1 rethinking fm survey report

7/31/2019 1 Rethinking Fm Survey Report

1/89

Rethink ing Facil it ies ManagementAccelerating change through best practice

Survey Repor t


2/89

Contents:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ ........................................................ 3

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................... ........................................................... .......4

2 BACKGROUND........................................ ........................................................... ...........................5

3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ..............................................................................................7

4 METHODOLOGY........................................................ ........................................................... .......8

4.1 STEERING GROUP.............................................................................................................................8

4.2 WORKSHOPS ....................................................................................................................................8

4.3 QUESTIONNAIRES.............................................................................................................................8

4.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................................................9

5 FACILITIES MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ......................................................10

5.1 ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS:............................................................................................................10

5.2 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AS A CAREER: ................................................... ...................................11

5.3 THE CLIENT ORGANISATION: .......................................................... .............................................12

5.4 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PROVISION IN THE CLIENT ORGANISATION:..........................................14

5.5 ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE FOR FACILITIES MANAGERS:....................................................................17

OVERALL RATINGS OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ISSUES TODAY AND FOR THE FUTURE:....................22

5.6 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES: ............................................................................................23

5.7 HOW FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IS VIEWED BY THE CLIENT ORGANISATION:.................................24

6 CLIENT QUESTIONNAIRE 27


3/89

Executi ve Summary

This report sets out the results of a survey of Facilities Managers and their clients, that

took place between February 2004 and April 2004. The survey was carried out as part of

a wider research project, Rethinking Facilities Management, led by the British Institute

of Facilities Management (BIFM).

This research project has been part-funded by the DTI, under their Partners in

Innovation Programme. The project team of the BIFM, BRE, BSRIA and the University of

West of England is supported by a Steering Group representing a wide range of Facilities

bodies and interests, including IFMA, CIBSE, CIOB and the RIBA

Two matched questionnaires were developed, one for Facilities Managers (in-house and

commercial service providers), the other for their client organisations.

The main themes of the questionnaires were:

General information about the respondents and their client organisation

The current role of Facilities Management in UK organisations

How this role may change and develop over the next few years

How Facilities Managers are viewed by their employing organisations

How Facilities Managers contribute to excellence in business and public service

Responses were received from 207 Facilities Managers and 43 clients.

The main findings were :

Facilities Manager respondents held a wide range of educational qualificationsincluding Masters and Bachelors degrees, HND, City and Guilds. 16% of

respondents held or were working towards the BIFM Qual However nearly a fifth


4/89

1 Introduct ion This report sets out the results of a survey of Facilities Managers and their clients, thattook place between February 2004 and April 2004. The survey was carried out as part of

a wider research project, Rethinking Facilities Management, led by the British Institute

of Facilities Management (BIFM).

This research project has been part-funded by the DTI, under their Partners in

Innovation Programme. The project team of the BIFM, BRE, BSRIA and the University of

West of England is supported by a Steering Group representing a wide range of Facilities

Management bodies and interests, including IFMA, CIBSE, CIOB and the RIBA

The results of this survey will be used to inform the next stage of the project - an

Agenda or action plan to enable the BIFM and other bodies to support the development

of the Facilities Management Sector over the next 5 to 10 years. In addition a self

development tool and resource guide for the individual Facilities Manager will be

developed, based on the issues and concerns highlighted in the survey.

The study is taking place against a backdrop of:

a wish to achieve increasing professionalism within the FM industry

through the introduction of BIFM Qual, accredited European based

qualifications, MSc course accreditation, greater definition of the art and

science of Facilities Management

a move towards PFI and related forms of procurement where there is a

recognition that the procurement of a building does not stop at the

completion of construction

a call, through Accelerating Change, for the construction industry to

improve both functionality and enjoyment for end users of the

environments it creates, and for the client to drive out waste during

maintenance and operation

an increasing focus on the role of the client in leading the industry


5/89

2 BackgroundThe market for Facilities Management (FM) has expanded rapidly over the last twenty

years, as a frontier service sector. There has been a growth in the number of Facilities

Management companies and consortia, whilst personnel and consultancies have moved

into Facilities Management from other sectors. While the Facilities Management sector

has boomed, margins are often poor and investment in people, skills, training,

qualifications, access to knowledge and systems have tended to lag behind.

Professional bodies, such as BIFM, have emerged to act as a focus for the development

of professional standards, qualifications and training, and the UK is currently seen to be

in a pre-eminent position with regards to Facilities services provision.

Facilities Management is a diverse profession, a reflection of the membership arising

from human resources, engineering, and administrative backgrounds. In fact many of

those who carry out the work of a Facilities Manager are not necessarily given the title

Facilities Manager and may therefore not be aware of the support available to them.

The body of best practice required covers many discrete areas and exists in equally

diverse locations, similarly professional body membership lies within a number of

institutions.

The BIFM has more than 8,200 individual members (with recruitment taking place at

approximately 150 per month) and more than 240 corporate members. The membership

of the RICS Facilities Management Group is in excess of 7,000 and that of the CIBSE

Facilities Management Group in the hundreds. IFMA represents more than 18,000

Facilities Management professionals world-wide and Euro FM represents 50 organisations

across 15 countries.

In spite of the growth of the profession, many Facilities Managers feel that without a

clear focus and support from the Government, the UK will surrender its lead in Facilities

Management to other countries. There are also concerns that the standard of service

provided will deteriorate as the sector becomes over stretched without adequate


6/89

There are also a number of other key opportunities emerging that will influence the

development of Facilities Management in the UK and abroad. These include:

FM Excellence Initiative.

Sustainable Communities, Constructing Excellence & Strategic Forum for

Construction.

BIFM has just commenced a review of its core competencies for Facilities

Management

The launch of a Sector Skills Council for the Facilities Management Sector Asset

Skills

Government Efficiency Programme. OGC/CIPS have approached BIFM to support

the work to rationalise Facilities Management services within Whitehall and beyond

to unlock efficiency improvements and savings.

Facilities Management Competencies, Qualification & Exams. BIFM has started a

review to refresh and update the structure and content of what is effectively the

'professional standard' for FM 5, FM Excellence.

European Facilities Management Standard. BIFM is leading one of the European

Standard Groups that are working to produce a standard for Facilities Management

SLAs. Other work will cover Facilities Management terms.

Research Programme and related initiatives - led by Peter Cordy

Professional Collaboration - led by CIC Professional College Futures Group

International Collaboration - led by Stan Mitchell


7/89

3 Obj ect ives of t he

project The main aims of this study are to:

Support the growth of expertise and professionalism within the Facilities

Management sector in both operational and strategic terms

Enhance the ability of the sector to contribute to UK economic growth, productivity

improvements, and sustainability in balance with the drive to accelerate change in

sister sectors such as Construction

Promote the Facilities Management profession within public and private sector

enterprises and improve understanding of the role of the Facilities Manager inhelping their employing organisations to achieve their business aims through the

performance of their built assets.

These objectives are to be achieved within the project through:

Providing a baseline of Facilities Managers performance in terms of the

organisations they serve, that will indicate the standing of the profession in the UK

Providing a forum for the co-operation of the various bodies representing theFacilities Management interest in the UK and abroad

Facilitating debate within the profession vis a vis the Facilities Management role and

how Facilities Management adds value

Providing an action plan for the Facilities Management representative bodies to take

the profession forward

Providing a means by which individual Facilities Managers can improve their

performance


8/89

4 MethodologyThe methodology for the survey stage of the project comprised the following tasks:

4.1 Steering Group

The establishment of a strong Steering Group to provide advice and relevant expertise

on survey development and distribution. The Steering Group represented key players in

the Facilities Management profession, representatives of Facilities Management bodies

and other professional institutions, and the Project Team. See Appendix D for a list of

members of the Project Steering Group and Project Team.

4.2 Work shops

An initial exploration of the issues of concern to Facilities Managers via a series of

workshops to inform the development of the questionnaires. Three regional workshops

for Facilities Managers were held in Manchester, London and Bristol. In addition,

informal interviews were carried out at FMExpo in London with approximately 50

Facilities Managers who were attending the event. The report summarising the workshop

findings is given in Appendix E.

4.3 Questionnaires

The development of two matched questionnaires, one for Facilities Managers (in-house

and commercial service providers), the other for their client organisations. The

questionnaires were based on the information provided by the workshops, with input

from the Steering Group ,and were designed in a repeatable survey format that can be

used in future in order to assess change over time. Copies of the questionnaires are

reproduced in Appendix A (Facilities Management Questionnaire)and Appendix B (Client


9/89

4.4 Questionnaire distribut ion

The distribution of the questionnaires to a large sample of Facilities Managers and client

organisations from various sectors. The questionnaire distribution plan is shown in

Appendix C of this report. The questionnaires were posted on-line at:

http://tele.bre.co.uk/forms/BIFM_Facilities_Manager_Survey.pdf

http://tele.bre.co.uk/forms/BIFM_Client_Survey.pdf

The links were sent out with an introductory paragraph encouraging response to morethan 8,000 clients and practitioners via the BIFM e-mail Bulletin, the Steering GroupCommittee, and through other contacts.


10/89

5 Facilit ies Manager

QuestionnaireResults

Job tit le:

1%

2%

29%

7%

3%

3% 3%

52%

Facilities Manager

Office Manager

Director

Heads

Business Services

Manager

Property Manager

Project Manager

Others

I n-house v Outsourced:

16%

6%2% 2%

74%

In-house FM

Commercial FM

Facilities

Consultants

Client Manager

Other

5.1 About the respondent s:

The total number of respondents to the Facilities Manager questionnaire was 207, the

vast majority of whom responded on line. This was considered a fair number of

responses for an electronic, self selecting questionnaire.

The majority, 52%, considered themselves as Facilities Managers in some way

including Facilities Management assistants.

7% were Heads of Department e.g. Engineering, Estates, Central Services

3% were Directors (non-Facilities Management) eg Account Director, Engineering

Director

3% were Project Managers

A minority were Property Managers (1%) or Business Services Managers (2%)

The rest of the respondents, 29%, fitted within a wide spread of job titles related to

Facilities Management in some way. These included Health and Safety Manager,

Consultant, Quartermaster, Workplace Services Business Analyst

Most respondents (74.1%) were in-house Facilities Managers, directly employed by the

organisation for which they provide services. A further 16.2% were commercial Facilities

Managers, employed by an outside Facilities Management company and 5.6% were

Facilities Consultants. Only 2% were client managers or equivalent, overseeing service

providers. The rest of the respondents did not consider themselves as falling into any of

the above groups and wrote in other roles eg Health & Safety Manager, Project

Manager


11/89

Professional memberships:

9.0%

2.6%

6.9%

3.9%

1.7%

3.9% 72.1%

Other

HCIMA

CIBSE

CIOB

RICS

IFMA BIFM

Futu re in Facilities Management:

4.8%

6.8%

2.4%

No response

Don't know/Unsure

No

11.6% of respondents did not respond to this question. These non-respondents would

include those who did not hold any professional memberships as well as those who did

not wish to respond. Of the remainder, most respondents were members of the BIFM

(72.1%), 3.9% were members of IFMA and 6.9% were members of CIBSE. However:

Some of the respondents held multiple memberships. 23.5% belonged to BIFM and

at least one other professional body such as the CIOB (4.9%), IFMA (2.18%).

27% did not belong to BIFM. 4.37% of these were members of CIBSE only and the

rest were members of other professional bodies.

None of the respondents were members of the RIBA.

9% of respondents belonged to other professional bodies that were not listed. These

included IMechE, IOD, CIPS, Guild of Master Craftsmen, IOSH, NEBOSH, MIEE and

overseas Facilities Management bodies.

5.2 Facilit ies Management as a career:

When asked about their future plans, 86% of respondents saw their long term career

path continuing to be in Facilities Management or an Facilities Management related

activity.


12/89

Role of Facilit ies Management

bodies:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Other

Collab

orative

initiative

s

Provision

ofCPD

Encoura

gingprom

oofFM

Provision

ofnetwo

rking

opport

Provision

education&

trainin

g

Provision

ofqualifications

Provision

info&

advice

Raisin

gtheprofile

ofFM

I feel it is extremely important to havesupport as a Facilities Manager. All Facilities

Managers are operating as an isolatedprovider of all services. The profile ofFacilities Managers must be raised

Respondents were asked to indicate which functions of the BIFM and other Facilities

Management bodies were most important to them in terms of the development of

Facilities Management as a professional business discipline. The top three priorities

were:

Raising the profile of Facilities Management via publicity, lobbying: 75.8%

Provision of information and advice: 67.1%

Provision of recognised qualifications: 62.8%

The least popular functions were:

Encouraging the promotion of Facilities Management through government

initiatives: 39.6%

Provision of CPD: 36.7%

Collaborative initiatives: 23.7%

Othersuggestions and comments to this question from respondents included:

Attain chartered status

Encouraging companies to view FM departments as profit instead of cost centres

Have a single voice

Interaction with HCIMA

Pro-active lobbying of government would be useful

Raising profile of the BIFM Qual

Raising standards from current low level

S k f di th t t lk FM !


13/89

Type of prem ises occupied:

Other types of client premises that were

not listed but added by respondents

included: R&D facilities, Transport facilities,

Utilities, Places of Worship, Data Processing

Centres.

The three types of premises occupied by the highest number of respondents client

organisations were:

Office, (private sector) (27.8%)

Office, (public sector) (15.8%)

Warehousing and Storage (13.8%)

2.0%

1.7%

5.2%

4.4%

5.2%

8.4%

13.8%

7.1%8.6%

27.8%

15.8%

Armed Services

Media

Sport & Leisure

Hotel & Catering

Healthcare

Educational

Warehousing / Storag

RetailManufacturing

Office (private sect

Office (public secto

The three least frequently chosen premises types were:

Media (1.7%)

Armed Services (2%)

H t l & C t i (4 4%)


14/89

Size of Facilit ies Managementteam:

4.3%

35.3%

10.1%6.8%

13.5%

23.7%

6.3%

No response

More than 25

16 - 2511 - 15

6 - 10

2 - 5

1

Facilities Management Budget:

Under 100,000

100.000 - 499,000

500,000 - 1 mil

5.4 Faciliti es Management pr ovision in t he client

organisation:

35.3% of respondents worked in a Facilities Management team with more than 25

members against only 6.3% who were solo practitioners. However 30% had a team of 5members or less.

The size of the client organisations annual Facilities Management budget was widely

spread, ranging from less than 1million to over 10million but with most in the higher

brackets 65% had b budgets of 1miilion.

25.7% of client organisation had a budget of under 1million


15/89

Facilit ies Management servicesprovided:

The five most frequently provided services

were:

Project Management (95.8%)

Building Maintenance (95.4%)

M&E Maintenance (94.2%)

Cleaning (93.2%)

Waste & Recycling (92.1%)

The five least frequently provided services

were:

Financial Services (29.1%)

HR Services (35.5%)

ICT (36.9%)

Finance (47.7%)

Business Analysis (56.5%)

I n-house v out sourced services:

The results indicate that the top five in-

h i

The chart below presents the spread of Facilities Management services provided by

respondents for their client organisation.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Project Management

Building Maintenance

M&E Maintenance

Cleaning

Waste & Recycling

Space Planning

Health & Safety

Security

Property Estate Management

Reception / Portering

Procurement

Post Room

Interior Design

CateringRelocation Services

Hospitality

Travel & Transport

Business Strategy

Business Analysis

Finance

ICT

HR Services

Financial Services

Respondents were asked to indicate whether the Facilities Management services

provided by the Facilities Management team were run in-house, outsourced to a service


16/89


17/89

Page 17 28/10/2004

Reducing cost base and affordability is the most important issue for public sector clientorganizations, often at the expense of best value. Good management practice is still lacking.

Financial I ssues:

Now

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Procurement

Investment

Asset Management

Reducing cost base

ShortTerm/ LongTerm

Enhancing Services

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

In 5 to10 years time

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Procurement

Investment

Asset Management

Reducing cost base

Short Term / Long Term

Enhancing Services

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

5.5 I ssues of im portance for Facilities Managers:

The respondents were asked to rate a variety of Facilities Management issues in terms of their

importance now and also their importance in 5 to 10 years time. These issues were grouped into 5

categories based on the themes that emerged during the workshop stage. These were:

Financial Issues

Resources

Performance

Risk, Health and Safety

Innovation

For the present, the highest importance rating in the Financial Issues category was for:

Reducing Cost Base (79.5%)

Whilst In vestment decisions received the lowest importance ratings from the respondents.

It is interesting to note that for rating of future importance, Enhancing Services became the

most highly rated issue, with 85.1% of respondents marking this issue as likely to becomeimportant or very important.


18/89

Page 18 28/10/2004

Resources I ssues:

Now

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Managing Resources

HR Issues

In house knowledge

Staff Satisfaction

Outsourcing FM

Integrating the team

Managing information

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

In 5 to 10 years time

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Managing Resources

HR Issues

In house knowledge

Staff Satisfaction

Outsourcing FM

Integrating the team

Managing information

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

Having worked where safety was the driver, FM is very under-skilled and sets itself lowstandards, which it fails to maintain.

Managing Resources (time, budget) was rated as the most important current issue in the

Resources category for 77.7% of respondents.

The least important current issue in this category, was Outsourcing. Outsourcing was also the

lowest rated issue over all issues the respondents were asked to consider.

The respondents also gave the highest future importance rating to Managing Resources.

However the largest increase was for HR issues (Facilities Management recruitment and skills

shortages), which seems to be emerging as a new concern for Facilities Managerss in the future.

Outsourcing Facilities Management remained the least important issue for the future.


19/89

Page 19 28/10/2004

Performance I ssues:

Now

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Performance

Measurement

Performance

Benchmarking

Customer Satisfaction

Quality Supplier Service

Improving ICT

Improving workplacequal

Low importance

Neutral

High importance


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Performance Measurement

Performance Benchmarking

Customer Satisfaction

Quality Supplier Service

Improving ICT

Improving workplace qual

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

Quality of Servicefrom Suppliers appeared as the most important current issue for

respondents in the Performance Issues category, whilst the least important issue in this category

was Performance Benchmarking.

For the future, Promoting Customer Satisfaction was seen as the most important issue whilst

the lowest rated was Improving I CT quality and performance.

The largest changes in importance rating were observed for Performance Benchmarking

(increasing by 32.3%) and Performance Measurement (targets and KPIs), increasing by

30.4%.


20/89

Page 20 28/10/2004

Risk, Health and Safety:

Now

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Compliance with regs/legs

Compliance gov initiaves

H&S and Welfare

Low importance

Neutral

High importance


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Compliance with

regs/legs

Comliance giv initiaves

H&S and welfare

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

In the Risk, health and safety issues category, Compliance wit h Regulations / Legislation

was rated as the most important current issue by 88.8% of respondents. It was also rated as the

most important issue for the future, closely followed by the related issue ofEnhancing health,

safety and welfare.

The lowest future importance rating was observed for Compliance with Government

I nitiatives e.g. construction, training.

As with many Facilities Managers, I am spending more and more time trying to stay abreast ofmany different legislations including packaging, waste


21/89

Page 21 28/10/2004

Innovation:

Now

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Keeping up with change

International

competitiveness

New Ways of Working

Environmental Issues

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

In 5 to 10 years

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Keeping up with change

International

competitiveness

New Ways of Working

Environmental Issues

Low importance

Neutral

High importance

In the final category, Innovation, Keeping up with change was rated as the most importantissue today (64.5%) whilst the least important was I nternational Competitiveness.

I consider it quite important to raise awareness of fm in Europe, as I consider that this is wheremuch of the future lies, particularly with the enlargement of the EU.

The situation for the future was slightly different. Although I nternational Competitiveness wasstill rated the lowest in importance (47.3%), the most important future issue wasEnvironmentalissues / Sustainability (increasing from 60% to 87.2%).

The largest change in this category was for New Ways of Working, which increased inimportance by 27.6% followed closely by Environmental issues / Sustainability .


22/89

Page 22 28/10/2004

Overall r atings of Facilities Management issues today andfor the future:

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Procure

ment

Investm

ent

AssetMa

nageme

nt

Reducing

costb

ase

ShortTe

rm/LongT

erm

Enhancing

Servic

es

ManagingR

esource

s

HRIss

ues

Inhousek

nowle

dge

StaffSatisf

action

Outsourcing

FM

Integrating

thetea

m

Managingin

formation

PerformanceMeas

ureme

nt

PerformanceBench

markin

g

CustomerSa

tisfaction

QualityS

upplierService

Impro

vingICT

Impro

vingw

orkplaceq

ual

Complian

cewithr

egs/le

gs

Comliancegi

vinitia

ves

H&Sandw

elfare

Keeping

upwith

change

Intern

ationalco

mpetitiv

eness

NewW

aysofWo

rking

Enviro

nmentalIss

ues

Now

Future

Further issues suggested by the respondents:

Corporate social responsibilities

Business skills

Staff development and role profiling

Recruitment and retention

Succession planning

Raising skills and standards

Facilities Management issues today:

Overall, across all five categories, respondents rated Compliance with regulations /

legislation as their most important current issue (88.8%).

The overall top five issues today were:

Compliance with regulations / legislation

Enhancing health, safety and w elfare

Quality of Services from suppliers

Reducing Cost Base

Promoting Customer Satisfaction

The least important issue for today was Outsourcing Facilities Management with only 19.1%

rating it as important, followed by I nternational Competit iveness, rated as important by 27%

of respondents.

Facilities Management issues for the fut ure:

Compliance with r egulations / legislation remained the most important issue overall for thefuture.

The overall top five issues for the future were:

Compliance with regulations / legislation

Enhancing Health, safety and w elfare

Managing resources

Environmental issues

Promoting customer satisfaction (very closely followed by Quality of service from

suppliers)

Performance Measurement and Benchmarking showed the largest change in importance

rating between now and the future, increasing by 30.4% and 32.3% respectively. AlsoNew ways

of working and Environmental issues / sustainability showed high increases of 27.6% and

27.2% respectively.


23/89

I n-house v Outsourced provision:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Cur rent FM prov is ion F ut ure F M provision

In-house provision

Outsourced

Partly in-house, partly outsourced

Lines of report ing:

ercent

30

20

10

0

5.6 Facilities Management Policies:

Respondents were asked whether their client organisations policy was currently to use

an in-house Facilities Management team (provision by direct employees of the

organisation), an outsourced team (provision by an outside facilities company /

contractor) or a mix of both (partly in-house, partly outsourced).

The majority reported the use of solely in-house provision (55.1%)

36.7% had mixed provision

Only 8.2% had wholly outsourced provision

However, it was felt that this situation would change over the next 5 to 10 years with

mixed provision growing in importance and overtaking in-house provision and also an

expected growth in wholly outsourced provision. Our results suggest that, in the opinion

of the respondents, outsourced provision will more than double in the future, compared

to today.

When asked whom they reported to within their client organisation, around 1/5 of the

respondents reported to the Operational Director and over a 1/5 to the Facilities

Director. 12.2% reported directly to the CEO/MD and slightly more to the Finance

Director (14.4%). Only 5.5% of the respondents reported to the HR Director.

Of the 15.5% who reported to other superiors, 8% referred to another Manager

(contract manager, engineering manager, business manager), 4% to other Directors

( h l l b d ) d h d


24/89

Facilit ies Management as astrategic part of t he business:

I believe that FM will fulfill its potential as amanagement discipline once we can clearlydemonstrate the contribution that we make

to the organisations we serve. Credibility willnot be achieved by increased profile but by

delivery of quantifiable benefits.

5.7 How Facilit ies Management is viewed by t he client

organisation:

Although 27.1% of respondents felt that Facilities Management in their client

organisation was considered as a service provider with no strategic role or only in terms

of reorganisation / refurbishment planning, 24% reported that their client organisation

had a complete integration of Facilities Management and business strategy and 26% of

respondents were occasionally consulted on issues of strategic planning. Overall nearly

50% felt that Facilities Management was considered at a board level and was

appreciated as making a contribution to business strategy.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Considered as a service

providee w ith no strategic role

Considered in terms of

reorganisation / refurbishment

planning only

Occasional consultation on

issues of strategic planning

Consultation through a board

level member on all issues of

strategic planning

Complete integration of FM and

business strategy

Most respondents (51.3%) reported that their client organisation valued Facilities


25/89

Contri buti on of Facilit iesManagement f unctions:

The top five Facilities Management

functions which respondents considered as

making the most important contribution

to core business were:

Satisfying customers and end users

(83.5%)

Regulatory compliance (80.6%)

Technical expertise and management

(74.7%)

Providing advice and support (69.9%)

Providing Business Continuity and Risk

Management (67%)

The top five functions which were

considered to make a minor contribution

were:

Exploiting knowledge and IT (25.5%)

Respondents were asked to rate a list of Facilities Management functions in terms of

their contribution to the client organisations core business.

Within everything is done under a climate of risk. Years of poor funding for FMhave resulted in low quality provision. FM is now trying to catch up with where it shouldbe.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Acting as an 'intelligent client'

Satisfying customers and end users

Enhancing corporate image

Estate planning

Service Management and Integration

Technical expertise and Management

Leading Change Management

Project Management

Developing flexible solutions

Promoting sustainable development

Exploiting economies of scale

Exploiting knowledge and IT

Providing advice and support

Market analysis and procurement sourcing

Streamlining supply chain management

Increasing productivity through workplace improvement

Redesigning business processes

Measurement and Benchmarking

Regulatory compliance

Delivering innovative solutions

Providing BCP and Risk Management

No contr ibution Minor contribution Some contribution Important contribution Very major contribution


26/89

There is very little interaction between

government and the FM sector compared toother sectors in the built environment. Nonoticeable interaction with political party

policy makers.

5.8 Aw areness of Government I niti atives:

The final question asked respondents about their awareness of a number of Government

initiatives of relevance to the Facilities Management profession. The majority of

respondents indicated they had low awareness of the five Government initiatives that

were listed in the questionnaire.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Building a better

quality of life

Constructing

Excellence

The Integrated

Team

Better Public

Buildings

Sector Skills

Council

Awareness Low

Awareness Medium

Awareness High

The least awareness was expressed for Sector Skills Councils with 67.9% of respondents


27/89

6 Client Quest ionnaire

Role of respondents:

Activi ty of organisation:

6.1 General infor mat ion about t he respondent s and their

organisations:The number of replies to the Facilities Management client survey, was unfortunately

much lower than to the Facilities Manager questionnaire. Only 43 responses were

received to the questionnaire for representatives of Facilities Management Client

organisations. The responses were analysed, but the small sample size means that the

results should not be regarded as statistically significant, although they still give an

indication of attitudes and opinions of Facilities Management client organisations.

In addition, as the respondents were self selecting, five of the respondents to the client

questionnaire were not actually clients but Facilities Managers.

The respondents were:

Heads of Department (6)

Directors (9)

Facilities Managers (5)

Site Managers (8)

Commercial Managers (8)

Other (7)

The core activities of the Facilities Management Client organisation were:

Transport

Professional Services e.g. financial services, legal services


28/89

Size of t he organisation:

26.2%

19.0%

35.7%

11.9%

7.1%

No response

5,000-10,000

250-5,000

50-249

less than 50

Number of sites

14.3%

33.3%

7.1%

23.8%

21.4%

No response

More than 25

11 - 25

2 to 10

1

As in the Facilities Manager survey, the majority of respondents represented larger

organisations with over 250 employees (54.7%), while 19% were from SMEs with below

250 employees. The majority of clients occupied more than 10 sites in the UK and 1/5,

only one site.

6.2 Faciliti es Management pr ovision in the organisati on:

The size of the Facilities Management team varied greatly from one client to another. A

quarter of the respondents had an Facilities Management team of at least 25 staff,

against 31% with a team of 2-5 people.

As would be expected, smaller Facilities Management teams generally dealt with a small

number of sites while the majority of Facilities Management teams with more than 25

staff, dealt with more than 25 sites (54.5%).

100.0 100.0Row %1Size of

the

1 2 to 10 11 - 25 More than 25

Number of sites

Total


29/89

I n-house v. Outsourced:

Facilit ies Management services

provided:

The results in this section were in line withthe findings of the Facilities Management

The respondents agreed with the Facilities Manager respondents, that Outsourcing is

likely to increase in the future and in-house provision will slightly reduce, still keeping ahigh proportion of mixed services (in-house and outsourced). This is in line with the

respondents to the Facilities Manager survey. However for current policy, for clients,

mixed provision is the most frequently reported current policy as opposed to the in-

house policy reported by the Facilities Managers.

The Facilities Management teams of the respondents organisations provided a verybroad range of services, as shown in the table below. Again, because the number of

responses was low, the distribution provides a snapshot of the services covered within

the respondent organisations but it is not statistically significant.

10.5% 65.8% 21.1% 2.6%Waste & Recycling

%

In-House

%

Outsourced

%

Mix

%

Don't

know

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

percent

Current FM provision Future FM provision

In-house provision

Outsourced

Partly in-house, partly

outsourced


30/89

Facilit ies Management reportin g:

Across the client organisations, the pattern of Facilities Management reporting was

similar to the Facilities Manager questionnaire responses:

16.7% report to the Facilities Director and 14.3% to the Operational Director 14.3% report to the CEO/MD

7.1% report to the HR Director and 9.5% to the Finance Director

Other reports included: Head of IT and Facilities, Head of Procurement, Director of

Business and Commercial, Centre Director

However 2.4% of client respondents did not know or were not sure whom their Facilities

Manager reported to and a further 14.3% provided no response.

14.3%

16.7%

2.4%

14.3%

4.8%

9.5%

7.1%

16.7%

14.3%

No response

Other (please write

Don't know/unsure

Operational Director

Property Director

Finance Director

HR Director

Facilities Director

CEO/MD


31/89

Role of Facilit ies Management instrategic planning:

Completeintegration

ConsultBoardlevel

Occasionalconsultat

Reorga/refurbonly

ServiceProvider

Pe

rcent

50

40

30

20

10

0

Facilities Management functions i n

terms of contr ibution to t heirorganisation's core business:

Respondents were asked about the consideration given to Facilities Management by their

organisation in terms of the strategic planning of their business or public service:

66% replied that there was consultation through a Board level member on all issuesof strategic planning or had a complete integration of Facilities Management &Business Strategy

22% had occasional consultation on issues of strategic planning

12% considered Facilities Management in terms reorganisation / refurbishmentplanning only

only 2.6% considered Facilities Management as a service provider with no strategicrole.

Respondents were then asked to rate a list of Facilities Management functions in terms

of their contribution to their organisations core business. The following issues were

rated as making a very important or major contribution by the highest numbers of

respondents:

Satisfying customer s and end users (78.9%)

Technical experti se and management (73.7%)

Service management and integrat ion (70.3%)

Providing advice and support and Project management (both 68.4%)

Providing BCP and risk management (65.7%)


32/89

Contri buti on t o core business

overall:

"Awareness and appreciation that FM canmake a significant contribution to supportingthe core business drivers of an organisationand does not consist only of those that arepurely visible

50% of the respondents reported that, all in all, Facilities Management made a major

contribution to their organisation's core business with an additional 19% believing that itmade a very major contribution.

9.5%

19.0%

50.0%

9.5%

9.5%

2.4%

No response

very major

major

some contribution

minor

very minor

52.4% felt that that over the next 5 years Facilities Management will become more

important or much more important while around 26% considered Facilities

Managements importance will remain the same. Less than 10% felt Facilities

Management will become less important.


33/89

Business issues today and in the

future:

"Development of staff will be a must as the

skills required from potential external

employees declines."

6.3 I ssues and I nit iatives:

Respondents were questioned about their views on the importance of a range of

business issues (Financial, Resources, Performance, Risk / Health and safety and

Innovation) both now and in 5-10 years time. These issues were the same as those

rated by the Facilities Managers in their survey.

The following issues were rated by the most respondents as being important or very

important now:

Compliance wit h regulat ions and legislation, and Enhancing healt h, safetyand welfare: equal: 89.5%

Quality of service from suppliers: 78.9%

Promoting customer satisfaction: 76.3%

Reducing cost base, and Managing resources: 71.1%

These were very similar to the priorities of the Facilities Manager respondents, except

that Managing Resources was not one of the top five issues for Facilities Managers.

Respondents indicated slightly different priorities in the future. Compliance with

regulations and legislation was still the top priority, equal with Enhancing h ealth,

safety and welfare and Quality of service from suppliers was stil l in third

place, but the percentage of respondents rating these as important rose substantially.

The following were the top issues rated as becoming very important or very important in

5-10 years time:

Compliance wit h regulat ions and legislation : 100%


34/89

Page 34 28/10/2004

Overall ratings of business issues today and in 5-1 0 years time:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8090

100

2004

2009


35/89

Awar eness of Governmentinitiatives:

Investment in training and staff

development is a vital area."

As with the Facilities Manager respondents, the respondents to the Client survey had a

low awareness of the list of five Government initiatives. Respondents were most aware

of "Constructing Excellence". and had least awareness of Better Public Buildings and

Sector Skills Councils.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Buildinga

betterquality

oflife

Constructiin

g

excellence

The

integrate

d

team

BetterPublic

Buildings

SectorSkills

Council

Awareness Low

Aw areness Medium

Aw areness High


36/89

7 Conclusions:It is apparent from the results of the Facilities Manager questionnaire that the job title,

Facilities Manager, is still not universally used by practitioners. Although just over half

those who responded and who therefore were engaged enough to respond to an

Facilities Management survey, were called Facilities Managers at work, there was a wide

spread of job title used by the rest of the respondents. This has implications for the

Facilities Management bodies who may have difficulty in targeting potential members or

relaying information to the profession at large. Another facet of this is that, although the

majority belonged to an Facilities Management body ie BIFM/IFMA, a sizable number did

not . They either belonged to other professional bodies/institutions or to none.

It was also interesting to note that there was a wide range of educational qualificationsheld by respondents. Although a 13% held a Masters Degree, (5% in Facilities

Management), over one quarter a first degree and over one third an HND/NVQ

qualification, and one quarter a City and Guilds, nearly one fifth of respondents, did not

hold any post school qualifications at all. However over 16% held, or were working

towards the BIFM Qualification. This offers a potential route for those Facilities Managers

without formal educational qualifications but with work experience, who may wish to

develop their education beyond the basic level.

The Facilities Manager respondents were very positive about their career in theprofession. Almost all were intending to continue working in Facilities Management and

wished their role to evolve further. There was also a tendency for respondents to see

their role as becoming more strategic or business management focussed with 63%

wanting to develop a wider strategic or business role and strong support for the further

development of Facilities Management as a professional business discipline. As a

relatively new profession, they looked to the BIFM and other Facilities Management

bodies to underpin this, particularly through raising the profile of Facilities Management,

the provision of information and advice and the provision of recognised qualifications.


37/89

provided in- house, were those that could be seen as the more strategic end of the

spectrum, eg Procurement, HR Services, Finance, Property Estate Management.

In spite of the recent increases in Facilities Management outsourcing, the vast majorityof respondents were in-house Facilities Managers, directly employed by the organisation

for whom they provided services - over three times as many as those who were

employed by an outside Facilities Management company or who were Facilities

Consultants. Also the policy of their client organisations was still thought to be mainly

for in-house provision although this situation was predicted as undergoing change over

the next 5 -10 years with mixed provision and outsourced provision increasing and a

corresponding reduction in in-house Facilities Management. For the client respondents,

the current policy was thought to be mainly for mixed service provision. They also

predicted an increase in outsourced and reduction in in-house provision in the future. On

the subject of outsourcing it was interesting that this was seen as the least important

issue for Facilities Manager respondents, both for today and in 5 -10 years time.

The most important current business issues for Facilities Managers and clients were in

line with those concerns expressed at the workshops Compliance with regulations and

legislation, Enhancing health safety and welfare, Reducing cost base and Ensuring the

quality of service from suppliers but also Promoting customer satisfaction was seen as a

key issue. Looking into the future, Reducing cost base was seen as becoming less

important for both Facilities Managers and clients whilst Managing Resources and

Environmental issues/sustainability were seen as growing concerns in 5 10 years time

for Facilities Managers. Performance measurement was one of the top business issues

for the future for clients but not amongst the top issues for Facilities Managers, although

it received the highest increases in importance rating between now and the future.

Another issue that was seen as growing in importance in 5 10 years time for Facilities

Managers, was that of HR (Recruitment and skills shortages). Participants in the

workshops expressed their concern about increasing problems in this area over the next


38/89

Appendix A: Facilities Manager Questionnaire


39/89

RETHINKING FACILITIES MANAGEMENTFACILITIES MANAGER SURVEY 2004

QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve understanding of the role of Facilities Management (FM) andhow this role may change over the next five years.

BIFM will use the results to improve the professional framework for Facilities Management in collaborationwith Facilities Managers, employers, professional organisations, key bodies and Government and to prepareguidance to help Facilities Managers to meet current and future challenges.

Please be assured that any information you provide in the questionnaire will be treated in the strictestconfidence. Only generalised and anonymous data will be used in any reporting of the results of theresearch.

Definitions for the purposes of this questionnaire'Facilities Manager'refers to the person who is responsible for managing the client organisation's buildingsand related services. They may use the title Facilities Manager or another title eg building manager,operations manager, business infrastructure manager, business support services manager, administrationofficer, maintenance manager, catering manager, health and safety officer or other service provider. Theservices they provide may include business support services eg ICT, HR and financial services.

'Client organisation'refers to the organisation for which the Facilities Manger provides buildingmanagement and other services, whether employed as an in-house member of staff or an external service


40/89

SECTION A: ABOUT YOU

A1. What is your current job title?

A2. What is your current Facilities Management role? (please mark one choice)

In-house FM (directly employed by the organisation for which you provide services)

Commercial FM (employed by an outside facilities management company)

Facilities Consultant

Client Manager or equivilant (overseeing service provider)

Other (please specify)

A3. How long have you worked in Facilities Management (ie your current and any previous Facilities

Management jobs)

Less than 1 year

1 - 5 years

6 - 10 years

11 - 15 years

More than 15 years


41/89

A6. Do you see your long-term career path continuing to be in Facilities Management or an FM relatedactivity?

Yes No Don't know/Unsure

If you answered 'Yes' to question A6, please go straight to Question A8. If 'No', please continue withQuestion A7.

General Management

HR

Finance

Training

Research

Engineering

Consultancy

Other

A7. What do you see as your long-term career path?

A8. If you were to remain in Facilities Management, providing services for the same organisation, howwould you like your role as a Facilities Manager to evolve over the next 5 years?

Wider strategic role

Wider operational role

Wider general business role

More specialist role (please state which area of specialisation)

(please write in)


42/89

B1. What is your client organisation's core activity?

B2. How many people does your client organisation employ in the UK?

Less than 50

50 - 249

250 - 1,000

5,001 - 10,000

Over 10,000

B3. Please indicate the type/s of premises occupied by your client organisation? (please mark all that apply)

Office (public sector)

Office (private sector)

Manufacturing

Retail

Warehousing/Storage

Educational

Healthcare

Hotel & catering

Sports & Leisure

Media

Armed services

Other (please write in)

B4. How many sites does your client organisation operate within the UK?

1 11 - 25

SECTION B: YOUR 'CLIENT ORGANISATION'

For the purposes of this questionnaire, the term 'Client organisation' refers to the organisation for whom theFacilites Manager provides services, whether employed as an in-house member of staff or a contractor. If you

provide services for more than one client organisation, please tick the box and respond to the questions in thissection with reference to your main client.

I provide services for more than one client organisation


43/89

C3: What services does your Facilities Management team currently provide for your client organisation?

Waste and recycling

a) Please indicate

whether your FM teamprovides this service?

b) If your FM team provides this

service, is it run in-house,outsourced or a mix of both?

In- house Outsourced Mix

M & E maintenance

Building maintenance

Security

Health & safety

Cleaning

Catering

Hospitality

Relocation services

Travel & transport

Reception/portering

Yes No


44/89

C4. Please rate the following issues in terms of their importance to you as a Facilities Manager by writing anumber from 1 - 5 in each box (where 1= very low importance and 5 = very high importance). For each issueplease indicate:

(a) your view now, in 2004 AND (b) your view of what the situation may be in 5 - 10 years time

Procurement/supply chain issues

(a) Importancenow

(b) Importance in5 - 10 years

time

Financial issues

Investment decisions

Asset management

Reducing cost base

Balancing short term costs with long term value

Enhancing services

Managing resources (time, budget)

Resources issues(a) Importance

now


time


45/89

QuestionC4. continued:

(a) Importancenow


time

Performance issues

Performance measurement (targets and KPIs)

Performance benchmarking)

Promoting customer satisfaction

Quality of service from suppliers

Improving ICT quality and performance

Improving workplace quality

Risk, health and safety issues (a) Importancenow


time


46/89

SECTION D: YOUR ORGANISATION'S FACILITIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES

D2a. Who do you report to within your client organisation?

CEO/MD

Facilities Director

HR Director

Finance Director

Property Director


Don't know/unsure


D2b. Who represents Facilities Management interests at Board level in your client organisation?

CEO/MD

Facilities Director

HR Director

Property Director


Don't know/unsure

D1a. Does your organisation currently use an in-house Facilities Management team (provision by directemployees of your organisation), an outsourced team (provision by an outside Facilities company/contractor)

or a mix of both (partly in-house, partly outsourced)?

In-house provision Outsourced Partly in-house, partly outsourced

D1b. In your view, what is the policy likely to be in 5 years time?

In-house provision Outsourced Partly in-house, partly outsourced


47/89

D6. Please rate each of the following Facilities Management functions in terms of its contribution to your clientorganisation's core business by ticking the appropriate box ?

(a) Acting as the 'intelligent client' in specifying yourrequirements

(b) Satisfying customers and end users

(c) Enhancing corporate image

(f) Technical expertise & management

(d) Estate planning

(e) Service management & integration

(i) Developing flexible solutions

(g) Leading change management

(h) Project management

(j) Promoting sustainable development

No

contribution

A minor

contribution

Some

contribution

An important

contribution

A very major

contribution


48/89

E1. Please indicate your level of awareness of the following Govt initiatives by marking the appropriate box?

Building a Better Quality of Life. A strategy formore sustainable construction

Awarenesslow

Awarenessmedium

Awarenesshigh

Constructing Excellence

The Integrated Team

Better Public Buildings

Sector Skills Councils

E2. Do you have any other comments about any of the issues raised in this questionnaire? (please write in)

SECTION E: FINALLY


49/89

Appendix B: Client Quest ionnaire


50/89

RETHINKING FACILITIES MANAGEMENTCLIENT SURVEY 2004

QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve understanding of the role of Facilities Management (FM) andhow this role may change over the next five years.

BIFM will use the results to improve the professional framework for Facilities Management in collaboration

with Facilities Managers, employers, professional organisations, key bodies and Government and to prepareguidance to help Facilities Managers to meet current and future challenges.

Please be assured that any information you provide in the questionnaire will be treated in the strictestconfidence. Only generalised and anonymous data will be used in any reporting of the results of theresearch.

Definitions for the purposes of this questionnaire

'Facilities Manager'refers to the person who is responsible for managing the client organisation's buildingsand related services. They may use the title Facilities Manager or another title eg building manager,operations manager, business infrastructure manager, business support services manager, administrationofficer, maintenance manager, catering manager, health and safety officer or other service provider. Theservices they provide may include business support services eg ICT, HR and financial services.

'Client organisation'refers to the organisation for which the Facilities Manager provides buildingmanagement and other services, whether employed as an in-house member of staff or an external service


51/89

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION

A1. What is your job title?

A2. What is your organisation's core activity?

A3. How many people does your organisation employ in the UK?

Less than 50

50 - 249

250 - 1,000

5,001 - 10,000

Over 10,000

A4. Please indicate the type/s of premises occupied by your organisation? (please mark all that apply)

Office (public sector)

Office (private sector)

Manufacturing

Retail

Warehousing/Storage

Educational

Healthcare

Hotel & catering

Sports & Leisure

Media

Armed services


A5. How many sites does your organisation operate within the UK?


52/89

B3: What services does your Facilities Management team provide?

Waste and recycling

a) Please indicatewhether your FM team

provides this service?

b) If your FM team provides thisservice, is it run in-house, outsourcedor a mix of both?

In- house Outsourced MixDon'tknow

M & E maintenance

Building maintenance

Security

Health & safety

Cleaning

Catering

Hospitality

Relocation services

Travel & transport

Reception/portering

Yes NoDon'tknow


53/89

B4. What is your organisation's approximate Facilities Mangement budget for this year (ie spend on theservices provided above, including salaries but excluding capital projects)?

Under 100,000

100.000 - 499,000

500,000 - 1 mill ion

Over 1 million but under 5 million

5 million - 10 million

Over 10 million

Don't know/unsure

SECTION C: YOUR ORGANISATION'S FACILITIES MANAGEMENT POLICIES

C1a. Who does the Facilities Manager report to within your organisation? (please mark one choice)

CEO/MD

Facilities Director

HR Director

Finance Director

Property Director


Don't know/unsure


C1b. Who represents Facilities Management interests at Board level in your organisation? (please mark one choice)


54/89

C3. Please rate each of the following Facilities Management functions in terms of its contribution to yourorganisation's core business ?

(a) Acting as the 'intelligent client' in specifying yourrequirements

(b) Satisfying customers and end users

(c) Enhancing corporate image

(f) Technical expertise & management

(d) Estate planning

(e) Service management & integration

(i) Developing flexible solutions

(g) Leading change management

(h) Project management

(j) Promoting sustainable development

No

contributionA minor

contribution

Some

contribution

An important

contribution

A very major

contribution


55/89

C4. All in all, what contribution do you think Facilities Management makes to your organisation's corebusiness ?

Nocontribution

A minorcontribution

Somecontribution

An importantcontribution

A very majorcontribution

C5. How far do you think the importance of Facilities Mangement to your core business will changeover the next 5 years?

Becomingmuch lessimportant

Becomingless

important

Remainingthe same

Becomingmore

im ortant

Becomingmuch more

important

SECTION D: ISSUES AND INITIATIVES

D1. Please rate the following issues in terms of their importance to your organisation by writing a number from1 - 5 in each box (where 1= very low importance and 5 = very high importance). For each issue pleaseindicate:(a) your view now, in 2004 AND (b) your view of what the situation may be in 5 - 10 years time

Procurement/supply chain issues

(a) Importancenow


time

Financial issues

Investment decisions

Asset management


56/89

(a) Importancenow


time

Performance issues

Performance measurement (targets and KPIs)

Performance benchmarking)

Promoting customer satisfaction

Quality of service from suppliers

Improving ICT quality and performance

Improving workplace quality

Risk, health and safety issues (a) Importancenow


time

Question D1. continued


57/89

D2. Please indicate your level of awareness of the following Govt initiatives by marking the appropriate box?

Building a Better Quality of Life. A strategy formore sustainable construction

Awarenesslow

Awarenessmedium

Awarenesshigh

Constructing Excellence

The Integrated Team

Better Public Buildings

Sector Skills Councils

SECTION E: OTHER COMMENTS

E1. Please write any other comments about the issues raised in this questionnaire in the box below.


58/89

Appendix C: Dist ribut ion plan

Rethinking Facilities Management

Distribution plan for questionnaires

A. The Facilities Manager questionnaires will be distributed by e mail to:

1. BIFM members who have signed up to receive direct mail. This database comprisesapproximately 5,000 members from a wide variety of organisations, public and privatesector, small and large multinationals. Organisational sectors represented include:

Retail

Public sector - local and central government

Manufacturing

Healthcare

Utilities

ICT

Property/estates management

Transport airlines, railways, automotive

Banking and finance

Hotel/catering/leisure services

Charities

Communications


59/89

2. Those organisations that have expressed an interest in joining one of the BIFMSector Forum Special Interest Groups. These comprise a listing of an additional 140organisations representing:

Retail sector

Healthcare

Education

Local Authorities

Hospitality

3. A listing of organisations who have been BIFM Award winners over the past fiveyears

4. Organisations who are taking part in the forthcoming BIFM conference in Cambridgein April 2004

5. A database of MDs and marketing directors of 150 leading IT companies comprisingthe members of ITSMA

6. Other client organisations suggested by the steering group members

The e-mail link will be contained in an introductory paragraph describing the research andencouraging response. A short article will be also be included in the BIFM Bulletin raisingawareness of the research and the questionnaire and information will also be posted on theBIFM website and those of other participating bodies.

For those who may prefer to fill out a paper questionnaire, the e-mail and related publicity willinclude a contact e mail/phone number to enable one to be ordered. A reply paid envelopewill be included for postal questionnaire forms. It is preferable that the questionnaire form isnot downloaded and printed out from the web as this can cause difficulties with scanning in


60/89

Appendix D: Support ers of t he proj ect

Project Leader:

BIFM represented by:

Ian Harris, CEO

Ian Fielder, CEO

Peter Cordy, Chairman of the BIFM Research and Knowledge Committee

Research Team: The Project Team carried out the surveys, facilitated the workshops and produced the reports and

action plans. They had a strong relationship with the BIFM and other FM bodies. The members of the project team

were:

Mindy Hadi, BRE, Watford

Marie Puybaraud, UWE, Bristol

Andrew Martin, Jo Harris and Paddy Hastings, BSRIA, Bracknell

DTI pr oject representat ive:

Jason Bingham, Davis Langdon Consultancy

Project Steering Group: The Steering Group consisted of the Project Team and other organisations representingthe broader FM community. These constitute a wide range of individuals and organisations including FM

practitioners, the academic and research community, and the professional bodies.

Hywel Davis, CIBSE

John Armstrong, CIBSE

Christopher Hedley, Occupier.Org

Michael Longy, ITSMA (IT Services Marketing Association)


61/89


62/89

Appendix E: Workshops report


63/89

Page 61 28/10/2004

Rethinking FMBIFM, BRE, BSRIA, UWE

With contributions from Centre for Facilities Management, University of Salford

Report on workshops

Part of Milestone 1: Item 4 (on Milestone schedule)

November 2003

Report complied by: J Harris, BSRIA


64/89

Page 62 28/10/2004

This document reports the points raised at two workshops and a survey at FM Expo (October 2003), and gives a brief analysis of the data.

The workshops involved the BSRIA O&M Benchmarking Network and BIFM North West Region meeting held at CFM in Manchester.

The principal aim of the surveys was to identify issues that FM professionals face today.

For selected issues suggestions for improvement were put forward. Factors that may affect FMs in five years time are also reported. The work is a precursor to thedevelopment of questionnaires for the Rethinking FM project.


65/89

Page 63 28/10/2004

Overview of meetings

BSRIA O&M Benchmarkin g Netw orko Group of 16 working FMs both in-house and service providers

o Each submitted 3 issues affecting them

o 72 answers recorded with finance the top issue. FM Expo

o Mixed group working with in FM including recruitment, publishing, service providers, specialist contractorso The comments covered a wide range of topics taken in a busy environment with no thinking time therefore off the cuff comments recordedo 158 answers recorded with performance the top issue.o Further analysis of answers needed as many answers lumped together and can cover more than one of the topic areas

BIFM members nort h west regiono Group of 35 working FMs both in house and service providerso Each submitted 3 issues affecting themo 74 answers recorded with resources/ role the top issue.

Benchmarking network group and BIFM members workshops were tuned into the subject and able to t hink through the ideas during the t ime spent in the workshops.FM Expo gave distorted data, it was the largest group but with a w ide range of interests and potential bias.

If FM Expo results are ignored the top three issues become Resources and Role, Finance and Performance.

There is potential for some items to be recorded in a diff erent column to t he one in which they are placed eg flexibility could be performance or innovation.


66/89

Page 64 28/10/2004

Table 1: I ssues facing wor king FMs today.

Results from BRSIA O&M Benchmark Network and BIFM/CFM workshop

Black text = BSRIAO&M Benchmarking network meeting normal text in Table 1

Red t ext = BI FM nor t h west r egion CFM workshop Comic Sans t ext in Table 1

The group was asked for their top t hree issues concerning work ing FMs today?

Financial Resources / Role Performance Risk and H&S Innovation

Audit trail costs Lack of resources -recruitment

Performancemeasurement

Complying with regulations/legislation

Upgrading BMS whenobsolete

Competition for work Outsourcing / in sourcing Ensuring problems get

correct priority

Transfer of risk Which organisation to

belong to?Board appreciation ofproperty costs

Maintaining site-specificknowledge

Fostering a good publicimage

Environmental / sustainabilityand green issues

Culture human culture poor acceptance of IT

Lack of investment Understanding FM role Service levels adequateto client

Keeping up with currentlegislation

Technology skills basewas hands on, nowtechnology based

Partnering FM taking on otherservices, landscaping/security/ conferencing

Flexibility Compliance actual anddocumentation

Looking at hot-deskingand property costs ingeneral.

Identifying best value

and cost control

Resources HR front or

back office

Changing business needs,

no prior warning

Health and safety issues IT issues

Total FM one contractand one invoice

Its not my job mentality(department

Change in expectations Poor health and safetymanagement by contractors

Ever changing goalposts both inside and


67/89

Page 65 28/10/2004


overlapping) outside the organisation

Seen as a cost to thebusiness

Matching resources torequirements

Does FM strategy supportbusiness objectives?

Legislation Space squeezing

Providing value formoney

TUPE, HR, recruitment,staff rights and workingconditions

Critical success factors Education of legislation Flexibleworking/homeworking

Cost control Lack of time/resources Split soft and hard FM Changing legislation anddrivers

Accommodation strategy

Length of contracts too

short

Regulatory constraints

(especially employmentissues: pension, sick pay,

maternity, part time etc)

Internal communication

between departments egwhere budgets are held

Legislation compliance - cost of

training in house verses specialistcontractors

Pay everyone involved inbuilding services sector

Lack of technicalknowledge

Low profile of non-corebusiness

Auditing compliance

Establishing value for

moneyFM and how we raise t he

prof ile wit hin an

outsourced envir onment

Management information

(needs to be integrated)

Asbestos big cost issue

Trying to show added

value to the businessRecognit ion of r ole wit hin

organisat ion by users and

management

Education of client (early on

in the selling process)

Legionella

Attracting capitalinvestment to replace worn

out plant or services

Role of FM as a discipline

within t he gener al

business process

Value adding Fire risk assessments


68/89

Page 66 28/10/2004


Audit trails of cost

justification and market

comparisons

Per cept ion of FM Qualit y measur es

Per f ormance measur es

best pract ice

Disability Discrimination Act

Budget Underst anding t he

diversit y of t he role

int r oduce meaningf ul

str ucture

NHS St ars complying wit h

t hese t o increase st ar

rat ings

Increasingly selection will belinked with CSR issues More

emphasis is being put onenvironmental reporting can

you risk your brand name by your

actions in cutting down 1000s oftrees, for example.

Costs are still top single

source supplier offers cost

advantage

Time Meaningf ul benchmar k dat a

and pr otocol

Legislation companies only think

about legionnella when there is an

event

Difficult to get messageacross in board rooms that

cheapest is not the best

policy

Skill def icit KPI s f it f or pur pose,f ict ion or f act , value or not

Healt h and saf ety - Accidentr epor t ing, Rising legislati on,

CEO and finance Directors

need influencing.TUPE and fit f or purpose I mpact of good or bad FM

measurement t hereof ,

Benchmark ing

Healt h and safet y St af f

accident s, Tr aining, safet y

management

E-sourcing (eg auctions)

and e-tendering is growingSt af f mot ivat ion Absence of agr eed

standar ds

Excessive init iati ves/ regulat ion

Managing/reducing costs

accommodation side ratherthan service side:

Recruit ment I ncreasing user

expect ations

I ncr easing legislation

Note the very high cost of Lack of good people Cust omer s Changing legislat ion


69/89

Page 67 28/10/2004


IT/telephone points.

Unwilli ngness to invest in

FM

Skills shor t ages (2) Cust omer car e Growing body of Workplace

legislati on

J ust if i cat ion of FM Ensur e t he exper t

r emains t he exper t

Does it f it in wit h t he users

needs

Healt h and saf ety (2)

Evidence of value f or

money

Sources of knowledge Real ist ic customer

Constantly r equired t o

make savings

Part nership working t o

underst and str ategy

Synergies wor king with HR

and I T dept s

Cost Par t ner ships Tr anspar ency in

communicat ions

Cost down Cont r act or s Communicat ion

Cost dr iver s Cont r ol of supply chain Consist ent under -deliver y

by FM service pr oviders

all wil ling to manage less

able t o do

Budget/ cost s emphasis

on cont r ol of cost s

St r ategic FM or

oper ati onal FM how t o

link and t ranslate

Cult ure

Balance of

cost/ t ime/ qualit y

Training and development Culture confr ont at ional v

proact ive

Budget management Sourcing rel iab le

cont r act or

Lack of business planning


70/89

Page 68 28/10/2004


Financial pressures Living wi th the legacy of

what ever decisions we

make as cannot j ust walk

away

Rapid business expansion

Demands f or mor e ret urn

f or less investment

Knowledge exchange

shari ng ideas and

inf ormat ion f r om shar ing

experience of a par t icular

it em wit h other FMs

Change management

Does the budget set by

account s people ref lect

t he businesses needs

Cont inuit y

Cost/ qualit y balance

Alt ernative ser vice

level/ ser vice delivery

models (principally t o

r educe cost )

37 37 36 25 10


71/89

Page 69 28/10/2004

Table 2: Survey - FM Expo

Responses from individual, on the spot questioning at FM Expo

Financial Resources / Role Performance Risk and H&S I nnovat ion

Reducing Costs/lack of

resources-budgets sensible ways of

reducing costs

keeping costs down

16 Competition with other

parts of the companyfor resources

1 Improving quali ty of

service from suppliers

7 Environmental issues

and communicatingwhy these are

important within the

company recyclingetc.

6 Flexible service delivery

to meet a changingenvironment

3

FM seen as prime area

for cost cutting

1 get ting people to

change

3 Contractor

management

7 Energy management 1 Keeping up with

frequent change egnew ways of working,

hot desking and having

to put these into action

without knowing how

2

Driving force of low

cost instead of quality

4 Recruitment 1 Finding the right

suppliers

7 Legislation/Regulations

and keeping up with

these. Regulatoryconstraints

5 Maintaining awareness

of latest knowledge in

FM. Latest productsand services lack of

practical versus

academic application.Need info in a form

suitable for FMs

4

Getting the messageacross in the

boardroom thatcheapest is not best

policy

4 Advancement 1 Outsourcing or in house what to

outsource and who to core versus non core

services?

9 Access DDA audit and compliance

6 Technology/ IT infrastructure -

flexibility

3

Value for money 7 The diversity of skills 2 Time how t o fit 2 Health and safety eg 11 Deployment of best 1


72/89

Page 70 28/10/2004


and

experience/qualifications required. Training,

there are too many

qualifications

everything into a

normal day

asbestos, fire

precautions, legionella.Within the building and

by contractors

practice across global

FM portfolio

Space reducing

property costs ingeneral

4 CAD/CAFM FM have

to be responsible forthese even if it is not

their areas of

expertise/amount ofknowledge expected

jack of all trades-master of none

6 Perception of FM - Lack

of understanding incompanies of what FM

actually does FM is

not on the politicalagenda no

recognition of theimportance of FM

strategy. Not seen as

core business.

Education of the client

9 Waste 1

Utilities procurement

electricity supply

2 Skills - Lack of

acceptance of IT/lackof t echnical knowledge

1 Customer service 1

PFI/PPP 2 Tupe 1 Security 1

People management lack of competent staff

skill level of

personnel

3 Communicat ion improving

communication skills to

represent FM better to

clients

3

Being totallyresponsible for other

peoples demands

sheer scope of the job

2 Car parking 1


73/89

Page 71 28/10/2004


Lack of reliable FM data

for benchmarking

2

Too much emphasis on

KPIs and Benchmarking

1

Customer relationships 1

Building maintenance 1

Administrativebottlenecks

1

Globalisation 1

Total 40 Total 21 Total 54 Total 30 Total 13


74/89

Page 72 28/10/2004

Current issues for working FM's

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Perfo

rmance

Financial

Resourc

es/R

ole

Risk

andH&am

1 rethinking fm survey report

Documents