This article originally appeared on CleanFax. Read the original article here: https://cleanfax.com/the-high-cost-of-lost-in-translation/
In the world of commercial floor maintenance, we spend a lot of time discussing chemistry, agitation, and dwell time. But there is one tool just as critical as any low-moisture machine or high-performance coating: the dictionary.
Serving as technical director at XL North for close to twenty years, I have seen it happen a thousand times. A manufacturer specifies a process, a contractor executes what they think they heard, and a facility manager (FM) is left with a floor that doesn’t meet expectations. Most of the time, failure isn’t due to a subpar product; it’s due to a breakdown in language.
The “Clean” Disconnect
Take the word “Clean.” It sounds simple, right? But look at how the perspective shifts:
- The Manufacturer: Defines “clean” as the total removal of foreign contaminants without compromising the physical integrity of the material.
- The Contractor: Often sees “clean” as a visual result—removing spots and traffic patterns so the client is happy during the walk-through.
- The Facility Manager: Defines “clean” as a sanitized environment that smells fresh and protects their capital investment for the next decade.
If the FM wants longevity but the contractor is chasing a visual “pop” using aggressive chemicals, the floor might look great Friday, but its lifespan is being stripped away by Monday.
Manufacturer’s Spotlight: The Shift from Finish to Factory Coating
Jim Toth Jr. with Mannington Commercial notes that this linguistic disconnect is further complicated by a massive shift in how floor coverings are manufactured today. In the past, the flooring manufacture was “sidelined” in maintenance conversations.
“Historically, most hard surface flooring—such as VCT, wood, and terrazzo—relied on applied finishes. Because of this, the focus of cleaning and maintenance was rarely on the flooring itself. Instead, it centered on maintaining the finish layer applied on top.” — Jim Toth Jr.
According to Toth, this created a culture where cleaning practices were shaped by chemical, equipment and pad manufacturers rather than the people who made the floor. However, the introduction of factory-applied coatings has changed the stakes of the conversation:
- Integrated Performance:Â Most factory coated floors do not need a temporary finish; it has a coating that is an integral part of the product.
- Engineered Precision:Â Modern urethane systems are engineered for specific wearability, sheens and coefficient of friction.
- The Risk of Tradition: Using “traditional” aggressive pads or coatings on these advanced surfaces can unintentionally compromise the floor’s longevity and appearance.
The takeaway is clear: Aligning your vocabulary with the flooring manufacturer’s guidelines is no longer optional, it is the only way to ensure the product performs as promised.
A Contractor’s Perspective: Why Intent Isn’t Execution
Jason Ruppel with Solid Surface Care points out that this breakdown is where the most significant field issues begin:
“Most of the time, the issue isn’t execution; it’s that everyone involved thought they agreed on the scope but didn’t. Terms like ‘deep clean,’ ‘polish,’ or ‘maintenance’ get interpreted differently.”
Ruppel notes several common high-stakes examples:
- VCT: “Stripping” vs. a simple scrub and recoat.
- Terrazzo: “Polishing” meaning intensive diamond work vs. applying a topical coating.
- Scope Creep: “Deep clean” being used to describe anything from routine maintenance to full restoration.
The Maintenance & Warranty Trap
Another culprit is “Maintenance.” To a manufacturer, this is a rigid, scheduled frequency required to uphold a warranty. To an FM, it’s often a budget line item that gets squeezed.
As Ruppel observes, “If the terminology being used in the field does not match how the manufacturer defines the process, you end up outside of spec… That’s where warranties get put at risk.”
Steve Starcher, Technical Support for MilliCare Franchise and Vice Chair of the IICRC-S-250, emphasizes that using the right words are a professional safeguard:
“Clear communication with the correct word choices… can prevent lost profitability when a return trip to correct a miscommunicated situation is the unintended consequence of those choices.”
Industry Terminology vs. Common Perception
| Term | What a Facility Manager Hears | Industry Standard Definition |
| Cleaning | “The floor looks good and smells fresh.” | The physical removal of foreign matter (soil) from a surface. |
| Maintenance | “The janitorial crew vacuumed and mopped.” | A planned, documented process of preventative, interim, and restorative tasks. |
| Interim Cleaning | “A quick touch-up between deep cleanings.” | A high-frequency process designed to maintain appearance at a lower cost. |
| Restoration | “A really good deep cleaning.” | A process used when a floor’s appearance has deteriorated beyond acceptable appearance. |
| Spot vs. Stain | “There is a mark on the carpet.” | Spot: Substance added to fiber (removable). Stain: Chemical reaction with the fiber. |
Precision Yields Performance
To eliminate the “gray areas” where reworks and shortened floor life live, follow these three steps:
- Standardize the Vocabulary: Before a drop of water hits the floor, ensure everyone agrees on definitions for restoration, interim cleaning, and scrub/recoat.
- Align Expectations: If an FM asks for a “shiny” floor, clarify: do they mean a high-gloss topical finish or a mechanically polished surface?
- Document the “Why”: Explain to crews why the specific terminology in the spec—especially regarding factory coatings—matters to the long-term health of the floor.
Final Thoughts
We can have the best chemistry in the world, but if we aren’t communicating clearly, we’re just making a mess. As Jason Ruppel concludes: “The failure usually isn’t the product; it’s that everyone meant something different when they used the same word.”
Let’s start using our words as carefully as we use our chemicals.
