Benchmarking of workplace performance

Theo van der Voordt

Delft University of

Technology

Per Anker Jensen

Technical University

of Denmark

Content

1. Definitions:

CREM, performance,

benchmarking,

adding value,

2. Value Adding

Management Model

3. Benchmarking of

workplace performance

4. Value parameters

5. Input to an integrated

business model

June 2017

Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM)

the management of the real estate portfolio of a corporation by aligning

the portfolio and services to the needs of the core business, in order to

obtain maximum added value for the business and to contribute optimally

to the overall performance of the organisation (Dewulf et al., 2000).

initiation briefing & design

use & management construction

Team/individuals

Organization

Area

Building / places

Stock / portfolio

Society

stakehold

ers

physica

l enviro

nm

ent

demand supply

Jensen, Van der Voordt & Coenen, 2012

Added value of FM and CREM

The trade-off between the benefits of

FM/CREM decisions and interventions

and the costs and sacrifices to attain

these benefits (Jensen et al., 2012)

Benefits =

better performance of the organisation (+ individuals and society)

Performance of workplaces = a. The extent to which a building, facilities and services fit with the

vision, mission, strategy and objectives of the organisation and its

stakeholders

b. The extent to which a building, facilities and services fit with an

internal or external standard

Benchmarking = To compare the outcomes of interventions i.e. Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) with similar data from other units within the same

organisation (internal benchmarking) and data from other

organisations and (international) standards (external benchmarking).

Formal definitions of performance

ISO 22301 Societal security — Business continuity management systems

Requirements - 3.35:

Performance = measurable resultNOTE 1 Performance can relate either to quantitative or qualitative findings.

NOTE 2 Performance can relate to the management of activities, processes, products (including services),

systems or organizations.

www.businessdictionaly.com

The accomplishment of a given task measured against preset known

standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed.

In a contract, performance is deemed to be the fulfillment of an obligation, in a manner that releases the

performer from all liabilities under the contract.

How to add Value through FM / CREM

- Development of a new Value Adding

Management Model (VAM)

- Definition of 12 value parameters

- Contributions by 23 authors regarding

theory and research data about

- Management of adding value

- Measuring of adding value

- Interviews with 12 practitioners

Result

- State of the art of theory and research on

12 value parameters (satisfaction, image,

culture, health &safety, productivity, adaptability,

innovation, risk, cost, value of assets, sustainability

and CSR).

- Cross-chapter analysis: VAM-model,

ways to measure and top 5 of KPIs

2017

Book 2

Input Define required

interventions

Decide on interventions

OutputChanged FM/CREM

performance

Identify drivers to change

Define objectives

Define conditions

OutcomeChanged organisational

performance

Added Value of FM/CREM

ThroughputManagement of

implementation process

Evaluate added value and

circumstances

Actualise strategy

PLAN DO CHECK

ACT

Hoendervanger, Bergsma, Van der Voordt & Jensen, in Jensen & Van der Voordt 2017

Tilburg: Interpolis

One of the first non-territorial offices

in the Netherlands (1995)

Expected added value of New Ways of Working

Amsterdam

Microsoft, Schiphol

Possible benefits / Main drivers to change

Better communication and collaboration (due to openness)

Improved performance by increased productivity

Efficient use of space and resources -> lower costs

Flexibility in the use of space

Support of culture change (by more social interaction)

Increased job satisfaction (more autonomy, dynamic)

Positive image of being modern and innovative

(-> attracting/retaining young talent and more customers)

Contribution to a sustainable environment

Possible costs and risks

Costs of changing the environment

Costs of implementation

Resistance to change -> lower employee satisfaction ->

loss of productivity, increased sick leave

Reduced job satisfaction due to the loss of status, privacy,

territory or identity

Loss of social cohesion and team spirit

Lack of privacy

Loss of productivity due to distraction by phone calls, too much

communication, changing places

Benchmarking of costs and m2

Traditional New ways of working

Municipalities Institutes Commercial

Flex-factor 100% 70-80% 70-80% 50-70%

GFA / workplace 22-28 19-21 21-24 18-21

GFA office area /

workplace16-22 13-15 14-18 12-16

Investment costs

€ / m2 GFA3,000-4,200 3,500-4,500 3,300-4,500 3,700-5,200

Accommodation

costs € / m2 GFA300-350 330-370 310-370 400-450

GFA / person 22-28 15-22 15-22 13-20

Accommodation

costs / pp/ year6,000-7,800 4,400-5,200 4,300-5,200 4,000-4,900

Van ‘t Spijker & Van der Meer 2010

Benchmarking

Employee

Satisfaction

CfPB

WODI-database

2015

Green:

≥ 65% satisfied

Red:

≤ 35% satisfied

All projects Traditional offices,

personal desks

Combi offices,

personal desks

Flex offices,

activity-based

Number of projects 134 projects 43 projects 19 projects 68 projects

Number of respondents N = 22.410 N = 7.707 N = 1.840 N = 12.385

Satisfaction about the

organisation, work and the

work environment

Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Organisation 67 66 70 65

The work itself 81 83 78 79

User influence 43 46 47 40

Accessibility of the building 79 79 79 79

Architecture/appearance 56 42 60 64

Number and variety of places 45 42 52 46

Location of work places 53 53 55 53

Openness and transparency 52 50 55 53

Functionality and comfort 57 58 64 54

Interiour design 50 37 59 58

Privacy 37 50 33 29

Concentration 38 46 38 33

Communication 71 71 78 69

Archive/storage 37 42 43 32

IT facilities 54 56 57 52

Facility Management 55 53 65 54

Indoor climate 35 36 36 35

Light 59 55 67 60

Acoustics 42 46 50 38

Facilties for remote working 52 47 57 54

Own productivity 40 46 42 36

Team productivity 39 43 43 36

Support of being productive

Employee

dissatisfaction

CfPB

WODI-database

2015

Red:

≥ 35%

dissatisfied

Green:

≤ 15%

dissatisfied

All projects Traditional offices,

personal desks

Combi offices,

personal desks

Flex offices,

activity-based

Number of projects 134 projects 43 projects 19 projects 68 projects

Number of respondents N = 22.410 N = 7.707 N = 1.840 N = 12.385

Organisation 11 10 9 12

The work itself 6 5 7 6

User influence 23 19 19 27

Accessibility of the building 10 10 10 11

Architecture/appearance 17 30 10 11

Number and variety of places 27 27 21 29

Location of work places 19 18 16 20

Openness and transparency 21 18 20 23

Functionality and comfort 23 22 16 25

Interiour design 24 33 13 20

Privacy 36 24 38 44

Concentration 40 34 38 45

Communication 10 10 5 12

Archive/storage 27 22 20 33

IT facilities 20 19 16 22

Facility Management 13 14 7 14

Indoor climate 42 42 41 42

Light 16 19 13 16

Acoustics 29 22 23 35

Facilties for remote working 18 21 14 18

Own productivity 25 19 21 30

Team productivity 22 17 17 26

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Support of being productive

Dissatisfaction about the

organisation, work and the

work environment

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

FM/CREM output indicators

impact of (workplace) change to:

Organisational outcome indicators

impact of (workplace) change to:

Benefits • Efficient use of space (high occupancy

level, low vacancy)

• Healthy and safe environment

• Adaptability

• Choice openness - enclosure

• Shorter walking distances

• Personal control (indoor climate)

• Diversity of workspaces

• Quality of visual clues

• Lower consumption of energy and water,

C02 emissions, material use, and waste,

high level of recycling

• Job satisfaction

• Staff turnover

• Attraction of talented staff

• Vitality and health / sick leave

• Corporate identity, brand and culture

• Individual and team productivity

• Community satisfaction

• “Green” organisation / CSR

• Higher market share

• Increased profitability

• Increased competitive advantage

Sacrifices • Risk of resistance

• Investment cost and life cycle cost per m2,

per workstation and per fte (total FM,

space and infrastructure, people and

organisation, space and work places)

• Lower commitment of shareholders and

stakeholders.

• Decrease in market share

• Lower profitability

• Decreased competitive advantage

Additional indicators of output and outcome benefits and sacrifices

to measure the impact of workplace change

Based on Hoendervanger et al., 2017

Jensen & Van der Voordt, 2017

12 added value parameters

Group Parameter

People Satisfaction

Image

Culture

Health and Safety

Process and Product Productivity

Adaptability

Innovation and Creativity

Risk

Economy Cost

Value of Assets

Societal Sustainability

Corporate Social Responsibility

Example: Measuring productivity (before – after)

Actual output / actual input≠ translated words per employee per day (translation office)

≠ phone calls per day (call centre)

≠ cars per f.t.e. (automobile plant)

Actual input e.g. monitoring computer activity (mouse clicks)

Amount of time saved or lost e.g. time saved by a new computer

system, or time lost by having to log on frequently

Absenteeism due to illness or for other reasons

Levels of satisfaction (assumption: a happy worker is a productive worker)

Perceived productivity support (interviews, survey)

- perceived support of productivity by the work environment (scale 1-5)

- estimated percentage of time being productive

- perceived productivity gain when all facilities would be excellent

Indirect indicators (observations, interviews, survey)

- extent to which people are able to concentrate properly

- frequency of being actually distracted

…..

Jensen & Van der Voordt 2017 Chapter 9. All parameters have been elaborated in the same way

Towards holistic “integrated” business cases

Include all relevant value parameters including those that go beyond cost

metrics

Discuss whether to conduct a “quick scan” versus a wider scope / in depth

Select prioritised parameters in 4 steps:

1. Identify the main drivers to change, due to strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and risks of the organisation, its buildings, facilities and

services, and the match between “demand and supply”.

2. Focus on the main issues

3. Start with performance indicators that can be measured easily

4. If problems show up: select areas to be measured in-depth

Contact details

Theo van der Voordt

Faculty of Architecture TU Delft

Department of Management in the Built

Environment

D.J.M.vanderVoordt@tudelft.nl

www.mbe.bk.tudelft.nl

https://www.tudelft.nl/staff/d.j.m.vandervoordt/

Center for People and Buildings

Delft, Netherlands

www.cfpb.nl

Per Anker Jensen

Centre for Facilities Management

Technical University of Denmark

DTU Management Engineering

pank@dtu.dk

www.cfm.dtu.dk

www.man.dtu.dk