The Cooperative Research Center for Construction Innovation (CRC CI) is a national research, development and implementation center focused on the needs of the real estate, design, construction and facility management sectors. Founded in 2001 and based at the Queensland University of Technology as an unincorporated joint venture under the Australian Government's Cooperative Research Programme, CRC CI develops key technologies, tools and management systems to improve the performance of the construction industry. More than 150 researchers and an alliance of 19 leading partner organizations are involved in and support CRC CI activities.
¾ Initial analysis of the benchmarking data from the initial survey stage 1 responses (15 nos) indicated that the highest order items to be considered core to the FM benchmarking framework would include;. ¾ Further survey input will be required to increase the robustness of the results if the project results are to achieve the intended FM benchmarking framework with wider industrial applications.
Objectives and Scope
Introduction
Benchmarking Research
Deliverables
The simplest form of benchmarking Identifies best internal practices, procedures, data collection from different departments and locations and their transfer to other parts of the organization. It keeps the organization in an introverted view and does not enable it to draw knowledge from outside and match its performance with the best/best performers within the industry/non-industry group. It measures the company's functional operations and compares it to similar measures (eg common technological and market characteristics, specific functions, facilities and processes that are comparable) from other non-direct competitor companies within the industry group.
These benchmarking partners are usually more willing to contribute and share since there are no direct competitors involved. How well does my organization perform this process compared to others performing a similar process?
Benchmarking and Decision Making
- Types of Benchmarking
- Internal Benchmarking
- Continuous Improvement
- External Benchmarking
- The Benchmarking Framework
- Types of Information
- The Benchmarking Process
The second type of benchmarking is an extension of the first, in that managers try to improve the performance of the previous KPI. This framework allows the lower-level objectives to be aligned with the higher-level goals and strategies of the organization or facility. Further, not only does the detail required increase as you move from the upper level and the lower level, but so does the frequency of the monitoring or reporting cycles.
Process benchmarking: conducting a detailed examination of the processes that deliver certain results, through internal and comparative analysis of activities, work practices and business processes, with a view to understanding the reasons for differences in performance levels and developing the best practices. The team: Led by Rider Hunt Terotech, and comprising the CRC-CI and industry partners Sydney Opera House and Transfield Services, and researchers from the Construction CSIRO and the University of Sydney.
Benchmarking Performing Arts Centres
Obvious signs of dust. dirt, debris, stains or odors Extremely messy, difficult to clean. By detailed inspection of Bldg. elements, room by room Elements:. all finishes, doors, railings, glazing, landscaping…ect.). A method of scoring three separate items that have an effect on the way the Building.
Sydney Opera House can be considered as a number of use categories: performance spaces; restaurants: retail, etc. It is possible to derive benchmark datasets for these functions, and therefore derive functions to manipulate the data into meaningful and relevant KPIs for Sydney Opera House's use.
Benchmarking Framework Development
Benchmarking Systems
Benchmarking Facilities Management
In this project, a classification scheme has been developed for applications of benchmarking in Facility Management in order to identify typical and particularly successful benchmark types for specific objectives. The Building Materials Index (BFI) as used by the Sydney Opera House shown in Figure 6 is an example.
Benchmarking Sydney Opera House
Identifying facility types and functionalities refers to finding a group of facilities with similar characteristics, core activities, or similar functionalities for benchmarking. Choosing areas for benchmarking refers to the selection of features that are most valuable and relevant to the subject facilities for benchmarking. Defining key performance indicators & measurements describes performance objectives in terms of key performance indicators and establishes measurement methods and metrics.
Data collection and establishment of common standards for comparison refers to gathering data from a group of benchmarking partners and establishing common standards such as data structure and format for comparison. Benchmarks and guidelines identify benchmarks within the areas of interest and provide recommendations and guidelines for SOH and the FM industry in general. The improvement plan can help SOH and other facilities improve performance in the area of asset maintenance against the benchmarking targets.
First, the key organizational functions, and their corresponding functional areas, their critical success factors and key performance indicators were identified from available business documents such as reports and strategy plans. For example, as a performing arts centre, the Sydney Opera House operates as a business with the aim of attracting and retaining sponsors and partners. This is followed by identifying the high-level objectives of facilities management functions.
According to the Sydney Opera House Trust Annual Report (2004), the key objective of the facilities management function is: “To provide first-class venues, facilities and services that support our artistic and business ambitions.”. Secondly, the functions of facility management and their specific objectives are identified; These include, for example, the construction and maintenance functions of facilities, are identified and their KPIs are derived. The systematic objective development of high-level objectives into facility management KPIs identifies which objective areas are relevant to the organization and will be used to structure the benchmark system.
Analysis of Benchmarking Surveys
Data Collection
Phase 2 of our benchmarking survey will focus on obtaining more detailed FM data, particularly in relation to facility condition and energy management, covering the following issues;.
Benchmarking Survey Stage 1 Analysis
- General Information for the Facility
- Benchmarking Facilities Management
- Facilities Management Performance Data and Metrics
- Condition Assessment
- Energy
- Accessibility
- Contractors’ Performance
- Status Drivers
However, 38% of responding facilities indicate that they are currently benchmarking other 'areas/issues', in addition to facility management. Presumably this would indicate that 62% of organizations are not involved in non-FM benchmarking exercises. While SOH currently appears to be involved in extensive benchmarking of all parts of the business.
The purpose of this stage 1 section of the survey was to gain an understanding of what most organizations consider to be the key performance indicators and/or determinants of their facilities. In terms of which questions the facilities consider as key indicators of the facility's performance, the responses to date indicate the following according to the title of the query. The condition assessment (Graph 3) determines the type of elements and rooms of the building, of which the most valued key indicator for the efficiency of the building was the building (e.g. facade, roof, columns, beams) and building services (mechanical, electrical, etc.). ) with 92%.
SOH does not consider any of the energy issues as key indicators for facility performance. SOH does not consider any of the accessibility issues as key indicators for the performance of the facilities. Regarding the main drivers for facility status, 92% of facilities chose functionality as the main driver; followed by landmark status and operational efficiency (selected by 77% of facilities as the main driver for facility status).
The following Figures 8 – 14 show the relative importance of key drivers of facility status for various parameters as rated by respondents. 77% of facilities indicate that FM goals, strategies and initiatives are aligned with their organizational goals and strategies (Figure 8), while 15% declined to answer and 8%. Encouragingly, 82% of facilities are interested in future international FM benchmarking research, while 9% are unsure and the remaining 9% declined the opportunity.
Conclusions
Future work will continue with Phase 2 research to collect data on maintenance performance and the procurement process for analysis and comparison. It will establish multi-level maintenance performance measures to help the facilities manager understand how they affect integrated operations and maintenance success. The benchmarking database will be expanded with the latest data and structured in a suitable way for future connection to the Sydney Opera House building information model.
The output of the project is intended to be an FM benchmarking framework which could have applications to benefit the wider FM industry. It is likely that further study beyond the FM Exemplar Project will be required to implement and maintain the FM benchmarking framework.
Appendices
Benchmarking Survey Stage 1
Please rank in order of importance (1-5, being highest to lowest) the key drivers for the status of your facility;. Are your facilities management goals, strategies and measures aligned with your organizational goals and strategies. Would your facility or organization be interested in participating in further international benchmarking research in facilities management.
Benchmarking Survey Stage 2
Which of the following term(s) does your facility currently use to represent your fitness assessment evaluations? Used to compare the organization itself to a design standard (for example, original design, intent, building codes, past performance of the facility, etc.). In addition to Condition Assessments and Energy, what facilities management functions does your organization currently collect or measure performance data?
Which of the following best describes the scoring/grading system your facility uses to perform the What other aspects of facilities management does your organization not currently collect or measure data, but intends to in the future (i.e. apart from those already mentioned previously). What non-facilities management issues/aspects do you not currently collect or measure data on, but.
GEFMA 200 Kostenrechnung im Facility Management Nutzungskosten für Gebäude und Dienstleistungen, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Facility Management e.V. Output-basierte Facility-Management-Spezifikationen im National Health Service: Literature Review and Directional Outcomes, Arbeitspapier, http://www.occupier.org/papirer/arbejdspapir1.pdf. Die Revolution der Leistungsmessung: Warum jetzt und wie geht es weiter?, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.
Accounting Performance Measurement: A Review of its Purpose and Practices, in Neely, A. Red.), Prestasiemeting: Past, Present and Future, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, pp.
