FM leaders forum BENCHMARKING: Effective performance management for FM F M L E A D E R S F O R U M : D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R Supported by
Contents Introduction... 2 Executive summary... 3 The panel... 6 The discussion... 7 About the panel... 15 Glossary... 18 Publisher Published by the British Institute of Facilities Management BIFM June 2013 If you have any questions, please email membership@bifm.org.uk Disclaimer The discussion contained within this document reflects the views of those in attendance at the FM leaders forum event and do not necessarily reflect the views of the British Institute of Facilities Management. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 1
Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM FM LEADERS DISCUSSION FORUM Introduction Gareth Tancred, CEO, BIFM BIFM hears a lot about benchmarking ideologies from both its members and others from across the industry, but as the issues were unravelled during this latest FM Leaders Forum, it was revealed that benchmarking is no longer optional; in most cases it is mandatory and at the very least it is considered best practice. Throughout our discussions we discovered that benchmarking means different things to different organisations, and although there are some issues that are still to be overcome with internal benchmarking performance, the real benefits come from being able to compare buildings across the industry. Facilities Management (FM) is a complex issue and comparing it like for like will always be difficult. Although there are standards out there, we need to develop those standards and encourage conformity to ensure we all apply benchmarking principles in the same way. It could be argued that some of this work should have been done some time ago, but it s good to now see a new culture of collaboration developing behind the scenes. To overcome this, perhaps what s required is an emerging technology that will help to compare specifications. Some of the drivers like Building Information Modelling (BIM), will certainly have a big impact on the public sector and in time the private sector. It is thought that they can help shape the future of benchmarking as stored data becomes more ordered, and although various standards are already in place, it was thought that some kind of technology platform that helps to cut through all of the detail could support this. It has been shown that where good benchmarking and good performance statistics are already in use, confidence that FM is delivering and contributing to the business performance improves. This can only help to increase FM s profile and its role in improving productivity and shareholder value. FM Leaders Forums were created to bring together, and to hear from leaders and practitioners on a diverse range of subjects. These discussions debate current topics affecting our industry to help inform BIFM members, the FM sector and the wider business community. They have been specifically designed to provide a snapshot view from the attendees, provoke more debate and inform members, so please do engage with BIFM as we continue to develop support in some of the issues surrounding benchmarking for FMs. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 2
Executive summary Benchmarking is a phrase that is often referred to in FM. But its definition and an understanding of how benchmarking can improve and support the performance of the FM function at times seems inconsistent. These were some of the themes discussed within the latest FM Leaders Forum. What became clear from the outset was that the benchmarking approach is different depending on the organisation: in the public sector, for example, it is often mandated by a central department, in the private sector, it is entirely defined by each organisation and its own commercial drivers. Although benchmarking is often not part of the everyday management processes, in reality facilities managers (FMs) regularly undertake performance measures as part of their management roles. Many are benchmarking operational performance without labelling it as such, and most FMs recognise that performance data can help drive strategic change decisions. The consensus reached was that the first step to undertaking a benchmarking initiative is to work out how a single facilities management estate is performing relevant to itself i.e. internal benchmarking. Gathering information for this in the first instance is a challenge, and can be one of the main challenges for a successful benchmarking operation. Not only is it initially time consuming to gather the information and input the data, it also requires the same performance measures to be repeated over a period of time. Internal benchmarking will take several years to produce comparable and meaningful data. However, benchmarking, if done effectively, should never be a one-off exercise; it must form part of the on-going management process. Although looking at internal performance is a standard expectation, the real benefits of benchmarking come from being able to share data with other organisations and assess relative business performance. The difficulty is to achieve absolute comparability of data when everyone is using different measures. The participants of the FM Leaders Forum felt there could be two approaches to achieving this. It was thought that there could be some merit in establishing a central collaborative approach to focus on benchmarking across all industry sectors. However, it was also thought that it might be more realistic and effective to recognise the constraints of the data rather than looking at a direct comparison. It was also noted that other industries for specific market sectors already have good examples of collaborative initiatives and external benchmarking networks. These are good examples of effective benchmarking because the participants are open with sharing their real data, sharing it with competitors and colleagues by making it anonymous so people operating within the industry cannot identify relative performance issues. However, it was acknowledged that this was easier for organisations that did not have FM as their core business. All the parties acknowledge that they had similar problems with getting external performance information for comparison to their estates, so any sharing of performance data had to be made anonymous. It was felt that the group might be able to look at specific types of benchmarking to see if lessons could be learned. The cleaning and catering sectors appeared to be the easiest sectors to measure, while security and front of house services were a bigger challenge. Around the table there were differences in opinion on Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 3
the methodologies and components within the benchmarking in these areas, again highlighting some of the issues that need to be overcome. It emerged that austerity measures and the economic climate has given rise to benchmarking being used as a commercial bargaining tool. In some cases it was felt this could be particularly damaging as it focuses on benchmarking as purely a cost comparator. If the market is shifting towards FM being viewed as a commodity product, the challenge here is about repositioning FM and showing how benchmarking data supports the business and improves productivity. It was questioned whether FMs shy away from using benchmarking and relative performance metrics due to concerns that their performance will be considered poor, when in reality they are restricted by the innate nature of their building stock. After all, no-one wants to be seen as the bottom of the league table. However, this view was deemed unacceptable, and rather than being regarded as a threat, the benchmarking information should be used as an opportunity to raise concerns about budget cutting and to identify priorities for improvement. Agreeing and applying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across the entire industry was considered beneficial, and some steps have already been made towards this, but in practice it was challenging. They would need to target specific market areas because of the huge variants between different building, portfolios and commercial environments. It was felt that core KPIs, could be applied to our industry: occupancy costs vs. headcount vs. areas vs. workstation which would all start to provide headline. Ultimately, benchmarking provides management information, an indicator and view of how an estate or building is operating at a specific moment in time. This performance information should not only show how the building is working, but how the FM function contributes to the productivity of the business. It could be seen as a set of numbers, but the real value of benchmarking comes from how this information is used. It has the most impact when it is used to question concerns, or demonstrate the value that good facilities management delivers to the organisation. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 4
Key findings Benchmarking is an important performance measurement tool that, if used directly, can drive FM strategy. Internal benchmarking relative performance measures, is a necessary minimal expectation as a first step in the process. This is an activity that needs to be undertaken on a regular and on-going basis. Concerns have been raised about external benchmarking of estates due to the differences in building specification. However, if the issues behind the data are understood, benchmarking can help the estate owner identify potential areas of concern. Barriers to benchmarking include: confidentiality fears about sharing data and how to make it anonymous, the amount of time and effort it takes to produce benchmarking reports, the need for collaborative industry co-ordination and realising its tangible benefits to decision making. Focus on performance ratios that make a difference to the delivery of your management functions within your own business. A lot of FMs are already benchmarking but probably don t realise or convey that they are. Make sure you inform management that you are benchmarking and use it to communicate the value that you and the FM function offers. It could be argued that the FM industry won t be recognised as being mature until we present at Board level an agreed set of relative performance reports that demonstrate our role in business productivity. Consider raising the education profile of benchmarking by highlighting what it does and positioning it as performance management or performance reporting. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 5
The panel Leaders from across the facilities management sector and beyond are invited to take part in the FM Leaders Forums. This forum s participants included: PARTICIPANT JOB TITLE ORGANISATION Gareth Tancred Chief Executive Officer British Institute of Facilities Management Des Pitter Commercial Business Development Manager VINCI Facilities Joanna Harris Principal Engineer BSRIA Martin Read Managing Editor FM World John O Brien Managing Director LCMB Steve Castle Managing Director, FM Services Telereal Trillium Roger de Boehmler Head of Building Surveying Ingleton Wood LLP Andrew Hayward Associate Bernard Williams Associates Geoff Prudence Chairman CIBSE FM Mark Smith Regional Director, London and East of England Telereal Trillium Peter Roberts Managing Director Peter Roberts Consulting Neil Oliver Founding Director Inani Ltd Andrew Hawkeswood Business Development Manager IPD Andrew Smart Head of Facilities Management EMEA Cushman & Wakefield Nick Sicklen Head of Commercial Development IPD For further information about the participants, their experience and expertise please refer to pages 15-17. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 6
Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM The discussion The participants took part in a roundtable discussion. A summary of some of the main points from this discussion are as follows: The role of benchmarking within FM Benchmarking is a business MOT that measures whether you are running as efficiently as your competitors, whether you simply need an oil change or require a complete service and it has a key role to play in FM. Clients and Board level management expect it and feel comforted by it: they need to see relative performance measures that demonstrate value for money and quality of service. Deciding how often and when to benchmark will depend on your organisation. A service operator that is looking to develop and position its business in the market will have a different view from a consultant, for example. For it to be effective, benchmarking should be part of the normal management duty and be an ongoing process that is completed on a regular basis, preferably annually, if not quarterly. Health Service (NHS), are already demonstrating their operational efficiency through benchmarking. Higher Education does it with a database called the Estates Managements Statistics (EMS) and the NHS does it with Estates Return Information Collection (ERIC). This data can cover everything from carbon efficiency per Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student, occupancy costs allocated to various hard and soft services, and efficiency of space utilised per student and per academic. Benchmarking is a business MOT that measures whether you are running as efficiently as your competitors. FM benchmarking in practice Before embarking on designing your benchmarking process it s vital to analyse the processes of other external organisations, and to gauge how your own estate performs against itself year on year a continuing internal stock take of performance and occupancy cost, if you like. The success of benchmarking strategy depends on the management support behind it, the personality of the managers, the organisational structure, and the length of the FM contract. Many organisations have regular benchmarking to reassess their overall costs, others benchmark infrequently. Many public sector organisations, such as the Higher Education sector and the National Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 7
A poisoned chalice or a golden opportunity? Revolution and evolution Benchmarking as a management activity has become a mandatory expectation but it s often very difficult to compare like with like and get reliable and directly comparable information. What s challenging is where the definitions of measurement can vary from person to person and organisation to organisation. An organisation can usually consistently define its own internal performance, but the real challenge for the FM industry is consistency for external or collaborative benchmarking that gives a relative performance rating against others. It s the golden opportunity that the industry wants to attain but is uncertain to achieve. Should they trust the information that is made available to them and should they share it? Benchmarking reports can become increasingly valuable over time. During the mid-1980s, the Funding Council had fairly significant control over the Higher Education sector and operated performance indicators so they could enforce a standard way of working. Today, this is a sector that is regarded as working quite successfully. Subsequent activities undertaken by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) indicate that catering as a service sector has a far greater handle on performance improvement measures, and this is true of the IT sector too but for other sectors, performance measurement is still very loose. Issues and barriers to benchmarking A shifting solution In the early days benchmarking was very much seen as a management activity, something that helped work out how you could better manage your portfolio. But over the last 10 years, there has been a shift towards benchmarking as a commercial tool often a requirement of a tender process, with the emphasis on price rather than performance. This has led many service providers to regard it as a threat rather than a positive tool, and although we complain about FM becoming a commodity service; is there a danger that we could drive it further that way by continuing to focus benchmarking measures purely on cost? To an extent, benchmarking has become a safety gauge, offering reassurance that: we are still competitive and, for clients: we are still getting the best deal that s available. In a competitive world, it s not common to find peer groups who are prepared to reveal their ideas, innovations and best practices beyond a one-off project so for successful benchmarking; you need to be able to share information through time. Often, everyone specifies slightly different performance measures and requires a slightly different level of service, so tailoring your benchmarking research is important: recognising the variables of the factors behind the performance data. Over the last 10 years, there has been a shift towards benchmarking as a commercial tool often a requirement of a tender process. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 8
Simply getting hold of external benchmarking data can be a challenge; clients who have outsourced often struggle to get the data back from their service providers, particularly at building level, and the pure volume of data can be daunting. Solution: by using existing technology and software the barriers are removed. One of the purposes behind the Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) was to create data exchange standards using existing systems to automatically share highly granular or detailed information. While FMs need to be prepared to open up their detailed performance data, there is also a fear factor about sharing commercially sensitive information. Solution: Non FM related sectors e.g. Pharmaceuticals, Finance & Banking, Utilities etc, get around this by sharing the data anonymously through an intermediary body, stripping out anything that identifies the organisation or the contractors involved. Misunderstanding the role of benchmarking Thanks to recent austerity measures, the focus of benchmarking has been very much on comparing costs with costs, when in reality the real gains are around productivity and effectiveness ratios. During the recession many businesses focused on the performance of a property and the cost of occupancy, rather than price per service. The latter is not really a management activity, it is commercial: it is the way in which you commoditise and drive down the price. The issue is trying to find a simple way for an organisation to communicate the value that is brought to the business rather than defaulting automatically to cost. A great example of this is when businesses try to do a headcount of staff when they have mobile or part-time workers. The fact is, the more efficient you are, the more mobile your work force and the less they utilise their work stations; yet it looks as though your cost per workstation is going up. Moving towards a positive definition of benchmarking Benchmarking has become a generalist term and in its broadest sense is a simple mathematical tool. Any FM senior manager that is planning a strategic business plan has to have a form of benchmarking as part of that review. Whether that is internal or external benchmarking, it should be part of a senior manager s planning tool. Benchmarking is a way of understanding your business, whether that is the efficiency or the utilisation of space, or how many buildings you have on leasehold compared to freehold: it can be used in many different ways. Costs have increasingly been the focus of benchmarking measures because that s been the key agenda for everyone over the last five years, but quality and the effectiveness of a service is coming through now too. Ultimately, the market will define what it wants from benchmarking, but it needs to be co-ordinated by the industry as a whole. Dominant trends and challenges Thanks to the economic downturn, the focus has turned away from new building and construction, investment activity and growing investment portfolios, to the operational effectiveness of occupied property. Although in the past we have not shared performance information, there is now a move towards collaboration with very visible examples of global industry institutions talking to one another. Should we learn from other sectors and collaborate with them? The pharmaceutical sector is becoming more focused on driving down costs because it has wider strategic problems within the industry. It Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 9
also has extremely large and quite complex portfolios that often absorb organisations as part of acquisitions. They have established ways of working together to share information about their estates. This could be a potentially successful vertical model and something we should look at replicating. Other industries the oil industry, the energy industries, even the transport industries collaborate around sharing performance data to various levels of success. The Institute of Asset Management has developed benchmarking to reflect the PAS 55 implementation in heavy industry. Though our industry has not collaborated around benchmarking data, perhaps is it time we began drawing off the experiences of other industries. Many are a little cynical about the value of output from past benchmarking exercises. Grass-root fear factors Benchmarking creates competition and competition creates fear because no one wants to be at the bottom of the table. For example, if your security costs are very high because you run job centres, how do you quantify that in a benchmarking figure? Would prospective clients say: your security costs are high, and you would have to spend a lot of time explaining it. We need to compare eggs with eggs and cheese with cheese. The impact of emerging technologies and BIM on benchmarking The investment and construction phases of our industry are now very focused on making sure that we have digestible, easily accessible and usable structured performance data. There is a treasury FM team that are process mapping, soft landings and seasonal commissioning with a view to taking 20 per cent out of the cost of constructing an asset and then being able to operate it effectively. It will be mandated from 2016 and will drive the uptake of emerging technology, which may have a bigger impact than the technologies themselves. BIM is currently focused on the construction phases and making data consistently structured so that it can be shared and ready for the use by facilities managers of the future, and it is this common structure that can be useful for benchmarking facilities management services in the future. To be effective, however, you ve got to think about how the model is configured and then get people to use it. The BIM models are generally produced by a project team, for example: the finance team come in from the host occupier, let s say they are a bank, and have a completely different way of looking at their financial depreciation structure. Some are working with clients who are looking at integrating BIM models into large capital investments and they are thinking very carefully about how they actually ask the design and construction team to configure that model so it can be useful to the Facilities Management industry. Global issues affecting benchmarking Everything that is difficult about benchmarking in the UK is amplified when you consider external benchmarking in different markets. Despite the concerns and issues raised within the discussion about external benchmarking within the UK, on reflection it was felt that in many ways the UK is more advanced in this area. The most challenging places to achieve benchmarking are the emerging markets because the data is just not available; it s often limited, patchy, city centric and difficult to work with. Furthermore, many of the reporting requirements in the UK and Europe are driven by legislation, and in the emerging markets that legislation is not necessarily in place. To illustrate the variances in different countries then we only need to consider the new global floor area measurement standard. Even though Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 10
the new CEN Facilities Management area measurement standard harmonises with North American floor area measurement standards along with European and UK ones, it has not been widely adopted yet. Therefore, at the most basic level it is difficult to create any external validity if everyone is approaching benchmarking or establishing key metrics in a different way. What s needed is collaborative institutional bodies working together to encourage the use of the existing standards. Some countries are looking to the UK for standards and consistency. The CEN standard for FM benchmarking is a good place to start, and other standards do exist, but it s a collaboration and organisational issue for the industry if benchmarking is to be successful. Benchmarking challenges within FM The key to good benchmarking is to understand what the cost drivers are within individual sectors. If say, 80 per cent of your cleaning is night cleaning and is done to the BICSc standards and you know that your cleaning costs are to a certain standard you are only benchmarking 80 per cent of it. But is it better to acknowledge the fact that you are only benchmarking part of it, than try and benchmark all of it? In this way, you could then look at the bits that are remaining i.e. 20 per cent is day janitors or flexible cleaning. You can monitor how effectively is it done: is it fully occupied; is it partially occupied; how many security guards are there, how many entrances are there etc? You can start to hone in on what it is that can give value to the cost data that you are providing. The key to good benchmarking is to understand what the cost drivers are within individual sectors. Using cleaning as an example again, productivity ratios are used quite successfully by a lot of people, and the only time it becomes a problem is when you go to day cleaning and multitask. As soon as you start using the cleaning staff on a day janitor basis and use them for other services, AV s etc, then your productivity ratios are affected. Productivity based on floor area can be useful within cleaning but the challenge is if there is a client that says they want to have a janitor onsite permanently or two cleaners, for example, which will skew any productivity in terms of hours and floor areas. Security is similar where you a have a mobile solution, a drive past solution, or the client wants manned guarding for so many hours. If it is prescriptive, then it will skew the productivity and the ability to make savings. However, if this is made clear then the benchmark can be put into context, and there can be some narrative around the reported benchmark rate. Successful solutions There will always be a need for supporting/profiling information about contract figures or cost of delivery so you can assess that ratio. You can t assess costs in isolation without knowing what has driven those costs. Performance, labour and energy cost are a distorting factor. It is possible to benchmark those kinds of things, sitting down with each of the key service areas and many of the drivers for both hard and soft services in FM have actually been nailed down in the FM benchmarking standard produced by CEN, the European Normalisation Body. Another successful technique is to produce a target-operating model. Look at what you might expect to see, given the parameters of the building and the specification, and compare that to what is actually there and evaluate how efficiently they are driven. This is benchmarking in action: here s what we ve Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 11
got today, here s where it really should be; now let s work out how we can get from A to B. Is benchmarking the right term? Benchmark everything or focus on those elements that really deliver value? A complete benchmarking approach that measures the data that is available, and uses it effectively but recognises the variables is paramount. Areas that aren t so successful are front of house, mailroom and porterage because it s very difficult to measure how effective these services are. You can measure the tangible bits, how many rounds a porter does, how many times the post is delivered etc. but as soon as you come to front of house it s all about the image your create, about how people respond, i.e. perception elements that are hard to measure or quantify unless you get customer service feedback from everyone who enters the building. There are also some areas of service delivery that are completely influenced by the individual policy of the organisation and where external benchmarking simply does not apply. Reception services are a classic example. Similarly, in more generic areas where everyone delivers in a fairly consistent way, or where safety concerns mandate a certain level of service delivery, like lift maintenance, for example how much can you vary that without treading on health and safety concerns? It s also useful to set out to an FM why they should do benchmarking in the first place. They ve got to have a reason to support their decision, and if they haven t then they may need more help and education. If you can demonstrate a case study where the practice has actually delivered a key benefit to a client, for example, and they can see the similarities for themselves, then that s good practice. Should the focus be more on performance and performance data than getting hung up on the word benchmarking? Benchmarking is a term that s badly misunderstood and misused and in many ways performance management sounds more urgent and positive. If it is properly designed, you can get the data you want from existing process and technology systems. It s not a new or a separate function, it shouldn t be; we need to make sure the operational FM systems are designed intelligently so they can deliver the required benchmarking data as part of normal operations. In many ways, FMs at ground level are using benchmarking without appreciating that it is benchmarking, because measuring performance, setting targets and standards, and making continuous improvements is already an intrinsic part of their job. What they are not doing, however, is comparing this data with other organisations, and that is the next required level to deliver the best benefit. Developing industry-wide KPIs for FM services Key Performance Indicators are a vitally important element of a benchmarking exercise, but to be meaningful they must be specifically selected so they are relevant to your business. Benchmarking is a term that s badly misunderstood and misused and in many ways performance management sounds more urgent and positive. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 12
We already produce and measure our clients on standard KPIs, and tailor KPIs for different client sectors. They may not always be perfect, and there may be differences within the specification, but the role of performance measurement and benchmarking isn t to give you the final answer; it s to raise questions. For corporate, and in many ways the public sector, understanding what s going on in terms of your performance is critical. There are core generic KPIs, or what we call horizontal KPIs, that can be applied to our industry: occupancy costs vs. headcount vs. areas vs. workstation, and all these have great values in themselves as headline figures. But as long as the data is collected centrally and structured around occupancy cost codes, like the Investment Property Databank (IPD) system and around common standards like floor area measurement it s amazing how many KPIs you can get that are tailored to your organisation at the right level of detail, but from a common central database. Don t think that your KPI requirements are entirely unique to you. The majority of them will be shared with many other organisations; you don t have to re-tailor it to your own organisation. Is there a link between benchmarking and the profile of the FM sector? generates better growth for organisations. With the trend for cost slashing and cuts in planned maintenance programmes increasing, FM is going to be more at risk and have an increase in failures, so, certainly within the engineering side of FM, sharing benchmarking data is a great opportunity. Simplifying data gathering is the key. FM is full of technical people and when asked a question by a non-technical group or individual, we tend to give long and technically complex answers. Being able to provide relevant performance data and give simple performance ratios from detailed data will raise our profile. Revolution and evolution: Why you should benchmark? It could be argued that the FM industry won t be recognised as being mature until it presents at Board level, a set of relative performance reports that justifies its existence as a profession and can demonstrate its role in improving business productivity. Focus on things that make a difference to your performance, the delivery of your functions, and your own business. A lot of FMs are already benchmarking but don t always realise it. Make sure you inform people that you are benchmarking performance and use it to communicate the value that you offer. Yes, if it s connected to performance management. FMs benefit by having quality information that sets out where they are in line with their contract and this helps raise their profile and confidence and enables them to talk to their client or Board on a more professional level. If you have quality information that s robust and demonstrates you are adding value, and are willing to come up with new ideas about how you can improve the estate, it can only improve the profile of FM. FM has a major role in shaping the workspace and an impact on productivity, which Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 13
What more should BIFM be doing to promote and develop benchmarking? One of the barriers was considered to be the fragmentation of the FM industry. We don t have the same standards for benchmarking data across FM. Until we get to one single set of standards that we all recognise and accept, collaborative benchmarking will be difficult. If there was one thing the BIFM could do is probably help to draw all the industry standards together to collaborate around benchmarking. The Collaborative Occupiers Benchmarking Research Alliance (COBRA) alliance is one opportunity to do that. FM should conduct some basic research across the membership to gain the views on benchmarking but really to establish their interest and understanding. Review benchmarking in BIFM qualifications. Ensure it is clear enough and represented as widespread enough, starting out with FM. To take the CEN Facilities Management standard and push its use into the procurement sector. Because until procurement start to push that into the specification brief it won t take hold. Consider the technology solutions that would help overcome some of these data gathering and sharing issues and make relative benchmarking available to more FMs. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 14
About the panel Gareth Tancred, CEO, BIFM Gareth has been the CEO of the British Institute of Facilities Management since February 2012, prior to this appointment he had been COO of the institute since August 1 2009. He has over 12 years experience at board level, ranging from SMEs to large UK, European and international organisations, along with an extensive portfolio as an Executive Director, specifically as a Deputy CEO. In 1994 Gareth became a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). He has been a member of the Institute of Directors (IoD) since 2000, and qualified as an accountant in 1992. Des Pitter, Commercial Business Development Manager, VINCI Facilities Des is a Commercial Business Development Manager with over 10 years experience. Currently, working for VINCI Facilities within the proposals team his key responsibilities are pricing strategies for new business and supply chain strategy development. Before working with VINCI he spent several years working as a Commercial Manager at Ecovert FM (now Bouygues Energies) and before that, at Compass Group. Des trained as a management accountant through the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Joanna Harris, Principal Engineer, BSRIA Jo leads all BSRIA s work on facilities management and has managed consultancy contracts for key BSRIA clients; these include assessment of building services risk, investigating plant reliability and maintenance strategies. She has an MSc in Facilities Management and a BSc in Electrical /Electronic Engineering. Jo has responsibility for the BSRIA Operations and Maintenance Benchmarking network which captures benchmarking data covering building operations and customer satisfaction KPIs for maintenance contracts. Currently, Jo is the chair of the CIBSE maintenance task group. Martin Read, Managing Editor, FM World Martin is the Managing Editor of FM World magazine. He has experience as an editor, writer and publishing project manager in the B2B, client publishing and membership organisation sectors. His previous titles have been in the logistics, public transport and group travel sectors. John O Brien, Managing Director, LCMB John is a qualified engineer with a Master s Degree in Business and has over 25 years experience in the facilities management, construction and specialist engineering sectors. John was previously Managing Director of Laing O Rourke s Midlands construction business and a founding Director of Inviron. John has delivered construction projects up to 100m in value and FM services up to 40m per annum value, in a wide range of sectors. Currently, John is chair of the Constructing Excellence (CE) asset optimisation and facilities management task group and a board member and fellow of the Leeds Sustainability Institute. Steve Castle, Managing Director -FM Services, Telereal Trillium Steve joined Telereal Trillium in December 2007 and formed part of the original team established to mobilise and implement a new 20 year total property and FM outsourcing contract to the Department for Work and Pensions. Since then Steve has carried out a number of management positions within the company was appointed Managing Director for FM in March 2010. He is responsible for the FM organisation and operation within the company with approximately 300 FM managers and over 8,000 service partners. Previously, Steve has worked for the Department for Work and Pensions and held a number of management positions including business planning, estate strategies and resource allocations. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 15
Roger de Boehmler, Head of Building Surveying, Ingleton Wood LLP With over 30 years of professional experience in strategic real property and facilities, built asset and maintenance management of large scale public or corporate real estate, Roger has managed complex programmes of international management consultancy projects for global customers. He is a Fellow of both the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Institute of Facilities Management. Roger recently directed the publication of a strategic plan for an industry-wide benchmarking approach on behalf of the Occupiers Journal. Andrew Hayward, Associate, Bernard Williams Associates Andrew is a Chartered Quantity Surveyor with over 30 years experience in the property / construction industry. Over the years, he has worked across all building related fields including construction, development economics, life-cycle modelling and facilities consultancy. However, for the last 15 years he has concentrated his activities in all aspects of facilities management consultancy, including benchmarking. Geoff Prudence, Chairman, CIBSE FM As well as being Chairman of CIBSE Facilities Management, Geoff is a member of various advisory panels and working groups specialising in property, FM and building services. Specialising in building service maintenance strategy and standards, Geoff also has qualifications and wide experience in adult learning, coaching and leadership mentoring, actively developing FM, and building services industry through universities, training courses and other forums at a senior level. Mark Smith, Regional Director, London and East of England, Telereal Trillium Mark joined Telereal Trillium in 2001, as part of the BBC outsourcing arrangements. As regional director he is responsible for the front-line facilities management and service partner delivery to just under 200 Department for Work and Pensions and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency buildings in London and East of England regional sites. Mark first joined the BBC facilities management team in 1983 in the FM call centre and went on to hold a variety of roles including Assistant FM, FM, Principal Facilities Manager and General Manager for Television Centre and Broadcasting House. Mark is a member of the British Institute of Facilities Management. Peter Roberts, Managing Director, Peter Roberts Consulting Peter develops benchmarks for clients to assist evaluation of current and new market sectors. He has worked alongside senior clients and been actively involved in the catering and support services industry for over 40 years through a mixture of operational, consultancy and support roles. Peter is also a Fellow of the Institute of Hospitality (FIH), Professional member of the Foodservice Consultants Society International (FCSI) and a Member of the British Institute of Facilities Management (BIFM). Neil Oliver, Founding Director, Inani Ltd With over 30 years of experience as a professional Quantity Surveyor in construction and facilities management, Neil has worked in applied research and commercial facilities management as a Whole Life Cost Specialist, establishing sustainability initiatives within large portfolios and PFI developments. He led the South African national Green Buildings initiative for a number of years. Neil has delivered sustainability and building performance modelling, training and support to consultancies and businesses throughout the UK and Internationally. Most recently, he has been working with WRAP (DEFRA) to develop interactive tools and guidance to promote resource efficiency within the FM Sector in the UK. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 16
Andrew Smart, Head of Facilities Management EMEA, Cushman & Wakefield Andrew is a market-leading expert in the field of facilities management with 25 years of experience, having previously held leadership roles in Mace Macro, CBRE Facilities Management EMEA, Sodexho, Trillium and Mapeley. Andrew also has extensive experience in total property outsourcing solutions. Since joining C&W, Andrew and his team have implemented innovative facilities management and integrated real estate solutions to more than 500 properties in over 25 countries including headquarters, offices and a network of bank branches. Nick Sicklen, Head of Commercial Development, IPD Nick joined IPD in 2012 and is focused on developing IPD Occupiers public and private sector client base with a particular focus on multi-national clients. Prior to joining IPD, Nick spent 10 years working in business development for two major FM companies (Interserve and MITIE). Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 17
Glossary BICSc The British Institute of Cleaning Science, www.bics.org.uk. BIM Building Information Modelling. A process involving the generation of digital representations of the physical and functional components of a facility. The resulting building information models become shared knowledge resources to support decision-making about the facility from the conception stage, through design, construction and operational life up to eventual decommissioning. The Government requires collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data in electronic form) on its projects by 2016. BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association International, www.boma.org. CEN European Committee for Standardization. COBRA Collaborative Occupiers Benchmarking Research Alliance. The Strategic Plan for the COBRA Benchmarking Alliance has been guided and agreed by a Steering Group of pan-industry institutions and experts supporting the benchmarking needs of both facilities managers and real property occupiers and is available for download from LinkedIn. EMS Estate Management Statistics. EMS shares estates information among UK higher education institutions and empowers institutions to improve management of the physical infrastructure. FD Financial Director. FM Facilities management. ERIC Estates Return Information Collection. This central data collection for estates and facilities services from the NHS containing information dating back to 1999/2000. Trusts enter data into the system which provides real time performance indicator information varying form on screen indicators to charts allowing organisations to benchmark their performance. FTE Full-time equivalent. A unit that indicates the workload of an employed person (or student) in a way that makes workloads comparable across various contexts. HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England. A non-departmental public body of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which has been responsible for the Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 18
distribution of funding to Universities and Colleges of Higher and Further Education in England since 1992. IAM Institute of Asset Management, www.theiam.org. IFMA International Facilities Management Association, www.ifma.org. IPD Investment Property Databank. Provides worldwide critical business intelligence, including analytical services, indices and market information, to the real estate industry. Each year, IPD produces more than 120 indices, as well as almost 600 portfolio benchmarks, across 32 countries enabling real estate market transparency and performance comparisons. KPI Key performance indicators. OSCRE Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate is a Non-profit organization dedicated to the development of industry standards for data exchange. PAS 55 The British Standards Institution's (BSI) publicly available specification for the optimized management of physical assets - it provides clear definitions and a 28-point requirements specification for establishing and verifying a joined-up, optimized and whole-life management system for all types of physical assets. PFI Private Finance Initiative. A method of funding major capital investments where private firms, usually construction companies or service providers, are contracted to complete and manage the projects. The public services are leased to the public and the government authority makes annual payments to the private company. RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, www.rics.org. WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme. WRAP works with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficiency way. Benchmarking: Effective performance management for FM 19
About FM Leaders Forums The FM Leaders Forum is a medium through which BIFM gathers together leading minds and practitioners from the facilities management sector and beyond to debate different subjects and topics to inform the membership, the FM sector and the BIFM. Those involved in each forum depends on the subject area being addressed, leaders from across the sector and where appropriate from outside the sector will be invited to take part in the discussion forum. About BIFM The British Institute of Facilities Management (BIFM) is the professional body for facilities management (FM) in the UK. Founded in 1993, the Institute represents and promotes the interest of members and the wider FM community. The Institute delivers a range of services and benefits, including information, qualifications, continuing professional development, training and networking for over 13,500 individual and corporate members. Our strategy is to increase participation and collaboration, promote professional standards, support career development and build an effective relationship with stakeholders including government. British Institute of Facilities Management Number One Building The Causeway Bishop s Stortford Hertfordshire CM23 2ER T: +44(0)1279 712 620 E: info@bifm.org.uk www.bifm.org.uk