Editorial

Citation

Finch, E. (2009), "Editorial", Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 9/10. https://doi.org/10.1108/f.2009.06927iaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Facilities, Volume 27, Issue 9/10

This issue encompasses a variety of key discipline areas related to facilities management (FM), beginning with the area of operations research. In the paper by William Hugh Fawcett, the “newsvendor problem”, problem in yield management is adapted for the purposes of space planning. The technique illustrates how it is possible to model the capacity planning problem which arises from shared working environments.

The art of measurement is particularly challenging for the domain of FM. This issue illustrates a range of approaches. The paper by Peter Love and Peter Arthur Bullen presents a rating scale (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) for the purposes of assessing adaptive re-use and energy usage of buildings in Western Australia. The paper is based on feedback from 39 users and suggests that in the Australian context, adaptive re-use is invariably better than new construction as a solution to energy efficiency.

As buildings age, the challenge of performance measurement becomes subtly different. One is reminded of the words of George Bernard Shaw, when he describes the approach of his tailor:

The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor; he took my measurement anew every time he saw me, while all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me.

The theme of sustainability is also pursued in the paper by Sui Pheng Low, Jun Ying Liu and Peng Wu who consider an equivalent measurement approach in the Chinese and Singaporean context. In Singapore, developers and building owners can achieve one of the four ratings in relation to environmental impact under what is known as the Green Mark Scheme (of which, energy is only one factor). The scheme gives rise to four attainable levels, namely Platinum, Gold^PLUS, Gold and Certified.

Sami Kärnä, Veli-Matti Sorvala and Juha-Matti Junnonen from Finland describe in detail a study of customer satisfaction in construction, based on 22 measurable variables. The results provide evidence from 831 projects. An interesting observation arises from the paper:

When comparing the more and less successful projects, it may be stated that in both groups, the same factors proved a success. In other words, if a project succeeds in one field, it is likely to succeed in all of them, and vice versa. This result is also a good example of the accumulative nature of customer satisfaction in project production.

Finally, the paper by Marjan Sarshar and Michael Pitt presents an interesting glimpse into customers' perception of added value in FM. The paper details an approach that was qualitative in nature and went beyond conventional client satisfaction surveys. As quoted in the paper by Sarshar and Pitt:

FM suppliers need to develop periodic high level reviews of client directions, which go beyond existing measurement systems. Client satisfaction surveys need to move towards 360 degree client perception management systems.

All of the papers in this issue illustrate the challenges of measurement for a discipline like FM. Our attempts to develop universal tools to address global problems are often beset with difficulties of context. The papers above, reassuringly, take due care in contextualising their findings and understanding local norms. This insight is well expressed by the author Jeanette Winterson:

Any measurement must take into account the position of the observer. There is no such thing as measurement absolute, there is only measurement relative.

Edward Finch