ALTOM: Can new technology make a toilet cleaner?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

In a previous issue of IBJ, another columnist wrote that technology can raise the productivity of toilet cleaners. It wasn’t a central part of his argument, but as you might imagine, it caught my eye. I couldn’t resist looking into bathroom technology.

First, I wasn’t sure what kind of technology might promote the productivity of those who swab out our toilets for a living. A better mop? A breakthrough in spray bottles? And would it actually improve productivity?

Let’s talk first about “productivity.” I’ve seen a lot of definitions of productivity; unfortunately most of them were uttered by politicians and other people who quite probably make up their own definitions as they go along, to suit their audience. It turns out that economists have a pretty simple definition—it’s how much you get out of a system compared to how much goes into it.

Labor productivity, therefore, can be measured as the amount of work done per dollar of pay. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor has a measurement of productivity specifically for janitorial workers. As an ironic aside, they also designed one for video-and disc-rental workers, just in time to watch it land with a thud on top of that industry’s coffin, the lid of which was nailed into place by online rental companies.

The Department of Labor (www.bls.gov) concluded in 2004 that janitorial output had gone up during 2001-2002, but by a measly 1.1 percent per hour. At the same time, unit cost had gone down an even punier .1 percent in that time. The best times for janitorial improvement came in 1995-2000, when output crawled upward by 6 percent, and costs dropped by nearly 2 percent.

Clearly, this is an industry segment sorely in need of technological bolstering. There have been some small steps, of course, such as many public toilets getting automatic flushing devices that don’t depend on unreliable humans to manually pull down those handles. But it’s hard to see how they improve productivity, except possibly to forestall multi-user toilet-paper jams. In point of fact, I suspect that whatever small productivity gains you might achieve from them would be lost due to the need to have someone replace the batteries. Those little urinal cakes undoubtedly do some good, too. But neither of these promises much productivity improvement for the janitorial work force.

The Japanese get points for trying to upgrade the “john” experience, but mostly with an eye to making the user more satisfied, not to making the janitorial crew’s job any easier. For example, Daiwa (www.daiwahouse.co.jp) has designed the Intelligent Toilet, which takes the user’s blood pressure, weight, body-fat, and sugar-level readings and issues a report on the user’s overall health. At around $4,000, however, it’s not going to appear in commercial restrooms any time soon.

A brief Web survey of janitorial services reveals that there’s an emphasis on technology, but it’s almost entirely about tracking and ensuring cleanliness, not about how individual employees gain anything from technology. One janitorial service, for example, emphasizes that it has Web-based work orders. In today’s Web-driven world, I would certainly hope it would. It also proudly proclaims a dedication to “cleaning green,” none of which seems to promote substantial productivity. Some parts of cleaning green have a little promise, like the emphasis on catching dirt at entryways so janitorial workers don’t have to clean it up piecemeal throughout the building, but I suspect it helps too little to be a real contributor to individual productivity.

I don’t want to leave the impression that technology hasn’t made janitorial work more efficient. It has, at times. Installing air hand dryers instead of paper towel dispensers has made a difference, because it reduces paper clutter and pick-up time even as it annoys the customers. Automatic cleaning-solution dispensers also help reduce janitorial costs. Technical Concepts (www.technicalconcepts.com), for instance, offers the SaniCell, which pumps sanitizing fluid into toilets on a schedule. The SaniCell doesn’t use batteries; instead it uses a fuel cell that operates up to 60 days. That, however, is as high-tech as the device gets.

These technologies have been around for years now, so whatever productivity they goosed upward has already been heralded and is now old news. What neither SaniCell, nor any other technological advance, has managed to do is continually clean the outside of toilets, which is where most of the mess is. They can’t mop floors, wash down walls, or clean bugs out of overhead lights. I’ve been unable to find any technology that reduces the time or effort needed for those things. It would appear that bathroom cleaning has reached its pinnacle of efficiency today, and is likely to stay that way.•


Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  2. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  3. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.

  4. Community Hospital is the only system to not have layoffs? That is not true. Because I was one of the people who was laid off from East. And all of the LPN's have been laid off. Just because their layoffs were not announced or done all together does not mean people did not lose their jobs. They cherry-picked people from departments one by one. But you add them all up and it's several hundred. And East has had a dramatic drop I in patient beds from 800 to around 125. I know because I worked there for 30 years.

  5. I have obtained my 6 gallon badge for my donation of A Positive blood. I'm sorry to hear that my donation was nothing but a profit center for the Indiana Blood Center.