How the Main Elements of FM Interlink

Aims?

The purpose of this paper is to stress the importance of understanding how the main elements of FM are interlinked, before attempting to decide how FM should be resourced in any one given organization.?

Learning outcomes?

After reading this paper, you should be able to:?

• Understand the importance of recognizing the two basic elements of an FM activity, ie the management and operational elements.?
• Identify how these two basic elements interrelate with the user.?
• Analyze the options for grouping FM activities into various configurations.?
• Question the old adage that FM relates just to non-core business, and challenge the over-simplicity of analyzing business purely on a core v non-core basis.?

1????Introduction?

There are two basic options to consider when deciding how to resource an FM operation:

• by in-house means.
• by out-house means.?

However, before you decide which option to adopt (or, more likely, how to mix the options), you should first understand more about the main elements of both the FM process and the user organization in question.?

This paper will consider, first, the importance of recognizing that FM includes both management and operational roles. Then it examines, in Section 3, how the user dovetails into these two roles.?

In order to understand fully what comprises support services – and hence the capability for being contracted out – the question of ‘What is core business?’ is addressed in Section 4. The section uses a worked hypothetical example of a private healthcare provider organization to illustrate the interaction of the management issues encountered in answering this question.?

The conclusion drawn from Section 4, that equating support services with non-core business is an unnecessarily restrictive and potentially inefficient approach, is taken further in Section 5, putting the case for relating the functions of an organization according to core products, rather than monolithic core business.?

2????Management v operational split?

This topic largely starts with the problem that the term ‘facilities management’ is used generically to describe both the management of facilities and the provision of facilities services.?

Some users employ the discrete terms ‘Facilities Management’ (FM) and ‘Facilities Services’ (FS), and whilst this is to be applauded, it hasn’t been widely adopted by the industry.?

The generic use of ‘Facilities Management’ confuses – or blurs – the division between the two basic elements of FM, namely the management of facilities and the operational delivery of facilities services. It is worth spending a little time to clarify this confusion.?

Figure 1 shows the management–operational split. Across the top of the diagram the totality of the concept comprising the resourcing of FM is expressed in terms of management, plus services, plus products. Management can be divided into strategic, tactical, supervision and monitoring and the figure shows how supervision and monitoring tie in with the implementation aspects of ‘operational’.

Two ‘shorthand’ terms are used in the figure to aid description, ie ‘Thinkers’ and ‘Doers’. Of course you can argue that lots of ‘thinkers’ actually ‘do’ as well, and vice versa – but take this only as a way of adding emphasis. There is no distinct boundary between the ‘Thinkers’ and ‘Doers’; indeed, the distinction can be particularly blurred where the supervision or monitoring of work is being carried out.?

The split between management and operational in the facilities management context is of particular significance in the resource decision-making process. The division by function method allows a continuum to be developed between management and operational functions. This continuum should clarify to you functions which are distinctly management by nature, functions which are delivered either by management or by operational staff (eg some supervisory or monitoring functions), and functions which are purely operational.?

The dotted line in Figure 2 indicates the variation in requirement for the mix of management and operational skills in the provision of any one service. For example, pure consultancy advice concerning a space planning exercise would require little or no ‘artisan’ skills, eg FM service 9; whilst implementation of a furniture move would consist mainly of ‘blue-collar’ involvement and a minimal degree of supervision, eg FM service 4 or 5.?

Note: In no case on this ‘model’ does it imply that for an operation service there is no management.?

3????Linking with the user?

You should now take the analysis one stage further.?

So far we have concentrated on recognizing distinct management and operational elements.?

There is one more interested party to identify – the user itself. You may call the user ‘the client’ when you are considering service delivery options.?

The function of the user, or client, sits at the far left of the management–operational continuum (as Figure 1) for the purpose of considering service delivery options. An alternative way of describing the relationship of these three components is by ‘management bubbles’ (see Figure 3).?

Why draw the distinction between user and management? You may think: ‘Surely, the user is management?’ Not necessarily. If you are really going to consider all options, the management of the facilities could be undertaken entirely by an outsourced organisation.?

Figure 4 suggests the main roles and responsibilities of the user, management and operational provider

4????Grouping of FM activities?

A range of contracting-out options can be considered by users.?

At one extreme the starting point could consist of merely one service being contracted out, whilst all the remainder are retained in-house.?

A progression can then follow, whereby eventually all facilities services could be contracted out by individual contracts.?

The next stage would be to group some of the contracts together and place that group of services with one contractor, a concept known as ‘bundling’.?

Figure 5 demonstrates this range of alternatives by reference to just one sector of FM, namely building services.?

The figure divides the activities up between the ‘thinkers’ and ‘doers’ (previously referred to above), the management and operational functions.?

Inherent in the model is the notion that ‘bundling’ of contracts tends to collect together groups of ‘operational’ services separately from those of ‘management services’.?

An advanced level of bundling becomes the grouping together of all operational functions separate from all management functions. This is the manner in which the Property Services Agency operated from April 1991, whereby the contractors and managers were kept separate. During market testing these contracts were required to be let to separate suppliers, following their Establishment Works Consultant/Works Service Management (EWC/WSM) split (ie the consultant and the contractor).?

Your attention is drawn to the fact that Figure 5 is indicative only. You will realise that Figure 5 could be expanded very significantly to include the whole range of FM services we have suggested earlier.?

When all aspects of FM services are let to the one supplier, ie grouping all management and all operational roles into one contract, ‘total facilities management’ is the descriptor, known by the acronym TFM.?

Experience of business generally should raise the question of whether TFM can ever truly exist – can one supplier provide services ranging from audit and law through to providing cleaners and caterers? Even with the aid of joint venturing on the supply side, it is unlikely that this can be achieved 100 percent – and it is probably not required.?

The term ‘TFM’ should therefore be itself accepted as a continuum ranging from the grouping of bundles, which should include both management and operational, up to a theoretical extreme, which is unlikely to be achieved.?

The degree of overlap between the ‘bubbles’ in Figure 4 will differ for every individual organisation. Hence for some users the style of service delivery is left to the FM management team; whilst other users may decide the tactics for achieving the agreed strategy.?

4.1?User’s contracting-out potential?

The potential for contracting out from a user’s point of view relates to the balance to be achieved between retained in-house FM services and those contracted out. Following the method used above, this process can be dissected into management and operational functions.?

Taking management first, the minimum retained in-house component ‘may equate to one person acting in an “unknowledgeable” capacity, as part only of his job description’ (Barrett and Owen (1992) p.160). They go on to suggest, as an example, 1 a bursar of a private school, with a wide range of responsibilities peripheral to his primary role.?

In many organisations, property matters are, for instance, delegated to the company secretary; whilst the personnel manager frequently becomes responsible for janitorial management.?

The other extreme of the management continuum would be exemplified by a large and diverse team of managers, no doubt divided into departments. The large in-house teams employed by County Councils in the UK in the 1970s would be an example. Again, it is improbable that the theoretical extreme at this end of the range, ie a complete in-house resource, could be reached.?

A model of this continuum appears below for the management functions. The same diagram incorporates a similar version covering operational functions. See Figure 6.

Note that the two models differ. For ‘operational’ functions there seems no logic in proposing a ‘minimum’ resource; ie for operational functions there could be no inhouse resource at all.?

The previous rider, concerning the extreme at the ‘maximum’ potential end of the range being within theoretical reach only, still applies for operational functions, though. Barrett and Owen’s example is that few organisations would have the capability, or desire, to implement one-off capital building works with direct labour; and so no organisation is geared to resourcing all FM services totally by in-house means.?

It is important to recognise that these continuum models relate to potential; the correlation would not, in other senses, be a straight line relationship.?

5????Service delivery options?

At this point we can take a preliminary look at the pros and cons of the service delivery options described above – but remember, we are still not in any real position to decide how to resource any one particular FM operation.?

?It is important that you take some time working through your own examples for Table 1. It will help you realise just how many pros and cons there are to consider when deliberating over alternative methods of service delivery.?

Summary

The paper began by urging the need to identify accurately the respective management and operational roles contained within any one FM activity.?

The next stage was to establish how and where the user interlinked with these two basic elements of FM.?

A model was introduced in this paper to demonstrate the grouping of FM contracts. This process starts with individual contracts being collected into bundles of either operational or management services, and reaches its full potential with TFM. The caveat is made that ‘TFM’ is a term given some latitude to express a range of bundling, but that the extreme end of the range is unlikely to be achieved – citing examples of construction projects or, more simply, audit, which are unlikely to be included in the one-stop-shop philosophy of TFM.?

This model is followed up by a subsequent model showing the potential for contracting out and recognising various maxima and minima scenarios.?

Finally the paper took a preliminary view of service delivery options and stressed the learning benefits readers would gain by working through various examples – each identifying pros and cons of a particular service delivery route.?

REFERENCES

1.????Barrett P S and Owen D D (1992) ‘The Outsourcing Balance: Is There an Optimum?’, Facilities Management Research Directions, (ed) Peter Barrett, University of Salford.?

2.????Owen D D (1994) Contracting out in a Facilities Management Context, Doctoral thesis presented to Salford University (May).?