Performance Measurement Indicators for Facilities Management: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Matthew Ikuabe
,
Clinton Aigbavboa
,
,
Ayodeji Oke
,
lerato Aghimien

With the use of cyber-physical systems (CPS) advanced computational capabilities, the delivery of facilities management (FM) mandates are efficiently and effectively conducted. Since performance measurement is an important yardstick in ascertaining the outcome of FM approaches, this research assesses the performance measurement indicators that influence the uptake of CPS for FM functions. Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from built environment professionals in the Gauteng province of South Africa. Data collected was analysed using a five-stage process which includes: data reliability and validity, descriptive statistics, establishing a difference in groups’ opinion, principal component analysis, and model testing and fit statistics for confirmatory factor analysis. 

  • 4IR
  • cyber-physical system (CPS)
  • facilities management
  • performance measurement
  • confirmatory factor analysis

1. Introduction

According to Atkin and Brooks [1], facilities management (FM) encompasses a broad range of services, including building maintenance, real estate management, domestic services, health and safety, and contract management. Additionally, FM is defined as “the incorporation of multiple disciplines to ensure the functionality of the built environment by integrating people, process and technology” [2] (p. 54). Also, “the integration of processes within an organisation in the built environment to maintain and develop the agreed services which support and improve the effectiveness of the organisation’s primary activities and management of the impact of these processes upon the workplace” [3] (p. 15). FM is attributed with tactical positioning while aiming to balance business concerns and the management of services and technical processes [4][5][6]. Therefore, it can be said that FM covers a wide spectrum of service solutions, including accessibility, sustainability, safety, hospitality, and productivity [7]. The task of FM during the lifecycle of built-up infrastructure is significant, resulting from the strategic values that accompany its delivery and the contribution made in the assessment of utilisation of facilities.
The construction industry is still characterised by inefficiencies in its processes resulting from outdated approaches and methods in service delivery [8][9][10]. FM functions are not spared as they are still plagued with a myriad of challenges that hamper their efficiency and effectiveness. One of the major challenges posed to FM task functions is keeping abreast with innovative technologies, which aids in keeping accurate data in the process of appropriate planning and decision making [11][12][13]. McKinsey [14] stated that for the adoption of digital technologies, the construction/facilities management industry is ranked 21st among 22 industries. Furthermore, Ikuabe et al. [15] affirmed that digital technologies at the various phases of building projects are least encountered at the operations/maintenance phase. Oladejo [16] noted that the inadequacy in the core and fundamental principles of FM, which yields low technical output, is a major challenge faced in FM functions. Hence, the non-alignment of FM tasks with evolving technological innovations results in a setback for optimum performance. Islam et al. [17] observed that the building industry is forced to introduce efficient upkeep of service systems due to the evolving development of technologies for the attainment of longevity in operations and functions of buildings.

2. Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators

The research showed that the performance indicators that are influential to the uptake of a revolutionary digital technology such as CPS for the delivery of FM mandates are operations efficiency, facility adaptation, and client satisfaction. The result from the analysis, which portrays the value of R2 indicates that facility adaptation is the most decisive performance measurement indicator influential in the espousal of CPS for FM functions. This is followed by the client’s satisfaction and operations efficiency. This finding of the research is supported by the goal-setting theory, which affirms that persons or organisations given exhaustive, challenging, but realistic goals deliver in better terms than those whose mandates are non-specific, easy, and with no properly defined goals [18][19][20][21]. Likewise, these persons and organisations must possess the required capability, set outlined goals, and set mechanisms for performance feedback [22]. Therefore, it is premised on the notion that performance can be improved upon if there is an effort to strive towards a defined goal [23]. Ascertaining and measuring the deliveries from the innovativeness from a utilised system is seen as an indicator for determining the use of such a system. For facilities management, one of such yardsticks is the satisfaction derived by the users from the facility. Measuring up the satisfaction derived from the utilisation of a system would serve as a propelling factor in using such a system for the outlined task [24][25][26][27]. For facilities management, if it is clear that the services and operations derived from infusing cyber-physical systems indicate an upscale from the previously utilised conventional approaches, then the espousal of the system would be encouraged. Measuring the improvement obtained from the applied innovative technology serves as an accelerating influence on the system’s adoption. Similarly, when there is a significant improvement in the facility’s standard resulting from the use of technological innovation, the tendency to accept the use of such a system is likely. The complexities involved with the facilities management would encourage methods and approaches that would seek to improve the facilities for customers’ use. Therefore, innovative technologies such as cyber-physical systems, whose utilisation would be advantageous due to their high computational capabilities, would help improve the facility, therefore giving credence to its espousal. Furthermore, the significance of time-saving to be derived from the deployment of non-conventional methods of facilities management would be a propelling measure for its usage. This is supported by Legris et al. [28], who identified the reduction of time in the delivery tasks and activities as a significant indicator for measuring up the performance of a system. Against the backdrop of those mentioned above, it is imperative to note that the satisfaction derived by the end-users of facilities whose functional mandates are enhanced by digital technologies such as CPS is a significant drive towards the uptake of such systems.

3. Conclusions

The research evaluated the influence of performance measurement indicators in the uptake of cyber-physical systems for facilities management. By reviewing extant literature, sixteen variables were identified and subsequently grouped into three distinct groups resulting from exploratory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis further affirmed these findings with model fit indices, construct validity, and high reliability, thus indicating that the major performance indicators influential in the espousal of CPS for FM are operations efficiency, facility adaptation, and client satisfaction. These findings provide a vivid insight on the expected performance output and subsequent measurement that would propel the espousal of emerging digital technology such as CPS for FM functions. Hence, the practical implication of the research’s findings lies in its contribution to aiding policymakers and facility managers with the requisite knowledge of the expected performance measurement indicators that would be beneficial from adopting the system for FM compared to the conventional systems used for FM.
In addition, the research contributes theoretically to the body of knowledge on the conversation of adopting technological innovations for FM practices. In the current era of the fourth industrial revolution, efforts are being made to help propagate the benefits that accrue from various emerging digital technologies; hence, this research helps showcase a roadmap that clearly stipulates one of the drivers of the uptake of digitalising FM processes. Moreover, the research provide a good theoretical base for further studies that attempt to focus on the enhancement of FM functions through the digitalisation of its processes. However, it is important to note that the research was conducted in the Gauteng province of South Africa; therefore, care must be taken by not generalising its findings. Future studies can be conducted in other provinces for a more robust and generalisable outcome.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings12040466

References

  1. Atkin, B.; Brooks, A. Total Facility Management, 4th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
  2. International Facilities Management Association. Definition of Facility Management. 2016. Available online: www.ifma.org (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  3. British Institute of Facilities Management. Facilities Management. 2011. Available online: www.cips.org (accessed on 22 September 2021).
  4. Jawdeh, H.B. Improving the Integration of Building Design and Facilities Management; University of Salford: Salford, UK, 2013.
  5. Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Zawawi, E.M.A. Development of facilities management in Malaysia. J. Facil. Manag. 2010, 8, 75–81.
  6. Isa, N.M.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Mohamed, O.; Berawi, M.A. Review of Facilities Management Functions in Value Management Practices. Int. J. Technol. 2017, 8, 830.
  7. Kok, H.B.; Mobach, M.P.; Omta, O.S. The added value of facility management in the educational environment. J. Facil. Manag. 2011, 9, 249–265.
  8. Aghimien, D.; Aigbavboa, C.; Oke, A. Digitalisation for Effective Construction Project Delivery in South Africa. In Proceedings of the Contemporary Construction Conference, Innovative and Dynamic Built Environment, Coventry, UK, 5–6 July 2018.
  9. Ikuabe, M.O.; Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E. Inhibiting Factors to the Adoption of Digital Technologies in the South African Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 5th Research Conference of the NIQS (RECON5), Minna, Nigeria, 9–10 November 2020; Nigerian Institute of Quantity of Surveyors: Lagos, Nigeria, 2020; pp. 455–461.
  10. Windapo, A. The construction industry transformation and the digital divide: Bridging the gap. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2021, 117, 1–4.
  11. Ensafi, M.; Thabet, W. Challenges and Gaps in Facilities Management Practices. In Proceedings of the Annual Associated Schools of Construction International Conference, Long Beach, CA, USA, 5–9 April 2021; pp. 237–245.
  12. Hudson, M. Facility Management for Universities. In Proceedings of the Conference in Hong Kong on New World Order in Facility Management, Hong Kong, China, 3–5 June 2004.
  13. Nidhi, M.; Ali, S. The Challenges and Benefits of Facility Management. J. All Res. Educ. Sci. Methods 2020, 8, 248–253.
  14. McKinsey Global Institute. A Route to Higher Productivity. Reinventing Construction; McKinsey Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  15. Ikuabe, M.O.; Aghimien, D.O.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Oke, A.E. Exploring the Adoption of Digital Technology at the Different Phases of Construction Projects in South Africa. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 1553–1561.
  16. Oladejo, E.I. Evaluation of Challenges of Facilities Management in Tertiary Healthcare Institutions in South East Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria, 2014.
  17. Islam, R.; Hassan, T.; Sarajul, N.; Mohamed, F. Factors Influencing Facilities Management Cost Performance in Building Projects. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2019, 33, 04019036.
  18. Young, G.; Smith, K.G. Units, Divisions, and Organisations: Macro-Level Goal Setting. In New Developments in Goals Setting and Task Performance; Locke, E., Latham, G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 311–327.
  19. Grünig, R.; Kühn, R. The Strategy Planning Process: Analyses, Options, Projects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
  20. Dubrin, A. Essentials of Management; Mason: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012.
  21. Oettingen, G.; Gollwitzer, P. Strategies of Setting and Implementing Goals. In Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology; Maddux, J., Tangney, J., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 114–135.
  22. Latham, G. Goal Setting: A Five-Step Approach to Behavior Change. Organ. Dyn. 2003, 32, 309–318.
  23. du Plessis, P.; Conley, L.; du Plessis, E. Teaching and Learning in South African Schools; Van Schaik: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007.
  24. Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. The Antecedents and Consequents of User Perception in Information Technology Adoption. Decis. Support Syst. 1998, 22, 15–29.
  25. Hernandez-Ortega, B.; Serrano-Cinca, C.; Gomez-Meneses, F. The Firm’s Continuance Intentions to Use Inter-Organisational CTs: The Influence of Contingency Factors and Perception. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 747–761.
  26. Man, W.; Toorn, W. Culture and the Adoption and Use of GIS within Organisations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2002, 4, 51–63.
  27. Phichitchaisopa, N.; Naenna, T. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Healthcare Information Technology. EXCLI J. 2013, 12, 413–436.
  28. Legris, P.; Ingham, J.; Collerette, P. Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 191–204.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback