Home › blog › 2026 › April › 16th › why classification comes first
Why classification comes first
16th of April 2026 Article by John Griep
How can performance be measured when room functions are no longer uniform, asks John Griep - ECJ's reporter in the Netherlands.
Modern education buildings often bring together a wide variety of room types and functions. Traditional classrooms coexist with learning plazas, small group rooms, PC study rooms, practice workshops and large lecture theatres. While this diversity supports contemporary teaching methods, it also creates a recurring challenge for cleaning quality management: how can performance be measured consistently when room functions are no longer uniform?
When quality discussions are really classification issues: In many cases, debates about cleaning quality are not primarily about cleaning itself. They stem from uncertainty about how rooms are classified, which cleaning programme applies, and which assessment criteria should be used.
A Dutch guidance document on the application of VSR-KMS in education buildings illustrates this issue. It shows measurable quality does not begin with inspection but with clear room classification, cleaning programmes linked to it, and documented agreements.
Confirm room function and cleaning programme first: The Dutch VSR-KMS guidance for education buildings starts with a fundamental check: do the rooms grouped within one category genuinely share the same function, and are they subject to a comparable cleaning programme? Without this verification, inspection results may appear inconsistent.
In the example described, an entrance hall connected to a lecture theatre had been designated as an education room. In practice however, its use corresponded more closely with that of a circulation area. The guidance stresses room data must be consistent across the room list, room schedules and any facility or space management system, and that a physical site check is often necessary to confirm recorded room functions reflect operational reality.
Result-oriented contracts increase the importance of correct classification: In the case presented, the cleaning contract was result-oriented, with a daily handover frequency agreed for education areas. This made correct room classification essential: only when the room type and the associated cleaning programme were defined could quality be assessed objectively.
Creating a homogeneous inspection population: Significant size differences between rooms within the same category can directly affect inspection outcomes. In higher education buildings, rooms may range from small PC study rooms to lecture theatres of several hundred square metres. If such variation remains within one inspection category without further differentiation, sampling outcomes can fluctuate considerably between inspections.
To ensure comparability, the guidance proposes proportional inspection rules based on the number of study places and, where necessary, the division of large lecture theatres into clearly defined sub rooms that are recognisable both in documentation and on site. This creates a more homogeneous inspection population and reduces discussion about fluctuating quality.
Defining counting rules to prevent interpretation differences: The guidance further makes clear that correct room classification alone is not sufficient. Even within well-defined categories, inspection outcomes may vary if elements are counted differently. Practical examples include whether the top edge of toilet cubicles should be treated as a separate ledge or as part of the cubicle construction, or whether a wall of lockers should be counted as one element or as multiple units.
By defining and documenting counting rules in advance, and by ensuring client, contractor and inspector share the same interpretation, organisations reduce ambiguity and strengthen the objectivity and transparency of measurement.
RSS