Managers of custodial services were interviewed along with trainers and supervisors of (OS1) at the respective institutions. Each company was allowed to tell their story of their experience with (OS1) implementation and training. Notes were carefully taken of the interviews. A questioning process was conducted at each institution to determine what existing records existed for pre-(OS1) custodial safety reports with post-(OS1) safety reports. Qualitative notes were then reviewed for evolving themes and threads. The information was then synthesized into conclusions and recommendations. The researchers kept a detailed research log of all interviews and research activities. The findings, conclusions and recommendations were then drawn from the entire research process.

Findings (OS1) Cleaning System The ManageMen (OS1) cleaning system significantly changes the methodology that typical custodial departments use. The (OS1) system changes the basic management and elements of typical cleaning. There are primarily five (OS1) areas that are different. They are; training and worker enhancement, team cleaning, increased productivity and safety using
6

ergonomic friendly tools, increased productivity and safety through improved chemical handling, and increased monitoring of productivity and safety awareness. A typical methodology in the cleaning industry is zone cleaning. Zone cleaning uses an individual for cleaning a certain amount of space, typically divided by sections of a building or floor levels. (OS1) utilizes a team concept. The concept of team cleaning is at the center of the (OS1) system. With the team cleaning method, four or five custodians work on a team with each member specializing in one field i.e. restrooms, vacuuming, etc, with the other team members taking care of the remaining aspects. Because of positive interaction with other team members, productivity and moral improves along with safety awareness and procedures. In zone cleaning, employees will often return to a designated location to load and unload equipment, supplies and tools. This process, called kitting, is eliminated in the (OS1) system because it is repetitive and loses productive time. Unlike the typical industry, the (OS1) system has ergonomically designed equipment and tools consisting of mops, brooms, dust clothes, chemicals, vacuums, and other equipment. (OS1) has formed a relationship with several suppliers whose equipment and tools have been adopted for the purpose of improving custodial safety. Some of these companies are ProTeam, PortionPac, and Unger. ProTeam is a vacuum company that has a variety of backpack vacuums that are more lightweight, can clean at a more productive rate and increase the comfort of the user. PortionPac specializes in chemicals packaged in portion dispensable packets. Safety factors for the dispensable packets include, smaller chemical amounts that are handled in pre-measured packages that limit employee exposure to chemicals and are very lightweight and easy to use. PortionPac also has color-coded chemicals for easy identification and are biodegradable and emit very low volatile organic contaminants (VOCs). Unger is a supplier of tools that are used in the cleaning industry. They specialize in mops, dusters, and other ergonomic equipment to help reduce ergonomic custodial hazards.

The Boeing Company The Boeing Company has the most recent implementation of the (OS1) system implemented of the three enterprises researched. The Boeing Company located in Seattle, WA, implemented (OS1) in September 2001 following the drastic change in the economy after the tragedy of September 11. By March 2003, Boeing had fully implemented their (OS1) system in all 17 million square feet of cleanable space.

Every company has a different culture and the implementation of (OS1) at Boeing had some challenges. Prior to September 11, the attitude of employees at Boeing was complacent. Some felt that an unwritten motto was to do as little as needed. However, after September 11, there was a dramatic drop in the airline industry and new plane orders. The attitude changed to realizing that hard work would mean job and security survival. All resources needed to be utilized to their fullest extent. The change in attitude of Boeing employees consequently changed the culture of Boeing. Company wide, recognition that efficiency and hard work is required in order to compete and succeed in the competitive world. Within the custodial department, this was very evident. Many of the custodians after September 11 once held advanced positions with the company. These employees had been with the company for many years. The average age of the custodial staff was between 50 and 70 years. The new workforce was a tired workforce, but willing to work. Cut-backs resulted in a decrease of custodians from 900 to 302. At the same time, the management ratio was decreased from 1 to 20; 1 to 16. Since implementation of (OS1), Boeing experienced successes and failures of their (OS1) program. Overall they felt that (OS1) has been a success. Much of this success is due to excellent implementation and management. Boeings management sought continuous improvement throughout their implementation process. They have utilized continuous improvement for on-the-job training, standardization, level work loading, and a better idea form. In addition, aspects of the (OS1) program have pleased the management of Boeing. A senior Boeing manager commented about (OS1), Logically, it is not possible for a company not to improve safety. Weve lightened every tool. Weve given workers ergonomic tools; weve given them efficiencies so that they do not have to run for eight hours. Weve taken them from doing all the tasks to specialized tasks. Weve given them tremendous amounts of training. Based on that, we have got to be able to improve safety. (Jones, 2002). Their equipment has been refined, tools and chemical usage has reduced and streamlined, and it has made work safer for all involved. Boeing has found, however, that there are a few areas that could be improved in their program. Due to their high occurrence of leave of absences, they found it hard to maintain a proper head count. In response, they tried to keep employees at work as much as possible. When applicable, employees were instructed to return to work as soon as possible after an accident and perform light duty responsibilities (referred to as restricted work days). However, management has found it difficult to convince employees to return as soon as Boeing would like them to. Much of Boeings successes are due to the level of commitment from management and employees. Management commitment was strong because of the level of excitement they felt
8

over the new program. However, commitment from the custodial staff was hard to achieve. In the beginning, the majority of the staff looked at the program with disdain. They did not like the backpack vacuum. They complained that they needed more chemicals and felt that they were not able to clean as effectively with (OS1). However, over time, the commitment levels have increased. For example, one of the vacuum specialists started using a PRO-TEAM handgrip attachment on his vacuum wand. He said, It really works slick. It allows me to merely glide the wand across the floor - no more sore wrists. It seems effortless. Boeing defines accidents and incidents as follows. Accidents are defined as unplanned events. Work accidents are unintended occurrences arising in the work environment. Incidents result in work injuries or illnesses. Incidents causing property damage or interfering with production. Boeing also attempts to track and record near-miss events where an accident/ incident almost occurs with no resultant injury, illness, or damage. The unique culture and environment at the time of (OS1) implementation resulted in data that was somewhat difficult to analyze and draw specific conclusions. During the initial implementation of (OS1), that recordable injuries actually increased. The Boeing staff believes that this is due to better safety awareness. Figure 2, Boeing Recordable Injuries for Old Process Verses New (OS1) Process, shows that both the old process and the (OS1) recordable injuries decreased substantially. Obviously something took place during that period because the percentage of recordable injuries dropped for both the old process from 18.8 to 8.2% and (OS1) from 25.7% to 2.9% (ratio of FTE to old process and (OS1)).

2003 2003 Project 2000 2001 2002 1QTR ed Annual Days Away 48 53 48 7 28

Year 2001 2002

Old Process FTE 510 268

Old Process Recordable Injuries 96 22

Old Process Injury % 18.8% 8.2%

(OS1) Trained FTE 35 103

(OS1) Recordable Injuries 9 3

(OS1) Injury % 25.7% 2.9%

9

Figure 2: Boeing Recordable Injuries for Old Process Verses New (OS1) Process It appears that after (OS1) was being more broadly implemented that it had a significant impact on recordable injuries. In another report, which is unclear why the numbers vary from those shown in Figure 1, Boeing showed that in 2002 that an average of 140 employees were using the old process and the recordable injuries among untrained staff was 55 or 39.3%. The average number of employees trained and working with the (OS1) process was 162 and the recordable injuries were 31 or 19.1%. Yet another report showed that for the first two months of 2003 that Boeing had 250 employees trained in (OS1) in January and 265 trained in February. Both months show that compared to 2002 that recordable injuries have decreased 84% and 64% respectively. It appears that there is a direct correlation between reduced recordable injuries and the percentage of (OS1) implementation but without further quantitative analysis it can not be conclusively said this relationship is absolutely significant. An overall review of the last four years shows that Boeing incidents and accidents have decreased. See Figure 3, Boeing Recordable Injuries.

Incidents Accidents Total

2003 2003 2000 2001 2002 1QTR Projected 98 104 89 9 36 48 53 48 7 28 146 157 137 16 64 Figure 3, Boeing Recordable Injuries

There is also the important question about the actual employer cost of recordable injuries and associated workmens compensation claims and lost work days. Boeing reported that it uses $350 per day per day away from work. More research must be performed to better understand this number and what associated costs that are not calculated in this amount. Boeing did report that since the implementation of (OS1) that their lost-work days (often referred to as days away) decreased significantly. See Figure 4, Boeing Custodial Injury or Illness Annual Days Away. Since Boeing has just completed the implementation of (OS1) the results are positive and the 2003 projection is promising.

10

Years Total Days Away Figure 4, Boeing Custodial Injury or Illness Annual Days Away

2000 106

2001 44

2002 4

Sandia National Laboratories Sandia National Laboratories is a government facility located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It has 4.5 million square feet of cleanable space. Prior to the implementation of (OS1), Sandias custodial department was plagued by the same problems of most large facilities. Sandia had limited training, one custodian per area, with each custodian having their own methodology. Each custodian had their own pager which they also used for personal use. In addition, the custodial department had the highest accident rate at the facility. In 1999 there was a custodian strike at Sandia. There was an entire staff turnover between 2000 and 2002. During this period, management learned several things about their custodial department. Management inventoried the custodial and found that no closets were the same. There were 125 different chemicals and all different types of equipment. Sandia realized that there had to be a better way to manage and control custodial services. After speaking with the University of New Mexico, managers decided that (OS1) would be the best way to fix their problems. On January 1, 2000, managers at Sandia started the implementation process of (OS1). Since then, Sandia implemented (OS1) in every cleaning area. Once the transition was made to (OS1), each of these problems was resolved. Work began to be performed by specialists, standardized training was reinforced, control of cleaning chemicals with no waste measurement ratio was implemented, and the state of the art tools and equipment was used. Although initially many injuries occurred because of the change, after custodians stopped resisting the change, these injuries were reduced. In addition, custodians experienced cross-training in order to be able to change jobs when necessary or when desired. Sandia determined that in order to successfully run the (OS1) program, they needed to have everyone accept the program. Managers attended Janitor University (JU), followed by supervisors then leads. JU enabled each supervisor to understand, first-hand, what their employees needed to do. Everyone in the department received cross-training so when someone needs to do someone elses work, it is easily done.
11

Overall, (OS1) produced positive results for the facilities and customers. (OS1) helped to eliminate 125 different chemicals and hundreds of different outdated and inefficient vacuums, mops, brooms, restroom barrier bars, worn out mop buckets and wringers and other old equipment. Over time, all felt that they had cleaner facilities and happier customers. Although at first the customers hated the change because they like having their own personal custodian. There were many outside factors that contributed to Sandias success with (OS1). About the same time (OS1) was implemented, Sandia decided to make their employees health and well-ness a major priority. At first their program was started in the prevention mode but then grew into intervention. Classes, health care assessment, consulting, and a back injury reduction program were just a few of the new changes to the health program. A couple minutes was set aside on their job card for employees to stretch. In accordance with the program, management was taught to encourage their employees to report any injuries they receive while at work or related to work. Even very minor accidents were reported. With the wellness program and (OS1), Sandia drastically improved the morale and health of their employees. Since Sandias transition to (OS1), they were awarded a State of New Mexico Green Zia Award. This award recognizes organizations that have shown exceptional processes and procedures that protect the environment. Sandia was able to successfully recycle all their old equipment and chemicals. In addition, the new (OS1) program provided a more efficient way to clean. Not only have the volume of chemicals been reduced (from 125 to 9), but the volume of hazardous chemicals was almost eliminated. It was reported that after (OS1) implementation, that Sandia experienced an annual savings of $56,000 on chemicals. Sandia was another unique environment and culture where (OS1) has been used to increase safety, increase efficiency and have standards of accountability. Before (OS1) was implemented at Sandia, there was a feeling among the supervisors of the custodial department that if something was not done to implement standards, decrease safety and do an overall better job at servicing their customers, there would be a move to outsource all custodial work. This pressure was the catalyst to the implementation of all of (OS1)s tools, training, products and management style. This commitment reflected in the attitudes and work at all levels. Since beginning implementation of (OS1) in 2000 and being fully implementing by 2003, there has been a dramatic decrease in lost workdays by the custodial employees at Sandia National Laboratories. The decrease in lost workdays reflects the commitment to change and the influence of (OS1) tools, procedures and training. Figure 5, Sandia National Laboratories Custodial Injury or Illness Annual Days Away, shows the dramatic decrease since the (OS1) implementation. Figure 5, Sandia National Laboratories Custodial Injury or Illness Annual Days Away

12

The Department of Energy (DOE) uses a method of estimating costs as shown in Figure 6, DOE Days Away Estimated Costs. From an analysis of just days away at a cost of $1,000 per day it Recordable Accident Restricted Days Days Away Transfer Due To Injury Death Occurs $2000 $400per day $1000per day $500000 $1000000 Figure 6, DOE Days Away Estimated Costs can be calculated that the saving from year 2001 to year 2002 was $40,000 ($44,000-$4,000= $40,000). This does not take into account other associated costs and factors. There are many other factors that must be considered in calculating the cost savings which are beyond the scope of this research. Sandia also contributes savings in overall cost decreases to (OS1). In 1995 their cost per square foot was $2.19. In 2002, that cost had dropped to $1.13 per square foot or a $2.5 million decrease.

University of New Mexico The University of New Mexico has the oldest and most mature implementation of (OS1) of the three enterprises studied. There is four million square feet of cleanable space at the University of New Mexico (UNM) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. UNM janitorial services are managed by Sodexho. UNMs experience with team cleaning began in 1998. Facing potential budget cuts, it was decided to prepare a list of non-mandated budget cut strategies. This allowed custodial management to be prepared if reductions would be necessary in the future. When determined that costs in custodial services could be cut by using (OS1), many of the managers at UNM attended Janitor University and were trained in (OS1). In October of 1998, UNM begin the implementation of (OS1). By October 2000, the entire staff had fully transitioned to the (OS1) system. Prior to (OS1), UNM found they had no structure, were unable to manage and address emergencies properly. Once (OS1) was implemented, many problems were fixed including the misuse of chemicals, safety practices and awareness, supply usage, and morale. UNM felt that one of their biggest strengths with (OS1) was safety. They emphasized safety and greater employee awareness. One of the main problems that they encountered was with rotation complaints. The team concept solved this problem. When (OS1) first started, workers fought the change. It took about three years before the
13

employees understood (OS1) completely and began to like it. The result was that the morale of the department increased. UNM found that their problems with (OS1), although minimal, fell under the supervisory level. The management had a hard time communicating with the lower level employees. Similarly, supervisors found it difficult to teach proper chemical procedures. The old mind set of custodians was that they needed to have strong smelling, sudsy chemicals. The new chemicals, however, had very minimal scent and did not suds. In addition, custodians had a tough time learning that they only needed one chemical instead of 10 or more. Once good communication and proper training occurred, most custodians felt comfortable and began to like the new process. UNM is unique in the fact that they had outsourced the management of the custodial work to Sodexho. Since full implementation in 2000 they have dealt less with high turnover and training needs. The resistance to change became an obstacle but changed as the custodians became accustomed to the new tools and processes of (OS1). Accidents have remained relatively constant while the report of incidents has risen slightly. This was attributed to increased awareness and safety training and focus on the activities of the custodial crews. Since the implementation the budget has been reduced by $200,000. Employee FTE was 138 in 1998 and in the first quarter of 2003 is 43. That is a significant decrease while maintaining the same level of quality and square footage of cleanable space. Figure 8, UNM Accident and Incident Reports shows that

Accidents Incidents Totals

97/98 98/99 99/00 16 10 16 14 24 16 30 34 32

0 10 14 24

1/2 10 27 37

Figure 7, UNM Accident and Incident Reports accidents have been held to 10 over the last two years and incidents have been increased over the last year. There was no information about lost work days given by UNM.

14

Conclusions and Recommendations This is a baseline study that attempts to bring together the basis of a new scope of research that has not been explored in the past. As with any good research it presents more questions than it answers. The study provides a broad qualitative view of the research questions and sets the stage for future and more specific research to take place. In all three enterprises studied, the implementation of (OS1) reduced custodial costs. The cost reductions and savings came in the following areas: Boeing: 1. 2. 3. Decrease in recordable injuries from and average of 50 in 2000-2001 to 48 in 2002 (during implementation) to a projection of 28 projected in 2003 (48%). Projected decrease in lost work days (days away) by 48% from 2000 to 2003. Ability to cope with cleaning more square feet with less FTE, and the reduction from 900 FTE in 2000 to 302 in 2003 (Much of this was forced by market conditions.)

Sandia Labs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reduced chemical usage from 125 to 9 with an approximate annual savings of $56,000. Reduced space needed for chemical and other supply storage. Decrease of lost work days (days away) from 106 in 2000 to 4 in 2002 (96% decrease). Reduced the overall cleaning cost per square foot (SF) from $2.19 in 1995 to $1.13 per SF in 2002 (48% decrease). This is a $2.5 million savings per year. Reduced FTE from 94 in 2000 to 77 in 2003. Won recognition for using good sustainability practices to lessen impact on the environment.

University of New Mexico: 1. 2. Reduced recordable accidents from an average of 14 per year in 1997-2000 to an average of 10 per year in 2001-2002 (28% decrease). Reduce FTE from 138 in 1998 to 53 in 2003. Savings of approximately $200,000 annually.

15

Other Observations: 1. 2. After approximately two years of (OS1) implementation, turnover seems to have decreased because employees are more satisfied with their jobs. After (OS1) implementation has taken place employees seem to have a better sense of well being and take pride in being part of a successful and productive department. All three studies departments were energized about what they were doing. (OS1) makes good common sense and seems to be easy for senior management to understand and grasp. Increased productivity and decreased injuries are the main selling points. (OS1) is more difficult for employees to adapt to because it is a major change in how custodial work has been performed in the past. It takes several years for the implementation and training to change the mindset of employees. Vehicle safety was not mentioned by the participants but it is evident that vehicle safety and accidents are very prominent and costly.

3.

4.

5.

More research needs to be conducted in the area of identifying and calculating the true costs of accidents, incidents and days away as they relate to the custodial industry. It is recommended that deeper research take place to more finely define how accidents, incidents, days away, and restrictive days are recorded and shared among (OS1) users. A methodology could be devised to benchmark (OS1) users and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. It is also recommend that companies follow the model of Sandia Laboratories and implement a back safety training program to specifically reduce back and MSD related injuries.

16

References Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/pub/news.release/osh2.txt, 2001, Lost-Work Time Injuries and Illnesses: Characteristics and Resulting Days Away From Work. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Http://www.bls.gov, Lost-Work time injuries and Illnesses; Characteristics and Resulting Time Away From Work, 1998, April 20, 2000. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bar chart). (2002, April 22). 10 Most Ergonomically Hazardous Jobs (Airline Workers at Top of List for Ergonomic Injuries. The Salt Lake Tribune, pp. D1.) Jones, Jennifer (2002, August). Boeing Beats the Odds. Housekeeping Solutions. Retrieved July 2, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cleanlink.com/hs/article.asp?id=344 McCagg, Michael (2001). OSHA: Train workers on trash risks. Cleaning & Maintenance Management Online. Retrieved July 2, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.cmmonline.com/howto.asp?H_ID=700 McCagg, Michael (2002, December 4). Cleaning pros more susceptible to lung disease [Abstract]. Cleaning & Maintenance Management Online. Retrieved December 5, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cmmonline.com/news.asp? N_ID=36560&mode=4 National Safety Council, http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm, Report on Injuries in America, 2001. Rogers, Donna (September 2000). The Economics of Ergonomics. Maintenance Supplies. Vosevich, Mary (1999). New Directions in Custodial Operations: The University of New Mexico Experience with (OS1)Team Cleaning.

17

Appendix A The following is in part, data and charts, from Lost-Work Time Injuries and Illnesses: Characteristics and Resulting Days Away From Work, 2001, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Exhibit A Number of occupational injuries and illnesses involving time away from work, 2001
1995 Rank Total Cases 2040.9 1996 1880.5 1997 1833.4 1998 1730.5 1999 1702.5 2000 1664 2001 1537.6 7 Yr Decrease

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Truck drivers Nursing aides, orderlies Laborers, non-construction Construction laborers Janitors and cleaners Carpenters Assemblers Cooks Stock handlers and baggers Registered nurses

151.1 100.6 115.5 43.5 52.6 35 55.5 35.4 34.7 27.8 651.7

152.8 93.6 108.5 43.7 46.9 33.5 44 30.7 31.9 28.9 614.5 32.68% 2.49%

145.5 91.3 106.9 45.8 45.8 37.1 44.3 31.5 29.2 27.3 604.7 32.98% 2.50%

131.8 84.1 97.2 44.1 44.2 33 43.3 28.5 26.3 25 557.5 32.22% 2.55%

141.1 75.7 89.1 46.5 43.4 35 40 28 27.3 25.7 551.8 32.41% 2.55%

136.1 74.2 87 45.4 40.7 38.3 38.9 27.8 23.8 24.5 536.7 32.25% 2.45%

129.1 71 68.9 44.1 38.6 32.7 31.1 27.8 25.7 24.7 493.7 32.11% 2.51%

-22.0 -29.6 -46.6 0.6 -14.0 -2.3 -24.4 -7.6 -9.0 -3.1

Top Ten % Janitors and cleaners %

31.93% 2.58%

Number of occupational injuries and illnesses (in 1,000s) involving time away from work.

18

Exhibit B Number of occupational injuries and illnesses involving time away from work by selected nature of injury and illness, 2001

Rank

Total Cases

1995 2040.9

1996 1880.5

1997 1833.4

1998 1730.5

1999 1702.5

2000 1664

2001 1537.6

7 Yr Decrease

2001 %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sprains, strains Bruises, contusions Cuts, lacerations Fractures Back pain Carpal tunnel syndrome Heat burns Tendonitis Chemical burns Amputations Top Ten %

876.8 192.1 153.2 124.6 59 31.5 36.1 22.1 13.9 11.3

819.7 174.9 133.2 120.5 52 29.9 29 17.4 11.6 10.2

799 165.8 133.6 119.5 48.7 29.2 30 18 12.2 10.9

760 153.1 137.6 115.4 42.4 26.3 28.4 16.9 11.7 10.2

739.7 156 132.4 113.7 43.2 27.9 27.1 16.6 11.6 10

728.2 151.7 121.3 116.7 46.1 27.7 24.3 14.4 9.4 9.7

669.9 136.4 114.8 108.1 42.7 26.8 25.1 14.1 9.5 8.6

-206.9 -55.7 -38.4 -16.5 -16.3 -4.7 -11 -8 -4.4 -2.7

43.6% 8.9% 7.5% 7.0% 2.8% 1.7% 1.6% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 75.2%

Number of occupational injuries and illnesses (in 1,000s) involving time away from work.

19

Exhibit C Number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders involving time away and median days, 2001
Manuf Ra Occup Priv Agric Min Constr acturin Tran Whol Ret Fina Serv s/Util esale ail nce ices nk ation ate ulture ing uction g Total Cases 1539 40.2 11 185.7 317.3 200 111.9 26638.0 368 Truck 1 drivers 129 1.5 0.5 5.5 10.6 68.2 23.3 12 0.1 7.7 Nursin g aides, orderli 2 es 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 70.3

Median Number Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 Total Cases Truck drivers Nursing Aides, orderlies Laborers, non-construction Assemblers Janitors and cleaners Registered nurses Stock Handlers and baggers Construction laborers Supervisors and proprietors Carpenters Cashiers Top Ten % 522.5 42.8 40.8 24.8 14.5 12.6 11.8 11.3 10.5 9 8.8 8.8 195.7 37.5% Days Away 8 10 5 7 10 6 5 6 10 6 8 7 2.41%

Number of occupational injuries and illnesses (in 1,000s) involving time away from work.

20

Exhibit D Occupational injuries and illnesses days away from work by selected occupation and industry divisions, 2001

21