The Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring: An Evaluation and Comparison [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9781512805390

Citation preview

Industrial Research Unit WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE AND COMMERCE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH UNIT STUDY NO. 41 The Industrial Research Unit is the business and labor market research arm of the Industry Department, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Originally founded after World War I as a separate Wharton School Department, the Industrial Research Unit has a long record of publication and research in the labor market, productivity and business report fields. Industrial Research Unit studies are published as research projects are completed. Additional copies of this monograph may be secured from: University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

clothbound paperbound

$5.00 $1.50

Other Recent Industrial Research Unit Studies Gladys L. Palmer, et al, The Reluctant Job Changer. (clothbound, $7.50) Michael H. Moskow, Teachers and Unions. (clothbound, $8.50) (paperbound, $5.95) Gladys L. Palmer, Philadelphia Workers in a Changing Economy. (clothbound, $6.00) Herbert R. Northrup, Restrictive Labor Practices in the Supermarket Industry. (clothbound, $7.50) F. Marion Fletcher, Market Restraints in the Retail Drug Industry. (clothbound, $10.00)

economics of carpeting and resilient flooring: AN

EVALUATION

AND

COMPARISON

BY GEORGE

M.

PARKS

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRY AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF J. MASON BROWN, JR. JOHN A. DAILY MICHAEL W. PESTRAK DAVID C. STEWART RESEARCH ASSISTANTS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

Published by INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH U N I T , D E P A R T M E N T OF INDUSTRY W H A R T O N SCHOOL OF F I N A N C E A N D C O M M E R C E

UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Produced and Distributed

by

U N I V E R S I T Y OF P E N N S Y L V A N I A PRESS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

19104

COPYRIGHT by

1966

TRUSTEES OF T H E UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 6 7 - 3 7 1 0 Second Printing 1966-67 Third Printing 1968

PRINTED IN THE U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword

In the Fall of 1964 the controversy between manufacturers and trade associations of carpeting and their counterparts in the resilient flooring industry concerning the relative economics of floor covering materials came to our attention. A great many claims have been (and still are) made by both sides; the various supporting evidence offered was so widely divergent that objective evaluation was difficult, if not impossible. In tracing the history of this controversy, it appeared that new products and materials developed by both sides had prompted each to attempt to invade market segments traditionally held by the other. For instance, resilient flooring is now being vigorously promoted for certain areas in homes, stores, office buildings, and other areas that have historically been carpeted. On the other hand, the carpet industry is now strongly aiming for certain markets traditionally held by resilient floors, such as schools, hospitals, and even kitchens and bathrooms. The development of effective case and illustrative teaching materials for a modern graduate curriculum in business requires constant search for new problems, techniques, methods and applications. The carpeting—resilient flooring controversy appeared to several faculty members of the Industry Department at Wharton to be ideal for classroom use, particularly in courses on business policy and production resources. If objective supporting evidence could be obtained, such matters as techniques of experimental design, industrial engineering data collection, data reduction and analysis, and conflicting advertising claims could be studied. In addition, the carpeting—resilient flooring controversy appeared to be the type of study in which much of the basic work

vi

Foreword

could be accomplished under faculty direction by graduate students, especially those with undergraduate engineering training or with engineering work experience. We decided to attack the problem in three ways: 1) A pilot study of actual economic data 2) A search of the literature 3) Interviews with large users of flooring materials with requests thereto for any internal corporate studies which had been made. From these sources it was hoped to develop modest cases for internal class use. Our pilot study was completed in January 1965. It developed inter esting and enlightening data, but it was apparent that more detailed analyses and a more rigorous research design were essential if completely defensible results and satisfactory teaching materials were to be obtained. The search of the literature has proved rather disappointing despite its extensiveness. Most of the data used in articles could not be verified. When we checked in person a number of the claims reported in the literature, we often found the facts at variance with what had been written. Direct conflict was found in a number of the key literature pieces which could not be reconciled. 1 The interviews with users were equally disappointing. Although some internal company studies do exist, their data are mostly not subject to verification. In other cases, the companies which have made studies refuse to release them because they do not desire to become embroiled in a controversy in which they have no specific interest. It was, therefore, apparent that if we were to proceed with the case studies (which are now in preparation), we could not obtain an objective cost picture except by collecting original data ourselves. Discus'The literature search has been updated and is available in mimeograph form. Persons desiring copies may obtain them by including one dollar per copy with their request to Mrs. Margaret E. Doyle, Secretary, Industrial Research Unit, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

19104.

Foreword

vii

sions with institutional users, manufacturers, architects, and others interested in the controversy confirmed this fact. In addition, further professional interest was involved because the collection of such data would involve us in developing output performance standards for an important class of indirect labor activities. In recent years, the rise in both absolute numbers and the proportion of indirect labor workers in the work force has caused considerable interest on the part of engineers and managers in setting performance standards on these activities. Such standards have been commonplace for direct labor for many years, but the variability inherent in indirect labor activities plus the difficulties in defining the unit of satisfactory performance has impeded the extension of

standards

programs to indirect labor. This project would enable us to address ourselves to the challenging task of developing indirect labor standards for certain operations in maintenance—an already important and growing area of indirect labor activity. The Armstrong Cork Company had expressed considerable interest in our results to this point, and generously offered to help support our data collection procedures. We accepted under the condition that we would have complete control over all phases of the project—the procedures and methods to be used, the areas to be studied, the analytical techniques, the conclusions, and that the conclusions would be made public, regardless of results, together with a clear acknowledgment of the fact of A r m s t r o n g support and of the conditions thereof. To this, Armstrong readily agreed, and subsequently made a completely unrestricted grant to the Industry Department of the Wharton School. As a result of this support, we were able to design and to conduct a much more extensive study than we had originally envisioned. The design of the study is explained in detail in the Introduction. We are also indebted to a large number of firms and institutions throughout the country who graciously offered to share their experiences with us, offered advice and constructive criticisms, and responded to mail and personal inquiries. Their interest in our results has led to the decision to publish this monograph.

viii

Foreword

A very special word of thanks is due to many companies and institutions in the Philadelphia and Delaware Valley areas who consented to allow our time and motion study engineers to come into their facilities and study their maintenance operations and personnel. Obviously, without their support and cooperation we could not have undertaken this project. Since they do not desire to be drawn into this controversy, and since they had opened certain of their confidential records to us, these companies and institutions requested that they not be identified by name. We are happy to respect their confidence. Besides the authors whose names appear on the title page, and whose careers are summarized below, several others contributed to the completion of this monograph. Mr. Edward R. Silansky, a graduate student at Wharton, did the basic literature search and much of the search for unpublished industry surveys. Mr. Robert B. Dyer, who has since received his M.B.A. from Wharton, did much of the pilot study work. Mr. Wayne Williams, likewise now a Wharton M.B.A. graduate, also assisted in some of these earlier studies. Professor Dean F. Berry helped in the initial work design, and in the supervision of the case material construction. Mrs. Marcia Seeley and Miss Joyce Rothman typed the manuscript. Mrs. Margaret E. Doyle, Administrative Assistant in the Industry Department and Secretary of the Industrial Research Unit, cared for numerous administrative details throughout the life of the project. The key man in the entire project from start to completion, has, of course, been Professor George M. Parks. Dr. Parks designed the study project, directed the operation, and supervised both the data collection and the write-up of the material. Now an Associate Professor in the Industry Department, Dr. Parks received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Princeton University in 1955, a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology in 1959, and a Master of Arts degree in Statistics in 1962 and a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering in 1963 from the University of California (Berkeley). Dr. Parks' industrial experience includes two years as an Industrial Engineer with Colgate-Palmolive Company, two years as a Mechanical Engineering Assistant with the Quartermaster Research

ix

Foreword

and Engineering Center of the U. S. Army, and numerous consulting assignments. He has contributed several papers on industrial engineering and operations research subjects to various

professional

journals. The other members of the study group are all University of Pennsylvania graduate students with considerable engineering experience. J. Mason Brown, Jr., is a second year M.B.A. student at Wharton. He received his B.S. in Industrial Engineering at the University of Buffalo in 1961 and also studied Chemical Engineering for two years at Purdue University. He has served as an Industrial Engineer at Olmsted Air Force Base for three years and with Colorado Fuel and Iron Company for one year. John A. Daily is a Ph.D. candidate in Business and Applied Economics, Graduate School of Arts and Science, University of Pennsylvania, and an Instructor in Business Law and Management at Temple University. He holds both B.S. and L.L.B, degrees from the University of Akron and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School. He worked four years as an Industrial Engineer with B. F. Goodrich Co. and with the Euclid Division of the General Motors Corporation. Michael W. Pestrak received his B.S. in Commerce and Engineering from Drexel Institute of Technology and is a candidate for the M.B.A. degree at Wharton. He served as Coordinator of the research group under Dr. Parks. His Industrial Engineering experience includes two years with SKF Industries. He also serves as a Course Assistant to Dr. Parks for production courses. David C. Stewart holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Stanford University. Now a candidate for the M.B.A. degree at Wharton, he worked for two years as an Industrial Engineer on supply system methods and computerized inventory systems. He is also serving as a Course Assistant in the undergraduate data processing course at Wharton. s

$

«

The authors of this monograph join the undersigned in emphasizing that the conclusions of this monograph are not to be considered as

χ

Foreword

recommendations or endorsements of any particular product or product group. All of us realize that there are factors other than costs which dictate some decisions as to the type of floor covering to be utilized in a given area. We do hope, however, that we have been able to shed some useful light on the economics associated with such decisions. An appendix demonstrating the use of the monograph in estimating flooring costs should be of special benefit to those desiring a purely economic comparison of different floor covering materials. Herbert R. Northrup, Chairman Department of Industry Wharton School of Finance and Commerce University of Pennsylvania November 8, 1965

Abstract

This report contains the results and conclusions of a study on the economics of carpeting and resilient flooring conducted by a study team at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania. Time and motion studies were made in accordance with generally accepted industrial engineering practices at nineteen cooperating firms and institutions in the Philadelphia area to obtain the basic data on which the conclusions are based. After defining the necessary maintenance operations and appearance levels, cost information was developed separately for four types of floor areas—unobstructed areas, obstructed areas, individual offices, and areas subject to high risk of spillage. Total costs were divided into installed costs, maintenance labor costs, capital equipment,

and

expendable supplias. Utilizing the amortized annual cost method, comparisons were made between the two floor covering materials in each of the four types of areas at various appearance levels and under various traffic conditions. If annual dollar cost is the criterion, the summary conclusion is that under all conditions investigated, the total annual cost for resilient flooring is less than that for carpeting. Capital equipment costs were shown to be relatively negligible, and, roughly speaking, the sum of the costs of maintenance labor and expendable supplies were found to be approximately equivalent for the two materials under comparable environmental conditions and appearance level requirements. The annual total cost differences are composed almost entirely of the differences in initial costs and service lives of the two flooring materials. Thus, an analyst can obtain a close approximation of the actual total annual cost difference by merely dividing initial installed cost by estimated service life for both materials.

xii

Abstract

The actual range of differences in annual costs varied greatly. The area of least advantage of resilient flooring (high appearance level individual offices) showed annual costs for carpet to be 123 percent of the vinyl asbestos annual cost. The area of greatest advantage for resilient flooring was in low appearance level hallways, such as in school buildings, where annual carpet costs were found to be 270 percent of vinyl asbestos costs. In addition to comparisons made by the amortized annual cost method, evaluations were also made using a discounted cash flow (present worth costs) technique. This was felt to be desirable since fairly long term capital investments are involved, and in such cases, economists generally prefer an analytical method that explicitly takes into account the time value of money and alternative investment opportunities for the individual firm. Since these methods primarily attach a greater importance to those expenditures which must be made at the present time and discount those which will occur in the future, the conclusion is reached that the economic advantage of resilient flooring increases when the time value of money is considered. The relative advantage (expressed as a percent) becomes greater as the interest rate employed in the analysis increases. This report is designed to be more than just a comparison of relative costs. It is hoped that it will also prove useful as an estimating guide so that the reader may prepare cost estimates for any flooring area where economics is a factor in the choice of materials. The format of presentation is designed to facilitate this, and numerous examples indicating how this could be accomplished appear at appropriate intervals in the text. An appendix to the text summarizes the estimation procedure for a relatively complex building, one where all four previously mentioned flooring areas are encountered. In another appendix, the results and conclusions of this study are compared in detail with two of the more widely publicized previous studies in this field—the one by the Armstrong Cork Company and the other by the American Carpet Institute.

Table of contents

Page

Foreword by Herbert R. Northrup

ν

Abstract

xi

Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION

1

A.

1

Format A discussion of why the study was made, who made it, and the format of the report.

B.

Methods and Procedures

2

A discussion of how the data was collected, the variability of the subject matter, definitions of floor area, performance rating, and the various maintenance operations. Chapter 2. STUDY RESULTS

9

A presentation of cost information on carpet and resilient flooring as found by the study group. A.

Installed Costs and Service Life 1. Initial Costs 2. Costs to Repair Flooring

B.

9 9 13

Cost of Labor to Maintain Carpet and Resilient Flooring

15

1. Frequency of Operations

15

a. Types of Areas

15

b. Desired Appearance Level

15

c. Traffic

16

d. Characteristics of Floor Covering

16

e. The Determination of Frequencies

19

xiv

Table of Contents

2. Labor Rates for Maintenance Operations

.

23

a. Operations in Unobstructed Areas

24

b. Operations in Obstructed Areas

25

c. Operations in Individual Offices

26

d. Operations in High Spillage Areas

26

e. Unquantifiable Time Spent in Maintenance Operations

27

C.

Capital Equipment

28

D.

Expendable Equipment and Supplies

39

1. Carpet

40

2. Resilient Flooring

42

Chapter 3. COMPARISONS OF THE COST OF CARPETING VERSUS THE COST OF RESILIENT FLOORING A.

51

Total Annual Cost per Thousand Square Feet. . .

53

Sample Calculations

53

B.

Example Cost Comparison

60

C.

Cost Comparison Utilizing Discounted Cash Flow Method

D. Cost Comparison Conclusion

63 69

Appendices I. Comparison With Similar Reports A. Comparison to ACI Study B. II.

Comparison to Armstrong Cork Study

71 71 78

Sample Calculations Demonstrating the Use of the Report in Estimating Flooring Costs

85

List of tables and figures

Tables

Page

1. Amortized Annual Installed Cost of Carpeting

10

2. Amortized Annual Installed Cost of Resilient Flooring

11

3. Frequencies

of

Maintenance

Operations

(Unobstructed

Areas)

20

4. Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (Obstructed Areas) . 5. Frequencies

of

Maintenance

Operations

(High

21

Spillage

Areas)

22

6. Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (Individual Offices) .

22

7. Operational Times for Carpet in Unobstructed Areas

25

8. Operational Times for Resilient Flooring in

Unobstructed

Areas 9. Operational

25 Times

for

Carpeted

Flooring

in

Obstructed

Times

for

Resilient

Flooring

in

Obstructed

Areas 10. Operational

25

Areas

26

11. Operational Times for Flooring in Individual Offices

26

12. Operational Times for Flooring in High Spillage Areas

27

13. Equipment Prices (as Found)

30

14. Equipment Operating Costs

30

15. Cost per 1,000 Square Feet for Expendable Supplies (Resilient Flooring)

45

16. Cost per 1,000 Square Feet for Expendable Supplies (Carpet)

46

17. Annual Cost of Expendable Supplies (Unobstructed Areas). .

47

18. Annual Cost of Expendable Supplies (Obstructed Areas). . . .

48

List of Tables and Figures

xvi

19. Annual Cost of Expendable Supplies (Individual Offices and High Spillage Areas)

49

20. Total Annual Cost of Unobstructed Flooring

54

21. Total Annual Cost of Obstructed Flooring

55

22. Total Annual Cost of Individual Office Area Flooring

56

23. Total Annual Cost of High Spillage Area Flooring

56

24. Cost Comparison by Amortized Cost Method of Analysis . . .

66

25. Cost Comparison—Present Value Method (16-Yr.

Planning

Horizon)

67

26. Cost Comparison—Present Value Method (32-Yr.

Planning

Horizon)

68

27. Annual Carpet Cost as a Percent of Annual Vinyl Asbestos Tile Cost

70

28. Annual Flooring Costs per 1,000 Square Feet (ACI and Study Group)

72

29. Installed Costs (ACI and Study Group)

73

30. Operational Times for Carpet (ACI and Study Group)

74

31. Operational Times for

Resilient

Flooring (ACI and

Study

Group) 32. Total Labor Cost (ACI and Study Group)

75 77

33. Capital Equipment Prices (ACI and Study Group)

78

34. Expendable Supplies Cost (ACI and Study Group)

79

35. Annual Flooring Costs per 1,000 Square Feet (Armstrong and Study Group) 36. Installed Costs (Armstrong and Study Group)

80 81

37. Operational Times (Armstrong and Study Group)

81

38. Capital Equipment Prices (Armstrong and Study Group). . . .

82

39. Comparison of Annual Cost at 85 Percent Appearance Level, Medium Traffic

87

Figures

1. Amortized Annual Cost (Resilient Flooring)

12

2. Amortized Annual Cost (Carpeted Flooring)

12

List of Tables and Figures

xvii

3. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Upright Vacuum)

31

4. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Tank Vacuum)

32

5. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Pile Lifter)

32

6. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Shampoo Machine)

33

7. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Floor Machine Used for Stripping)

33

8. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (Floor Machine Used for Buffing)

34

9. Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service (SelfPropelled Scrubber)

34

10. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Tank Vacuum)

36

11. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Upright Vacuum)

36

12. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Shampoo Machine) 13. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Pile Lifter).

37 37

14. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Floor Machine Used for Buffing)

38

15. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Floor Machine Used for Stripping)

38

16. Amortized Cost of Equipment per Area Serviced (Self-Propelled Scrubber)

39

17. Total Cost Versus Hourly Wage

64

18. Example Area Floor Plan

86

Chapter INTRODUCTION

A. FORMAT The emphasis on closely controlled expenditures has prompted management to consider in greater depth the relevant costs associated with flooring materials in the decision on what type of flooring to employ. Consequently, manufacturers of the various flooring materials have not only advertised the beauty and durability of their particular products, but also their associated costs. In the past few years there have been a number of conflicting claims as to the total annual use costs of carpet and resilient flooring. These reports have naturally come f r o m a variety of sources, and the conclusions tend to reflect the source. We have undertaken the task of evaluating objectively the question of the economics of carpet and resilient flooring. The study was conducted as a research effort by a group of four experienced industrial engineers, currently enrolled in graduate study at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, under the direction of Dr. George M. Parks, Assistant Professor of Industry and Operations Research. The collection and presentation of data were accomplished by the use of standard, well-accepted, industrial engineering techniques. The format of this presentation of results is such that the annual costs of carpet or resilient flooring, in any size installation, under a variety of maintenance plans, may be estimated. The report also contains several sample comparisons of the annual costs of carpet versus resilient floorings under different conditions. A valid comparison of the various flooring materials can be made only by comparing t h e m under several different conditions.

2

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

B. METHODS AND PROCEDURE 1. General Comments: All costs attributed to carpet or resilient flooring have been obtained either by survey or time and motion studies. The time and motion study observations of maintenance operations were made in cooperating commercial and institutional installations in the Philadelphia area, including office buildings, department stores, hospitals, apartment buildings, restaurants, and schools. In all, nineteen installations were studied in our observations of maintenance operations. The sample size enabled the Study Group to observe a variety of methods and equipment used in the various maintenance operations and also to observe the appearance levels obtained due to the different scheduling of the various maintenance operations. The Wharton Study Group recognized that maintenance operations and the conditions under which they are performed are, by nature, extremely variable. It is believed, however, that the sample taken was such that a representative presentation on the economics of carpeting and resilient flooring can be made. The inherent characteristics of carpet and resilient flooring other than cost often play an important role in the decision of what type of flooring is used. The classification of reasons due to individual preferences or psychological motivation is beyond the scope of this report. Although this presentation has striven to compare carpet and resilient flooring under many varying conditions, it is impossible to compare the materials under all the possible combinations of variables. Variables such as color of flooring material used along with weather and climatic conditions could affect the frequency of operations and time spent on a particular operation (e.g., the cost to maintain light color carpet or light color tile would most likely be higher than average maintenance cost shown in this report, because of the fact that spots are more noticeable on light floors and more time would be spent in spot removal; the greater ease and speed of spot removal on tile would affect the difference in maintenance costs between the two materials). The method of presentation of this report does, however, allow the comparison of the two materials to be made by an

3

Introduction

individual under the general conditions that prevail in his installation. In this regard, the reader is referred to the sample calculations on p. 53, p. 60, and p. 85. Although all of our original data collection was accomplished in the Philadelphia area, we do not feel that this limits the applicability of our findings in other geographic locations. The two maintenance cost items most critical in our analysis are the labor time rates and the frequency values. Experiences of the Study Group on other projects indicates that the differences in labor time rates (i.e., what is considered 100 percent performance) that would be found in other sections of the country would be relatively very small. This conclusion is supported by the nationwide—even

worldwide—acceptance

of

the

various predetermined data systems which are used by industrial engineers for a wide variety of work measurement applications. It may well be true that different sections of the country would require different frequency values for a given appearance level because of local climatic and environmental conditions, although we would not expect these differences to be large. In any case, should different values be desired, we would expect the values for carpet and resilient flooring to change in approximately the same proportion so that there would be very little influence on our essential conclusions. Also, because of the estimating guide feature of our format of presentation, an interested manager could readily make his own individual comparisons by substituting his desired frequencies for ours in the equations to follow. Another alternative available which was not included in our cost comparison of carpet versus resilient flooring was the use of maintenance contractors to perform operations which have low frequencies or unusually high costs of labor. In some areas, maintenance contractors are able to perform certain operations at a lower cost (due to specialization of labor and high usage of the contractor's

capital

equipment). 2. Definition of Floor Area a. The floor maintenance areas studied were of definable dimen-

4

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

sions in obstructed and unobstructed locations. Daily maintenance time included all elements performed in the cleaning of an area. 3. Performance Rating a. Each element composing a maintenance operation was rated according to the speed with which the element was performed. The rating also considered the needless repetition of effort. The basis of the rating procedures was the speed at which a normal worker would perform the observed element (100% noting the speed of a normal worker). 4. Maintenance Operations a. Maintenance operations performed were specifically defined. Elements which composed the total operation were noted and timed individually. The total operational time was the sum of the elemental times attributed to the operation. (1) All interruptions and nonproductive times were noted clearly on the time study sheets and were not included in operational times. Unavoidable delays (e.g., the delays occurring in the stripping and refinishing operation which was conducted as a " t e a m " operation) were noted, and a delay time factor was included in the total operational time values. (2) When operations were performed in sequence, each operation was evaluated and recorded separately (e.g., when dust mopping was performed before the damp mopping operation). b. Cleaning Operations for Tiled Floors (1) Dust Mopping—The operator started at one end of area, holding mop handle at an approximate 45-degree angle and pushed the mop straight ahead. At the end of the area the operator usually turned the mop in the opposite direction overlapping the previous pass by about 4 to 6 inches. (2) Damp Mopping—The mop was immersed in detergent solu-

5

Introduction

tion and wrung out before being applied to the floor. In most cases the operator mopped lengthwise along baseboards and then used a figure-eight stroke on the rest of the area. The mop was rinsed frequently during the operation. (3) Dry Buffing—The buffer was moved lengthwise along the sides of a corridor and a side-to-side motion used to cover the center of the area. In obstructed areas a side-to-side motion was used on open portions of the area and the buffer was moved carefully along the sides of obstructions, walls and under desks. (4) Stripping and Refinishing—(a) Warm water with wax stripper added was applied liberally with a mop over the entire area, (b) The area was scrubbed with a'floor machine moving lengthwise along the baseboards and side-to-side over the rest of the area, (c) The dirty solution was picked up with a wet-pickup vacuum or a mop (our labor rate is based on the use of a mop), (d) The floor was rinsed with clean warm water, (e) The rinse water was picked up with a wet vacuum or a mop. Baseboards were cleaned with the heel of a mop. (f) After the floor was thoroughly dry, the first coat of floor finish was applied. The mop was dipped in the finish and wrung to eliminate dripping. A thin coat was applied covering the sides of the area first, and then the remaining floor area was covered using a figure-eight stroke, (g) After the first coat was dry, the second coat was applied usually omitting the sides of the area. Buffing is treated as a separate operation. (5) Spot Mopping—A specific spotted area was damp mopped at a time other than when the damp mopping operation was performed. (Spot mopping was usually attributed to spillage or inclement weather.) (6) Wax—Liquid wax or floor finish was applied as needed with a mop over the entire area. In most cases the operator

6

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

mopped lightly lengthwise along the baseboards and then applied a heavier amount in the high wear areas with a figure-eight stroke, c. Cleaning Operations for Carpeted Floors (1) Vacuuming—An upright or tank-type vacuum cleaner was used. The first stroke of the vacuum was pushed in a forward direction usually parallel to the edge of the carpet. A return stroke was pulled over the same area. The operator stepped sideways and repeated the movement while slightly overlapping the previously covered area until the entire area was covered. (Many maintenance manuals make note of two vacuuming operations, complete and spot vacuuming. The two types are usually differentiated either by the percent of the total area covered, or by the thoroughness of the cleaning.) In the observations of vacuuming by the Study Group there was no noticeable difference in vacuuming operations either due to percent of total area covered or thoroughness of vacuuming. Consequently, only one operational time is given for vacuuming. (2) Stain Removal—The excess materials were removed and liquids were blotted. Spot-remover solution was applied over the spot. The carpet was inspected and later the solution reapplied if necessary. After the carpet was dry, the spotted area was brushed gently to raise the pile. (3) Pile Lifting—A mechanical pile brush was used to restore the pile to its original height. The machine was operated in the manner of a vacuum. The area was covered until the desired appearance was obtained. (4) Wet Cleaning—(with shampoo solution)—This operation was usually done by a two-man team, (a) A wet shampooing machine, usually a rotary-type with 16" to 22" brush diameter, control fed the desired amount of shampooing solution from the tank on the machine. After the shampooing solution was released, the operator brushed the area to

7

Introduction

be cleaned using a side-to-side or circular motion, overlapping each run in order to prevent streaking, (b) Any area which was not easily accessible to the shampooing machine was shampooed by hand with a scrub brush. Also any stained areas were spot cleaned using a spot-remover solution, (c) After the area had been shampooed, a deck brush was used to brush up the pile and restore its height. The shampooed area should be vacuumed the day following the shampooing to remove any film left by the detergent.

Chapter STUDY RESULTS

The following section is a presentation of the economics of carpet and resilient flooring as the Wharton Study Group has found them. The format of this section is such that an individual may calculate the opposing costs of carpet or resilient flooring in his particular installation or for any specific area within the installation. Examples of such computations are presented in Chapter 3 of this report.

A. INSTALLED COSTS AND SERVICE LIVES OF FLOORING. 1. Initial Costs Installed cost and service life data on flooring was obtained through interviews with firms studied in the project and through interviews with firms specializing in sales and installation of flooring materials. The material and installation cost of flooring varied over a wide range. The main causes of variations in cost are: a. type and quality of flooring material b. size of installation and quantity discounts c. obstructions or odd shapes of floor areas d. relative bargaining power of purchaser and seller. Because the variation inherent in flooring costs is so great, ranges of cost are given for four basic categories of floor area. The four categories include unobstructed areas, obstructed areas, individual offices, and high spillage areas. The flooring areas were differentiated into these four categories due to different wear and soil conditions to which each area is exposed and the appearance level requirements of each type of area. The average cost used for each type of flooring is based on a mode measure of central tendency of the range of cost values. A mode was

10

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

chosen b e c a u s e a n a r i t h m e t i c average would t e n d to bias t h e cost to t h e h i g h s i d e d u e t o a f e w v e r y e x p e n s i v e b r a n d s of f l o o r i n g . S e r v i c e life d a t a a r e a l s o g i v e n a s a r a n g e s i n c e s e r v i c e lives a r e h i g h l y v a r i a b l e d u e to: a . e x t r e m e v a r i a n c e in soil a n d w e a r c o n d i t i o n s b. v a r i a n c e in q u a l i t y of f l o o r i n g m a t e r i a l c . v a r i a n c e i n f r e q u e n c y a n d q u a l i t y o f c a r e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of flooring.1 T h e s e r v i c e life u s e d f o r c o s t c o m p a r i s o n w a s a m o d e of t h e s e r v i c e

TABLE 1

Amortized Annual Installed Cost of Carpeting

Cost Range per Sq. Yd.

Average Cost per Sq. Yd.

Service Life Range

$12.00-22.00 6.00-15.00

$16.00 10.00

8-17

Obstructed Areas: Office Open Areas and Retail Stores Wool Nylon

12.00 - 1 8 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 -15.00

16.00 10.00

8-17

Individual Offices: Executive Offices Wool Nylon

13.00-22.00 9.00-16.00

High Spillage Areas: Restaurants, Cafeterias and Cocktail Lounges Wool Nylon

12.00-22.00 6.00-15.00

Unobstructed Areas: Corridors, Lobbies and Foyers Wool Nylon

Service Life Average

Annual Amortized Cost per Sq. Ft.

12 8

$0,148 0.139

6-11

12 8

0.148 0.139

17.00 12.00

12-23 8-15

16 10

0.133

16.00 10.00

6-17 3-7

6-11

0.118

0.222 0.222

'Proper maintenance is especially important for carpeting life. If carpet is not vacuumed and shampooed at correct frequencies, the dirt left in the pile tends to abrade and wear carpet and substantially reduces its life.

Study Results

11

life data so that this figure would correspond to the installed cost measure. The service lives given are based on the assumption that a fairly high appearance of flooring material is desired. If appearance of floor material is unimportant, the flooring life could be somewhat longer due to the fact that the worn floor material would not be replaced as soon. Tables 1 and 2 give a range and an average for installed cost of various types of flooring in each category of area and a range and TABLE 2

Amortized Annual Installed Cost of Resilient Flooring

Unobstructed Areas: Corridors, Lobbies and Foyers Asphalt Vinyl Asbestos Vinyl Obstructed Areas: Office Open Areas and Retail Stores Asphalt Vinyl Asbestos Vinyl

Annual Amortized Cost per Sq. Ft.

Cost Range per Sq. Ft. (a)

Average Cost per Sq. Ft.

Service Life Range

Service Life Average

$0.25-0.30 0.40-0.45 0.50-1.40

$0,275 0.425 0.85

10-20 16-20 20-30

15 18 25

$0.0183 0.0236 0.0340

0.25-0.30 0.40-0.45 0.50-1.40

0.275 0.425 0.85

10-20 16-20 20-30

15 18 25

0.0183 0.0236 0,0340

0.25--0.30 0.40--0.45 0.50--1.40

0.275 0.425 0.85

Μ - -22 Ι 8--22 25--35

18 20 30

0.0152 0.0212 0.0283

0.25-0.30 0.40-0.45 0.50-1.40

0.275 0.425 0.85

10-20 16-20 20-30

15 18 25

0.0183 0.0236 0.0340

Individual Offices: Executive Offices Asphalt Vinyl Asbestos Vinyl High Spillage Areas: Restaurants, Cafeterias and Cocktail Lounges Asphalt Vinyl Asbestos Vinyl

• F o r extensive original installations, such as in new buildings, s o m e w h a t lower costs should be incurred, since these figures w e r e developed by averaging both new a n d r e p l a c e m e n t installations.

12

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

FIGURE 1 Amortized Annual Cost (Resilient Flooring)

Resilient Floor Life (Years)

FIGURE 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

Amortized Annual Cost (Carpeted Flooring)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Carpet Life (Years)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

13

Study Results

average of service life for each type of flooring in each category. Amortized costs are based on the average cost and the average service life. (Carpet costs are given per square yard, since this is the customary carpet measure.) Amortized cost of both carpet and resilient flooring is given per square foot. Amortized cost of flooring varies according to installed cost of flooring and service life. Since traffic and soil conditions vary greatly and appearance requirements are also highly variable, Figures 1 and 2 were devised to allow computation of amortized costs for a range of flooring costs and service lives. If the reader has an installation where the average costs given in Tables 1 and 2 are not applicable, he can take amortized costs from Figures 1 and 2 for any given flooring cost and service life that apply to his particular conditions and requirements. 2. Costs to Repair Flooring All types of flooring require periodic repairs and other extra maintenance service to counteract effects of spillage, uneven wear, cigarette burns, incorrect installation and various types of accidents. The repair requirements for any floor vary tremendously due to exposure to spillage or to fortuitous situations. Repair requirements increase as the flooring ages. The data for this section were obtained through interviews with firms studied in the survey and interviews with firms who do repair work. The repair costs given for comparison were derived as an arithmetic average of data obtained. Due to their extreme variation and relatively small magnitude, however, repair costs are omitted from the overall cost comparison, except in the sample calculations on pages 60-63. a. Carpet: The repairs required for carpet include: (1) Cigarette burns which are repaired by reweaving the carpet at the burn spot or by cutting out a small section of carpet and replacing with a new section. (2) Elimination of ripples in carpet which is done by restretch ing carpet and retacking or resewing seams.

14

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

(3) Resewing seams and retacking wall areas which is done as condition requires. ( 4 ) Shifting carpet to move worn areas out of heavy traffic lanes which is done in m a n y areas subject to uneven wear. (5) Cutting out and replacing worn areas or stained spots in carpet which is done as condition requires. The range of repair costs per thousand square feet per year ran from a negligible cost to $ 3 3 . 0 0 per thousand square feet with a yearly average of $ 1 2 . 0 0 per thousand square feet. b. Resilient Flooring—Repairs for tile floors include: ( 1 ) Replacing tiles d a m a g e d by cigarette burns. (2) Replacing dented, scratched or broken tiles. (3) Replacing worn areas in doorways and entry areas. 2 The average cost for various repairs to resilient flooring ranged from negligible cost to $ 1 0 . 0 0 with an average of $ 3 . 5 0 per thousand square feet. c. Differences in Repair Cost The main reasons for differences in cost for repairs between carpet a n d resilient flooring are due to: (1) Ease of replacing one tile in a resilient floor. A tile is merely heated until it curls at the edges. The tile can then be removed and a similar new tile glued in. In a carpet a repair requires matching and resewing a piece of carpet in place of an area that is cut out. (2) More highly skilled w o r k m e n are required for carpet

since carpet

sewing and

carpet

repairing

laying are

ex-

acting and highly skilled crafts. ( 3 ) Resilient flooring is not subject to as much d a m a g e f r o m spillage and other accidents. (4) Resilient flooring is not subject to problems such as parting seams and loosening of wall tacking. 2

Since carpeting may be shifted to move worn spots from high traffic lanes while

resilient flooring must be replaced, the cost in some cases for repairing wear spots is reduced for carpet.

Study Results

15

Β. COST OF LABOR TO MAINTAIN CARPET AND RESILIENT FLOORING 1. Frequency of Operations In determining maintenance costs, the frequency or number of times each maintenance operation is performed is of prime importance. The Wharton Study Group found that frequency is a function of three basic variables: traffic, desired appearance level, and type of area. The definitions used by the Study Group for type of area, appearance level and traffic were as follows: a. Types of Areas The four areas chosen by the Study Group for comparison were unobstructed areas, obstructed areas, individual offices and high spillage areas. The areas were chosen because of their complete coverage of all forms of floor area. The areas were defined by their wear and soil conditions and relative ease of maintenance. (1) Unobstructed areas—Halls, corridors and any area with a small number of easily movable pieces of furniture and equipment. (2) Obstructed areas—Floor areas with a large number of relatively immovable pieces of furniture and equipment; for example, desks, file cabinets, data processing equipment or drawing boards. (3) Individual offices—Those areas that are primarily used by one individual and include sufficient office equipment for his personal use; for example, desk, file cabinet, couch, chair, table, bookcases, and professional equipment. (4) High spillage areas—Primarily cafeterias and restaurants where food and drinks are served. This type of area can also include laboratories, rest rooms, and any other area where there is a high probability of spillage. b. Desired Appearance Level (1) 70 percent appearance level (a) Resilient Floor—Many noticeable spots and heel marks

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

in traffic lanes of floor. Gloss is low except for edge areas. (b) Carpet—Low matted pile in traffic lanes, dull color and many noticeable spots in the area. (2) 85 percent appearance level (a) Resilient Floor—A few heel marks and spots in traffic lanes. Floor has medium gloss except in heavy traffic lanes. (b) Carpet—Pile is high except in heavy traffic lanes, relatively dull in color with very few noticeable spots. (3) 95 percent appearance level (a) Resilient Floor—Very few heel marks in traffic lanes, no noticeable spots and high gloss over entire floor. (b) Carpet—Pile is high in all areas, color is bright and there are no noticeable spots or dirt on floor. c. Traffic (1) Light traffic Very sparse traffic during hours of work except for rush hours when a small number of people move through the area. (2) Medium traffic There is generally someone in the area at anytime, and at rush hours large numbers of people move through the area. (3) Heavy traffic There are always several people in the area, and at rush hours a very large number of people move through the area. d. Characteristics of Floor Covering The Study Group found that the frequency of maintenance operations varied directly with the desired appearance level and the amount of traffic. The Study Group also found the following characteristics of

17

Study Results

tile and carpet to be important in the determination of frequencies of maintenance operations. (1) Resilient Flooring Characteristics One of the most important characteristics of resilient flooring is that it should be dust mopped daily irrespective of traffic or appearance level. This is because high gloss floors clearly show any dust or dirt accumulation. Carpeting, on the other hand, holds dust and dirt in the pile and it is not as noticeable. The methodology used by the maintenance personnel can greatly affect the frequency and thus the cost of maintenance of resilient floors. For example, floor finish when applied will provide a good appearance level. This level of appearance will diminish over time under the effects of traffic. If a refinish coat is applied to traffic lanes properly so that the floor finish is replaced only where the finish has been worn by traffic, no wax buildup will occur. If no wax buildup occurs, the strip operation can be greatly reduced. A maintenance contractor has stated to one member of the Study Group that. "If you apply the wax right, you never have to strip." (The procedure or method used would be to apply the wax lightly on the edges of the halls and very heavily in the center.) Thus proper application of wax can greatly affect appearance level and maintenance cost. (2) Carpet Characteristics All maintenance operations on carpet increased directly with the increase in desired appearance level and traffic. An interesting observation is that the vacuum operation performed on carpeting can be omitted if another job is pressing without a significant decrease in appearance level. Thus the comment arose that "you can cheat more with carpet than with tile." The Study Group found the

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

omission of vacuuming rather common in offices and light trafficked areas. Another characteristic of carpet is the gradual darkening of the color with use. After a period of time the actual color is changed and the darkening is not noticeable if all spots are removed. The advantage obtained is that the shampooing operation can be decreased. However, the buildup of dirt in the pile of the carpet may seriously shorten its life. Dirt in the pile of carpet can greatly affect the life of the carpet and the overall cleanliness of the area. With a low pile carpet the dirt is not absorbed by the pile and, therefore, the carpet requires a higher frequency of vacuum operations. The low pile carpet then acts much like tile in maintenance operations because the frequency of vacuuming increases in order to maintain any level of appearance. Another inherent characteristic of carpet is the adverse effect of spillage or spotting. Most spots on tile can be easily removed by dry or wet mopping. With carpet, the appearance level drops considerably with a spot. Vacuuming does not remove the spot, so in order to maintain the appearance level, the spot must be removed with a chemical spot remover. The frequency of spotting is greatly affected by coffee breaks, ink, soda machines, and trash facilities of any type in a room, office or corridor. The spotting problem is even more acute when light carpets are used. The ability of a light carpet to hide a spot is much less than that of a dark carpet. The Study Group found that many carpet users would purchase very dark carpet to diminish the effect of spots on appearance level. This also tended to hinder light reflection and make the area duller. As a result of the color characteristic, the Study Group concluded that maintenance costs will increase with lighter carpet.

Study Results

19

e. The Determination of Frequencies The institutions studied by the group included offices (both large and small), research buildings, cafeterias, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, retail stores, and theaters. Maintenance in the areas studied varied from closely supervised to completely unsupervised operations. The great majority of our data was obtained from those organizations that properly supervised their maintenance operations. In these operations the quality of data was such that some sort of engineering approach to the job had been done. Thus, desired frequencies were followed more closely. In a few cases, however, appearance level was determined by the unsupervised maintenance employee as he was told only to keep the area clean. Under this type of arrangement, the appearance level and frequency were harder to derive. The frequencies used in this study are those which the Wharton Study Group found to be most representative of actual industry practice. The Study Group felt that desired frequency and actual frequency varied considerably. The variance is in line with the "as needed" approach commonly found in maintenance operations. In many installations, established frequencies of maintenance operations were often not followed because the decisions to perform maintenance operations were left to the discretion and judgment of maintenance employees. The Study Group analyzed these areas in light of actual occurrences, traffic and appearance levels observed, and thus the "as needed" approach could be quantified. It should be noted that there is no overlap of similar operations in the frequencies given. For example, in maintenance of resilient flooring at a 95% appearance level with heavy traffic, the damp mopping operation is not performed in the same week that the floor is stripped and refinished. Thus the frequency of damp mopping is 48 times per year since the floor

20

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

is stripped 4 times per year. (See unobstructed area frequency—Table 3.) A related point is that operations can be performed in sequence to obtain various end results. For example, the operations of damp mopping and buffing can be performed together in sequence to obtain the operation sometimes called spray TABLE 3

Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (Unobstructed Areas) Tile Frequencies per year"

Type Area

Appearance Level

Unobstructed

95

Unobstructed Unobstructed Unobstructed

85

Unobstructed Unobstructed Unobstructed

70

Unobstructed Unobstructed

Spot Mop

Strip & Wax

26

4

48

Light

26 26

3 3

49 49

Heavy Medium

26 26

;Ï :>

49 24

26 24

Light

26

;?

10

12

10 4

Heavy

26 26

2 1

10 4

12

2

260

Medium

—

1

Light

26

1

2

260 260

Traffic Heavy Medium

Damp Mop

Dry

Dust Mop

Buff

Wax

52 52

23

260 260

26

9

260

9

260 260

22

-

-

260

Carpet Frequencies per year 1 '

Type Area

Appearance Level

Unobstructed

95

Pile

Stain Traffic

Removal

Shampoo

Lift

Vacuum

Heavy

52

3.0

3.0

Unobstructed

Medium

52

2.0

2.0

260 260

Unobstructed

Light

52

1.5

1.5

156

Heavy

24

1.5

1.5

260

Medium Light

24

1.5

156

24

1.0

1.5 1.0

Unobstructed

85

Unobstructed Unobstructed

Heavy

12

Unobstructed

Medium

12

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

Unobstructed

Light

12

0.5

0.5

Unobstructed

a

70

See pp. 4 and 5 for definitions of maintenance operations. ''See pp. 6 and 7 for definitions.

130 130 104 104

21

Study Results

b u f f i n g , or r e c o n d i t i o n i n g .

Consequently,

the

maintenance

o p e r a t i o n s given in t h e f r e q u e n c y tables can be c o m b i n e d to yield various m e t h o d s , b u t the actual f r e q u e n c y of their individual occurrences r e m a i n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same. A n o t h e r cost c o n s i d e r a t i o n which c o n c e r n s the b u f f operat i o n is t h a t in s o m e areas a n o n - b u f f a b l e wax is very suitable for lower a p p e a r a n c e levels and, of course, will c o m p l e t e l y

TABLE 4

Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (Obstructed Areas) Tile Frequencies per year

Type Area

Appearance Level

Traffic

Spot Mop

Strip & Wax

Damp Mop

Dry Buff

Wax

Dust Mop

26 26 12

22 15 10

260 260 260

10 6 3

260 260 260

1 1

260 260 260

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

95

Heavy Medium Light

26 26 26

4 3 2

48 49 24

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

85

Heavy Medium 1 ight

26 26 26

2 2 1

24 10 8

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

70

Heavy Medium Light

26 26 26

1 1 1

4 4 2

-

Carpet Frequencies per yea r

Type Area

Appearance Level

Traffic

Stain Removal

Shampoo

Pile Lift

Vacuum

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

95

Heavy Medium Light

52 52 52

2.00 2.00 1.00

2.00 2 00 1.00

260 156 156

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

85

Heavy Medium Light

24 24 24

1.00 0.75 0.75

1.00 0.75 0.75

260 156 104

Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed

70

Heavy Medium Light

12 12 12

0.50 0 50 0.50

0.50 0.50 0.50

156 104 104

22

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

TABLE 5

Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (High Spillage Areas) Tile Frequencies per year

Type Area

Appearance Level

Spot Mop

Strip & Wax

Damp Mop

13uff

Wax

Dust Mop

Cafeteria Cafeteria Cafeteria

95 85 70

a a a

4 3 2

260 260 260

48 21 10

48 21 10

260 260 260

Carpet Frequencies per year

Type Area

Appearance Level

Stain Removal

Shampoo

Pile Lift

Vacuum

Restaurant Restaurant Restaurant

95 85 70

156 104 52

52 26 12

52 26 12

208 234 248

• Spot m o p p i n g activity is negligible since entire area is d a m p m o p p e d daily.

TABLE 6

Frequencies of Maintenance Operations (Individual Offices) Tile Frequencies per year

Type Area

Appearance Level

Spot Mop

Office Office Office

95 85 70

12 12 12

Strip & Wax 3 2 1

Damp Mop

Buff

49 22 11

Wax

Dust Mop

21 10 5

260 260 260

-

Carpet Frequencies per year

Type Area

Appearance Level

Stain Removal

Shampoo

Pile Lift

Vacuum

Office Office Office

95 85 70

24 12 6

1.00 0.50 0.33

1.00 0.50 0.33

260 156 104

Operation frequencies will be d e p e n d e n t to s o m e extent on traffic conditions, although the Study Group could not distinguish consistent patterns. Consequently, t h e frequencies given here will be high for light traffic executive type offices. We r e m i n d the reader that because of the e s t i m a t i n g guide f o r m a t of this report, he m a y substitute his own desired frequencies in t h e cost c o m p a r i s o n s to follow.

23

Study Results

eliminate the buff operation. As a result, the Study Group eliminated the buff operation in those areas where non-buffable wax can be used. (See 70 percent levels, Tables 3, 4, and 6.) The frequencies of maintenance operations, as found by the Study Group, are presented by type of area—unobstructed, obstructed, high spillage, and individual office areas—in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively. The frequencies are given for the possible combinations of appearance level and traffic conditions. 2. Labor Rates for Maintenance Operations

The following labor rates for the maintenance operations performed on carpet and resilient flooring were compiled by the use of widely accepted time and motion study techniques. The rates, presented in this section, reflect the results of the study of maintenance operations performed on 151,200 sq. ft. of carpet and 366,700 sq. ft. of resilient flooring. (The total amount of area studied was somewhat larger than the previously mentioned figures; however, because of abnormalities in methods used and area conditions, these studies were not included in the development of our data.) The labor rates are based on the assumption of reasonable supervision of the employees involved in floor maintenance. The rates shown below reflect the time needed to perform the various operations in unobstructed, obstructed, individual offices, and high spillage areas on a per 1,000-square-foot basis. Included in these labor rates are all elemental times necessary to complete the performance of an operation in an area size of 1,000 square feet (e.g., the changing of water during the damp mopping operation). Not included in the following labor rates are any allowances for travel time to and from an area to be serviced, setup and tear-down times performed once a day regardless of the size of the area serviced, time attributed to any cleaning of equipment, time spent in the replacement of equipment (e.g., obtaining a new mop

24

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

head or replacing a faulty vacuum) or any standard personal, fatigue and delay allowance. (The previously mentioned allowances which are not included in operational labor rates are considered to reduce the total working day, and are discussed in " e " of this section.) The Wharton Study Group emphasized the collection of labor time data in unobstructed area because the labor times would be the same in any given installation. This is due to the fact that the number and character of obstruction vary from area to area and from installation to installation, thus causing the labor times to be slightly different in each case. However, the Study Group did collect labor time values for obstructed areas, individual offices and high spillage areas with the same industrial engineering techniques used for unobstructed areas. Since the emphasis of the study was on unobstructed areas, not as much data was collected for each of the special area categories as was collected for unobstructed areas. But labor times observed had a small variation in each category, and the Study Group felt the sample was adequate to set labor rates for each type of area. The relationships between the labor rates for each category appeared reasonable based on observations made. The data verifies the conclusions that generally, as the obstructions increase, the labor time per 1,000 square feet also increases. In some cases (e.g., vacuuming), however, the time decreases with obstructions, since most such obstructions would not be moved in order to vacuum, thereby reducing the effective area to be maintained. Also, there are certain interactions between labor rate and frequency reflected in the data. For example the time for wet shampooing decreases as the frequency with which it is performed increases, since the dirt and soil do not become as set in the carpet.

a. The operational times for the maintenance of carpet and resilient flooring in unobstructed areas were found to be as follows:

Study

25

Results

TABLE 7

Operational Times for Carpet in Unobstructed Areas Operation

M i n u t e s per

1 , 0 0 0 sq. ft.

13.68»

1.

Vacuuming (tank

2.

Vacuuming

type)

3.

Pile

Lifting

12 7 9 h

4.

Wet

Shampooing

98.46

5.

Stain

14.51"

(upright)

5.41

Removal

•'Other o p e r a t i o n s s o m e t i m e s p e r f o r m e d in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h v a c u u m i n g are as follows: Operation

Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft.

M a n u a l Carpet S w e e p i n g

8.76

P i c k u p Sweep ( u t i l i z i n g b r o o m a n d l o n g h a n d l e d dust p a n )

1.24

Dust Mop Edges ( t i m e spent d u s t m o p p i n g b o r d e r s in n o n wall to wall c a r p e t e d areas)

3.83

'•The labor rate given tor pile l i f t i n g is based on pile l i f t i n g of heavy t r a f f i c lanes only. If c o m p l e t e pile l i f t i n g is d o n e , the labor rate s h o u l d be 20 m i n ' 1 . 0 0 0 sq. ft.

TABLE 8

Operational Times for Resilient Flooring in Unobstructed Areas Operation

M i n u t e s per 1 . 0 0 0 sq. ft.

1.

Dust M o p p i n g ( 1 8 " width)

4.12

2.

Dust M o p p i n g ( 3 6 " width)

3.41

3.

Damp Mopping

4.

D a m p M o p p i n g ( u s i n g a self p r o p e l l e d w e t p i c k u p m a c h i n e )

12.85

5.

Buffing (18" diameter)

6.

Stripping and Refinishing ( 1 8 " diameter—4 men)

7.

Re w a x ( o n e c o a t )

8.

Spot M o p p i n g

7.66 11.24 149.13* 15.98 3.13

•'Stripping a n d r e f i n i s h i n g t i m e utilizing a 3 2 " d i a m e t e r m a c h i n e was also observed. The rate per 1.000 s q u a r e feet was f o u n d to be 143.02. The s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the t w o rates c a n be explained by the i n h e r e n t delay t i m e f o u n d in t h i s o p e r a t i o n .

b. T h e o p e r a t i o n a l t i m e s f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of c a r p e t a n d resili e n t f l o o r i n g in o b s t r u c t e d areas w e r e f o u n d t o be as follows: TABLE 9

Operational Times for Carpeted Flooring in Obstructed Areas Operation

(a)

Vacuum

(b)

Pile Lift

(c)

Wet

(d)

Stain

(upright)

Shampoo Removal

M i n u t e s per 1 , 0 0 0 sq. ft. 12.92 19.38 215.33 5.41

• T h e t i m e given for u p r i g h t v a c u u m i n g is a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal t o t h a t for t a n k v a c u u m i n g in o b s t r u c t e d areas.

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

26

TABLE 10

Operational Times for Resilient Flooring in Obstructed Areas Wet Method Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft.

Operation (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Dust Mopping Damp Mopping Buffing Stripping and Refinishing Wax Spot Mopping

4.83 28.72 17.85 167.58 14.68 3.13

Dry Method' Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft. 4.83 —

17.85 145.22 76.08 3.13

"The dry method utilizes a paste wax solvent which is applied to the floor using a floor machine with a steel wool scrubbing pad. The floor then is buffed. The operation is equivalent to a damp mop and re wax operation in the wet method.

c. The operational times for the maintenance of carpet and resilient flooring in individual offices were found to be as follows:

TABLE 11

Operational Times for Flooring in Individual Offices

Operations for Carpet (a) (b) (c) (d)

Vacuum Pile Lift Wet Shampoo Stain Removal

Operations for Resilient Flooring (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Dust Mopping Damp Mopping Buffing Stripping and Refinishing Wax Spot Mopping

Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft. 7.61 19.37 215.33 3.41 Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft. 5.91 28.72 a 167.58 8.86 3.13

* A self-polishing wax is used.

d. The operational times for the maintenance of carpet and resilient flooring in high spillage areas were found to be as follows:

Study Results

27

TABLE 12 Operational Times for Flooring in High Spillage Areas Operations for Carpet (a) (b) (c) (d)

Vacuum (upright) Pile Lift Wet Shampoo Stain Removal

Operations for Resilient Flooring (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Dust Mopping Damp Mopping Buffing Stripping and Refinishing Wax Spot Mopping

Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft. 13.26 18.61 74.11 5.41

Minutes per 1,000 sq. ft. 6.38 24.39 11.94 206.40 15.99 a

• See note to Table 5. p. 22

e. Unquantifiable Time Spent in Maintenance Operations As stated previously, the labor rates presented above for the various maintenance operations did not include any allowance for travel time to and from an area to be serviced, setup and tear-down times performed once a day regardless of the size of the area serviced, time attributed to any cleaning of equipment, time spent in the replacement of equipment, or any allowance for personal time, fatigue and unavoidable delay. These times were not included in the operational labor rates per thousand square feet due to the variation inherent in them. The Study Group does recognize the existence of these times and feels that they should be included in any type of cost analysis. Consequently, it was decided that time spent in the above-mentioned ways would serve to reduce the working day available to maintain flooring. In our observations the Study Group found approximately one hour per day attributed to such reasons. All cost calculations will be based on a sevenhour working day instead of an eight-hour day to allow for time spent in maintenance not directly attributable to a.onethousand-square-foot area.

28

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

Since the format of this report allows individual manage ments to compute, based on our findings, the cost of carpet or resilient flooring in their installations, each installation may estimate its reduction in the working day available to floor maintenance. Any such estimate should consider con tractual agreements with the employees involved and the plant layout. For instance, if a particular union contract calls for two paid fifteen-minute coffee breaks in an eight-hour day, and if forty-five minutes are estimated to be consumed in the items mentioned in the paragraph above, then six and three quarters, rather than seven, should be used in the appropriate equations to follow. (See Page 61.) C. CAPITAL EQUIPMENT Capital equipment requirements for floor maintenance were determined through interviews with maintenance managers at firms studied during the project and a survey of installations in the Philadelphia area. Price ranges were determined through interviews and a review of catalogs of equipment sales firms. Service lives of equipment and repair cost data were based on records of firms studied. The capital equipment which the Study Group found to be used in floor maintenance operations is listed in Table 13. The table includes a cost range and average cost for each type of equipment found to be used and the number of firms observed who use the particular type of equipment. Table 14 shows the expected life of each type of equipment, the average cost of the equipment, the average repair and service cost and the total yearly cost of each type of equipment (including repair and service and amortization of the cost of the equipment over its life). The repair costs are based on use of the equipment daily or about 260 times per year. If the equipment is not fully utilized, the repair cost may be somewhat lower. The cost of one machine per year depends on the machine life,

29

Study Results

the initial cost and the average repair cost. The cost is given by the formula below: , . . original cost machine cost per year = — 5 + repair cost per year life The cost per thousand square feet per year for capital equipment is then given by: capital equipment cost per 1000 ft.-/year = (no. of machines) (machine cost/year) 1000 ft.-' of area served

The capital equipment requirements for a maintenance operation depend on the size of the area to be served, the time required to perform an operation and the frequency with which the operation is performed. If we assume a 7-hour or 420-minute actual working time per day and 260 working days per year, the number of machines required to perform an operation would be calculated by the formula below: number of machines

area to be maintained in 1000 ft.420 260 χ labor time per 1000 ft.2 frequency

The area to be maintained is divided by the number of thousand square feet that can be done in one day,

^^ , labor time per 1000 ft.2

times the number of days that are available to maintain the area, Of.i)

frequency

. For example, if an operation takes 10 minutes per 1000

square feet, then a man can cover 42,000 square feet in one day. If the operation is performed 52 times per year, then the operator has

260 , to do the maximum area he can maintain. Dividing the five days,——

Economics of Carpeting and Resilient Flooring

30

TABLE 13

Equipment Prices (as found)

Equipment Carpet Tank vacuum cleaner Upright vacuum cleaner Hand carpet sweeper Shampoo machine Pile lifter

Cost Range

Average Cost

$ 160-235 90-125 16-31 250-580 385

$ 186 108 24 374 385

3 4 1 2 4

1712

1

Resilient Flooring Clarke scrubbing machine with wet pickup vacuum self-propelled Floor scrubbing & buffing machine Mop buckets with wringers Tank-type mop buckets

TABLE 14

Equipment Carpet Tank vacuum cleaner Upright vacuum cleaner Hand carpet sweeper Shampoo machine Pile lifter Resilient Flooring Clarke scrubbing machine with wet pickup vacuum self-propelled* Floor scrubbing & buffing machine Mop buckets with wringers Tank-type mop buckets • If used.

1695-1730 280-498 34-45 145-70

389 40 145.70

Number of Firms Using

6 6 1

Equipment Operating Costs

Average Cost

Life

Avg. Repair & Service Cost per Year

Total Yearly Cost

$ 186

6

5%

$ 40.30

108 24 374 385

12 10 15 7

10% 10% 10%

19.80 2.40 62.33 93.50

1712

10

10%

342.40

389

15

10%

64.83

40 145.70

5 10

1% 1%

8.40 16.10

31

Study Results

area to be maintained by the amount of area that can be serviced by one man working full time gives the number of machines required. If the number of machines required is fractional, it must be rounded up to the next highest integer. If a machine is used for several operations, for example, a floor machine is used for buffing and stripping, then the number of machines required for each operation would be added. In calculating machine requirements for more than one operation, the fractional figures derived from the formula should be first added together and then rounded to the next highest integer. To aid in figuring machine requirements for unobstructed areas, Figures 3 through 9 have been drawn so that the number of machines needed can be obtained from the graphs instead of being calculated for each situation. In each figure the number of machines is found by finding the area serviced on the horizontal axis and tracing up to the appropriate line

FICURE 3

Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service. (Upright Vacuum)

«« A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

τ

S'

/

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

Area Serviced

1000 Ft-

E c o n o m i c s of C a r p e t i n g a n d R e s i l i e n t F l o o r i n g

FIGURE 4

Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service. (Tank Vacuum)

7

6

5

Λ ty

J /

f

4

3

f

2

'

2

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 0 0 110 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 7 0 1 8 0 1 9 0

Area Serviced

FIGURE 5

200

1 0 0 0 Ft-

Capital Equipment Requirements by Area of Service. (Pile Lifter)

-y^zZZf*· wiL i Time per Tear 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

I

I

I

1 0 0 110 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 7 0 1 8 0 1 9 0

Area Serviced

1 0 0 0 Ft-

200

33

Study Results

FIGURE 6

C a p i t a l E q u i p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s by Area of Service. ( S h a m p o o M a c h i n e )

¡i e»V

ri e-£

i II

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ar _

d j j me (

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

Area Serviced

FIGURE 7

nobsUi*«

1000 Ft-

C a p i t a l E q u i p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s by Area of Service. (Floor M a c h i n e Used f o r S t r i p p i n g )

» y

A i /

ΛY Λ

A

c< e