by Roger Henderson
In the last few years a new breed of manager has appeared on the office scene — the facilities manager. This identification of a specific role for the person responsible for the organisation and running of office premises is surely a good thing if it serves to emphasise the great importance of that work.
However, the danger in such labelling is that, in identifying a range of complex issues and giving them a name — particularly one borrowed from a different business culture (American in this case) — the door is opened to assumptions that common problems should lead to standard solutions.
This frequently happens in the property world. We all know what hi-tech buildings are, what a business park comprises or what the design solution for a dealing room is — or do we? Providing short-hand descriptions and apt labelling makes for good journalism, maybe. Woe betide the developer or the designer, however, who follows that approach in putting a scheme together.
But before we relegate the name “facilities manager” to being just another easy label we should examine what the responsibilities are within a company which could or should be grouped together under such a role. Further, it must be said that the understanding of what is meant by “the office” varies enormously, influenced by one’s own perception and experience. Wide variations occur between companies in the way offices are provided and organised even within the same industry, and naturally size alone has a tremendous influence. There is also a distinction to be drawn between offices which exist in their own right, such as in the professions, and those which provide administrative back-up in a revenue-earning unit such as a shop or factory. Even within a “productive” office, of course, there will be administrative support, and in such a case it is likely that its organisation and running will be handled differently.
The previous article in this series examined the way office work is changing and the impact that this is having on office design. These changes are also having an effect on office organisation and delegation of responsibility. The idea of profit centres and cost centres has been long established in large organisations. Frequently, however, they are not administered very effectively and are treated more as being a good management descriptive than a genuine measure of performance. This particularly applies to the office cost centre associated with highly successful production units, such as would be the case in an oil company. The costs of bringing in an oil well are so enormous, and the potential rewards so great, that office costs are seen as marginal. The same thinking can apply to the modern dealing room. The costs of the actual dealing operation in terms of equipment and people and, again, the potential rewards are so high that conventional office costs seem insignificant.
Twin responsibilities
But that thinking is changing rapidly and this is where the office all-rounder, the office manager in some cases, premises manager in many others, and increasingly the facilities manager, comes into his or her own. In a nutshell, this particular manager has responsibility, in an office context, for the effective use of those twin aspects of company resource, people and premises.
This is not a personnel department issue, although they should be deeply concerned and consulted about it. Nor does it fall properly under the estates department, if one such exists — their responsibility lies in the enhancement of the value of the company’s property assets and investments. There is likely to be a positive conflict of interest if they act as landlord of their own company’s premises. Landlords are not exactly well known for looking after the best interest of the users of their buildings — and why should they be?
There are several reasons for this change of attitude, not all related to costs or economic circumstances. However, in cost terms alone it can be fully justified, particularly in central London but increasingly elsewhere. As our recent SCOPE survey report(*) showed, it is now not uncommon for the cost of office accommodation to equal the cost of employing general staff. Hence the need for dual thrusts at the effective use of resources: getting the best out of people through effective office support, and getting the best out of premises by making good use of space in the right working environment.
Both those areas of responsibility come firmly under one area of management, under one person in small-and medium-sized companies, and often split in larger organisations (see organisation chart).
Given recognition of the importance of this area of responsibility, how should the professional facilities manager handle it? How, in this fast-changing, technological age, can we move away from the “fire-fighting” syndrome and interact with the business rather than just react to crisis after crisis? The reactive manager will often claim with some justification that the business is constantly and unpredictably changing, making any long-term planning impossible. Without constant response to a range of daily problems the business would grind to a halt.
A few years of this unco-ordinated reaction, worthy though it is, leaves even the most elegant and sophisticated office environment in disarray. Everything up to and including major moves of people, furniture, equipment and communications cabling takes place without proper records being maintained.
Technical staff from systems suppliers called in to install hardware or a local area network add to cabling chaos, never removing redundant wiring as no records exist.
A computer-aided solution
Naturally, the answer to all this must lie in the use of technology. There are now several CAD systems available at varying levels of cost and sophistication which can help the facilities manager allocate space, plan office layouts and, above all, maintain accurate records.
Many of these can be run on a PC and the better ones provide direct interaction with a database of information on staffing levels, equipment schedules and so on. Building data on a floor-by-floor basis is entered into the system at whatever level of detail required. This can range from simple building outlines to a complete record of all components — reflected ceiling plan and lighting, HVAC details, partitioning, services outlets etc. Actual office layouts are then entered and here again the level of detail can vary greatly. The captured data can include full descriptions of all furniture and equipment down to part numbers, list prices and discount structure.
When the system is used to plan new layouts, moving departments around the building, merging two groups, eliminating another altogether and so on, it keeps track of the comings and goings in every detail. When new layout drawings are finally settled the database is amended automatically and displays can be produced highlighting the changes. Apportionment of costs to profit centres becomes a relatively straightforward matter and the accounts department can have a fully up-to-date fixed assets register any time they wish.
Electronic bureaucracy
Unfortunately, newcomers to such a CAD system have a tendency to be blinded by science, seeing the availability of this level of support as the answer to all their needs.
The snag in the more complex systems is not in the acquisition cost but, first, in underestimating the time required to create the data base, and then in the commitment needed to operate the system effectively.
One major bank, for example, has embarked upon a project to bar-code (as in supermarkets) every item of furniture and equipment in its offices, down to the last calculator. Someone from the facilities management department can thus wander round each department in turn with a bar-code reader. But the bank is no more immune to change, or human frailty, than any other business and before long staff will be employed full time checking discrepancies in the records. An electronic bureaucracy is simply being substituted for the paper one.
Having sounded that warning, the right system tailored to the specific needs of the business, and used intelligently, can transform the reactive manager into one who is in full possession of all relevant information and is thus able to respond quickly to constantly changing demand in a well ordered and considered way.
So far as property professionals are concerned, such a fully fledged and equipped facilities manager in a client organisation offers an extremely valuable point of contact. He is the vital channel of communication between professional provider and professional user of office accommodation.
(*) SCOPE ’88 A Study of the Cost of Office Premises, The Anderlyn Consultancy