Search results

The scope for using dedicated facilities management information technology to stimulate advancements in facilities management (FM) is discussed. The concept is put forward that a synergistic interaction occurs between the process of FM and the specialist information technology (IT) used for FM. This co‐operation can produce co‐maturation or co‐stagnation of their capability. The mechanism of this interaction between specialist FM IT and the FM process appears to be dependent on the relative capabilities of the process and the IT. This paper presents a conceptual framework for describing the relationship between the FM process and FM IT, and a model for the dynamic mechanisms of their co‐operation. The paper commences by reviewing work done on modelling process capability for software procurement and the design and construction process, using the established capability maturity modelling (CMM) technique. The generalised principles of an existing model for the dynamic interaction between the design and construction process for buildings and specialist construction IT are discussed. The paper then considers their application and extension into the context of FM. The specific example of growth in specialist FM IT and FM process is examined for the case of space management. Finally, the implications of co‐maturation for FM IT and the FM process are explored.

Considers the state of benchmarking in facilities management and finds that most academic and practice literature is mainly concerned with measurement techniques, and a formal approach of reducing performance gaps. Limitations are discussed, and the orientation of facilities management performance priorities is questioned. Argues that benchmarking is limited by the ability to identify the priorities, or performance indicators, that can measure contemporary issues such as customer satisfaction to any benefit. Applies the search for benchmarking issues to the human environment, home of the much‐discussed knowledge worker. Research indicates that, far from being static measurable constructs, the environmental conditions in such offices rely on the influence of the market, the organisation culture, the type of users, and the external political conditions. Facilities and business managers often fail to consider these influences in the selection of the performance priorities. Concludes by suggesting that the tendency to rely on a general set of indicators leads to benchmarking issues that are often unhelpful in the pursuit of continuous improvement. Benchmarking issues are more clearly understood to need rich analysis that an investigative methodology could provide.

The need to establish key performance indicators for facilities management (FM) is well recognised. However, difficulties in establishing universally‐accepted definitions of the FM function and its management process continue to confound the identification and application of a generic set of performance parameters. This paper describes the process of developing a management‐by‐variance tool for monitoring the performance of the FM function of a major financial services company. The dual problems of the absence of a standardised set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and the lack of existing data for performance evaluation were addressed using a Delphi group. The principle of management‐by‐variance is based on the monitoring and analysis of performance trends, which is done by monitoring changes in performance using a bespoke (rather than generalised) set of performance indicators. This paper describes the process of creating the pilot version of a management‐by‐variance tool in sufficient detail to allow the process to be replicated to create other sets of bespoke KPIs. The process and outcomes of the exercise to short‐list, rank, and weight a finalised list of 23 KPIs are discussed. The KPIs are analysed in the context of the method of their selection, prioritisation and weighting for their intended custom application.

The value of the consultant project manager is questionable when the recent track record of project delivery within the UK construction sector is examined. Clearly, a new building which does not adequately satisfy a client’s business needs (in relation to time, cost and quality objectives) is not capable of contributing optimally to a client’s core business function. The business process expertise that the facilities manager should possess, together with the core skills related to managing operational building assets, mean that it is reasonable to suggest that the facilities management role could be extended to include responsibility for project delivery. Some facilities managers are presently undertaking this role. This paper explores this issue, concentrating upon the failure of the project management discipline to perform adequately. A review of literature is presented and a number of case studies are appraised. These are used to contrast the management of project delivery when conducted by the project manager with that conducted by the facilities manager.

Facilities management (FM) is often seen as the management of cost‐efficiency rather than as a method of achieving the multi‐dimensional enhancement of business competitiveness. If the role of FM is to be recognised for the literally facilitating strategic mechanism that it represents, organisational structures must be constructed in an enabling rather than a disabling form. This paper argues that existing organisational structures tend to repress the need for the integration of the functional and strategic dimensions of FM, through the practice of physically separating responsibilities for the various aspects of supporting the business operation, and this is compounded by the general failure of management to look at property issues broadly. The paper proposes the existence of barriers to the operation of the facilities property management interface and suggests that an improvement in effectiveness is possible by the incorporation of facilities managers into strategy management through subordination to strategy as opposed to management.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.