Publications

Space and Project Management Benchmarks, Research Report #34

Browse the latest facility management books, manuals, reports and merchandise in IFMA’s NEW Bookstore.

Order e-file »


Introduction

Many years have passed since Robert C. Camp penned his definitive guide on the benchmarking process, “Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance” (APQC 1989). The practice of benchmarking still continues to be a part of many organizations’ quality assessment tools, but this intricate multi-step process has been accelerated. Many who are engaged in benchmarking are more apt to cut to the chase. They find an average to compare to that is within close range to their performance and move on to something else. Others seek out an organization in which to copy their process without conducting the necessary due diligence. Although this may follow the definition of benchmarking, there is much more to the process.

The purpose of this report is to offer a starting point for those seeking out industry data for comparison. This report provides averages which could lead to some down the right path and others down the wrong path. This is why we also provide the median, or the mid-point, as well as a range of responses. We also look at other factors such as facility type and provision of labor which often affects cost or usage of space. We encourage you to do your homework as well. You may need to make adjustments when making comparisons. For example, when programming space, space per person averages come in handy, but one should have some sense of what works well within your environment. 

Sample Charts


Table of Contents
Introduction
Using This Report
2
About Space and Project Management Benchmarks Report 
4
Database is Available for Further Analysis 
4
Methodology  
4
Acknowledgements 
5
About IFMA 
5
Definitions
6
Section 1: Description of Respondents' Facilities
Industries Represented  
9
Facility Use
10
Location of Facility 
11
Facilities by Region 
11
Facility Description
12
Facility Age
12
Facility Setting
13
Hours and Days of Operation
14
Expansion Plans 
14
Overall Ownership
15
Site Population
16
Site Population by Facility Use 
16
Section 2: Size of Facilities and Space Per Occupant
IFMA Area Measurement Standard
19
Interior Gross and Plannable Gross Area 
20
Plannable and Assignable Area
21
Interior Gross and Plannable Gross Area by Industry Type
22
Interior Gross and Plannable Gross Area by Facility Use
23
Plannable and Assignable Area by Industry Type
24
Plannable and Assignable Area by Facility Use
25
Space per Occupant
26-29
Section 3: Space Planning and Utilization
Tracking Space
31
Office Type 
32
Office Type by Worker 
32
Office Size 
33
Office Size by Worker
33
Office Size by Facility Use
34
Office Size by Industry
35
Workstation Utilization
36
Non-Dedicated Workspace
37
Reserving Conference Space
37
Conference and Training Space 
38
Support Space  
39
Amenity Space                                                                                             
40
Vacancy Rates     
41
Section 4: Moves and Furniture
Moves 
43
Types of Moves 
45
Cost of Moves by Type 
46
Managing Moves   
47
Labor Allocation
47
Churn Rates
48
Swing Space
49
Furniture   
50

Section 5: Computerized Facility Management

CAFM Systems

53
CAFM Applications
53
Commercial CAFM Systems
54
Electronic Files    
54
BIM
55
Section 6: Project Management
Project Management  
57
Types of Projects  
57
Allocation of Annual Project Budget
58
Facility Projects
58-59
Construction Projects 
60
Selection of Construction Provider
60
Construction Scheduling
60
Capital Projects
61
Dollar Value Deemed Capital Project
61
Project Management Practices
62
Project Budget 
62

Project Management Staffing 

63
Appendix
Participant List    
64-66

Methodology

To compile the information for this report, IFMA issued an updated a survey that had been successfully administered in 2001 and 2006.  Each was question was evaluated by a group of subject matter experts in the areas of space utilization and planning, M/A/C, project management and computerized facility management.  The group's intent was to maintain consistency in the questions to monitor changes over time; however, there were several new questions added. Although the survey was issued to IFMA members, membership was not a requirement to participate.  Survey recipients were encouraged to circulate the survey to the person responsible for the activity. 

Approximately 440 surveys were returned by May 2010. A total of 424 surveys were deemed usable for tabulation purposes. A completion rate of 50 percent was considered usable.  If a respondent did not fill out the space measurement worksheet, the respondent was contacted to supply this pertinent data. 

This report contains the results of those analyses deemed to be of most interest to facility managers.  Space and Project Management Benchmarks is a self-report survey.  All data, including respondent identification, was voluntary. As with any research, readers should exercise caution when generalizing results and take individual circumstances and experiences into consideration when making decisions based on these data. While IFMA is confident in its research, it is important to understand that the results presented in this report represent the sample of organizations that chose to supply the requested facility information.


Order e-file »