Abstrak (ringkasan)

TerjemahkanAbstrakThe basis for measurementofperformance infacilities managementis considered, with reference both to benchmarking and to the typesofmeasurement system that can be used. These factors are considered not only in relation to aiding cost control and efficiency but also in relation to effectiveness and value. A key partofthe benchmarking procedure is the analysisofresults, which should aim at identifying the reasons for any important differences between the benchmark operation and the operation being measured. This gap analysis is then the basis for a review and improvementofthe processes involved in the operation. Measurementsofperformance can be analyzed in a statistical way, as in manufacturing, to determine whether the processes that afacilitymanager is operating are in control. Statistical quality control provides thefacilitymanager with the ability to make senseofthe results being achieved in virtually any repetitive procedure. In a post-occupancy evaluation, occupants are invited to express their levelofsatisfaction with afacility. Other static performance measurements can be used to evaluate the suitabilityofafacilityto an organization.

Teks Lengkap

TerjemahkanTeks lengkap Aktifkan navigasi istilah pencarianThe measurementofperformance is oneofthe most prominent featuresofmodern life extending as it does through politics, economics, business, education and sport. From the money supply to the golf score, measurements play a key role in determining our actions and influencing our behaviour. Much time can be wasted in measuring the inconsequential, but when the right measure is taken and compared with results from elsewhere the influences can be powerful indeed, particularly when differences are marked. Thus the arithmetic tests done on British and German teenagers and reported in The Sunday Timesof8 May 1994, which show dramatically poor relative British results will no doubt support yet more curriculum changes in our schools.

In my previous article[1] I was able to illustrate how a setofmeasurementsofphysicalfacilities, in particular a detailed and costed assessmentofthe conditionofIBM's buildings, not only provided the basis for determining the funding needed to maintain the value and utilityofa portfolioofbuildings, but also led to theirfacilitymanagers having the ability to improve. expected future building performance. This was achieved by ensuring that life performance was clearly understood in making design decisions and by ensuring that specialist skills are made available to designers and builders at the early stageofprojects to ensure that critical details were correct thereby avoiding premature failure.

This article considers both the basis for measurementofperformance infacilities managementwith reference both to benchmarking and to the typesofmeasurement system that can be used. These factors are considered not only in relation to aiding cost control and efficiency but also in relation to effectiveness and value.

BENCHMARKING

Inevitably in considering operational performance infacility managementa benchmark to measure against is a first consideration. In fact the word benchmarking is often used to describe performance measurement itself. Thus the DepartmentofTrade and Industry has produced an executive guide[2]. In this they point out the importanceofbenchmarking against:

* the best you can find whether within your industry or outside;

* what is relevant to your customer's viewofwhat is important;

* those things that affect financial performance.

A numberoforganizations have been created in the UK and the USA to provide an opportunity for competitors to compare performance data, operational costs and similar measures. Included among these are:

(1) The Benchmarking Centre Ltd -- Hemel Hempstead.

(2) Cranfield Benchmarking Consortium Cranfield.

(3) International Benchmarking Clearing House --Houston, USA.

Clearly these represent valuable sourcesofinformation which can assistfacilitymanagers in determining if they are operating as efficiently as their competitors or counterparts. However, as so often, the hazard is complacency and it is worth keeping in mind that the toughest competitor may be outside the club. Another hazard is to be found in the difficulty inherent in making like for like comparisons. Allocationofoverheads for instance can colour results dramatically providing perhaps far too much room for political manipulation if not carefully handled.

A key partofbenchmarking procedure is the analysisofresults which should aim at identifying the reasons for any important differences between the benchmark operation and the operation being measured. This gap analysis then is the basis for a review and improvementofthe processes involved in the operation. Action plans can then emerge from this analysis and following implementation further measurement to assess the changed process. The cycle then repeats. When this approach is allied to the involvementofstaff in measuring and changing the process, benchmarking becomes a partofa total qualitymanagementapproach tofacility management.

RANGEOFMEASURES

Benchmarking against external organizations can, however, lead to too much focus on costs. As costs are a simple and relevant measure appropriate to many situations this is perhaps not surprising but can be inappropriate to the need. Thefacilitymanager is responsible for providing the physical working environment and in this he/she must be as concerned with value and effectiveness as he/she is with cost and efficiency. Thus he/she must measure performance using metrics, in addition to cost, which range from hard data on such things as response times for repairs and error rates for telephone switchboards to sofier data on opinions about comfort within offices or satisfaction with furniture layouts. In these instances it is more likely that benchmarks will be found internally between departments or different buildings within the organization. Equally there may be a perceived industry leader who is not a competitor but who sets the standard against which you should compare yourself. In lightofrecent publicity about more co-operative approaches to contracting one would expect thatfacilitymanagers measuring contractors' claims on project work might well for instance wish to compare their results with RAA's[3].

In areas such as cleaning or security where human performance is the key element, the useofmeasurement concepts needs to be especially carefully handled. Unless one is convinced that somehow we should go back to the Taylor eraofscientificmanagementwith all the negative connotations that suggests, it is unlikely thatfacilitiesmanagers would make useofwork studies or similar techniques. Thus, if it is assumed that afacilitymanager is working cooperatively with his/her in-house or contract team, measurement is then seen as a seriesofsnapshotsofcosts, times and numbersofpeople taken at the outsetofthe work and at intervals as improvements are made. Through such techniques as incentivizing staff to take on additional duties for greater rewards, efficiencies are achieved directly by the staff involved. Additional training is often a necessary partofthis approach. Overall costs will no doubt be directed downward while these incrementsofunit cost increase, thus measurement becomes critical. The useoftechniques such as quality circles, wherein such measurements are openly discussed and developed, may be seen as an essential partofa plan to ensure that such efficiency measures are a success.

STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL

Measurementsofperformance can be analysed in a statistical way, as in manufacturing, to determine whether the processes afacilitymanager is operating, in order to provide a service, are in control. Thebenefit ofstatistical quality control (SQC) is that it provides thefacilitymanager with the ability to make some senseofthe results being achieved in virtually any repetitive procedure for which he/she is responsible. Thus if measurements are recorded for the response timesofstaff allocating special purpose rooms (conference, study, demonstration, etc.) an apparent random seriesofnumbers will emerge. However, the meanofthis setofnumbers can be found and using probability theory, and the conceptofthe standard deviationofany one value from the mean, the values can be plotted on a chart to determine whether they lie within two standard deviationsofthe mean (the warning lines) or three standard deviations (the action lines) (see Figure 1). (Figure 1 omitted) There is only a 5 per cent chance that for a given process a value would be beyond the warning lines. There is a 0.2 per cent chance that a value would be beyond the action lines. A process is said to be outofcontrol when a value goes outside an action line or two consecutive values go outside the same warning lines.

Thebenefits ofSQC as a measurement tool are that:

* It permits thefacilitymanager to understand for a given process, whether it is under control and operating consistently. An important featureofthis is the ability to explain to service users why action is not needed every time a result is outside his expected norm.

* It allows the staff involved to see how they are doing and to participate in the measurement.

* It provides a basis for considering how to improve the process and to measure how well a change is working. (Continuous improvement, kaizen, in Japanese manufacturing is based around this kindofmeasurement.)

In order to implement SQC it is not necessary to become involved in complex calculations but merely to gain an appreciationofthe basis and to acquire appropriate PC software on which to manipulate the data.

POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION (POE)

The occupantsofpremises represent another and crucial meansofmeasuring the performanceofthefacility managementfunction. Typically this is done through post-occupancy evaluation wherein occupants are invited to express their levelofsatisfaction or dissatisfaction (usually five stages) with thefacilityprovided. Typical factors measured are:

* workspace size;

* workspace shape;

* densityofpeople;

* locationofworkplace;

* qualityoflighting;

* qualityofair-conditioning;

* noise level;

* overall environment, etc.

Beside the satisfaction measures it is useful to include the degreeofimportance attached to eachofthese characteristics again in five stages from Not Important to Very Important. Such static measurements areofcourse specially important as they focus directly on the occupant (or customer). They can, however, tell you as much aboutmanagementas about thefacility, which suggests close liaison with operationalmanagementcolleagues is important.

Such measurements typically involve large numbersofpeople and are relatively expensive to set up and analyse. Also the expectationsofthe occupants will be that something will be done about their concerns. Thus the workload will continue at a high level after measurement as you communicate results back to staff and then develop action plans.

DECISION SUPPORT MEASUREMENTS

Other static performance measurements can also be used to evaluate the suitabilityofafacilityto an organization. Thus in the Orbit 2. 1 study by DEGW, scoring systems are used to rank buildings for different aspectsofbuilding design and construction. In this system organizational needs such as "Attract and Retain staff' are rated on a 1 to 9 scale and then compared with the rankings for different building types in different locational configurations (again 1 to 9) to seek to find a match for as many factors as possible. Such systems are very important to thefacilitymanager attempting to evaluate a rangeofchoices associated with a new location. This typeofcomparisonofdemand factors (organizational needs) against supply factors (available buildings) can make a major contribution to the decision-making process particularly where the rangeofvariable factors is high. The kindsoforganizational needs that are affected by a building depend on the organization but typically they include such things as image, security, interaction, internal relocation and size change.

SUMMARY

There is a wide rangeofchoices in measuringfacility managementperformance reflecting the varied natureofthe field. The purposeofthese measurements is to enable the manager and his, or her, staff to:

* understand better what they are doing;

* compare themselves with others;

* determine whether processes are in control;

* identify the need for change and size thebenefits ofchange;

* make informed decisions.

To achieve these objectives measurements must be based on both objective data and subjective data and consider both services and the general working environment. The metric ranges from costs to failure rates to weighted scores.

The rangeofperformance measures infacility managementcan be summarized as shown in Figure 2. (Figure 2 omitted)

REFERENCES

1. Kincaid, O.G., "A Starting-point for Measuring Physical Performance",Facilities, Vol. 12 No. 3, March 1994, pp. 24-7.

2. DepartmentofTrade and Industry, Best Practice Benchmarking An Executive Guide, DepartmentofTrade and Industry, London, 1993.

3. "Profile World View, An Interview with British Airports' Authority Chief Executive, Sir john Egan", New Builder, 8 April 1994, p. 21.

FURTHER READING

Becker, F.D., The Total Workplace, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1990.

Bird, B. and White K.H., Building Performance and Cost in Use, Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1989.

Caplan, R.H., A Practical Guide to Quality Control, Hutchinson, London, 1989.

Hakes, C., Total QualityManagement, Chapman and Hall, London, 1991.

Lee, R., Building MaintenanceManagement, Collins, London, 1987.

Maver, T., Building Performance, Prentice-Hall, London and New York, NY, 1972.

David G. Kincaid is Joint Course DirectoroftheFacilityand EnvironmentManagementMSc in the Bartlett SchoolofGraduate Studies at University College, London, UK.

Jumlah kata:2031Copyright MCB University Press Limited Jun 1994

Pengindeksan (detail)

KutipSubjek

Statistical process control;Performance evaluation;Measurement;Factors;Facilities management;BenchmarksKlasifikasi

5320: Quality control5100: Facilities managementJudul

Measuring performance infacility managementPengarang

Kincaid, DavidJudul publikasi

FacilitiesVolume

12Edisi

6Halaman

17Jumlah halaman

4Tahun publikasi

1994Tanggal publikasi

Jun 1994Penerbit

Emerald Group Publishing, LimitedTempat publikasi

BradfordNegara publikasi

United KingdomSubjek publikasi

Building And ConstructionISSN

02632772Jenis sumber

Scholarly JournalsBahasa publikasi

EnglishJenis dokumen

PERIODICALNomor aksesi

00907171ID dokumen ProQuest

219624641URL Dokumen

http://search.proquest.com/docview/219624641?accountid=50257Hak cipta

Copyright MCB University Press Limited Jun 1994Terakhir diperbarui

2014-05-16Basis data

2 basis data

Lihat daftar