Service Value is the End Game Advanced Facilities Performance Management (Part 2 of 2)

Transcription

1 Service Value is the End Game Advanced Facilities Performance Management (Part 2 of 2) Alan Green is a Performance Manager within Property at one of the UK leading financial institutions Graeme Chalmers, [email protected] - g2 Business Services, Hillington Park, Glasgow, Scotland. (Acknowledgements Professor John Hinks Glasgow Caledonian University) First published in Essential FM Reports No 65 - March 2007 P12-14 Tottel Publishing Ltd 2007 ISSN /IPR and g2 and associates ltd Introduction Following on from Part 1, which set the scene for advanced facilities performance management, this paper discusses a case study where the technology described in Part 1 was deployed through the UK. Leading to better use of resources in facilities performance and providing the basis for working towards determining service value which is the effective end game in facilities performance management. The paper discusses the problem statement, the solution put in place and the successful implementation of a web based facilities performance management platform creating an environment in which to start the service value analysis. Problem Statement In 2004 our Group Property Operation tendered a number of large value functional service contracts including manned guarding, cleaning & repairs and maintenance. The portfolio was divided into areas rolled up into a number of regions within the UK. For example, Manchester, Leeds and Merseyside areas were included in a Northern Region, and London, Essex and Bromley were included in a South East Region. On tender evaluation we decided to adopt a number of supply partners to manage different regions and in some cases individual areas within a region. Our contract framework was typically detailed with a comprehensive set of KPI s which the supplier would be measured on monthly basis. On mobilisation measurement took place at monthly supplier meetings with paperwork completed manually and then transferred to an excel spreadsheet. This was subsequently ed to the regional contract manager responsible for the overall management of the functional supply partner. This process was replicated across six different service lines, eighteen areas and four regions. This was far from ideal in terms of process optimisation and created the following issues: Spreadsheets for multiple locations & services ing / PC storage / resource time Performance analysts not analysing Problems with data retrieval, trending and comparison Delayed communication & reporting Difficult to correlate components Difficult to determine value of service levels

2 So our performance team tasked themselves with looking into how we could automate the KPI process. The first decision was whether to outsource the automation or use the internal IT resource held within the core business. A simple SWOT analysis was used to establish the merits/pitfalls of each (refer below) Delivery In-house or Outsource Table 1 In-house - Internal Resources Issues Group IT core business priorities & resource pressures Systems constraints authorisations red tape etc Business case approval Development Cost Timescales Generic IT resource not specialist or expert in Performance Mgt Development track record unknown Benefits Ownership Reduced Risk Cheaper running costs Inter connectivity potentially with other in databases Expandable with web front end Stakeholder buy in Table 2 Outsource - to Performance Management Specialist Service Provider Issues Locked into single niche supplier Internet based could reduce potential coverage for staff with no internet access Yet another non connected database Limited ability to link with other management information systems System Access & Security Benefits Cheaper development cost Software package mature and flexible Implementation speed Continuous product development upgrades Externally viewable Actual cost benefit based on time saved in live environment product vs traditional solution Dedicated resource to completion Ongoing expert support Consultancy fees & licence costs known with appropriate risk transfer in cost e.g fixed price

3 Solution and Implementation After evaluating the risks and benefits we decided on using G2 Business Services and their g2-metrix Product. The key attributes that G2 fulfilled were their FM Professionals not software vendors Innovative independent experts Performance Research links with leading Universities We decided upon a partnership approach to develop a solution rather than a competitive tender. This was due to the fact that performance management software market was limited, niche and fledgling at the time, which meant a competitive tender and specification would possibly not provide the right environment for producing the best solution. Therefore we went ahead with a proof of concept pilot with our chosen service partner based on the following high level methodology Performance Management Solution Scorecards Service Reports & Analysis Group Property Custom Modelling KPOs, Property Structure, Weightings, KPIs Data Sources Group Property Data Sources Databases Manual Web Survey Handheld The pilot proved successful in early 2005 and subsequently all our key services were migrated onto the g2-metrix platform in late Key system attributes were: Secure hosted web enabled application Customised to suit the end user Online access

4 Input data multiple sources capability XML protocol enabling our system data to be accepted into g2-metrix Absolute granularity and visibility Reporting suite live and historic info Automated service reports Exception Reports- Action capability Different User levels Simple and Easy to Use Is this evidence of a poor or volatile performance, or volatile business need (out of phase), or both? Location KPI Exception Comparison Sample KPI Exception Trend Count Underlying Trend - Worst KPI for period

5 Further reporting analysis indicates conflict between service performance and customer satisfaction Typical System Reports to start the Value Analysis Process Typical reporting outputs (sample data only) are shown below where short term trend, manage by exception trend and service/customer satisfaction correlation are shown. These output reports allow direct comparisons for analysis to help establish (i) poor performance improving over time (ii correct level of service contracted service level out of phase with customer expectation (iii) the service level is misaligned to the business need. Benefits and Value Moving to an online performance management platform had a huge positive impact on our Property team and key supply partners in terms of: Administrative burden removal Minimal training (literally 30 minutes) Improved resource focus on performance Visibility and Sharing of Information Readily Trend, Benchmark and Compare Management by KPI exceptions Correlation of different KPI components Flexibility Culture Change system has become the bedrock of the KPI performance Mgt In addition to the tangible benefits of Improved efficiency and effectiveness of our resource System was self funding as a result Staff motivated and focussed on outcomes Risk reduced In our particular case the g2-metrix system impact has turned our KPI Mgt from spreadsheet nightmare with limited use into a cutting edge multi dimensional solution that has staff focussed on driving continuous improvement within our service delivery.

6 This case study can be readily modelled against the Strategic FM Performance Cycle Model shown in Part 1 of this paper. In summary, when property and facility management organisations develop KPIs they need to closely consider the measurement and reporting process solution. This will ensure that stakeholders can receive the right performance information in a visible and timely fashion to enable them to analyse performance intelligently and improve accordingly - driving value through trend and exception in early course. Online technology speeds up the process.