powerpoint-presentatie - eres digital library · powerpoint-presentatie author: theo van der voordt...
Post on 09-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Benchmarking of workplace performance
Theo van der Voordt
Delft University of
Technology
Per Anker Jensen
Technical University
of Denmark
Content
1. Definitions:
CREM, performance,
benchmarking,
adding value,
2. Value Adding
Management Model
3. Benchmarking of
workplace performance
4. Value parameters
5. Input to an integrated
business model
June 2017
Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM)
the management of the real estate portfolio of a corporation by aligning
the portfolio and services to the needs of the core business, in order to
obtain maximum added value for the business and to contribute optimally
to the overall performance of the organisation (Dewulf et al., 2000).
initiation briefing & design
use & management construction
Team/individuals
Organization
Area
Building / places
Stock / portfolio
Society
stakehold
ers
physica
l enviro
nm
ent
demand supply
Jensen, Van der Voordt & Coenen, 2012
Added value of FM and CREM
The trade-off between the benefits of
FM/CREM decisions and interventions
and the costs and sacrifices to attain
these benefits (Jensen et al., 2012)
Benefits =
better performance of the organisation (+ individuals and society)
Performance of workplaces = a. The extent to which a building, facilities and services fit with the
vision, mission, strategy and objectives of the organisation and its
stakeholders
b. The extent to which a building, facilities and services fit with an
internal or external standard
Benchmarking = To compare the outcomes of interventions i.e. Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) with similar data from other units within the same
organisation (internal benchmarking) and data from other
organisations and (international) standards (external benchmarking).
Formal definitions of performance
ISO 22301 Societal security — Business continuity management systems
Requirements - 3.35:
Performance = measurable resultNOTE 1 Performance can relate either to quantitative or qualitative findings.
NOTE 2 Performance can relate to the management of activities, processes, products (including services),
systems or organizations.
www.businessdictionaly.com
The accomplishment of a given task measured against preset known
standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed.
In a contract, performance is deemed to be the fulfillment of an obligation, in a manner that releases the
performer from all liabilities under the contract.
How to add Value through FM / CREM
- Development of a new Value Adding
Management Model (VAM)
- Definition of 12 value parameters
- Contributions by 23 authors regarding
theory and research data about
- Management of adding value
- Measuring of adding value
- Interviews with 12 practitioners
Result
- State of the art of theory and research on
12 value parameters (satisfaction, image,
culture, health &safety, productivity, adaptability,
innovation, risk, cost, value of assets, sustainability
and CSR).
- Cross-chapter analysis: VAM-model,
ways to measure and top 5 of KPIs
2017
Book 2
Input Define required
interventions
Decide on interventions
OutputChanged FM/CREM
performance
Identify drivers to change
Define objectives
Define conditions
OutcomeChanged organisational
performance
Added Value of FM/CREM
ThroughputManagement of
implementation process
Evaluate added value and
circumstances
Actualise strategy
PLAN DO CHECK
ACT
Hoendervanger, Bergsma, Van der Voordt & Jensen, in Jensen & Van der Voordt 2017
Tilburg: Interpolis
One of the first non-territorial offices
in the Netherlands (1995)
Expected added value of New Ways of Working
Amsterdam
Microsoft, Schiphol
Possible benefits / Main drivers to change
Better communication and collaboration (due to openness)
Improved performance by increased productivity
Efficient use of space and resources -> lower costs
Flexibility in the use of space
Support of culture change (by more social interaction)
Increased job satisfaction (more autonomy, dynamic)
Positive image of being modern and innovative
(-> attracting/retaining young talent and more customers)
Contribution to a sustainable environment
Possible costs and risks
Costs of changing the environment
Costs of implementation
Resistance to change -> lower employee satisfaction ->
loss of productivity, increased sick leave
Reduced job satisfaction due to the loss of status, privacy,
territory or identity
Loss of social cohesion and team spirit
Lack of privacy
Loss of productivity due to distraction by phone calls, too much
communication, changing places
Benchmarking of costs and m2
Traditional New ways of working
Municipalities Institutes Commercial
Flex-factor 100% 70-80% 70-80% 50-70%
GFA / workplace 22-28 19-21 21-24 18-21
GFA office area /
workplace16-22 13-15 14-18 12-16
Investment costs
€ / m2 GFA3,000-4,200 3,500-4,500 3,300-4,500 3,700-5,200
Accommodation
costs € / m2 GFA300-350 330-370 310-370 400-450
GFA / person 22-28 15-22 15-22 13-20
Accommodation
costs / pp/ year6,000-7,800 4,400-5,200 4,300-5,200 4,000-4,900
Van ‘t Spijker & Van der Meer 2010
Benchmarking
Employee
Satisfaction
CfPB
WODI-database
2015
Green:
≥ 65% satisfied
Red:
≤ 35% satisfied
All projects Traditional offices,
personal desks
Combi offices,
personal desks
Flex offices,
activity-based
Number of projects 134 projects 43 projects 19 projects 68 projects
Number of respondents N = 22.410 N = 7.707 N = 1.840 N = 12.385
Satisfaction about the
organisation, work and the
work environment
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
Organisation 67 66 70 65
The work itself 81 83 78 79
User influence 43 46 47 40
Accessibility of the building 79 79 79 79
Architecture/appearance 56 42 60 64
Number and variety of places 45 42 52 46
Location of work places 53 53 55 53
Openness and transparency 52 50 55 53
Functionality and comfort 57 58 64 54
Interiour design 50 37 59 58
Privacy 37 50 33 29
Concentration 38 46 38 33
Communication 71 71 78 69
Archive/storage 37 42 43 32
IT facilities 54 56 57 52
Facility Management 55 53 65 54
Indoor climate 35 36 36 35
Light 59 55 67 60
Acoustics 42 46 50 38
Facilties for remote working 52 47 57 54
Own productivity 40 46 42 36
Team productivity 39 43 43 36
Support of being productive
Employee
dissatisfaction
CfPB
WODI-database
2015
Red:
≥ 35%
dissatisfied
Green:
≤ 15%
dissatisfied
All projects Traditional offices,
personal desks
Combi offices,
personal desks
Flex offices,
activity-based
Number of projects 134 projects 43 projects 19 projects 68 projects
Number of respondents N = 22.410 N = 7.707 N = 1.840 N = 12.385
Organisation 11 10 9 12
The work itself 6 5 7 6
User influence 23 19 19 27
Accessibility of the building 10 10 10 11
Architecture/appearance 17 30 10 11
Number and variety of places 27 27 21 29
Location of work places 19 18 16 20
Openness and transparency 21 18 20 23
Functionality and comfort 23 22 16 25
Interiour design 24 33 13 20
Privacy 36 24 38 44
Concentration 40 34 38 45
Communication 10 10 5 12
Archive/storage 27 22 20 33
IT facilities 20 19 16 22
Facility Management 13 14 7 14
Indoor climate 42 42 41 42
Light 16 19 13 16
Acoustics 29 22 23 35
Facilties for remote working 18 21 14 18
Own productivity 25 19 21 30
Team productivity 22 17 17 26
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Support of being productive
Dissatisfaction about the
organisation, work and the
work environment
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
FM/CREM output indicators
impact of (workplace) change to:
Organisational outcome indicators
impact of (workplace) change to:
Benefits • Efficient use of space (high occupancy
level, low vacancy)
• Healthy and safe environment
• Adaptability
• Choice openness - enclosure
• Shorter walking distances
• Personal control (indoor climate)
• Diversity of workspaces
• Quality of visual clues
• Lower consumption of energy and water,
C02 emissions, material use, and waste,
high level of recycling
• Job satisfaction
• Staff turnover
• Attraction of talented staff
• Vitality and health / sick leave
• Corporate identity, brand and culture
• Individual and team productivity
• Community satisfaction
• “Green” organisation / CSR
• Higher market share
• Increased profitability
• Increased competitive advantage
Sacrifices • Risk of resistance
• Investment cost and life cycle cost per m2,
per workstation and per fte (total FM,
space and infrastructure, people and
organisation, space and work places)
• Lower commitment of shareholders and
stakeholders.
• Decrease in market share
• Lower profitability
• Decreased competitive advantage
Additional indicators of output and outcome benefits and sacrifices
to measure the impact of workplace change
Based on Hoendervanger et al., 2017
Jensen & Van der Voordt, 2017
12 added value parameters
Group Parameter
People Satisfaction
Image
Culture
Health and Safety
Process and Product Productivity
Adaptability
Innovation and Creativity
Risk
Economy Cost
Value of Assets
Societal Sustainability
Corporate Social Responsibility
Example: Measuring productivity (before – after)
Actual output / actual input≠ translated words per employee per day (translation office)
≠ phone calls per day (call centre)
≠ cars per f.t.e. (automobile plant)
Actual input e.g. monitoring computer activity (mouse clicks)
Amount of time saved or lost e.g. time saved by a new computer
system, or time lost by having to log on frequently
Absenteeism due to illness or for other reasons
Levels of satisfaction (assumption: a happy worker is a productive worker)
Perceived productivity support (interviews, survey)
- perceived support of productivity by the work environment (scale 1-5)
- estimated percentage of time being productive
- perceived productivity gain when all facilities would be excellent
Indirect indicators (observations, interviews, survey)
- extent to which people are able to concentrate properly
- frequency of being actually distracted
…..
Jensen & Van der Voordt 2017 Chapter 9. All parameters have been elaborated in the same way
Towards holistic “integrated” business cases
Include all relevant value parameters including those that go beyond cost
metrics
Discuss whether to conduct a “quick scan” versus a wider scope / in depth
Select prioritised parameters in 4 steps:
1. Identify the main drivers to change, due to strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and risks of the organisation, its buildings, facilities and
services, and the match between “demand and supply”.
2. Focus on the main issues
3. Start with performance indicators that can be measured easily
4. If problems show up: select areas to be measured in-depth
Contact details
Theo van der Voordt
Faculty of Architecture TU Delft
Department of Management in the Built
Environment
D.J.M.vanderVoordt@tudelft.nl
www.mbe.bk.tudelft.nl
https://www.tudelft.nl/staff/d.j.m.vandervoordt/
Center for People and Buildings
Delft, Netherlands
www.cfpb.nl
Per Anker Jensen
Centre for Facilities Management
Technical University of Denmark
DTU Management Engineering
pank@dtu.dk
www.cfm.dtu.dk
www.man.dtu.dk
top related