LIQUID OZONEA Paradigm Shift in Cleaning within University of Michigan Housing

Prepared for: Vicky Hueter and Joe Kennedy, University of Michigan HousingPrepared by: Alicia Chiaravalli, Logan Chadde, and Jessie Fletcher

April 24, 2013

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1Introduction 3

Background Information

Liquid Ozone at the University of Michigan

Goals

Methodology 6Focus Group and Knowledge/Opinion Survey

Full Staff Knowledge/Opinion Survey

Findings 7Primary Research from Focus Group

Full Staff Survey Data

Deliverables 12External Marketing

Internal Marketing

Standardizing information for Housing

Recommendations 16Conclusion 19Appendices 21

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Grant Proposal i

Executive Summary

President Coleman’s 2012 campus sustainability goals called for a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, a 40 percent reduction in waste, and a 40 percent reduction in harmful chemicals (among others) by 2025. In an effort to become more sustainable, improve the health of their custodial staff, and save money, University Housing recently began implementing a new cleaning agent called “liquid ozone.” This product differs from every other cleaning agent used in University Housing; it’s made on-site and chemical-free. Liquid ozone is basically charged water, thus it’s appearance is similar to water and it has no smell. Water flows through a charging machine, and leaves as ozone in liquid form which naturally has an unstable oxygen atom that attaches to and kills bacteria and viruses. However, the charge that allows liquid ozone to clean is only effective for two to four hours. Given these significant differences between liquid ozone and traditional cleaning products, it is clear why the transition might be met with skepticism and even defiance. Vicky Hueter, Director of Housing Facilities of the Division of Student Affairs, challenged our team to help smooth the transition to the use of liquid ozone in the residence halls. By better understanding staff concerns, increasing student awareness of its use, and improving staff knowledge of liquid ozone, we hope to increase its adoption in UM Housing and beyond.

To learn more about the problems facing adoption of liquid ozone, we researched liquid ozone and behavior change, ran a focus group with custodians in one residence hall, and distributed a short survey to all of the Housing custodians using liquid ozone at the University of Michigan. In our analysis of focus group and survey data, we found that current custodian behaviors and opinions were more a result of inadequate training, poor relationships, misunderstandings with the equipment, and a lack of understand procedural instructions than simply a dislike of the liquid ozone product itself. According to our focus group and survey results, the majority of custodians preferred the chemical cleaners to liquid ozone and there was a general dislike of liquid ozone and its implementation. However, many factors played into this unfavorable opinion, including malfunctioning equipment, time constraints due to new work zones, a perceived lack of training, an absence of student awareness, and poor communication and/or relationships with supervisors. These discoveries and analysis informed our recommendations and deliverables.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 1

While we are not be able to address all the issues raised by the custodians, our intention is to help Housing answer common custodial questions and concerns and increase student awareness. We accomplished this through by creating an informational sheet, an informational poster, and a video promoting the benefits of liquid ozone to students – all created in consultation with the Housing communications department. Among some of the smaller deliverables included a logo designed by Toni Voss (featuring a slogan created by a member of the University Housing staff, Chris Behr) and an article published about liquid ozone through the Michigan Daily. Both of these deliverables we designed to improve student awareness and staff acceptance of the liquid ozone product.

Finally, we recommend our sponsors take additional steps to address the concerns raised by custodians. Supervisors should make sure custodians feel heard and appreciated, especially in weekly meetings between supervisors and staff. We also suggest that Vicky and Joe measure the effectiveness of the above deliverables in six months time using the same survey given to the full staff and focus group and hold a second focus group with Bursley staff. We believe the recommendations given in this report will improve custodian knowledge and favorability towards liquid ozone, while helping Housing and the University smoothly transition to a more sustainable cleaning solution.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 2

IntroductionIn 2012, President Coleman introduced significant campus sustainability goals, calling for a 40 percent reduction in harmful chemicals used on campus that contaminate the Huron River, among others. In a substantial effort to eliminate the chemicals used on campus, improve the health of employees and save money, University Housing has implemented a chemical-free cleaning agent called “liquid ozone” in most of the residence hall on campus.

Background InformationThe liquid ozone product is distributed on site to custodial staff. The product comes through a machine that is connected to a water supply, which is installed into each residence hall individually. Water enters the machine where it is electrocuted, forming an unstable oxygen atom (O3). This oxygen atom desperately wants to become dissociated from its partners and return to water (H2O) but cannot do so without a nucleophilic oxygen source. Bacteria and viruses are an example of one such source. Therefore, once the oxygen atom comes in contact with contaminants such as bacteria, it quickly attacks and eliminates the substance and reduces to pure oxygen (O2) and water (H2O). Below is a  diagram from Tersano (2002) that visually describes this process. In the first frame, water is coming into contact with electricity to form liquid ozone molecules. Next, the liquid ozone molecules approach and “attack” a bacterium or virus with the unstable oxygen atom. The final panel shows the by products of pure oxygen after the contaminant is killed.

Liquid ozone is created and distributed on in the residence halls at U of M using the lotus PRO machine shown below:

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 3

The lotus PRO charging machine has two hoses (one that takes in tap water and another that dispenses liquid ozone) and contains a water filter within the unit. Water runs into the machine and is electrified and the liquid ozone product that comes out is immediately ready for use. Liquid ozone can then be used in carpet cleaning machines, spray bottles, buckets, or any other cleaning receptacle. The lotus PRO machine can charge and dispense liquid ozone up to five gallons per minute. See full product specifications in Appendix A.

At a base price of $3,250 (interested consumers can sometimes negotiate the price), the lotus PRO machine is a one-time payment that will ultimately save the interested purchaser money while simultaneously reducing total chemical usage. The machine requires only water, electricity, and a $150 filter that needs replacement after every 1,600 gallons of use, which usually occurs after a three to six month period.

Liquid ozone is a more sustainable cleaning alternative to chemical cleaners for a number of reasons. Liquid ozone represents a reduction in packaging and carbon emissions from transportation due to on-site production and distribution, an improvement in indoor air quality, and an elimination of chemical waste and exposure to harsh chemicals.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 4

Liquid Ozone at the University of MichiganU of M began the implementation of the liquid ozone program in October of 2010 with the first machines being placed in the South Quad Residence Hall, followed by the Mosher-Jordan Residence Halls several months later. As of January 2013, liquid ozone machines are located in the Bursley, Markley, Stockwell, Alice Lloyd, North Quad, Couzens, Mosher Jordan, Barbour/Newberry, and Fletcher residence halls, as well as the Michigan League. The remaining residence halls have plans to make the transition in the future, with the exception of Baits, which is not equipped with elevators. West Quad and East Quad plan to have liquid ozone machines installed after renovations.

Our sponsors were concerned that the change to the environmentally friendly liquid ozone had received mixed responses from U of M Housing custodial staff. Some employees have responded with concern, irritation, and confusion. As a result, employees may not use the product properly, or in some cases, not use it at all. When presenting her pitch to the ENV 391: Sustainability and the Campus class, Vicky Hueter stressed that in extreme instances, staff had been known to bring in personal cleaning supplies (such as bleach) and add them to the liquid ozone before using the product. Unfortunately, adding anything to the liquid ozone negates the cleaning effects of both the ozone and any cleaner that may have been added; the extremely reactive oxygen atom attaches to the added chemical instead of the intended bacteria and grime. Vicky and Joe believed that skepticism within the Housing staff arose due to the absence of color, smell, and visible chemical reaction with use of liquid ozone; characteristics that are commonly present in chemical products and important in societal understanding of the term “clean.”

GoalsThe objectives of our assignment are to increase custodial acceptance of liquid ozone, increase custodial knowledge of the liquid ozone product, and increase public awareness of Housing contributions to UM sustainability. Additionally, the sentiment of this project is to facilitate future transitions to liquid ozone or other sustainable alternatives, whether that be expansion within the University of Michigan or at other universities or institutions interested in making the transition. Application of our findings could improve the sustainability and effectiveness of transitions elsewhere by informing appropriate introductions to the product, standardizing necessary educational material, and, in doing both of these things,

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 5

maintaining a quality relationship between supervisors and staff. It is also important to advertise the transition to a more sustainable, chemical-free cleaner externally. Beginning the transition process with solid public awareness of the change ensures adulation and positive reinforcement for those upholding the changes on the ground level.

MethodologyFocus Group and Knowledge/Opinion SurveyA focus group was chosen as the most practical and effective way to gain more information about the knowledge and opinion of Housing staff regarding the transition to liquid ozone. Focus groups are ideal for obtaining more qualitative responses, especially when more contentious information is sought from a relatively smaller group of people. On Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 the first focus group was held at the Bursley residence hall. Bursley had been identified by Vicky and Joe as the most recent transition and the residence hall with the most resistance. Breakfast was provided for the ten staff members who attended the hour-long facilitated conversation. The conversation was guided by questions designed to investigate the root of the liquid ozone adoption problem and was conducted in the absence of supervisors. Examples of questions included: “Has your cleaning routine changed since the switch to liquid ozone?”, “What recommendations would you give to other universities/school districts who are looking to implement liquid ozone in the near future?”, and an overarching question of “How do you feel about the switch to liquid ozone?”. A facilitator guided discussion- asking questions aimed at getting beyond immediate reactions to more constructive responses. A longhand notetaker recorded staff responses on a large poster as a visual reminder for staff that they were being listened to. And finally, an additional note-taker recorded responses on a computer to ensure that no responses were being missed.

At the beginning of the meeting, staff were asked to complete a short survey to gauge their opinion and knowledge of liquid ozone. The survey consisted of eight questions: four true or false questions and four multiple-choice questions. To reference the survey used in the February 27th focus session, please refer to Appendix B. This set of surveys was collected on-site and was completed by nine of the ten staff members.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 6

Full Staff Knowledge/Opinion SurveyAfter meeting with our sponsors following the focus group, we collectively decided to disseminate the same survey throughout the housing staff. Our sponsors forwarded the survey through email to supervisors of each dorm that had implemented liquid ozone and instructed them to print, administer, and collect surveys from staff members. Out of the 106 full time staff who received the surveys, 72 of them completed them and returned them to their supervisors, giving us an astounding 68% return rate.

FindingsPrimary Research from Focus GroupThere were a few common themes that emerged from the custodial staff’s answers, including a general dislike of the liquid ozone product. Most of the staff (9 out of the 10 members present) were opposed to liquid ozone and held strong negative views towards it, both as a product and the way it was implemented. While many of the custodians expressed disappointment with the effectiveness of liquid ozone as a cleaner, when we dug deeper, we found that there were many other factors that played into this negative impression, including: malfunctioning equipment, time constraints due to new larger work zones, a lack of training, and poor communication and/or relationships with supervisors.

The setup below was designed by Robert Mager as a useful tool for organizing the factors contributing to a problem for more efficient correction. Information from the completed surveys and general responses from this focus group was analyzed and organized into the table provided in Appendix C. These analysis tool became extremely useful in determining recommendations for our Housing sponsors. The four quadrants of the table (incentive, materials and processes, clarity, and instruction) all lay along different lines in the balance between competency and commitment.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 7

To our surprise, we found that there was a severe knowledge gap (i.e. low competence) with many of the custodians unsure of how to properly use liquid ozone or in the effectiveness of liquid ozone as a sanitizer. Out of the nine staff who completed the survey, only four (44.44%) of them answered the question “True or False: Liquid ozone kills 99.9% of all known germs” correctly (The correct answer to the above question is true).

Liquid ozone is a versatile reagent that can be used on most surfaces, including carpeting and other soft surfaces. Despite the use of liquid ozone in the residence halls on a variety of mediums (including soft surfaces such as carpets), only four of the staff members in the Bursley focus group answered the question “True or False: Liquid ozone can only be used

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 8

on hard surfaces; it cannot be used on clothing, carpet, or any other soft surface” correctly, a sign that there was a severe gap of knowledge regarding the proper use of liquid ozone.

Interestingly, it was not the same four staff members who answered the above questions correctly, indicating that knowledge is scattered within the group and not consistent. The data from the focus group is shown below where the questions answered incorrectly are labeled in red and the questions answered as “unsure” are labeled in orange. Please note the knowledge disparity within the group.

Staff repeatedly expressed confusion on the cleaning process associated with liquid ozone. Common themes included “Was it spray the product and let it dry? Or should we spray the product and wipe it clean?” The staff claimed that they had been given conflicting information from managers, the liquid ozone representative, and the Tersano website. This led to confusion and distrust of both the liquid ozone product and the people

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 9

who had introduced it to staff. Examples of conflicting information includes procedure for cleaning with liquid ozone, kill times for various pathogens, and effective charge time of liquid ozone.

Many custodians viewed the product with deep skepticism (ie. poor commitment). Common concerns included problems with the lack of a color, smell, or chemical reaction associated with liquid ozone. Staff had been informed that the product worked effectively, but were not given sufficient evidence to prove the product’s effectiveness themselves. A common opinion expressed was, “If liquid ozone is so effective, why do we need to use chemical cleaners on certain things like the showers?”. In this instance, while liquid ozone sanitizes a shower stall as effectively as chemical cleaners, water that runs down the shower partition leaves streaks after cleaning with liquid ozone which does not occur when cleaning with chemicals. In this instance, chemicals were reintroduced for use on metal shower partitions in Bursley for aesthetic reasons. Chemicals that remove “goo-like” substances from surfaces and add shine to metal showers complete very specific tasks that liquid ozone cannot always perform. Managers responded to concerns and complaints with liquid ozone like this by creating a list of acceptable supplemental chemical cleaners on a case by case basis. This act however seemed to increase skepticism of liquid ozone as an effective product rather than appease the specific needs of the staff.

Custodians seemed to have poor training combined with poor usage experiences that led to the strong negative feelings. Furthermore, poor communication and relationships with supervisors led to additional negative feelings towards liquid ozone. A large, but separate, issue that came up during discussion was the recent rezoning of all of the residence halls. Originally, each of the custodians had a specific area in the building that they cleaned daily. After the rezoning, each staff member had a certain type of area to clean (e.g. bathrooms, hallways, walls, etc.). Staff members were concerned that the rezoning gave them less time to do their job effectively and some even hinted that going back to original zones would improve their opinion of liquid ozone. There is not enough evidence to prove whether the issues with this rezonation truly caused serious issues with staff time management and effort or if it was just a natural resistance to change.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 10

Full Staff Survey DataThe return of the full staff surveys brought data that further confirmed our findings regarding the overall knowledge of the custodial staff and their opinion towards the use of liquid ozone. The full staff population was asked to answer the same questions as the Bursley staff did. We found 39% of full staff correctly answered the question: “True or False: Liquid ozone kills 99.9% of all known germs” as compared to the 44% of focus group staff would answered the question correctly.

Results for the other knowledge questions were answered very similarly to the focus group that completed the same survey on February 27th. What was different among the full staff survey was the presence of people who prefered the use of liquid ozone (11% from the Bursley focus group said they preferred to use liquid ozone while 34% of the full staff preferred the product), but surprisingly, some responded that they would not use the product in their homes. Most of them wrote notes explaining this phenomenon by arguing that while the product was environmentally-cleaner and easy to use, they would miss the “clean” smell in their own homes and the shine that chemicals provide on metal surfaces.

Although there was a slightly larger number of people who responded that they preferred the use of liquid ozone, the overall findings from the full staff survey coincided with the conclusions we found in the focus group session. This survey did not provide a gauge for staff approval or disapproval of rezoning and therefore does not allow us to prove any connection between the two for the entire Housing staff.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 11

Deliverables

External MarketingThe Daily Article, Short Video, Slogan & Logo

Bursley custodians from the focus group session perceived a negative student opinion regarding the current appearance of bathrooms, and were concerned that students lacked the knowledge that a transition had been made to a new, more sustainable cleaner. While liquid ozone delivers the same result as chemical cleaners in terms of killing germs, it does have a different appearance (i.e. streaks on steel shower stalls, rings in toilets, less surface shine on sinks). Custodians feel that students attribute this “less clean” appearance to a lack of care on the custodians’ part, which leads the student to treat the space with less respect. The staff were concerned and curious as to why the student population hadn’t been made aware of the change. In order to address these custodial concerns and restore some pride in Housing’s contribution to U of M’s sustainability goals, we have launched external marketing efforts in a number of different mediums to raise student awareness.

An article geared towards student education of the liquid ozone project was published by Stephanie Dilworth on April 7, 2013 through The Michigan Daily. The article took interviews from both sponsors Vicky Hueter and Joe Kennedy, the Professor from ENV 391: Sustainability and the Campus Mike Shriberg, as well as members of the ENV 391 liquid ozone Team: Logan Chadde, Jessie Fletcher, and Alicia Chiaravalli. The article was published in print on April 7, 2013 and is currently on the Michigan Daily’s online news site. The University of Michigan has many ways of getting news to their various networks, including (but not limited to): social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), websites, email newsletters, and student events. These are all great examples of mediums that could be used to advertise this article and teach students, staff, and alumni about liquid ozone.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 12

In addition to the Michigan Daily article, a video produced by Logan Chadde is another deliverable aimed at increasing student awareness of Housing’s contribution to U of M sustainability goals and a great tool for communicating to students the differences they should see in their living space. The video features various clips of an interview from one of the custodial staff that sheds light to the attention U of M has attracted since the switch to liquid ozone. The video also highlights the achievements in cooperation, sustainability efforts, and innovation that the Housing department has earned since the switch.

The driving point of this video, however, will be the story of liquid ozone through a custodian’s personal experience. The narrative chosen is one of a custodian whose health dramatically improved with the elimination of chemicals from her workplace and the switch to 100% chemical-free liquid ozone. This particular custodian had experienced respiratory and skin problems due to daily exposure to harsh cleaning products. Her family was very concerned about her health, but were grateful to find that after the switch to liquid ozone those issues cleared up.

We believe that by appealing to student emotion and rationality, we can spread awareness and assure students that the change to liquid ozone is a good thing. Student perception of the cleanliness of the space and of custodial work ethic were identified as top priorities in the Bursley focus group. Thus, securing student support and giving them reason for possible changes in appearance of facilities is imperative.

Although we have included recommendations for means of advertising these materials, final discretion is given to Peter Logan, the Communications Director for U of M Housing.

Internal MarketingSlogan and Logo

Housing should distinguish residence halls using liquid ozone in a way that honors custodians, but is also visible to students. While this could be achieved in a number of different ways, we envisioned a small, yet prominent plaque or signage for the entrance of bathrooms. The intention is to highlight the efforts of custodial staff and restore some pride, but also to communicate to students the transition to liquid ozone, a sustainable cleaning solution. The plaque should feature a logo that unites the Michigan “Leaders and

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 13

Best” attitude with the Lotus liquid ozone values, and the hard work of custodians, as well as the tagline created by Chris Behr, “True Blue Wolverines Clean Green”. By having a contest where staff come up with the slogan, custodians could restore a sense of autonomy in a change for which they had little choice. From February 27th to March 15th, 2013, we launched a tagline contest to custodians for this purpose. A poster was designed to advertise this contest and was distributed to the supervisors via Joe and Vicky. Please see Appendix D for the poster (D1) and submission forms (D2) used during the slogan contest. Staff had the choice of emailing the group directly at liquid.ozone@umich.edu or by turning in a submission form to their supervisor. We have received ten responses and are in the process of reviewing them to choose a winner. Chris Behr was our Liquid Ozone Slogan Contest winner. Mr. Behr was submitted the slogan “True Blue Wolverines Clean Green” and was rewarded with a $25 gift card to the store of his choice. After the slogan winner was chosen, a logo was designed to compliment this slogan (pictured below):

The above logo was submitted to Vicky and Joe who forwarded it to Toni Voss, the head of Marketing Services with the Department of University Housing. After some adjusting, Toni created the logo shown below:

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 14

With the permission from the Department of Housing, we suggest advertising this revised logo in an effort to create custodial ownership of the liquid ozone product.

Standardizing information for HousingDorm-Specific Informational Handout, General Information Poster

The focus group with Bursley told us that people were receiving conflicting information regarding liquid ozone, proper use of liquid ozone, and list of and rationale for supplemental chemical cleaners. Our sponsors suggested a handout that could be given to supervisors and staff alike, in an effort to standardize and consolidate information.

We created a PDF document that is easy to print - 8.5 by 11 inches - with a front and a back. The front consists of general information about liquid ozone and the back has a map specific to whatever residence hall it is distributed with liquid ozone machine location indicated on the map. Information on the front includes: procedure for using liquid ozone on different surfaces, differentiation of liquid ozone as a disinfectant versus a sanitizer, a color key for microfiber rags, and a single source to refer questions. The back of the handout has a map that highlights locations of liquid ozone charging machines and elevators that is specific to each dorm and a chart with kill times for various viruses or pathogens when using liquid ozone.

The individualized nature of this document is important to address the differences in residence halls. Our focus group with Bursley taught us that differences, such as size, location of elevators, or general design in dorms affect custodial perceptions and/or use of liquid ozone. While all members of the department should receive a copy of this handout,

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 15

having a poster permanently in break rooms for reference would be beneficial as a staff resource.

Much like the handout, an informational poster was created for placement next to liquid ozone charging machines. This larger poster displays general liquid ozone facts, kill times of various viruses and bacteria, a description of each different microfiber rag color and their uses, and other pertinent information. From our research, we know charging can take five to ten minutes, so an informational poster could be a convenient distraction while waiting.

Recommendations

Following the implementation of an informational poster next to the liquid ozone machines in residence halls, distribution of an informational flyer to staff, and external advertising of the Housing Department’s transition to liquid ozone through a student-directed video and Michigan Daily article, the Department should follow these steps for a successful paradigm shift.

1. The informational sheet and informational poster should be displayed in staff break rooms and next to liquid ozone machines respectively to improve staff knowledge. We recommend that these both be living documents and be reposted or distributed with subsequent updates. Additionally, special effort should be made to stay true to the information on these documents, so as to maintain their legitimacy and preserve supervisor-custodian rapport, given that information was obtained from U of M Housing directors. The logo created by Toni Voss should also be displayed prominently on University Housing affiliated materials that address liquid ozone. The slogan on this logo was created by staff members, and by displaying this logo, staff may feel more ownership towards the liquid ozone product.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 16

2. University Housing should measure liquid ozone knowledge and opinion progress six months following implementation of the above deliverables. The most quantitative and objective method for measuring progress is by administering the same knowledge and opinion survey that was given to the focus group and the full staff (Appendix B) and comparing the results. The survey is designed to assess general knowledge and opinion of liquid ozone and can efficiently show improvement if present among the staff. We expect that as knowledge about the process of liquid ozone increases, satisfaction with use of the project will also improve. Raw data from the focus group is provided in Appendix E1 and from the full staff group is provided in Appendix E2.

3. Housing should hold a follow up focus group with the same Bursley staff after implementation of the informational handout and informational poster (Appendix F and G, respectively). Vicky and Joe should appoint the person who facilitates this focus group. We suggest that this person have little to no connection to the Bursley Residence Hall and that protocol during this session remain as similar to the original focus group as possible (i.e. no supervisors present, no names of custodial staff used, etc.). Questions at this follow up focus group may be more directed toward liquid ozone general knowledge, including handling and cleaning procedure, as well as student awareness as these are two of the main areas that the deliverables focus on. The focus group is most effective at not only measuring opinion of liquid ozone but also identifying external factors that contribute to the success or failure of the transition as a whole, which could be beneficial if new problems arise after implementation. It might also be interesting to gauge whether staff acclimate to the re-zoning changes and if this affects their overall opinion of liquid ozone use.

4. It is our recommendation that Housing take advantage of as many of media avenues as possible to promote the transition to liquid using both the article published in the Michigan Daily and the logo created by Toni Voss. We see the Planet Blue E-Newsletter (U-M Sustainability News) and E-True Blue Newsletter as especially appropriate because they would not require much more than inclusion of a link and a picture to the story from the Michigan Daily that highlighted liquid ozone, and could effectively reach a large portion of the U of M community. We also recommend posting a link to the story on the Housing department's webpage, the general UMich website, as well as on Facebook and Twitter.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 17

5. To continue the progress that the Michigan Daily article and logo began in external marketing, we suggest the Housing add information about liquid ozone and the liquid ozone video to their “Blue Goes Green” website. Creating a dedicated page on the University website would help in the promotion of liquid ozone and would disseminate information to the U of M students, faculty, and general public. Adding a sixth tenet to the five tenets already listed on the “Blue Goes Green” website (shown below) as a direct link to liquid ozone information would be a good way to integrate the liquid ozone transition into the Housing website. This sixth tenet could labeled as “Improving Air Quality” or “Healthy Cleaning.”

6. If Housing still does not see significant improvements after the five above recommendations, two suggested, but dramatic, changes within the Department would include retraining managers for proper liquid ozone handling and procedures, and revising or revisiting the rezoning process (see recommendation 6 below). At the focus group session, custodians impressed upon us the difficulty of sourcing standard information on liquid ozone procedure and kill time. There was much concern about conflicting information coming from different supervisors at different times; a problem that will hopefully be remedied by providing supervisors and staff with liquid ozone informational sheets and posters without extra manager or employee training.

7. The rezoning change was also very drastic for the custodial staff working at Bursley. While the rezoning was created to improve staff effectiveness and reduce costs, there was significant dissent among the staff present at the focus group. There may be some

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 18

benefits to reviewing the overall rezoning design. There may be flawed designs (having to do with feasible travel time for example) that may be easily remedied and may improve overall custodial morale.

Conclusion

The transition to liquid ozone in University of Michigan Housing has been met with considerable resistance from custodial staff. Liquid ozone is a cleaning product that contradicts how a cleaner has been traditionally been defined. It is this discrepancy that was thought to be the root cause of the dissatisfaction and adoption within Housing. A paradigm shift is necessary to make this transition and other transitions to sustainable alternatives possible and successful. Through research of the implementation of liquid ozone at the University of Michigan, our team has identified changes that could improve the transition overall. We define this improvement and transitional success as custodial acceptance of the product and change, and public awareness and appreciation of the change.

Data from the Bursley residence hall focus group and the full staff survey showed that the adoption problem was provoked by a variety of other issues than simple dislike of liquid ozone as a product. These issues included a lack of accessible and standardized product and process information, less than satisfactory working relationships, and contention around new work zones. Therefore, we advise amping external and internal marketing, presenting accessible and standard information about liquid ozone, and strengthening custodial-manager relationships. By improving information within and outside of Housing about the transition to sustainable alternative, liquid ozone, students will understand the reasons behind changes in their living environment, thus, creating a new understanding of what clean is. Additionally, advertizing Housing’s contribution to University sustainability goals gives the greater community an opportunity to adulate those efforts.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 19

In future transitions, in University of Michigan facilities or at institutions around the world, we recommend involving staff early in the process. In doing so, staff can feel a sense of agency in the change. It is also advised that managers provide uniform information about the product and process similar to the template we have created, which covers tools, process, and concerns. With these recommendations and the deliverables that were produced in response to the University of Michigan Housing adoption challenge, we believe this transition and future transitions to liquid ozone can be made a success.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 20

Appendices

Appendix A

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 21

Appendix BPlease circle your answer.

General Knowledge of liquid ozone (it’s okay if you’re unsure!)

1. liquid ozone kills 99.9% of all known germs.

TRUE FALSE UNSURE

2. liquid ozone can only be used on hard surfaces; it cannot be used on clothing, carpet, or any other soft surface.

TRUE FALSE UNSURE

3. liquid ozone is 100% chemical-free.

TRUE FALSE UNSURE

4. After use, aqueous ozone reverts back to water and oxygen.

TRUE FALSE UNSURE

Opinion of liquid ozone

1. Do you prefer to use CHEMICAL CLEANERS or liquid ozone?

2. Would you recommend the use of liquid ozone to colleagues?

YES NO

3. How well would you be able to explain liquid ozone to a friend?

VERY WELL SOMEWHAT WELL NOT VERY WELL NOT AT ALL

4. If cost were not an issue, would you use liquid ozone in your home?

YES NO

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 22

Appendix CIncentive

● Staff input doesn’t seem to matter● Poor communication about rezoning● Managers claimed students knew● Switched back to chemical cleaners after virus

broke out● Poor communication with supervisors● Managers giving conflicting information about

microfiber cloths and kill time● Feel like other dorms received more training● Distrust of Matt Grimwood as a LO salesperson● Feel lied to during LO purchasing process● Feel patronized by the focus group meeting,

“don’t try to make me feel special now”● Feel like opinion isn’t represented because they

have less people in their dorm● Feel like opinion wasn’t sought during implemen-

tation● Don’t get to communicate with students like they

used to● Don’t feel comfortable asking questions, think

they’re viewed as confrontational● Supervisors are unprofessional● Feel like students view them as lazy because of

rezoning responsibilities● Poor communication with RAs about rezoning● No communication to students about use of LO

Materials & Processes

● More physical labor required● More walking● Made urine smell worse● No color/foaming/smell● Rezoning makes them cover more ground● liquid ozone doesn’t fill the kaivac up● Machine takes a long time to start● LO makes bathroom smell like propane● Doesn’t clean soap scum● Doesn’t kill sewer flies● Have to bring more stuff, “overloaded”● Feel like students don’t like it● Have to carry buckets of LO● Bursley has inferior ventilation● Buckets are falling apart● Don’t know other’s shifts and zones anymore,

so harder to cover them when they aren’t here● Bursley is a very old dorm● Machine takes a long time to start up● Toilet turns brown after extended LO use● Don’t have enough time to work with LO● Feel like LO doesn’t work in bathroom or hu-

man contact areas● Think students are getting sick from LO● Machine hose is black● Feel like LO works the same so what’s the

point of switching – less shiny● Students are unhappy with how LO cleans

Clarity

● No choice of what to use as cleaner● Never shown ATP meter to know LO’s effective-

ness

Instruction

● Little training/information● Didn’t know about “kill time”● Don’t know how long LO is effective – 2 or 4

hours?● Unsure of correct process – spray and dry or

spray and wipe● OHSA woman says it doesn’t kill rotavirus● Unsure of sanitizer vs. disinfectant● Unsure of LO machine locations● Unsure if microfiber rags are appropriate, un-

sure of color coding

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 23

Appendix D

Liquid Ozone Slogan Contest

Name: __________________________________________________________________

Building Stationed: ________________________________________________________

Slogan (examples: We Make Blue Go or Be a Green Wolverine): __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

Please keep the slogan short!

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 24

Appendix EQuestion Percentage Answered

CorrectlyPercentage Answered

IncorrectlyPercentage Unsure

Opinion 1 44% 33% 22%Opinion 2 44% 33% 22%Opinion 3 67% 11% 22%Opinion 4 56% 11% 33%

For Knowledge Question 1: 89% of staff preferred to use chemical cleaners over liquid ozone.

For Knowledge Question 2: 89% of staff said they would not recommend use of liquid ozone to a colleague.

For Knowledge Question 3: 33% of staff said they understood liquid ozone somewhat well, 33% understood it not very well, and 33% said they did not understood liquid ozone at all.

For Knowledge Question 4: 89% of staff said they would not use liquid ozone in their own homes.

Question Percentage Answered Correctly

Percentage Answered Incorrectly

Percentage Unsure

Opinion 1 39% 33% 28%Opinion 2 72% 17% 11%Opinion 3 82% 13% 5%Opinion 4 71% 15% 14%

For Knowledge Question 1: 89% of staff preferred to use chemical cleaners over liquid ozone.

For Knowledge Question 2: 89% of staff said they would not recommend use of liquid ozone to a colleague.

For Knowledge Question 3: 33% of staff said they understood liquid ozone somewhat well, 33% understood it not very well, and 33% said they did not understood liquid ozone at all.

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 25

For Knowledge Question 4: 89% of staff said they would not use liquid ozone in their own homes.

Appendix F

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 26

TEAM LIQUID OZONE

Final Report 27