Innovation management in the cleaning industry

Why many innovations fail

The cleaning industry is one of Germany’s more conservative sectors and faces strong price pressure, reinforced by factors such as public tenders. A significant proportion of cleaning staff have limited qualifications, and turnover is high. Services are readily comparable, particularly in routine maintenance cleaning, and the market is highly saturated, creating considerable pressure to differentiate. However, opportunities to develop new business models are limited, especially for building service providers. Frequent use of subcontractors can also make quality control difficult. While larger companies are increasingly exploring digital solutions, smaller and medium-sized providers often retain reservations and struggle with implementation. Developing and introducing innovative products in this environment is not easy. Yet intense competition among manufacturers makes differentiation through product improvements and new developments essential. The conservative attitudes of buyers and users can make this difficult.

Buyers’ and cleaning staff’s experience with particular products and machines remains a decisive factor in new purchases. Established products and brands dominate the market, with relatively high entry barriers in many areas. Manufacturers nevertheless face strong pressure to innovate, both to counter rising costs and to differentiate their portfolios. Looking back at past developments and innovations, many products and services have failed. There are essentially two reasons:

• Limited acceptance among cleaning staff, for example because products are too complex or uncomfortable to use;
• No visible added value in time or labour savings relative to training and acquisition costs.

Manufacturers’ innovation efforts often amount to marginal improvements on competing products rather than groundbreaking developments. They neither reinvent cleaning nor make it significantly better. This points to weaknesses in innovation and development processes. Building service providers and in-house cleaners are often barely involved, if at all. As a result, the product’s function or proposed solution misses the target group’s needs.

Many manufacturers also lack a mature innovation strategy that adequately reflects market conditions and developments. One reason is that the need to collect systematic market information has often received little attention in this industry. While market analysis is standard in consumer markets, it is unfamiliar territory for many professional-segment manufacturers. Companies can start with their own internal sources. Key account managers and service technicians, for example, are in constant contact with purchasing decision-makers and users. Yet many manufacturers have no central knowledge management system that brings data and information together systematically and makes it accessible for marketing and product development. This can be implemented relatively easily even in medium-sized businesses. Many experts agree that the industry will change fundamentally over the coming years. Digitalisation, IoT, virtual and augmented reality, and robotics will reshape cleaning processes and services. However, the success factors for innovation in cleaning still apply. Much is already technically possible, but real user benefit should remain central to new developments. Experience shows that the most successful products and services solved fundamental problems in everyday cleaning. Companies should therefore examine the cleaning process closely, analyse weaknesses, and focus improvements on the most common questions and tasks.

It makes sense to involve users and market experts as early as possible when developing product ideas. Many building service providers and in-house cleaners welcome the chance to contribute because they benefit directly from useful products and services. They also tend to understand technology and handling surprisingly well. This minimises the risk of developing products and services without a market. If systematic user feedback is sought only at the prototype stage, it is often too late for fundamental changes. The risk of innovation failure can never be eliminated entirely, but a systematic, carefully planned innovation process can reduce it substantially. Nor does the wheel necessarily have to be reinvented. A systematic “me-too” strategy can also be highly successful for manufacturers. However, customers often do not see such manufacturers as particularly innovative, and this approach does not reverse or slow the increasingly intense downward pressure on prices.