3 Responses to “Do Facilities Management companies need to completely break away from their Construction parents to deliver a value add service to the client?”
I think facilities management companies should break away from thier parent companies not only for the benefit of the facilities management companies but, also the parent construction company.
In times as we are currently in the focus of companies is predominantly around thier core business simply for survival thus the non core companies suffer, whether it being the focus and momentum is lost or whether they are sold or simply closed as they are no longer viable, sometimes the later is done without the full understanding of how closing the non core business will impact the rest of the business.
If facilities management companies break away then they can obtain the skills and focus they need and maybe benefit fromt his current situation we are all in.
It’s an interesting question but perhaps not really where the service problem is. Having spent six months running a transformation programme involving a large FM & M&E provider and my client I have a number of observations to make:
The ability to improve FM value add is not dependant on whether the entity is part of a construction group. It’s really about obtaining leverage from the size and breadth of the entire operation. FM providers frequently sign up to contracts which are too bespoke. In other words they go too far down the track of just being a ‘body shop’ rather than a managed service provider able to deliver the benefits of a scale operation. If processes, IT, organisations and management frameworks are too bespoke the end client does not receive the benefit of a managed service and ultimately pays more than necessary. The benefit of the outsource contract to the customer is significantly diminished.
Has this got anything to do with being part of a larger group? Not really. Industry maturity, perhaps, but my sense it’s more a case of developing a better service proposition within the FM division rather than suggesting that it is due to a dilution in group focus.
Would you say that the FM companies have almost been a victim of their own success in proving the client with too much choice so that the economies of scale are lost in a more diverse / bespoke service offering?
Leave a Reply
Dialogue is the regular posting place for the news and opinions of interim management specialists, Interim partners.
January 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I think facilities management companies should break away from thier parent companies not only for the benefit of the facilities management companies but, also the parent construction company.
In times as we are currently in the focus of companies is predominantly around thier core business simply for survival thus the non core companies suffer, whether it being the focus and momentum is lost or whether they are sold or simply closed as they are no longer viable, sometimes the later is done without the full understanding of how closing the non core business will impact the rest of the business.
If facilities management companies break away then they can obtain the skills and focus they need and maybe benefit fromt his current situation we are all in.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It’s an interesting question but perhaps not really where the service problem is. Having spent six months running a transformation programme involving a large FM & M&E provider and my client I have a number of observations to make:
The ability to improve FM value add is not dependant on whether the entity is part of a construction group. It’s really about obtaining leverage from the size and breadth of the entire operation. FM providers frequently sign up to contracts which are too bespoke. In other words they go too far down the track of just being a ‘body shop’ rather than a managed service provider able to deliver the benefits of a scale operation. If processes, IT, organisations and management frameworks are too bespoke the end client does not receive the benefit of a managed service and ultimately pays more than necessary. The benefit of the outsource contract to the customer is significantly diminished.
Has this got anything to do with being part of a larger group? Not really. Industry maturity, perhaps, but my sense it’s more a case of developing a better service proposition within the FM division rather than suggesting that it is due to a dilution in group focus.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Ged, thank you for your interesting comment.
Would you say that the FM companies have almost been a victim of their own success in proving the client with too much choice so that the economies of scale are lost in a more diverse / bespoke service offering?