Search results

Presents an agenda for facilities management research by proposing a framework of key organization, human, environment and economic variables and suggests that research should focus on the links that may be found between them, to generate theory and inform practice. Emphasizes the importance of relating facilities considerations to organizational objectives, and proposes that research should contribute to the development of facilities quality management systems. Maps current research at the Centre for Facilities Management against this framework and identifies progress in understanding the links between facilities and “business” success. Introduces a series of papers that illustrate the integrated research programme being carried out at the Centre.

The objective of this paper is to examine the continuing debate over the nature, scope and definition of facilities management and the implications of FM practice in the field of outsourcing for the development of the field and the profession.

The paper offers both a conceptual review of key issues in the definition of facilities management and a critique of these definitions in the context of the popular identity of facilities management as a means of generating cost savings through outsourcing.

The discussion asserts that, perhaps contrary to the many published doubts expressed over the possibility of achieving consensus on the scope of facilities management, an emerging and broadly consensual model of facilities management can be discerned. This model, it is suggested, is inhibited from further development primarily because of a lack of leadership in the professional and academic communities together with a preoccupation by necessity of the FM profession with operational imperatives.

The paper, through synthesis and critique, offers a variant perspective on the debate about the nature of facilities management.

Facilities management has inherited the understanding of how organisations work as value creators from various management models such as Porter's, where value is created through “primary” and “support” activities. The gap between the aspiration of strategic relevance and reality has prompted the facilities management profession to begin to address the question of whether facilities management is a legitimate discipline with attendant theories, research and practice. This paper attempts to bring an alternative theoretical perspective to such aspirations.

Facilities management arrangements and their value as a key organisational competence are outlined. Finally knowledge‐based functional competency is described that encapsulates the new perspective.

The paper provides an alternative perspective that will facilitate its acceptance as a strategically placed corporate function. A new knowledge‐based legitimisation for facilities management is proposed, marking a shift from facilities management's functional knowledge to an organisation‐wide knowledge base.

The way the discipline of facilities management is located within the business organisation sees its primary role in being fundamentally “supportive” to the parent organisation's primary function whether it is product provision or service delivery. This is problematic for a discipline that has been trying to align itself as strategically oriented. This orientation needs to be redefined to allow facilities management to be rather seen as a knowledge‐based core competency and a function that permeates the boundaries of primary and support functions.

The paper encourages wider debate and dialogue within the community on what appears to be a pivotal crossroads in the development of the discipline.

Argues that the facilities management is really a field dedicated to facility planning – where building design meets business objectives. Considers reasons for the lack of clarity in the facilities management profession. Illustrates the state of the field by formulating a ′generic′ facilities management department. Suggests the importance of facilities management for senior management and presents the facilities management mission.

Proposes a research initiative for facilities management. Outlines the essential questions that facilities research should be involved in answering and following a general discussion of current research approaches. Develops a model to illustrate these questions. Places the potential areas of facility management research within a framework of training, practice and education. Concludes that facilities management should develop an application research approach to ensure a problem‐oriented, multi‐aspect and collaborative focus around real management problems related to the performance of buildings and use of facilities over time.

This paper stresses the importance of the strategic integration of the organisational facilities management function as being an essential prerequisite towards facilities and organisational effectiveness. The impact of both the strategic and operational facilities management function on community health‐care facility users is also documented. The value of the facilities management function in terms of other health‐care related organisational core deliverables is also observed. Mechanisms for general organisational facilities management improvement are identified and a number of facilities management performance measuring tools outlined.

This paper stresses the importance of the strategic integration of the organisational facilities management function as being an essential prerequisite towards facilities and organisational effectiveness. The impact of both the strategic and operational facilities management function on community health‐care facility users is also documented. The value of the facilities management function in terms of other health‐care related organisational core deliverables is also observed. Mechanisms for general organisational facilities management improvement are identified and a number of facilities management performance measuring tools outlined.

This paper focuses on providing a conceptual model for facility management, which has seen sustained economic growth and market development in the past ten years and that it has been one of the more robust service sector employers. It notes that facility management needs to be more closely aligned to a management discipline to enable it to differentiate itself as it develops within the service sector. There are a number of market segments which are brought together by facility management operations: property, built environment, catering, cleaning, security and engineering services are but a few. In order to provide more coherence to the facility management sector, these activities would benefit from being placed within the context of a mainstream management discipline. This paper states that the lack of conceptual or theoretical management framework is perhaps in part the reason why facility management remains misunderstood in the general business sector.

Facilities management centers on the triad of people, process, and place, but the element of people is incomplete without recognition and consideration of the different generations that make up today's workforce and the differences between these groups. The purpose of this article is to suggest that facilities managers should take advantage of available current information on generational differences, in order to maximize their ability to manage people and knowledge.

This article presents pertinent findings from a recent pilot study that surveyed 55 facilities management professionals from the mid‐Western USA, presents a brief overview of current knowledge relating to generational differences, and highlights the relevance of such knowledge to effective facilities management.

Almost one quarter of the respondents to the pilot study did not agree that knowledge of generational differences was important, while about half of the respondents only somewhat agreed that it was important. However, a survey of relevant literature suggests that successful management of generational differences in the workplace has the potential to improve the efficiency and viability of an enterprise, including facilitating knowledge management.

The current study is limited by its small sample size. Additional research is needed to further examine the value facilities managers place on generational knowledge and the relationship between facilities management and knowledge management.

The current paucity of information regarding the relationship between generational differences, facilities management, and knowledge management makes studies like this one relevant and valuable to facilities managers operating in a workplace with unprecedented generational diversity and an increasingly knowledge‐driven economy.

The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual risk assessment technique to aid facility managers with developing robust asset management programs. It proposes to evaluate three discrete risk sensitivity levels relative to the recognition of stochastic costs on expected budgetary outcomes. The paper expands the domain of available risk assessment techniques toward estimating impacts from uncertainty on desired levels of service.

The paper explores the concept that facility managers can cost‐effectively manage robust asset management programs. This is accomplished by evaluating simple relationships between risk‐sensitive decision‐response alternatives and systems degradation characteristics. The resulting parameters are aggregated to estimate expected budgetary outcomes for robust asset management programs.

The paper reveals that if facility managers assume risk‐avoidance positions, they can positively affect expected budgetary outcomes for robust asset management programs. Facility managers can manage the magnitude of these adverse impacts by mitigating stochastic costs associated with the completion of unscheduled asset management activities.

The expected implications are enhancements to the abilities of facility managers to cost‐effectively manage stochastic costs relative to risk sensitivity and desired levels of service. However, because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack general usability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

The practical implications allow facility managers to cost‐effectively manage adverse impacts on expected budgetary outcomes for robust asset management programs.

The expected contribution is a tool for facility managers to manage uncertainty when allocating limited financial resources among the competing corrective, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities within robust asset management programs.

The paper fulfills an identified need to study how facility managers can do more with less. This need to be cost‐effective requires facility managers to recognize stochastic costs on the expected budgetary outcomes for robust asset management programs.