IICRC/CRI

[dan mabes]

A question Lisa W asked in a previous thread:

"Okay then... to all of YOU here... if YOU were to design your own referral program, ala SOA (at least the "idea" of it...) or ala Ethical Services, what would YOU make the requirements be?
Seriously. IICRC certified? Bonded? Certain equipment? Fair wages? Guarantees?
Pretend CRI comes to YOU with their tail between their legs... what is YOUR solution?
Eventually they are going to have to ask... so we might as well begin crafting what that would look like. Why not do it here on MB. Since you think all the other systems stink... what would you do instead?

Lisa"

I compiled a list of the responses and they are

1. Add oily stick components to the soils, or make 3 samples with different soil compositions
2. Continued testing of cleaning but with real old and oily dirt on old worn out carpet.
3. Chemical testing: efficacy, ph.
4. Drop the equipment altogether and simply require some basic specs.
5. Machines that meet minimum requirements for: psi, gpm, temperature, cfm.
6. Heat, Vacuum, and Pressure should be measured at the end of the wand, not by the manufacturer specs.
7. Standards and Programs that are helpful and relevant.
8. Trade associations that represent cleaners
9. Expansion of the IICRC mission to include advocating to the industry, not just cleaners; protecting the interest of owner/operators
10. Why are we letting someone that doesn’t know cleaning tell the cleaner how to clean?
11. Training and experience are critical, not just for cleaners but also for installers, sales people and specifiers.
12. Training with a higher pass rate and more hands on.
13. Any testing being done should be approved by ASTM
14. The IICRC Board needs to lose its “benefits and perks”.
15. New blood is needed on the IICRC, eliminating the “good old boy network”.

These comments/suggestions were made by: “brucedeloatch”; “ truckmount girl”; “Doc Holliday”; “Ryan”; “harryhides”; “Jay DeLaughter”; “James Cooper”; “Steven Hoodlebrink”.

Does anyone feel there is more that should be added to these comments/suggestions?. I will gladly forward these comments/suggestions to the IICRC BOD

Dan M

 

[J Scott W]

Undoing what most of us consider mistakes - i.e. giving Rug Doctor the gold / platinum rating - will be hard to do. I suspect they have contracts or agreements that can not be undone.

I would like to see the equipment testing divided into two or possible three categories.
1) Products for consumer use. This would include Rug Doctor, Bissel and whatever else is sold for home use.
2) Professional products
3) Could be machines for in-house use such as walk behinds or equipment not meant for the person in the business of carpet cleaning but for maintaining larger commercial acounts.

Each of these groups has different requirements. It does not make sense to lump them all together.

This could allow Rug Doctor to maintain there top rating in the proper division - consumer or home use. That is the group that is important to them. That is the group that would be looking at websites and ratings should they decide to clean their own carpets.

For professional cleaning equipment, it might be better simply to have requirements such as heat range, water pressure range, water volume range, vacuum lift and CFM. These would be measured at the wand, where the cleaning is actually delivered to the carpet.

No need to test each individual unit as long as it meets whatever are the basic minimum requirements. That would save a ton of testing money.

The only products that need to be tested could be for consumer use / spotters and perhpas in-house clenaing products. Professional cleaners know what they need to get a carpet clean. They have never been the problem for the mills. Their concerns are in-house cleaners and maintenance claims on huge commercial accounts.

Do away with other product testing categories. Save the manufacturers money and in the end cleaners would ave money as well.

 

[The Great Oz]

http://cleanfax.com/detail.asp?Parent_ID=145821&t=145839#145839

I mostly wouldn't try to fix the CRI program by the details. I'd just drop the worst of it.

 

[Shawn Forsythe]

Bryan's post on Cleanfax is spot-on.

The cruxt of CRI's problems staryed when they married the success of the program to the perceived simplicity of the NASA borne x-ray fluorescence technology. It was made such a fundamental key long before the practicality of the device and method could be addressed with the possibility that it might be dismissed altogether. As it's failings materialized, the program was adjusted only minimally, whilst still maintaining its centerpiece role. The result is that the standard of excellence was lowered to the flawed capability of the system. Moreover, the program strives to be super-simplistic for the consumer, while missing in the ability to actually rationally differentiate properly between systems and methods that are too complex to be covered, when practicalities such as professional economics of cleaning are also taken into consideration.

I don't know that the CRI can simply set standards of performance parameters for individual subsystems of equipment or methods, since cleaning permits variations in specifications of elements that can be compensated for elsewhere, given indefinite time or labor. This the very nature of differing cleaning methods, and whether it is practical for particular situations and professional application. What usually dictates the actual performance of a cleaning system is whether the user performs the procedure properly, taking into account any deficiencies and compensating for such, provided they have that luxury (of time and labor). Any system will perform in a substandard manner if the system's procedures are conducted in a manner exceeding the established efficiencies of the equipment. Conversely, almost any equipment can be tested to perform satisfactorily if no economic criteria is involved. The current SOA program ignores practical minimums of economic efficiencies by giving each system the ability to use a procedure inconsistent with the manner in which it will be practically used. Hence the Rug Doctor debacle.

 

[KevinL]

I thought the whole purpose of the CRI was to promote the sale of carpeting to home-owners. When and where are they doing that??

 

[Ron Werner]

I thought the SOA was to reduce the number of claims the manufacturer's were getting.

So they want to increase sales and have happier customers. Its amazing they are still in busn with how they've handled this fiasco.