Space and Project Management Benchmarks, Research Report #28

Order a copy of this report from the IFMA Bookstore today.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

Each year, usually in the spring, IFMA issues a multi-page benchmarking survey to its members. One question posed in the survey each year is, “What topics or areas do you have an interest in benchmarking?” The responses have been consistent throughout the years: operational costs, space, operations and maintenance, moves and facility management staffing. Instead of conducting one long survey to cover all of these areas as in years past, IFMA decided in 2001 to develop three different benchmarking surveys and rotate the series every three years. This year’s survey covers space and project management, which includes move management.

An IFMA survey committee reviewed questions posed in the 2002 Project Management Benchmarks survey and developed new questions to better match today’s practices. The 13-page survey was mailed to IFMA professional members in the United States and Canada in May 2006. Members were sent multiple e-mail reminders which directed them to a link on IFMA’s Web site where they could download the survey. More than 660 surveys were returned by October 2006. After incomplete and duplicate surveys were removed, 647 surveys remained 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 information not presented in this report, one can 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. The cost of the database varies based upon survey participation and membership.

Table of Contents

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 different approaches, follow through with implementation, monitor progress and review the benefits.

One of the most common mistakes people make when creating a benchmarking strategy is selecting an organization within their own industry to benchmark against. This report will allow you to make this comparison, but we encourage you to also compare your facilities operations to other facility types, because these other organizations 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 or fax was sent to verify information. Corrections were made if necessary. 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. 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 in forming benchmarking consortiums. In addition, IFMA has the capability to conduct more detailed, smaller-scale benchmarking studies.

METHODOLOGY

The Space and Project Management survey was developed in spring 2006. Survey committee members reviewed previously used questions and determined which questions to repeat and which to modify. New questions were added on the topics of conference rooms and moves.

Paper surveys were mailed to more than 10,000 North American professional members in May 2006. A postage-paid envelope accompanied the paper survey. In June 2006, 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, 2005. Approximately 660 surveys were returned during a five-month time period. A total of 647 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 churn rates, cost per square foot and square footage per occupant. If data was out of range, the respondent was sent an e-mail or fax 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 .89, the currency exchange rate on Oct. 16, 2006.

Procedures used for analysis include univariate procedures such as frequencies, cross tabulations, mean comparisons and descriptives. This report contains the results of those analysis 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.

Order a copy of this report from the IFMA Bookstore today.