Case studies

Each study follows the same chain: what the design asked people to do, what friction it created, what that did to productivity and outcomes, what the consequence cost, and whether it could be designed out.

Nothing here is presented as a proven saving unless it is flagged Verified. We would rather label an example honestly than overstate it.

What the labels mean

IllustrativeA worked example built from stated assumptions to show how the method behaves. Not a real building.
ObservedBased on a real assessment carried out on site. Figures are modelled from observed conditions and client-supplied costs.
VerifiedOutcomes confirmed against the client's own operational and financial records after the change was made.
ResearchDrawn from published research or industry data rather than a CleanabilityIQ assessment. Sources named in the study.

IllustrativeCommercial office

A feature atrium that cannot be reached from the floor

9,200 m² eight-storey headquarters, full-height glazed atrium, polished stone floor.

Design decision: High-level glazing and balustrades specified with no permanent access provision.
Friction created: Access friction. Every high-level clean needs a MEWP, out of hours, with the atrium closed.
Operational and human consequence: Cleaning falls to a quarterly specialist visit. Between visits the building looks unclean at its most visible point.
Cost consequence: Access premium dominates the model; the atrium alone carries a larger premium than the whole ground floor.
Could it be designed out?: Permanent anchor points and a reachable maintenance walkway designed in at Stage 4.
Value of fixing it: The specialist visit reduces to an annual inspection and the in-house team holds the standard between times.

Illustrative — costs modelled from stated assumptions, not a real contract.

IllustrativeTransport

Nine metres of matting that was never installed

12,500 m² transport interchange, direct external entry at four points, very high footfall.

Design decision: Entrance matting run reduced from the specified nine metres to a single barrier mat during value engineering.
Friction created: Temporal friction. Soil enters the building and spreads instead of being captured at the door.
Operational and human consequence: Visible re-soiling within an hour of cleaning; reactive attendance replaces the planned regime.
Cost consequence: Rework and frequency premium across the whole concourse, plus accelerated floor wear.
Could it be designed out?: Reinstating the full matting run at the two busiest entrances.
Value of fixing it: Planned frequency holds again; reactive attendance is no longer the default.

Illustrative — demonstrates the method; figures depend entirely on local labour cost.

ObservedHigher education

One cleaning store for four floors

18,400 m² campus block, single ground-floor janitorial store, no water above ground level.

Design decision: Janitorial provision consolidated to one room to release lettable space.
Friction created: Workflow friction. Every water change is a round trip through the building.
Operational and human consequence: A measurable share of each shift is spent travelling rather than cleaning, and equipment is shared across floors.
Cost consequence: Movement drag is the largest single component of the premium in this model.
Could it be designed out?: Two satellite stores with water and power on the upper floors.
Value of fixing it: Recovered productive time is redeployed into the areas that were being skipped.

Observed — friction observed on site; cost modelled from the client's own labour cost and stated assumptions. Not audited against payroll.

ObservedHealthcare

Clinical areas priced on a commercial specification

West wing of an acute hospital, 24,700 m², mixed clinical and non-clinical areas.

Design decision: Specification inherited from a commercial contract; no distinction drawn for clinical hygiene requirements.
Friction created: Regulatory friction — externally imposed, not created by the design, and reported separately.
Operational and human consequence: Validation, method and audit requirements sat outside the priced scope, so they were absorbed or skipped.
Cost consequence: Pricing risk identified before award rather than as a post-award variation.
Could it be designed out?: Hygiene standard, validation and audit requirement confirmed in writing and re-priced before award.
Value of fixing it: Bid variance narrowed and the awarded contract carried the correct scope.

Observed — tender documents and site conditions reviewed; commercial figures supplied by the client.

ResearchCross-sector

What published work says about environment and cleaning productivity

Industry productivity guidance and published time-and-method studies.

Design decision: Obstruction density, surface type and access are consistently the strongest determinants of achievable rate.
Friction created: Confirms the friction categories used in CleanabilityIQ, but not the weightings.
Operational and human consequence: Productivity rates quoted for open, unobstructed areas do not transfer to obstructed or detailed spaces.
Cost consequence: Supports modelling cost from measured hours rather than from a score.
Could it be designed out?: None — this is background evidence, not an engagement.
Value of fixing it: Used to sense-check the assumptions in the cost model, never to generate figures.

Research — external sources; named in the full study on request. Not a CleanabilityIQ assessment.

Want your building written up like this?

A professional assessment produces the same chain of reasoning for your own estate, with the evidence and confidence stated on every figure.

Read the methodology Services and pricing