Bsc in Facilities Management

8/6/2019 Bsc in Facilities Management

1/36

1

THE BALANCED SCORECARD IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

for internal management and external benchmarking

Paul Coronel and Anne Evans

Directors, Benchmarking PLUSMelbourne

August 1999

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is the result of collaborative work between a number of people and the support

of the AAPPA Board. In particular we wish to acknowledge the input of time and

intellectual capital from the following heads of facilities management organisations,

convened by Brian Fenn who was the catalyst for the whole exercise. They played a teamleader role in particular aspects of development:

Brian Fenn Queensland University of Technology;

Sam Ragusa Griffith University;

Andrew Frowd University of Wollongong;

Neville Thiele University of South Australia;

David Spedding Deakin University;

Kelvin Crump Facilities Management Services, TAFE, Queensland;

Also the input of a number of other facilities managers who participated in a workshop toassist in identifying relevant performance measures for facilities management within a

Balanced Scorecard framework.

CONTENTS

IntroductionSome characteristics of top performing organisations

How the balanced scorecard fits inThe essential characteristics of the Balanced Scorecard approach

How it can apply to FM in a tertiary education context(for both internal management and benchmarking purposes)Linkages between organisational levels and functionsEstablishing appropriate objectives for FM in the Balanced Scorecard contextBroad structure of a Balanced Scorecard

A sample of the KPIs in a Balanced Scorecard for facilities managementLinkages between KPIs at different levelsCharacteristics of KPIs in a balanced Scorecard - internal versus benchmarking versions

Conclusion

APPENDIX: Detailed format of Balanced Scorecards for facilities management


2/36

2

INTRODUCTION

Some characteristics of top performing organisations

It is clear from personal experience and consensus among observers of exceptional

organisations, that top performing organisations have a number of aspects in common

including the following:

Customer Focus: a clear understanding of their customers identity and their key

needs, and an effective means of response at both the strategic and the operational level;

Leadership: particularly in the sense of defining what things the organisation must get

right and to communicate this clearly throughout the organisation;

Use of information to manage: a coherent performance reporting structure that helpsintegrate the actions of managers at different levels in pursuit of their key objectives;

A restless quest for improvement: they will do what is necessary to ensure they

identify what is best practice and adapt it to fit their own organisation as soon as

possible.

HOW THE BALANCED SCORECARD FITS IN

The Balanced Scorecard is an approach to setting up performance measurement structuresthat help an organisation with some of the characteristics mentioned above.It was first

featured in the Harvard Business Review early in 1992*. (Ref to K&N article)

Since then it has been used in many countries and industries as the basis of a top-down

reporting structure which knits together the desired strategic perspective of an organisation

with its management actions at various levels.

A smaller number of organisations have also used it as a framework for performance

comparisons (performance benchmarking) with other organisations. It clearly makes

sense to use similar measures for external comparisons to those that one uses to manageinside the organisation.

The essential characteristics of the Balanced Scorecard approach are as follows:

performance measurement from four perspectives ensures the focus is not merely on

short term cost / financial performance (See slide 2: the question posed in each of the

four perspectives help give the essence of what is being measured.);

a review of the key objectives of the organisation. Existing objectives may need to be

restated or modified to gain the desired clarity and balance between the four


3/36

3

perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard approach. (Our experience has shown that this

is necessary more often than not, both from clarity and balance viewpoints.);

linking each of these objectives to between one and three key performance measures

which together are used as the scorecard at the top of the organisation (See slide 3: a

typical scorecard has between 12 and 24 key performance measures in all; having fewer

means the risk of too narrow an outlook while risking more confusion and lack of

focus.);

cascading; that is connecting the key performance measures at the top level with

similar measures at other levels in the organisation. These should be of direct relevance

to managers in the various jobs at these other levels. Thus cascading supports the

communication which goes with delegation and accountability.

In this way the perspective and consequently the actions of managers in different parts ofthe organisation are more co-ordinated and focussed on achievement in accord with a

balanced set of key objectives.

HOW IT CAN APPLY TO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT IN A TERTIARY

EDUCATION CONTEXT (for both internal management and benchmarking

purposes)

Linkages between organisational levels and functions

In my job I see a very wide variety of industry sectors and organisations. Two of the most

complex, in terms of services delivered to the end user or customer are public hospitals

and local government organisations. Facilities management organisations in the tertiary

education sector rank up there in my view.

For this reason we propose a structure we have used elsewhere; a Top Level Balanced

Scorecard with supporting Balanced Scorecards for major functions within facilities

management. (This is illustrated in slide 4).

The four supporting scorecards shown are indicative; the precise number and focus of thesupporting scorecards in any single facilities management organisation will depend on the

range and magnitude of functions that are under the FM Managers jurisdiction. Also to a

degree on the way in which that person has divided the accountability for the various

functions between managers reporting to him/her.

Establishing appropriate objectives for FM in the Balanced Scorecard context

It goes without saying that facilities management supports the fundamental activities of the

University. The objectives for FM should therefore be compatible with those of the

parent organisation.


4/36

4

Balanced Scorecard for Internal purposes

( for use by individual FM Managers to help run their own organisations)

In this case the facilities management objectives as a total set will be unique and specific to

the circumstances of the particular FM organisation and its parent body. Individual

objectives may be the same or similar to other FM organisations but it is highly unlikely

that this will be true of the whole set.

Balanced Scorecard for External purposes

(for use by a number of FM Managers to benchmark quantitative performance measures

and qualitative measures / practices between their organisations)

In this case the facilities management objectives must be generic to be able to serve all the

participating organisations and have a degree of relevance to each of them. The objectives

provide a stimulus for choosing a balanced set of key performance indicators but their role

need go little further.

Broad structure of a Balanced Scorecard

The implications are shown in slides 5 and 6.

Balanced Scorecard for External purposes

For benchmarking purposes the Balanced Scorecard has a set of generic objectives and key

performance measures (KPIs).

Balanced Scorecard for Internal purposes

For internal purposes the Balanced Scorecard has a set of objectives specific to the

individual FM organisation, and the KPIs are used to measure the level of achievement

against those objectives.

In addition the Facilities Manager will probably wish to:

define targets for the managers responsible for each KPI;

document strategies and tasks by which the objectives will be achieved;

fix accountabilities among his/her people for each strategy and /or task.

These additional features MAY - but do not have to - be included on the scorecard

structure. It is up to the individual manager. (Two of the leading people in our working

party, Sam Ragusa and Andrew Frowd, have included some or all of these elements in

scorecards for their own organisations. Both approaches differ somewhat from each other,

as is to be expected).


5/36


6/36

6

Sample of the KPIs in a Balanced Scorecard for facilities management

Customer Perspective

Quantitative measures

Score on customer satisfaction survey

Number of complaints per period (per EFT customer staff or per EFTSU)

% compliance with provisions of service level agreements

LTIFR (for customer staff / students)

Incident levels per period (for example security incidents, safety incidents)

Qualitative measures / practices

Alignment of strategy with the parent organisation strategy

Practices regarding use of SLAs

Financial Perspective


Top Level Cost ratios (for example operating cost per EFTSU)

Breakdown of the above by function such as cleaning and security

(cost per EFTSU, cost per sq metre)

Asset employed ratio (for example $000 asset value installed per EFTSU)

Budget balance ratio (for example budget variance $ per budget $)


7/36

7

Internal Business Perspective


Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (for FM staff & contractors)

Management overheads as % of direct service delivery costs (for example

capital works and cleaning services)

Project time variance as % of original plan time

Project cost variance as % of original project cost (both relating to capital

works)


Asset Management & Maintenance practices

Innovation & Learning Perspective(people, processes, technology)


% budget spent on improved technology

Annual training days per FM staff member

% improvement in customer satisfaction index

% improvement in operating cost per EFTSU


Quality practices & process improvement techniques used

Incentives / rewards employed


8/36

8

Linkages between KPIs at different levels

The sample just given does not show an important element of choosing KPIs; that is the

value of having linkages between KPIs at top level and the same or similar KPIs at other

levels of the facilities management organisation.

It is one thing to have a set of detailed measures, but it is another to have the ability to take

the helicopter view whenever necessary and see the linkages between that view and

ground level. Decision making can be more strategic and yet maintain a practical

monitoring and implementation connection with strategy.

As a simple example the degree of customer satisfaction with facilities management is an

aggregate of the satisfaction with its various elements; maintenance, security and so on.

Hence if a Customer Satisfaction Score is derived by means of a customer survey for each

of the important elements of facilities management it can be summarised at the top level as

an average or weighted average. Comparisons with other facilities management

organisations are facilitated as is internal management summary reporting, trend analysis,

and resource allocation decisions.

Some other KPIs where I believe this approach is worthwhile:

Complaints per EFTSU per period

Operating cost per EFTSU

Trends in each of the above and in Customer Satisfaction Scores

Budget balance ratio

Injury rates

Annual training days per person.

Characteristics of KPIs in a balanced Scorecard - internal versus benchmarkingversions

There are some important differences which I would like to point out, which influence the

design of a choice of KPIs for collective benchmarking purposes as opposed to one for use

by an individual facilities management organisation.

These are shown in the table over the page.


9/36

9

KPIs for benchmarking vs KPIs for internal use

KPIs for collective benchmarking KPIs for individual organisations

No limit to the number used Shouldnt have too many

Individual KPIs dont need to be relevant to

all participants

All KPIs need to be relevant

Need absolutely specific definition Not quite so critical

Reasonable approximations are acceptable Reasonable approximations may be

acceptable

Must be structured to accommodate size

differences in participating organisations

(eg # complaints/EFTSU)

Not needed for internal comparisons

(hence could just have # of complaints)

Mentioning targets is inappropriate

(unless the targets are being benchmarked)

Setting targets can be beneficial

(eg, Reduce complaints by 10%)

CONCLUSION

In this paper I have covered a number of important points in the design and use of the

Balanced Scorecard approach, for both collaborative benchmarking between facilities

management organisation and management within an individual organisation.

The detailed scorecards which form the remainder of this paper are the result of

considerable collaborative work between us and a number of individuals who were

acknowledged at the beginning of the paper. Hence most of the people involved are highly

accomplished facilities managers. That said, there is no doubt room for further refinement.

Possible pathways for facilities managers

Benchmarking: The scorecards are set out primarily for benchmarking purposes, and it is

hoped that they will provide a platform for an addition or adjunct to the excellent AAPPA


10/36

10

Benchmarking Survey already in use. If so the performance indicators and qualitative

practices questions will provide a template for those who wish to follow this route.

Internal management: Even though the scorecards are set out primarily for benchmarking

purposes, I trust that using the points raised in this paper, facilities managers who are so

inclined will be able to adapt the structure and tailor them for use in their own organisation.

In this case each can select which of the performance indicators and customer satisfaction

survey questions suit their current circumstances, and supplement them with others if

desired.

Before doing so they will wish to make the objectives more specific to the circumstances of

their own institution, and they way wish to set targets and assign individual

responsibilities for delivering against those targets and indicators.

Combination approach: Of course it is possible to do both. In this case some or all of the

performance indicators used for internal purposes and qualitative practices questions will

also be benchmarked externally, thus providing a more informative basis for self evaluation,

planning, and target setting.

I thank you for your attention today.


11/36

11

The Balanced Scorecard

in Facilities Management:

Paul Coronel

Benchmarking P LUSWellington, September 1999

for internal and benchmarking purposes

Slide 1

BBBBeeeennnncccchhhhmmmmaaaarrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg PPPPLLLLUUUUSSSS

The Balanced Scorecard Approach:Performance from Four Perspectives


How well do we

deliver, financially?Customer Service

Perspective

How are we perceivedby our customers? Innovation & Learning

Perspective

Can we continue to

improve and create

value?

Internal ServicesPerspective

What must weexcel at?

Slide 2


12/36

12


Overview of Structure of Balanced Scorecard

Customer Service

Perspective

Innovation & LearningPerspective

Internal Services

Perspective

Objectives KPIs


Objectives KPIs

Objectives KPIs

Objectives KPIs

Objectives KPI

s

1 to 3 ob jectives per perspective

1 to 3 KPIs per objective

Hence 12 to 24 KPIs t otal

Slide 3


Universitys Objectives

High level FM objectives

linkages

Incorporated into/drive

FM Balanced Scorecards

Top level scorecard

Maintenance Cleaning Security Capital Works

Slide 4


13/36

13


Structure of High Level Scorecards for Benchmarking

Customer Service

Perspective

Innovation & Learning

Perspective

Internal ServicesPerspective


Objectives(generic)

KPIs

Objectives(generic)

KPIsObjectives(generic)

KPIs

Objectives(generic)

KPIs

Slide 5


Structure of High Level Scorecards for Internal Management


Objectives(specific)

KPIs Strategies

Customer Perspective

Objectives

(specific) KPIs Strategies

Innovation/learning

Perspective

Objectives(specific)

KPIs Strategies

Internal Perspective

Objectives

(specific)KPIs Strategies

Slide 6


14/36

BalancedScorecardformanagement&b

enchmarking

PreparedforAAPPAConference,September1999

_

Page14of36

!

!

"#

$%&

'(

)01

2

%

3 4

56

7

DETAILEDFORMATANDSTRUCTUREOFBALANCEDSCORECA

RDSFORFACILITIESMANAGEMENT

Onthesuccee

dingpagesthescorecardstructurereferredtointhepresentationpaperissetoutindetail.

Therearefive

scorecardsinall:

TopLevel

scorecard;

scorecardforCleaning;

scorecardforSecurity;

scorecardforMaintenance;

scorecardforCapitalWorks.

Eachcontains

thefourperspectives-customer,financial,internalprocesses,andinnovationandlearning.Alsoeachcontainsqualitative

measures/practicesaswellasquantitativemeasures.

Theyareseto

utprimarilywithbenchmarkin

ginmind.Howeveronthelastsheetofthisdetailedlayoutth

ereisapageofascorecardsho

wnina

formatsuitableforinternalmanagementpurposes.Tofacilitatecomparisonbetweenthealternativelayouts,thesubjectmatter(objective

sandKPIs)

showninitco

rrespondscloselywiththesub

jectmatterinthefirstsheetofthescorecardforMaintenance

whichappearsonpage16ofthissection.

Whencomme

ncingthefirstyearofaco-operativebenchmarkingexerciseit

iscommontoreducethetotaln

umberofmeasurestomakeiteasyfora

greaternumberoforganisationstoparticipate.Evenso,notallparticipants

areusuallyexpectedtoentereverysingleitemofdatarequiredto

completetheset.Insucceedingyearstheme

asuresarerefinedandextended

inthelightofthedevelopingexperienceoftheparticipants.

Wetrustthem

aterialshowninthisdetailedformatwillprovideabasisforthoseorganisationswhowishto

extendthescopeoftheirbenchmarking,

togetstarted.


15/36


enchmarking


_

Page15of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

TOPLEVEL

SCORECARD

CustomerPe

rspective

(Howdoourcu

stomersseeus?)

Objective

PerformanceIndicators

Comments/Sourceofdata

Achievehighestpossiblelevel

ofcustomersatisfaction

Customersatisfactionindex

Thisassumesthereisacustome

rsatisfactionsurveyforeachgroup

ofservices

(perhapsduringthefeedbackprocesswiththeclientregardingperformance

againstSLAs-see

QualitativeMeasures/Practices).

Servicescan&shouldbegroup

ed,eg,Security,Maintenance,Clea

ning;sothat

theyform

partofaseparateiden

tifiablesurveyandcanbeusedintherespective

scorecard.

Eachsurveyshouldbesimple,ca

pableofbeingscored.(Seetheexa

mpleinthe

papergiveninthebreakfastsess

ion).

TocalculatetheCustomersatisfa

ctionindexshowninthis(toplevel)

scorecard,

anaveragecanbecalculatedfrom

thescoreforeachsurvey.Inthis

wayitwould

belinkedtoallsubsidiaryscore

cards.

Thiswouldbeveryusefulforboth

internalmanagementandexternal

benchmarking.

NumberofcomplaintsperEFTSUattending

CapitalWorkstim

e&budgetperformanceindex

Linkedtoallrelevantsubsidiary

scorecards

AsummaryofsomeCapitalWorksScorecardKPIs

Achievealignme

ntwiththe

Universitysdire

ctionandwith

ourcustomersneeds.

See

QualitativeMeasures/Practicesinthis

section.

Anumericalratingofanswersagainstthesequestionispossibleforb

enchmarking

purposes.

Theyarealsogoodselfassessm

entquestionsforinternalmanagem

ent

purposes.


16/36


enchmarking


_

Page16of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

CustomerPe

rspective(Continued)

Qualitative

Measures/Practices

(Pleasecirclethe

answerwhichmostapplies)

Planning(representationandalignment)

Towhatextentdoyoubelievethatyouhaveid

entifiedthekeyUniversityplann

ingforums?

Notatall/wehave

identifiedsome/wehaveidentifiedmostofthem

/weknowallofthem

Onwhatpropo

rtionoftherelevantplanningfo

rumsisFMinvitedtositattheplanningtable?

None/some/most/allofthem

Howwouldyoujudgethelevelofinvolvement

ofFMinthedevelopmentofUniversitysstrategicplan?

Noinput/someinputorinvolvementbutshouldbeaskedformore/theFMfunctionisproperlyrepresenteda

ndlistenedto

Pleasecommentonthenatureoftheinvolvem

ent

Mostlyinformal/Mostlyformal-weareaskedforspecificinform

ationatcertainstepsintheprocess/Fairlyevenmixofboth

DoestheFMfunctionhavealongterm/strate

gicplan,ie3yearsormore?

No/suchaplanhasbeenestablishedforlessthan5years/for

5yearsormore

HowwouldyouratethedegreeofalignmentbetweentheFMstrategicplanandtheUniversitysstrategicplan?

(Eg:-keyobjectives/strategiesintheUniversitysstrategicplanareanalysedfortheir

implicationsforFM;

-Universitysprojectionsandanalysisoftrends

areincorporatedinmedium

tolong

term

FM

planning.)

ANSWER:

Low

/medium

/highdegreeofa

lignment

DoyoureceivefeedbackfromseniorUniversitymanagement(DVCsand/orPV

Cs)onFMsperformance

inregardtoth

eaboveaspects?

Noinput

Levelofinvolvement

shouldbeincreased/decreased/aboutrigh

t

Levelofalignmentsh

ouldbeincreased/aboutright.


17/36


18/36


enchmarking


_

Page18of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

FinancialPerspective

(Howdoweloo

ktoourfinancialstakeholders?)

Objective



Obtainvaluefor

moneyand

manageourbudget

Assetsemployed

($A000)perEFTSUattending

Annualnetoperatingcost($A)perEFTSUattending

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(operating)

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(capital)

Highlevelmeasureoftheintensityofassetutilisation

Ditto.Netmeansanyrevenue(eghiringoffacilities)isdeductedfrom

operating

costs.

Linktosubsidiaryscorecards

Abilitytomanagethebudget.

Linktosubsidiaryscorecards(e

xceptCapitalWorks?).

Ditto.LinktoCapitalWorksscorecard.

Obtainadequate

fundingfor

effectivefacilities

management

AcompositeofM

aintenanceIndexplusfundingper

unitforotherservices

Linktosubsidiaryscorecards

-egMaintenanceIndexof1%

to1.5%

ofARV,

Cleaningcostpersqm

orperEF

TSU,SecuritycostperEFTSUatte

nding,

Qualitative

Measures/Practices

ManagementinformationforFM

Hardlyanyma

nagerbelievestheyhaveatota

llyeffectivemanagementinform

ationsystem.Withthisinmind

canyoupleasecomment:

Withinreason,ourmanagementinformationis:

Reliable/notre

liable

Easilyaccessible/not

Uptodate/takesalong

timetoarrive

Accurateenoughforthe

purpose/not

Themainprob

lemis:

WithintheFMfunction/not

Otherdepartments/not

General/specificsystems(pleasecommentbelow)

Comments:(eg

,thespecificsystemsofmostco

ncernprovideinformationonth

elevelofbacklogmaintenance)


19/36


enchmarking


_

Page19of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

InternalProcessPerspective

(Whatmustw

eexcelat?)

Objective



EffectiveAssetManagement

Netannualvalue

ofcommercialopportunities

realised.

RatingonAssetManagement(selfassessment

Definedasrevenuefrom

usage

oftheInstitutionsassetsbyoutsideparties,

lessdirectcostsrelatingtosuch

usage.Revenueincludesthecom

mercial

valueoffreeordiscountedusagetocharitableorothercommunityg

roups.

SeeMaintenance&CapitalWorksScorecard.

Theoverallscorewouldappearhere.

Anticipate&ado

ptappropriate

technologyforF

M

RatingonAssetManagement(selfassessment)

SeeQualitativeMeasures/Pra

cticesbelow.

QualitativeM

easures/Practices

Technology

Fromyourownknowledge,howappropriateisthefacilitiesmanagementtechnologythatis

usedinyourareaoftheUniversity?Pleasecon

siderandscoreeachoftheaspe

ctsbelow:

-cost

0

1

2

3

4

-reliability

0

1

2

3

4

-fitnes

sformypurpose

0

1

2

3

4

-keepsmecompetitiveinmyfield

0

1

2

3

4

1=TotallyIn

appropriate

4=TotallyAp

propriate

0=Idon

tknow/cantgiveaknowledgeableanswer.

Comments:

..

..


20/36


enchmarking


_

Page20of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

InnovationandLearningPerspective

(Canwecontinuetoimproveandcreatevalue?)

Objective



Improvekeyelementsof

FacilitiesManag

ement

Trendintotalann

ualOperatingCostperEFTSU

TrendinFacilities

ConditionIndex

TrendinCustome

rSatisfactionIndex

Alllinktosubsidiaryscorecards.

-OperatingCosttoOperatingCostelements,egSecurity

-FCItoMaintenanceorCapital

-CustomerSatisfactiontoeach

individualscorecard.

(IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%

movementbetweeneachoflast3

annualfigures)

Developourpeo

ple

AnnualtrainingdaysperEFTfacilitiesmanagement

person.

AnnualtrainingcostperEFTsecurityperson.

Linkstosubsidiaryscorecards

Sourceofdata:

FinancialSystem

StaffDevelopmentRecords

QualitativeM

easures/Practices

Knowledgean

dSkills

Haveyouiden

tifiedtheknowledgeandskillsrequiredtooptimisethecontributionofFMtotheUniversityoverthenextseveralyears?

No/Yes,informally/Yes,aformalanalysishasbeenundertakeninallareas

Havethegaps

betweenexistingandrequiredk

nowledgeandskillsbeenidentified?

No/Yes,informally/Yes,aformaltrainingneedsa

nalysishasbeenundertakenforall

areas

Haveyouaplanforfillingthesegaps?

No/Yes,aninfo

rmalplan/Yes,aformalplanhasbeendevelopedandisbeingimplem

ented


21/36


enchmarking


_

Page21of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

SCORECAR

DFORCLEANING

CustomerPe

rspective

Objective





NumberofcomplaintsperEFTSUattending

Withscoresforthismeasurefrom

otherscorecards,summarisesup

totheTop

LevelScorecard.


SummarisesuptotheCustomer

SatisfactionIndexintheTopLevel

Scorecard,

alongwithcustomersatisfaction

scoresfrom

otherscorecards.

Thesurveyshouldbesimpleand

capableofbeingscored.SeeQualitative

Measures/Practicesbelowfore

xample.

PercentageComp

liancewithServiceLevel

Agreements

SLAseitheraspartofcontractspecificationorinternalagreementwithcustomers.

Scoreprovidedbymeansofregu

larchecksofserviceprovidedbyC

leaning

Supervisor.

SeealsoQualitativeMeasures/Practicesbelow.

BeEnvironment

ally

responsible

Wastevolume/sq

m

WasteVolume/EFTSU

Wasteisgarbagewhichrequires

general(notspecial)handlingfromb

uildings,and

binsalongpaths,etc(notlandscapingwaste).


22/36


enchmarking


_

Page22of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

CustomerPe

rspective(Continued)

Qualitative

Measures/Practices

CustomerSatisfaction

Ratings:1=notacceptable;2=unsatisfactory;3=satisfactory;4=good;5=excellent

Sensitivityandunderstandingofcustomerneeds

Competenceand

expertisedisplayedwiththeadviceo

rserviceprovided.

Reliabilityofserviceprovided.

Timeliness/spee

dofresponsetoservicerequests

Effortsmadetosolveproblemsandfollowthrough

Feedbackprovidedtocustomersonservicesdelivered.

ServiceLevelAgreements

WehaveService

Charters/SLAswithourclients

None/Some/Most/All

Wemeasureour

performanceatleastannuallyagainsttheSLA

FornoneoftheSL

Asthatareestablished/Some/Most/All

OurSLAsaresetaftersomeformofconsultationwit

htheclientregarding

FornoneoftheSL


theirkeyneeds

Weusetheclientsownratingofourperformancea

tleastannuallyagainsttheSLAs.

FornoneoftheSL


Regularcheckso

fserviceprovidedagainsttheprovis

ionsoftheSLA,are

Fo

rnoneofthe

SLAsthatarees

tablished/Some/Most/All

conductedbythe

CleaningSupervisororequivalentp

osition.

WasteVolume

Wemeasurethevolumeofgarbagewhichrequiresge

neral(notspecial)handlingfrom

Whethermeasured

/frequency/usedforchangeprocess.

buildings,andbinsalongpaths,etc(ienotlandscapingwaste).


23/36


enchmarking


_

Page23of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



AnnualnetoperatingcostperEFTSUattending.

Dittopersquaremetre

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(operating)

Netmeansanyrevenueisdedu

ctedfrom

operatingcosts.

Costmeansthetotalallupinclu

dingforexamplecontracts,staffup

toheadof

FMgroup,materialsandconsumables,wasteremoval,windowcleaning,pest

control,hazardouswaste,recycling,sanitarybinservice,greasetrap

service,

landfillcharges,cleaningofcurta

insandfurnishings.

Measurestheabilitytomanagethebudget.

(Withscoresforthesemeasures

from

otherscorecards,summarises

uptothe

TopLevelScorecard).


Objective



WorkSafely

LTIFR(forCleaningStaff)

IndustryStandard,from

OH&Sd

ata

Minimiseoverhe

ads

RatioofcostofC

leaningMgmttoTotalCleaning

Cost.

RatioofMaterials

Cost/TotalCleaningCost.

Cleaningmanagementcostsincludestaffandoverheadcostsforcleaning

supervision,aswellasashareo

fcorporatestaffandoverheadsuptoheadofFM

function.Thiswillalsoapplyifc

leaningiscontractedout.

Measuresmaterialscontrol,&en

vironmentalresponsibilitytosomedegree.

BeEnvironment

ally

responsible

SeeaboveandCustomerPerspective.


24/36


enchmarking


_

Page24of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective




FacilitiesManag

ement

TrendintotalOperatingCostperEFTSU

(AlsoperEFTandpersqmetre)

TrendinCustome

rSatisfactionIndex

TrendinLTIFR

Perhapsnotallthreecostratios-justtheperEFTSUratio

Withscoresforthesemeasures

from

otherscorecards,thecostand

customer

satisfactionmeasuressummarise

uptotheTopLevelScorecard.

IneachoftheKPIsproposed,trendmeans%

movementbetweene

achoflast3

annualfigures

Qualitative

Measures/Practices

BenchmarkingofCleaningStandard-Clea

ningpracticeregularity

Thissimpleratingsystemmightneedrefining/expandingbutcouldwellbeastart.

ITEM

Levelofservice/frequency

3Star

4Star

5

Star

Other

(statefrequency)

HallsCommonA

reasvacuumed

weekly

weekly

daily

Officesvacuume

d

monthly

fortnightly

w

eekly

Toiletscleaned

daily

daily

daily

HighUseToilets

cleaned

daily

twicedaily

threetimesdaily

InternalBinsemptied

twicewee

kly

daily

daily

ExternalBinsem

ptied

twicewee

kly

daily

daily

Cobwebbinginte

rnal

12monthly

3monthly

monthly

Windowscleaned-Internal

Windowscleaned-External


25/36


26/36


enchmarking


_

Page26of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



Effectivecostm

anagement

1.AnnualoperatingcostperEFTSUattending.

2.Budgetover-runas%

ofbudget(operating)

3.Securitycostp

erincident

Costmeansthetotalallupinclu

dingforexamplecontracts,staffup

toheadof

FMgroup.Forbenchmarkingpurposes,categorisedintothefollowing

(respondentswouldcompletethe

section-orsectionsinthecaseof

multiple

campuses-whichapplytothem:

MetropolitanCampus

-7Day,24hourservice

$

-Otherspanofhours

$

CityCampus

-7Day,24hourservice

$

-Otherspanofhours

$

(ThescoresforthesefirsttwomeasuresaresummarisedintheTopLevel

Scorecard,alongwiththeirequivalentsfrom

otherscorecards).

Theintentionistoprovidearoughjudgementofthedegreeofsecurityproblemon

campusbalancedagainsttheres

ourcesdevotedtoit.Thesourceofthedatais

theSecurityLogBookandtheFinanceSystem.


27/36


enchmarking


_

Page27of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



WorkSafely

1.LTIFR(forSec

urityStaff)

IndustryStandard,from

OH&Sd

ata

Monitorintensityofsecurity

effort

2.Annualnumberofsecurity/safetyescortsper

EFTSUattending.

3.Annualnumberofrecordedcalls/requeststo

securityserviceforassistanceperEFTSUattending.

4.Annualperson

hoursofsecurityserviceprovided

perEFTSUattending.

Datafrom

securitylogbooks.

Monitorthebala

ncebetween

varioussecurity

services

5.Percentageoftotalannualpersonhoursand

operatingcostsappliedto:

-Crime/inciden

tinvestigation

-Securing/lockup

buildingsandfacilities

-Surveillance/mobileandfootpatrols

-Attendancetopersonalsafetyrequests

-Carparkingcon

trolandregulation

-Escortduty

-Responsetooutofhoursgeneralinquiries.

Datafrom

analysisofsecuritylogbooksandapportionmentofoperatingcosts.

Monitorthemix

security

incidents

6.Numberofsafety/securityincidents(per1000

EFTSU)oncamp

usbytypeofincident:

-Theftpersonalp

roperty

-TheftUniversity

property

-Damageperson

alproperty

-DamageUniversityproperty

-Injury/assaultto

student/staff/visitor

-Harassmentto

student/staff/visitor

Datafrom

analysisof:

-SecuritySystem

-SecurityLogBook

-UniversityInsuranceRecords

-FinanceSystems

Datashowninthethreerowsabovecanbeusedtomonitorthelevelandbalanceinthemixofsecurityservices,tomaintainefficiencyandeffectiveness.


28/36


enchmarking


_

Page28of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



Developourpeo

ple

1.Annualtraining

daysperEFTsecurityperson.

2.Annualtraining

costperEFTsecurityperson.

Sourceofdata:

FinancialSystem

StaffDevelopmentRecords

Developourser

vices

3.%

ofannualtotalsecuritybudgetcommittedto

improvementofservicesorinstallationofnew

services.

Datafrom

annualbudget.

Investinapprop

riate

technology

4.CostperEFTS

Uattending,ofaccesscontroland

otherelectronics

ecurityservices.

Datafrom

annualbudget.


29/36


enchmarking


_

Page29of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

SCORECAR

DFORMAINTENANCE

CustomerPe

rspective

Objective



Provideasafee

nvironment

1.1Reducethebacklogof

safetyrelatedmaintenance

AnimprovementintheSafetyConditionIndexwhichisdefinedas

SCI=1-

period

of

begiining

at

backlog

e

maintenanc

related

safety

of

Value

Total

backlog

e

maintenanc

related

safety

of

invalue

Reduction

Sourceofdata:

Maintenancemanag

ementsystem

Financesystem

1.2.Reducelos

ttimeinjuries

Losttimehourso

fallstaff/totalofstaffhoursavaila

ble

Academicandgeneralstaff.Staffavailabilityassumed

tobe46

weeks.Sourceofda

ta:asaboveplusworkerscompensationrecords

1.3.ReduceWH&Sincidents

ReductioninWH&SIncidentsdefinedas

eriod

ntsinlastp

Noofincide

ntperiod

ntsinprese

noofincide

eriod

ntsinlastp

Noofincide

Sourceofdata:asa

bove

Providereliable

services

Sourceofdatafor2

.1and2.2:

Maintenancesystem

/Helpdeskdata/Qualitysystem

2.1Rapidresponseto

breakdowns

%

responsetime

achievedwithinpublishedtargetsforvarious

categories

Forbenchmarkingpurposes,thecategoriesandtargetswouldneed

tobedefinedandcommonlyaccepted.Otherwiseame

asuresuch

asaveragerespons

etimebetweencallandreturntoservicewould

needtobeused.

2.2.Reducecomplaints

NumberofcomplaintsreceivedpersemesterperEFTSU

Provideanaesthetically

pleasingenviron

ment

Scoreoncustomersatisfactionsurvey

Annualsurveyconductedateachsite.Surveyshouldb

esite

specifictotakeinto

accountlocalissues.Somequestionsmaybe

commonacrossthe

system.Scoringsystem

commone

g4=good,

5=excellentona5pointscale.

Provideequityo

fservice

Maintenance$as

%ofARVbybuildingorcampus.

Measuredasaro

lling5yearaverage(eventually)of:

(MaintenanceInd

ex)=

tegory

eofAssetCa

cementValu

AssetRepal

ance

eonMainten

Expenditur

AlsoneedtoestablishFacilityConditionIndexwhichshouldbe

simultaneouslymeasuredtoindicateeffectivenessofm

aintenance.

Henceneedtoestablishacondition-basedmaintenance

plan.See

Qualitativemeasure

s/Practicesintheinternalprocess

Perspective.


30/36


enchmarking


_

Page30of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



Optimisethema

intenancedollar

Sourceofdatafor5.1and5.2:

Maintenancemanagementsystem

andAssetregisters

5.1

Gainadequatemaintenancefunding

MaintenanceIndex=

100

Value

t

Replacemen

Asset

e

Expe

nditur

nce

Maintenana

%

Itissuggested

thatthemaintenanceIndexshould

bebetween

1and1.5%

(S

ource:APPA/AAPPAResearch1980-1998,Dr

FrankBromilow(CSIRO),NCRB,FMA)

Maintenanceindexshouldbeassessedinconjunctionwith

movementintheFCI

5.2MaintainanadequatevaluefortheFacility

ConditionInd

ex

FCI=[1-(TotalBacklogMaintenance/InstitutionARV)]

APPA/AAPPA

Research1980-1998concludestha

tanFCIof

0.9oraboveisanindicatorofamanageableback

log


31/36


enchmarking


_

Page31of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



Adequatemainte

nance

planning

Correctivemainte

nanceexpendituredividedbytotal

maintenanceexpenditure

Sourceofdata:

Maintenancemanagementsystem

andAssetregisters

Adequatemainte

nance

systems/practices

See

QualitativeMeasures/Practicesbelow

Completionofanswerstothequ

estionsandcomparisonofthescoresachieved

providesabasisforbenchmarkin

g.

Ascorewouldneedtobesetfor

eachpossibleanswer(egfirstques

tionbelow:

Annually=4;Every2years=3

;Every3years=2andsoon).

Qualitative

Measures/Practices

AssetManage

ment-FacilitiesConditionmana

gement

AFacilitiesCo

nditionassessmentisconducted

Annually

/every

2years/every3years/lessfrequently/

never

Partoftheass

essmentissomeformofphysicalinspection

Yes/no

AFacilitiesCo

nditionIndexiscalculated

Annually/every2

years/every3years/lessfrequent

Aprioritisedlistofworkrequirementsisdevelo

ped

No/forsomeas

sets/formostassets/totallycom

prehensive

Theprioritised

listofworkrequirementsisakeytodeterminingbacklogmaintenanceworks

Yes/no

Theprioritised

listofworkrequirementshelpstodetermineminorcapitalworksprojects

Yes/no

Forbacklogm

aintenance:

Acostestimate

isderivedforeachitem/project

intheworkrequirements

No/forsomeite

ms/formostitems/totallycompre

hensive

Arecommende

dyearofactionisalsoidentifie

d

No/forsomeite

ms/formostitems/allitems

Thisresultsin

acostedplanforinfrastructuresustainability

No

/for1yearahead/for2years

/3years/lo

ngerterm

plan

ThishasbeenendorsedbytheleadershipgroupatmyUniversity/Institute/es

tablishment.

Yes/no


32/36


enchmarking


_

Page32of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

InternalProcessPerspective(continued)

AssetManage

ment-Maintenanceroutinesand

decisions

Amaintenance

managementsystemisinplace

.

Forplannedmaintenance/corrective/backlog/deferred

Routinesared

ocumentedanddeliveredbythemaintenancemanagementsystem.

Yes/no

CM,PM,B&D

Aareaccountedforseparately.

Yes/no

APlannedMaintenancesystemisinplace

None/some/m

ost/forallsystems

Therearedocumentedproceduresforevaluatingoutsourcingdecisions.

Yes/no


Objective




FacilitiesManag

ement

TrendintotalOperatingCostperEFTSU

TrendinFacilities

ConditionIndex

TrendinCustome

rSatisfactionIndex

Trendinlosttime

injuries(seePerformanceindicator

1.2inCustomerPerspective)

Thesedontallnecessarilyhavetomovingintherightdirectionforth

eresultto

begood.Forexamplerapidlyre

coveringapoorFCImayimpactsev

erelyon

operatingcostperEFTSU.



annualfigures)

Improveskillso

fworkforce

AnnualtrainingdaysperEFTmaintenanceperson


33/36


enchmarking


_

Page33

of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

SCORECAR

DFORCAPITALWORKS

CustomerPe

rspective

Objective






(Seeindicativesurveyquestionsbelow)

Itassumesthereiscustomersatisfactionsurveyforeachprojectandthata

client(spokespersonforkeyuse

rs)hasbeenidentified.

Thesurveyshouldbesimple,capableofbeingscored.

Thescoreforeachsurvey(calculatedas%

ofmaximum

possiblescore)canbe

calculatedandsummarised,alon

gwiththescorefrom

othercustomersatisfaction

scores,toanaveragescoreinth

eTopLevelScorecardforFacilities

Managementasawhole.

Ontimecompletion

Averagetimeove

rrunas%

ofplannedproject

duration

Aweightedaveragefigureiscalc

ulatedtotakeintoaccountthediffer

entsizeof

individualprojects.Sourceofda

ta:projectbudgetsandschedules.

CustomerSatisfactionsurvey

Wewereconsu

ltedattheplanningstageabout

ourrequirements

Notatall/yesb

utitwasapartiallysatisfactory/

satisfactory

Weweregiven

realisticexpectationsofwhatth

ecompletedprojectwouldprovide.

Notatall/tosom

edegree/yeswewere

Wewerekeptadequatelyinformedduringtheproject.

Notatall/tosom

edegree/toanappropriatedegree

Thecompleted

structurehasprovensatisfactory

Notatall/inpar

t/yes

Anyassociated

systemscontainappropriatetechnology.

None/some/most/forallsystems/dontknow

Operatingcostssofarhaveproventobewithinourexpectations.

Yes/no

Remedialwork

hasbeenunnecessaryorofaveryminornature.

Yes/no


34/36


enchmarking


_

Page34

of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective



Manageourbud

geteffectively

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(operatingbudget)

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(capitalbudget)

Abilitytomanagethebudget.ReportedtoTopLevelScorecard

Ditto.ReportedtoTopLevelSco

recard

Projectcompetitivelytendered

%

ofcapitalworksbyvalue,competitivelytendered

Assessesthekeennesstocheck

costsandapproacheswithcompetitors


Objective



EffectiveCapita

l/Asset

Management

Minimisemanagement

overheads

%

managementc

oststocapitalworksvalue

%

whichthecapitalworksgroup

annualoperatingbudgetrepresentsofthecapital

workscompletedoverthesameperiod

Optimiseproject

cost

performance

Budgetover-runa

s%

ofbudget(capitalbudget)

separatedinto:

nsum

ofprojectscompletedbyin-housepeople

nsum

ofprojectscompletedbycontractors

Assessessomeoftherelativem

eritsofin-houseprojectsandplacin

gprojects

withcontractors

Monitorportfolio

foreconomies

ofscale

Average%

managementcoststocapitalworksvalue

bysizestrataofprojects:

nallprojectsles

sthan$25000

nallprojects>upto$100,000

nallprojects>$100,000upto$1,000,000

nallprojects>$1,000,000

Highlightsneeds&opportunities

toreviewandcategoriseprojectma

nagement

practicesfordifferentsizedproje

cts


35/36


enchmarking


_

Page35

of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V


Objective




capitalassetsm

anagement

Trendin%

managementcoststocapitalworksvalue

TrendintotalfacilitiesassetsemployedperEFTSU

TrendinCustome

rSatisfactionIndex

TrendinLTIFRfo

rcapitalworksstaffandcontractors

Onalongerterm

basis,measuresthedegreetowhichthecapitalworksfunctionis

beingeffectiveinmanagingthec

apitalassetsaspects-eventhough

someofthe

measuresmaybeindirect.



annualfigures)

Improveskillso

fworkforce

Annualtrainingda

ysperEFTcapitalworksperson


36/36


enchmarking


_

Page36

of36

89

9

@

@

9

AB

CDE

FG

HIP

Q

D

R S

TU

V

BALANCED

SCORECARDFORINTERN

ALMANAGEMENTPURPO

SES

MAINTENANCEFUNCTION

Thiscorrespo

ndstothefirstpageofthecustomerperspectiveofthescorecardshownforthemaintenance

functiononpage16.

Thekeydifferenceisthatthislayoutprovide

sforspecifictargets,responsib

ilities,anddeadlinestobedocumentedonthesamepage.

CustomerPe

rspective

Objective

Strategy/Targe

t

KPIs

Actionsbywhom

/by

1.

TOPROVIDEASAFE

ENVIRONME

NT

1.1Reductionofthe

backlogof

safetyrelatedmaintenanceby

20%

p.a.

Performanceisme

asuredbyanimprovementintheS

afety

ConditionIndexwh

ichisdefinedas

SCI=1-

period

of

begiining

at

backlog

e

maintenanc

related

safety

of

Value

otal

backlog

e

maintenanc

related

safety

of

invalue

Reduction

1.2.Reductionoflos

ttimeinjury

as%

oftotalho

ursby10%.

Losttimehoursof

allstaff(academicandgeneral),dividedby

totalofstaffhours

available(46weeks).

1.3.ReductionofWH&Sincidents

by10%

ReductioninWH&

SIncidents=

eriod

ntsinlastp

Noofincide

ntperiod

ntsinprese

noofincide

eriod

ntsinlastp

Noofincide

2.

TOPROVIDE

RELIABLE

SYSTEMSAND

SERVICES

2.1.Ensureallresponsetimesare

metwith95%

c

onfidencerate.

%

responsetimea

chievedwithinpublishedtargetsfor

various

categories

2.2.Numberofcomplaints

receivedpersem

ester

Numberofcompla

intsreceivedpersemesterperEFTSU.

3.

TOPROVIDE

AN

AESTHETICA

LLY

PLEASING

ENVIRONME

NT

3.1

Perform

regularOccupancy

Evaluationsand

Condition

Audits

Respondentsgivingascoreof4or5orofgoodorexc

ellentona

scaleof5

Documents

Bsc in Facilities Management