Space and Project Management Benchmarks, Research Report #34

Order Today! »

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

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.

Space and Project Management, Research Report #34

Order Today! »