|
Research - Operations And Maintenance Benchmarks 2005
Order
a copy of this report from the IFMA Bookstore today.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
International Facility Management Association (IFMA) launched its eighth benchmarking survey, Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks 2005, in spring 2005. This survey was an update to its popular 2001 Operations and Maintenance study. Housekeeping, maintenance and utility costs were the focus of the study. In addition, the survey contained questions related to practices such as how often certain janitorial tasks are performed and what types of energy conservation measures had been implemented. Practice-related questions often reveal why costs differ among similar facilities.
IFMA’s research committee reviewed questions posed in previous benchmarking surveys and developed new questions. The 14-page survey was mailed to IFMA professional members in the United States and Canada in May 2005. Members were sent reminders directing them to a link to IFMA’s Web site where they could download the survey.
Surveys were also mailed to new members joining during June and July. More than 650 surveys were returned by September 2005. A total of 630 surveys were deemed usable for analysis. Findings are discussed in the sections that follow. Statistically significant findings are integrated in the text of the report. Additional copies of this report may be ordered through IFMA’s bookstore. For those seeking different sorts of information not presented in this report, you may wish to order the database used to create this report. The database can be obtained in its entirety in Microsoft® Excel by contacting IFMA’s research department. Please see the back cover to determine pricing. Representatives from organizations who participated in this study receive a discount on benchmark database orders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- ABOUT THIS REPORT
- ABOUT IFMA RESEARCH
- METHODOLOGY
- USING THIS REPORT
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- Definitions
- Section 1: Description of Facilities
- INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED
- FACILITY USE
- LOCATION OF FACILITY
- FACILITY AGE AND SETTING
- OWNERSHIP
- Overall Ownership
- Owned vs. Leased by Facility
- FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
- NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS
- Site Population
- Parking Spaces
- DEVELOPED ACRES
- CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
- Section 2: Size of Facilities and Square Footage per Occupant
- BUILDING EXTERIOR GROSS AREA (GROSS)
- Owned vs. Leased by Size of Facility
- FACILITY RENTABLE AREA (RENTABLE)
- Owned vs. Leased by Size of Facility
- GROSS AND RENTABLE AREA BY INDUSTRY TYPE
- GROSS AND RENTABLE AREA BY FACILITY USE
- SQUARE FOOTAGE PER OCCUPANT
- Section 3: Janitorial
- JANITORIAL COSTS
- JANITORIAL STAFFING
- JANITORIAL PRACTICES
- Section 4: Maintenance
- MAINTENANCE CATEGORIES
- MAINTENANCE COSTS
- PREVENTIVE VS. REPAIR MAINTENANCE
- ROADS AND GROUNDS COST
- MAINTENANCE INDEXES
- Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index
- Facility Condition Index (FCI)
- MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
- MAINTENANCE STAFFING
- Overall Maintenance Staffing
- Administrative Support
- Maintenance Workforce
- Central Plant Operations
- Section 5: Utilities
- UTILITY COSTS
- ELECTRICITY
- Sources
- Reducing Electrical Demand
- Consumption
- NATURAL GAS
- UTILITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
- Annual Reduction Goals in Utility Consumption
- TEMPERATURE STANDARDS
- Section 6: Cost of Operations
- Section 7: Participant List
USING THIS REPORT
Benchmarking is not a perfect science. It is a detailed multi-step process which allows one to compare aspects of performance, identify gaps, seek out new approaches which produce improvement, follow through with implementation, monitor progress and review the benefits.
One of the most common mistakes people make when starting a benchmarking project is they choose an organization to benchmark within their own industry. This report will allow you to make this comparison, but we encourage you to also compare your facilities operations to other facility types, for they may share similar views of asset management.
Using this benchmarking data calls for some words of caution. The information contained in the report represents a “self-report” from IFMA members and others. All information was voluntarily provided but was not checked with site visits. If a response appeared unusual or out-of-range, an e-mail was sent to verify information. When interpreting the data, it is important to remember that every facility is different, and every organization has different accounting and measuring practices. The data listed in this report will not provide a perfect comparison of your organization to that of another company, but it should give you a good idea how your facility fits into the range of performance.
The percentile charts in this report allow you to see how your operation ranks against other organizations. The arrows beside some charts show the “best-in-class” direction. Using your facility’s numbers for the performance indicator, determine whether your building is above or below the median (50th percentile). If your facility falls way above or below the median, you may want to examine your cost or procedures on that area. However, your facility may differ from the median due to your type of facility, region or labor market. The data should help you determine and explore areas where you can improve your facility operation.
“Best-in-class” for facility operations is a difficult concept. For example, allocating the least amount of space per person may be “best-in-class” in terms of the efficient use of space, but it may have a detrimental effect on employee morale and productivity. Research done by BOSTI Associates suggest that workspace size, by itself, does not affect job performance or satisfaction, but the loss of size in individual workspace due to relocation or redesign affects job satisfaction and retention. Working toward the lowest percentiles in square feet per person can be counter-productive; however, some companies believe this should be the standard, when it is not. For this reason, we have designated a direction on some of the percentile charts to indicate “best-in-class,” but we have not defined a specific level of performance as “best-in-class.” Using this report is the first step in benchmarking. After you have identified areas where your facility operations could be improved, you will need to conduct additional research. One should not immediately rush to find out which company is “best in class” and copy their practice. Instead you should look for a more homogeneous group in which to compare.
Participating in a local IFMA chapter or council benchmarking study is a good way to explore how to improve your facility operations. IFMA’s research department can assist interested organizations to form benchmarking consortiums. In addition, IFMA has the capability to conduct more detailed, smaller-scaled benchmarking studies.
METHODOLOGY
The Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks 2005 survey was developed starting in late 2004 and completed in 2005. Members of IFMA’s research committee reviewed previously used questions and determined which questions to repeat and which to modify. The section on utilities was recreated, as many new questions related to energy management practices were added. When revising the maintenance section, a staffing matrix was added as well as a question related to the facility condition index, a benchmark used to indicate the facility’s relative physical condition.
Paper surveys were mailed to more than 11,000 North American professional members in May 2005. A postage paid envelope accompanied the paper survey. In the same month, IFMA’s electronic members received an e-mail directing them to IFMA’s Web site where they could download the survey. Members were encouraged to pass the survey to the most appropriate person to complete. Respondents were asked to provide information on the facilities they manage for a 12-month period of time. Many chose to report the data for calendar year, 2004.
Approximately 650 surveys were returned during a four-month time period. A total of 630 surveys were deemed usable for tabulation purposes. A completion rate of 50 percent was considered usable.
The data was analyzed using SPSS/PC+™ software. Extreme high and low values were omitted from data analysis to prevent the data from being skewed. Additional calculations were made to derive cost per square foot and square footage per occupant. If data was out of range, the respondent was e-mailed to determine how the information was derived. In many cases, new information was supplied and the information was subsequently entered. Canadian cost data was converted to U.S. currency by multiplying costs by a factor of .82, the currency exchange rate on July 5, 2005.
Order
a copy of this report from the IFMA Bookstore today. |
