Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/EUM0000000003390. When citing the article, please cite: B. J. Varcoe, (1993) “Not us, surely? Disaster recovery planning for premises”, Property Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 1, pp. 11 - 16.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/EUM0000000003390. When citing the article, please cite: B. J. Varcoe, (1993) “Not us, surely? Disaster recovery planning for premises”, Property Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 1, pp. 11 - 16.

Examines the issue of how facilities departments should approach the potential benefits of computer‐aided facilities management, and how they can decide whether the implementation of a CAFM system will be of value. Considers a wide variety of the facilities that CAFM can offer: CAD, space utilization, asset management, IT/data services, lease/property management, cost/benefit analysis and financial control systems, as well as the benefits CAFM can confer. Concludes that the major benefit of IT investment is the creative power it can deliver.

Presents an approach to premises management that provides a way of creating proactive flexibility in a naturally rigid entity. Considers the needs of modern business, the business response to flexibility, the significance of premises, current practice, proactive premises management, the premises policy, and the proactive tool. Concludes that an agreed premises policy provides the vehicle for proactive property management which can accommodate change rather than reacting ad hoc.

Reviews the techniques of performance measurement and benchmarking in the context of the performance of facilities‐oriented costs. States that performance measures should relate to: quality, delivery, cycle time, and waste. Concludes that it is important to place benchmarking and performance measurement of facilities within the overall strategy and aims of the organization to get a true picture of the overall performance equation.

Discusses various aspects of asset management that seek to maintain the value of assets and performance. Examines the premises policy, planned maintenance, computer‐aided facilities management, total control, and proactive asset management. Concludes that, while increasingly sophisticated planned maintenance procedures are needed, the best form of asset management is one which keeps an eye on both the overall picture and, as much as possible, the future.

Examines some of the issue involved in premises‐related disasters, and seeks to identify what can be done before the event to minimize the after‐effects. Considers three aspects of the facilities department′s responsibility: risk assessment, impact assessment and the preparation of a disaster recovery action plan – allowing a proactive response to any disaster. Concludes that a proactive approach is essential to avoid the wasting of valuable time after a disaster, while good disaster management can provide spin‐off benefits.

Premises management should seek to realize their value organizationally, providing flexibility and potential for optimal use. Looks at different qualities involved and discusses these specifically. Concludes that, if the groundwork and disciplines are right, then premises management along the lines laid down has real business value.

The purpose of the paper is to study the use of management tools and their costs for monitoring building operation and maintenance (O&M) service contracts.

The management tools usable for monitoring building O&M contracts were reviewed, with their characteristics highlighted and compared. A series of face‐to‐face interviews with practitioners looking after building O&M contracts was conducted to collect empirical information, followed by data analysis and discussion of the results.

The paper finds that using balanced scorecard or benchmarking to monitor building O&M contracts was unpopular. The use of customer satisfaction survey was rather common. The cost for monitoring contracts through performance review meeting and O&M audit was measured. It tended to reduce in relative amount with larger scale of contracts.

More research is needed to study the effect of factors, including propriety of contract, complexity of work, contractual relationship, capability and quality of the contract and management teams on contract monitoring effort. Further works may take a similar approach of the study to investigate other transaction cost elements.

The cost amounts for implementing the management tools inform practitioners about their significance relative to the amounts for procuring O&M services. How to make effective use of management tools to monitor O&M contracts should be investigated.

It has been demonstrated how to measure the cost for using management tools to monitor building O&M contracts. The reviewed characteristics of the management tools and the unveiled amounts of contract monitoring cost are useful information to O&M practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the previously established list of key performance indicators (KPIs), to identify and categorize the core performance indicators that are measurable and quantifiable.

A literature-based qualitative approach is adopted for accumulating desired information on identifying and categorizing the core indicators. The list of KPIs established in an earlier paper is narrowed down considering the future research needs suggested by the literature.

The quantifiable and measurable core indicators are identified and categorized in the form of a list. The core indicators are defined and the variables required to quantify them are described by citing peer-reviewed literature.

This paper represents the first step toward establishing a relevant list of quantifiable and measurable core KPIs. Future research papers could emphasize derivation of mathematical expressions for determining the identified core KPIs and validating these KPIs using simulation of real building data.

The need to establish a concise and relevant list of quantifiable and measurable KPIs that could express more than one type of information about a facility's performance is identified in this paper. This paper presents and describes a narrowed down list of core KPIs, which could be utilized by facility management industry professionals while performing a holistic performance assessment.

This paper provides a list of core KPIs that could express more than one aspect of a facility's performance and that is measurable and quantifiable.