Home › blog › 2025 › May › 21st › inspecting complex environments
Inspecting complex environments
21st of May 2025 Article by John Griep
John Griep in the Netherlands highlights the importance of consistency in inspection procedures.
Quality assurance in professional cleaning services increasingly occurs in environments with fragmented locations, variable usage patterns and a mix of cleaning contracts. Recent field experiences highlight the importance of methodological consistency and practical adaptability in inspection procedures; especially in dispersed, multi-building contracts.
Redefining units
Traditional inspection methodology is based on a consistent sequence: inventory, coding, classification, and random sampling. While this works in compact, single-site locations, multi-site contracts - such as those covering dozens or even hundreds of residential buildings or office units - pose new challenges. Travel time, logistical coordination and layout variability impact inspection efficiency.
Field data show that in one real-life case, a contract covering 125 locations resulted in 29 visits and over four hours of inspection effort, of which only a fraction was spent on actual cleaning quality assessment. A methodological adjustment - specifically, redefining the concept of a ‘space’ - helped streamline the process. By aggregating residential buildings into so-called ‘location-units’ for coding purposes, the number of site visits was reduced to six, cutting inspection time by half without sacrificing sampling reliability. This adaptation demonstrates the need for flexibility within existing quality frameworks such as the Dutch VSR-KMS system.
Randomness and clarity
Consistent application of random sampling procedures remains essential. Even minor deviations from agreed inspection protocols can undermine the statistical validity of quality assessments. This reinforces the need for strict adherence to VSR-KMS guidelines during field inspections. Inspectors stress the importance of following sampling rules rigorously to ensure assessments remain objective and reproducible.
Another recurring point from the field relates to the interpretation of user contact points. For example, integrated power sockets in desks or towel dispensers. Which components fall within the scope of daily cleaning? A consensus is emerging: only clearly exposed and frequently touched surfaces are subject to routine inspection, unless otherwise specified in the programme or inventory.
Differentiating contracts
Inspectors report increasing ambiguity at the intersection of outcome-based and input-based cleaning contracts. While outcome-based cleaning seems attractive, it demands clear agreements on outcomes, expected pollution levels and cleaning frequencies. In dynamic environments such as schools, awareness of the precise cleaning moment is vital to differentiate between recontamination and cleaning performance.
Challenging-to-clean areas such as locker segments, drain covers or sandy floors also require precise documentation. If such elements are not explicitly included in the cleaning specification, they cannot be scored during inspection, even if dirty. However, inspectors remain responsible for reporting anomalies and providing actionable recommendations.
The role of floor plans
Although not formally required, building floor plans greatly enhance the inspector’s ability to define spatial boundaries and assign surface-related findings. In multi-storey buildings, they provide critical support for locating problem areas and ensuring consistent assessments.
These findings emphasise the need to further integrate practical tools and flexible frameworks into existing quality systems, ensuring robust and efficient inspection practices across diverse environments.
RSS