Search results

Posits that facilities managers face a challenge on all fronts, especially with regard to use of space, and itemizes the possible, helpful solutions to this. Concludes that space, time and, most importantly, the process linking them will produce the best solutions.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02632779410051715. When citing the article, please cite: Keith T. Pratt, (1994), “Introducing a Service Level Culture”, Facilities, Vol. 12 Iss: 2, pp. 9 - 15.

We live in a world of constant change. Sustaining careers for those who practise the profession of managing facilities is therefore increasingly becoming a challenge. In addressing the issues, we all think that we are rethinking what we do, but with so many other day‐to‐day pressures, do we really give it our best shot? This paper provides a practical tool kit in the form of series of common‐sense steps which will enable practitioners at any stage of their careers, to focus on what they have achieved. It addresses the review of skills and competencies that they have accumulated and where such skill sets can be put to use elsewhere. It also looks at the direction being taken during their career and what training may be necessary to enhance future career choices. The paper also considers the support gained from professional bodies and other networking organisations and the contribution that individuals make in return. It concludes with an examination of the consequences of inaction and the steps necessary to move forward. While the paper presents the co‐authors’ views of what the future may hold and is based on professional experience in this field, the predictions are only those of the authors.

Argues that the opportunities to improve the way in which space is used depend on a whole range of factors, the most important being the way in which the business needs to be supported and the way the business process is engineered. Maximizing space use using such techniques as hotdesking and free address can only work effectively where they are properly matched to the current and future needs of the business.

Service level agreements provide a mechanism for establishing a better relationship between the core business and the infrastructure and services that support it. It provides a statement of various service level options from which a number can be selected to support the customer or client, which describes the service to be given specific timing, frequency and cost. It enables decisions to be taken at a strategic level as to how these can be matched to achieve business profitability. The process is a continuing one and requires commitment at the highest level, to ensure not only that it is adopted properly, but that the services defined are properly and effectively delivered. Describes the various steps in the process and in broad terms how it can be implemented.

Suggests that the trend towards desk sharing is the result of the need to think of the office as a full‐time productive resource. Presents space occupancy survey and several concepts of space sharing. Examines cases where innovative desk sharing solutions have actually been implemented. Considers the contradictory implications of desk sharing and the future of the office in terms of new locations, new technology, new forms of organisation, increasing support space, raising productivity, and finally new forms of facilities management.

Describes the Auckland, New Zealand, sharemarket of the early 1880s which possessed many features in common with the same sharemarket 100 years later. Creative accounting practices and questionable auditing judgements were some of these shared features. The Auckland sharemarket was dominated by an elite group of businessmen who controlled most of the leading companies. When the market collapsed in 1886 many of these companies experienced grave financial difficulties. Focuses on the accounting and auditing contribution to these difficulties.

This paper investigates whether individuals’ risk-taking behavior is affected by background risk by analyzing individuals’ choices over a series of lotteries in a laboratory setting in the presence and absence of independent, uncorrelated background risks. Overall, our results were mixed. We found some support for the notion that individuals were more risk averse when faced with the introduction of an unfair or mean-preserving background risk than when no background risk was present, but this finding depends on how individuals incorporate endowments and background gains and losses into their utility functions and how error variance is modeled.