B2BMS v FM

Citation

(2001), "B2BMS v FM", Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/ws.2001.07950gaf.004

B2BMS v FM

B2BMS v FM

Is there a difference between business-to-business-managed-services (B2BMS) and facilities management (FM) – or are these just alternative terms for the same range of services?

Facilities management (a term which seems to have been coined in the mid-1960s by Ross Perot, when he started the outsourcing of IT operations with Electronic Data Systems) has grown to a term associated with services connected with buildings. In the most part, facilities managers – and FM organisations – manage the provision of these services but do not provide them directly.

The most common style of FM today involves the FM company providing management and services, directly or through subcontract, for the client. FM can be "hard" or "soft" – that is, concerned with either the services related to the physical estate or the support services which are undertaken within it (such as, cleaning, catering, grounds maintenance).

Where the range of services extends past the "normal" mix and spread, the concept of "total facilities management" has been introduced.

B2BMS is a wider concept. It involves the provision and management of any service to a business client. This is a growing sector, sparked by the trend over the last five years for organisations to identify and then concentrate on "core" or "key" activities.

In many instances, B2BMS will still centre around buildings and related services, but this is not essential.

Even core services may be subject of a B2BMS arrangement where the client is persuaded that the MS company can carry out the task more effectively or more efficiently (or preferably both). Examples of such services are reprographics, logistics, back office functions, information technology and professional services, such as law and accountancy.

The more such services grow and spread, the more the question of "what is core" is asked. Does a public sector body exist to provide services to the public or to procure the provision of those services in accordance with the policy agreed at political level? If a company manufactures telephones or lathes, which of its existing activities are core to its operations? Which of these should be provided directly (and for what reason)? Which would be better brought in? An increasing number of organisations are shifting the balance on the basis of the answers to such questions.

Of course, some of this is simply a function of organisational size. For many years, SMEs would use "managed services" for their bookkeeping and accounting functions, for legal advice, etc. Now, the big boys are realising that this arrangement can offer real advantages. In-house departments are giving way to external providers to contain costs while gaining a wide range of expertise. Fewer companies and public bodies own their own fleets of vehicles to take goods from one place to another

This trend is also being fuelled by the Internet boom where communication and information transfer with, for example, a "virtual HR department" is fast and simple. It is likely that over the next few years many of the traditional buildings-related FM organisations will extend their "reach" by combining, merging or partnering with other service providers to offer higher and wider levels of service.