Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Given the current levels of activity in the field, it appears that Eccles's assertion
was fair.
The need for information to stimulate appropriate action and organisational
learning at the right level of the organisation and stage of the decision-making
process emphasises the need for effective performance measurement (Brignall
and Ballantine, 1996). It was emphasised that in a competitive environment
management-by-exception may suffice so interactive systems may not be A conceptual
needed. In general, professional services face more volatile and uncertain framework
external environments than mass services, and are therefore more likely to
need interactive performance measurements.
The growing acceptance of a need to measure FM performance is in contrast
to a lack of a systematic process for determining appropriate measurements. In
contrast, FM is too complex a subject for a few measurements to satisfy all 173
needs. However, if FM is viewed as a process, performance measurement can
be effectively determined (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2000).
175
The need for integration
Integration refers to the ability of the performance measurement system to
promote integration between various areas of the business (Bititci et al., 1997).
Therefore, the FM organisation as the player of the supporting role for the core
business needs to identify how it could be integrated with other departments
within the core organisation. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), in their research to
study differentiation and integration in organisations, measured the
effectiveness of integration by asking respondents for their evaluation of the
state of interdepartmental relations. Kehoe et al. (1992) discuss the
measurement of integration and focus on the information systems. The work
described considers the quality of information systems as a key aspect of
integration. By referring to the above ideas, integration in the field of FM has to
address the following two key areas:
(1) A best practice performance measurement framework should represent/
stipulate the criteria the FM organisation should fulfil to be fully
integrated with the rest of the organisation.
(2) The measurement framework should represent the core organisation's
position and therefore progress towards organisation-wide integration.
Figure 1.
The role of the
theoretical framework
PM . To explain experiences in performance measurement.
21,2 . To explore effectiveness of performance measurement.
. To improve efficient use of resources.
. To increase the benefits of performance measurement for stakeholders.
Practical implications
Customer-related performance measures describe the way in which value may
be created for customers and how customer demand for this value is to be
satisfied. As already noted, customer relations represents a significant area of
concern for facilities managers and indicates a need for performance
measures that can adequately reflect important customer-oriented factors.
Customers' concerns tend to fall into four categories: time, quality,
performance and service (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) and consist of measures
relating to the most desired customer requirements. This part of the process is
considered as the heart of the organisation. If the organisation fails to deliver
the right products and services for cost effectively satisfying customer needs
on the both short- and long-term, revenue will not be generated, and the
business will wither and die.
Discussion
Facilities managers should have a clear idea of their customer and business
segments, and should select a set of core outcome measurements for those
targeted segments. These outcome measures should represent the targets for
an FM organisation's product and service development process.
Measurements of facilities management internal processes A conceptual
Description framework
The internal processes report on the efficiency of internal organisational
processes and procedures, and reflect the organisation's core skills and the
critical technology involved in adding value to the business. This perspective is
primarily an analysis of the organisation's internal processes, which focuses on
the internal business results that lead to financial success and the satisfaction 181
of customers' expectations (Olve et al., 1999). This involves describing all
organisational processes from the analysis of customer needs through delivery
of the product/service and identification of the resources and capabilities which
the organisation needs to upgrade. These can include both short-term and long-
term objectives as well as incorporating innovative process development in
order to stimulate improvement.
The critical internal business processes enable the FM organisation to
satisfy stakeholder expectations, including excellent financial returns.
Therefore, the measures should be focused on the internal processes that will
have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction and achieve the
organisation's financial objectives.
Internal process measurements reveal two fundamental differences
between the ``traditional'' and ``measures incorporating non-financial
elements'' approach to performance measurement. Traditional approaches,
attempt to monitor and improve existing business processes, whereas an
approach incorporating business process measurements will usually identify
entirely new processes at which the organisation must excell to meet
customer and financial objectives. Thus internal business process objectives
highlight the processes most critical for the organisation's strategy to
succeed.
Practical implications
Customer-based measures are important, but they must be translated into
measures of what the organisation must do internally to meet its customers'
expectations. Therefore, managers need to focus on those critical internal
business operations that enable them to satisfy customer needs (Kaplan and
Norton, 1996). Key processes are monitored to ensure that outcomes will be
satisfactory. Organisations should decide which processes and competencies
they must excell at and specify measures for each.
Discussion
Conventional performance measurement systems focus only on monitoring and
improving cost, quality, and time-based measures of existing business
processes. In contrast, there is a need for an approach to measure performance,
which enables demand for internal process performance to be derived from the
expectations of specific external constituencies. Managers need to decide which
operations, processes, competencies and skills their organisations must excell
at if customer demands are to be met adequately. Moreover, it is essential that
PM such internal measures relate to those areas which are most likely to have the
21,2 greatest impact on customer satisfaction.
Practical implications
Managers in several FM organisations have noted that when they were
evaluated solely on short-term financial performance, they often found it
difficult to sustain investments to enhance the capability of their people,
systems, and organisational processes. The predominant element within
learning and growth issues is whether FM organisations can continue to
improve and create future value for their stakeholders. Expenditures on such
investments are treated as period expenses by the financial accounting model
so that cutbacks in these investments are an easy way to produce incremental
short-term earnings (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). The adverse long-term
consequences of consistent failure to enhance employee, systems, and
organisational capabilities will not show up in the short run, and when they do,
these managers reason, it may be on somebody else's ``watch'' (Kaplan and
Norton, 1996).
Therefore, process will only succeed if adequately skilled and motivated
employees, supplied with accurate and timely information, are driving them
(Procurement Executives' Association, 1998). This takes on increased
importance in organisations that are undergoing radical change, like FM. The
organisational learning and growth comes from three sources: people, systems
and organisational procedures. It is this structure within which long-term
growth and improvement reside.
Discussion
Ultimately, the ability to meet ambitious targets for financial, customer, and
internal process objectives depends on the organisational capabilities for
learning and growth. The customer and internal processes will have focused on
the organisation's current competitive position. Issues relating to learning and
growth are required in order to recognise that this is constantly changing.
Intense global competition requires that organisations make continual
improvements to their existing processes and have the ability to introduce A conceptual
entirely new processes with expanded capabilities (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). framework
Strategies for superior performance will generally require significant
investment in people, systems, and processes that build organisational
capabilities. The organisation, its management, and all of its employees must
continually seek to learn, to innovate and to improve every aspect of the
organisation and its business just to maintain their competitive situation, let 183
alone to improve it in the future.
If FM organisations are to be successful ± and, it is to be hoped, remain
successful ± they must continually make improvements both to their existing
services and to their operations and processes, as well as developing and
introducing new ones. It is only by this continual process of improvement and
innovation that FM organisations can grow.
Practical implications
In the government or non-governmental arena, the ``financial'' considerations
differ from those of the traditional private sector (Procurement Executives'
Association, 1998). Private sector financial objectives generally represent clear
long-range targets for profit-seeking organisations, operating in a purely
commercial environment. Financial considerations for public organisations
have an enabling or a constraining role, but will rarely be the primary objective
for business systems. Success for public organisations should therefore be
measured by how effectively and efficiently they meet the needs of their
constituencies.
Discussion
Many have criticised financial measures because of their inability to reflect
contemporary value creating actions (Olve et al., 1999). Some critics go much
further in their indictment of financial measures. They argue that the terms of
competition have changed over time and that traditional financial measures do
PM not improve customer satisfaction, quality, timeliness and employee
21,2 motivation. In their view, financial performance is the result of operational
actions, and financial success should be the logical consequence of doing the
fundamentals well. While most organisations will emphasise profitability
objectives, other financial objectives are also possible. A well-designed
financial control system can actually enhance management planning, control
184 and decision-making. Moreover, they can serve to remind the management that
any changes they seek to make ± for instance in service quality ± will only
ultimately benefit their organisation if they lead to improvements in the overall
``bottom-line'' view of their organisation.
Practical implications
A clear, action-oriented understanding of an organisation's strategy could
significantly influence an organisation's success. A major task facing an
organisation in attempting to introduce a balanced performance measurement
system, incorporating both financial and non-financial measures, is how to
devise a set of measures explicitly linked to its strategy. Underlying this need is
the essential condition that the strategy is widely understood and accepted
within the organisation.
Discussion
In Simons' (1990) criticism of strategic control systems, he relies on the
definitions put forward by Schendel and Hofer (1979) who state that strategic
control ``focuses on whether the strategy is being implemented as planned, and
the results produced by the strategy are those intended'' and by Lorange et al.
(1986) who define a strategic control system as:
. . . a system to support managers in assessing the relevance of an organisation's strategy to A conceptual
its progress in the accomplishment of its goals and, where discrepancies exist, to support
areas needing attention. framework
As Simons (1990) points out, these definitions lead to a perception of strategic
control systems as a process for keeping strategies on track and essentially
parallel strategy formation of planning and strategy implementation with
control. 185
Further, Simons (1990) argues that top management will place the emphasis
on the particular type of system that:
. . . addresses the critical uncertainties that top managers perceive could threaten the
achievement of their vision for the future.
suggesting that only one of these systems will be the focus of management
attention at any one time. He also stresses the importance of identifying new
ways of planning and control and their relations with strategy. The traditional
view of planning and control and their relations with strategy formation and
implementation with that of the process identified in this thesis are
demonstrated in Figure 2.
The performance measurement systems that will be developed for an FM
organisation based on the concepts identified above, contains elements of a
boundary control system in that it evolves from the vision, mission and
strategic goals of the organisation. Its theoretical concepts depict limits in the
organisation as it encourages employees to focus their attention on the key
aspects of the business.
Figure 2.
A comparison of the
traditional view of the
relationship between
strategy and planning
and control with that of
current research
PM organisations today. The transcendent nature of FM offers opportunities for
21,2 facilities performance links to be established at all levels and across the entire
width of the organisation (Madeley, 1996). This profile, which FM occupies
within the organisation, is dependent upon the perceived impact of its
performance and its direct relevance to a particular business. Even those
organisations which are less dependent on facilities for their operation will
186 benefit to some degree. Therefore, the framework of elements already outlined
in the above sections is proposed as a suitable means by which facilities
performance may be seen to impact directly and indirectly upon the wider
aspects of organisational performance, underpinning sustainable success and
requiring appropriate attention and recognition.
Summary
In order to enable paradigm shifts, it is important to understand concepts
underlying the theory and practice of performance measurement. This section
sets out to examine a range of concepts that may be used to measure the
contribution of FM performance. These concepts were based on the premise
that relationships or links between FM and organisational performance are
seen to be determined by the relevance of facilities to the core business
operations.
The theoretical framework identified in this section acts for the research
rather like a structural steel or reinforced concrete frame used in a building, as
identified by Fellows and Liu (1997). It is essential that theories themselves be
subject to the rigour of analysis. Bodies of theory must be examined and
evaluated to arrive at a theoretical basis or framework appropriate to the
research proposed. It may not be possible to decide the logical body of theory to
use from the description of theory provided, and it will not be possible to weigh
alternative and possibly competing theories (Fellows and Liu, 1997). It is
debatable whether competing theories can constitute basic ``principles and
laws'', or whether they are perspectives and beliefs which give rise to partly-
supported hypotheses. Therefore, the theoretical framework acts as the basic
structural framework to identify and explain facts and the relationships
between them.
The usefulness of the above identified theoretical concepts and their
practical validity need to be tested in real life contexts, in order to understand
their contribution in developing performance measurement theories in FM by
fully addressing the problems associated with current available systems and
possible directions of performance measurement systems in order to address
such associated problems.
References
Alexander, K. (1996), Facilities Management Practice, Centre for Facilities Management,
University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde.
Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000), ``Assessment of facilities management performance ±
what next?'', Facilities, Vol. 18 No. 1/2, pp. 66-76.
Atkinson, H. and Brown, J.B. (2001), ``Rethinking performance measures: assessing progress in A conceptual
UK hotels'', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 128-35. framework
Barrett, P. (1995), Facilities Management: Towards Best Practice, Blackwell Science, London.
Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S. and Mcdevitt, L. (1997), ``Integrate performance measurement systems: a
development guide'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
17 No. 5, pp. 522-34.
Bititci, U.S., Turner, T. and Begemannc, C. (2000), ``Dynamics of performance measurement
187
systems'', International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 692-704.
Brignall, S. and Ballantine, J. (1996), ``Performance measurement in service business revisited'',
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 6-31.
Brown, D.M. and Laverick, S. (1994), ``Measuring corporate performance'', Long Range Planning,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 89-98.
De Vaus, D.A. (1991), Surveys in Social Research, UCL Press, London.
Dixon, J.R., Nani, A.J. and Vollman, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge: Measuring
Operations for World Class Competition, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Douglas, J. (1994), ``Developments in appraising the total performance of buildings'', Structural
Survey, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 10-15.
Eccles, R.D. (1991), ``The performance measurement manifesto'', Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 131-7.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ``Building theories from case study research'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-55.
Ernst & Young LLP (1998), Measures that Matter, Ernst & Young Centre for Innovation,
London.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (1997), Research Methods for Construction, Blackwell Science Limited,
Oxford.
Fitzgerald, L., Jonston, R., Brignall, T.J. and Voss, C. (1991), Performance Measurement in Service
Businesses, CIMA, London.
Fortune Magazine (1997), December.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), ``The changing basis of performance measurement'',
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 63-80.
Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sowology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Globerson, S. (1985), ``Issues in developing a performance criteria system for an organisation'',
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 639-46.
Hall, R.W., Johnson, H.T. and Turney, P.B.B. (1991), Measuring Up ± Charting Pathways to
Excellence, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Hally, D.l. (1994), ``Accounting for the 1990s'', Finance, December, pp. 129-82.
Hinks, J. and McNay, P. (1999), ``The creation of a management-by-variance tool for facilities
management performance assessment'', Facilities, Vol. 17 No. 1/2, pp. 31-53.
Holloway, J.A. (2000), ``Investigating the impact of performance measurement systems'', in Neely,
A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement ± Past, Present and the Future, Centre for Business
Performance, University of Cranfield, Cranfield.
Holloway, J.A., Hinton, M., Francis, G. and Mayle, D. (1999), Identifying Best Practice in
Benchmarking, CIMA, London.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), ``The balanced scorecard ± measures that drive
performance'', Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 171-9.
PM Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Score Card, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
21,2
Kehoe, D., Little, D. and Lyons, A.C. (1992), ``Measuring a company IQ'', paper presented at the
Factory 2000 Conference.
Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2000), ``Performance measurement frameworks ± a review'', in
Neely, A. (Ed.), Performance Measurement ± Past, Present and Future, Centre for Business
Performance, Cranfield.
188
Kincaid, D. (1994a), ``Measuring performance in facilities management'', Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 17-20.
Kincaid, D. (1994b), ``Integrated facilities management'', Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 20-3.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), ``Differentiation and integration in complex
organisations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 1-47.
Lea, R. and Parker, B. (1989), ``The JIT spiral of continuous improvement'', IMDS, Vol. 4, pp. 10-13.
Letza, S.R. (1996), ``The design and implementation of the balanced business scorecard: analysis
of three companies in practice'', Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 54-76.
Lorange, P., Scott, M.M. and Ghoshal, S. (1986), Strategic Control, West Publishing Company,
St Paul, MN.
Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1995), Measure up! How to Measure Corporate Performance,
Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
McFadzean, E. (1995), Relating Facilities Management to Organisational Performance, Centre for
Facilities Management, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde.
Madeley, A. (1996), ``The performance of organisations and facilities management: an exploration
into the opportunities afforded for facilities management to contribute toward corporate
performance'', unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1995), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Mooraj, S., Oyon, D. and Hostlettler, D. (1999), ``The balanced scorecard: a necessary good or an
unnecessary evil?'', European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 481-91.
Neely, A.D. (1998), Performance Measurement: Why, What and How, Economics Books, London.
Neely, A.D., Adams, C. and Andersen Consulting (2000), Perspectives of Performance: The
Performance Prism, (online), available at: www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/cbp
Nieto, M. and Perez, W. (2000), ``The development of the theories from the analysis of the
organisation: case studies by the patterns of behaviour'', Management Decision, Vol. 38
No. 10, pp. 723-33.
Olve, N., Roy, J. and Wetter, M. (1999), Performance Drivers: a Practical Guide to Using the
Balanced Scorecard, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Pritchard, R.D. (1990), Measuring and Improving Organisational Productivity: A Practical Guide,
Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.
Procurement Executives' Association (1998), Guide to a Balanced Scorecard Performance
Management Methodology, Procurement Executives' Association.
Rangone, A. (1997), ``Linking organisational effectiveness, key success factors and performance
measures: an analytical framework'', Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8. pp. 207-19.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., Swartz, E. (1998), Doing Research in Business and
Management, Sage Publications, London.
Santos, A. (1999), ``Application of production management flow principles in construction sites'', A conceptual
unpublished PhD thesis, University of Salford, Salford.
Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. (1979), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and
framework
Planning, Little Brown & Company, Boston, MA.
Simons, R. (1990), Rethinking the Role of Systems in Controlling Strategy, Harvard Business
School, Boston, MA.
Simpson, E. (1998), ``Assessment of facilities management performance'', unpublished PhD 189
thesis, The University of Salford, Salford.
Stone, C.L. (1996), ``Analysing business performance: counting the `soft' issues'', Leadership and
Organisational Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 21-8.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research ± Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Then, D.S.S. (1996), ``A study of organisational response to the management of operational
property assets and facilities support services as a business resource ± real estate asset
management'', unpublished PhD thesis, Harrot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
Varcoe, B. (1993), ``Facilities performance: achieving value-for-money through performance
measurement and benchmarking'', Property Management, Vol. 11 No. 4.
Varcoe, B. (1996a), ``Facilities performance measurement'', Facilities, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 46-51.
Varcoe, B. (1996b), ``Business driven facilities benchmarking'', Facilities, Vol. 14 No. 3/4, pp. 42-8.
Varcoe, B. (1998), ``Not us, surely? Disaster recovery planning for premises'', Facilities, Vol. 16
No. 7, pp. 204-7.
Williams, B. (1999), ``Benchmarking ± Y2K and beyond'', Facilities Management UK, pp. 42-5.