Facilities management: lost, or regained?

Abstract

Purpose -The objective of this paper is to examine the continuing debate over the nature, scope and definition of facilities management and the implications of FM practice in the field of outsourcing for the development of the field and the profession. Design/methodology/approach -The paper offers both a conceptual review of key issues in the definition of facilities management and a critique of these definitions in the context of the popular identity of facilities management as a means of generating cost savings through outsourcing. Findings -The discussion asserts that, perhaps contrary to the many published doubts expressed over the possibility of achieving consensus on the scope of facilities management, an emerging and broadly consensual model of facilities management can be discerned. This model, it is suggested, is inhibited from further development primarily because of a lack of leadership in the professional and academic communities together with a preoccupation by necessity of the FM profession with operational imperatives. Originality/value -The paper, through synthesis and critique, offers a variant perspective on the debate about the nature of facilities management.

Critical strategic issues for the integration of facilities management into the development process

“…P r o p e r t y M a n a g e m e n t Unfortunately, it is very difficult to happen as paradigm shift in the property development industry is static (Koskela, 1992). Although Hinks (1999) and Drion et al (2012), who believed that Facilities Management is known for its versatility and as a multi-disciplinary profession, there is evidence that Facilities Managers are in crisis of identity (Tay and Ooi, 2001;Yiu, 2008). They have to borrow other disciplines' images to enable them to be recognised in the property development industry (Yiu, 2008;p.…”

Facilities Management and Singapore’s Healthcare System

“…This outsourcing trend assisted the development of FM as a profession "in its own right" (Loosemore and Hsin 2001); the need for a united concept and common standards for FM gradually drew people's attention. At the same time, professional associations began to appear; they organised different professionals with diverse backgrounds into one discipline, spreading the FM concept and providing a platform for "professionalisation and knowledge exchange" (Drion et al 2012). The Association of Facilities Engineering and the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers were the pioneers in FM (Cotts et al 2010).…”

The house that Facilities Management built: a story of identity and metaphor in a secondary service

“…Practitioners refer to FM from different perspectives. For example, it is sometimes described as a combination of a 'soft FM', which emphasizes service streams most closely associated with the 'art' of management such as cleaning and catering, and a 'hard FM', which gathers what is traditionally known as 'the facilities' such as tools and infrastructure (Drion et al 2012). Others refer to FM in terms of the type of its delivery --either FM is provided in-house, as part of the organisational make-up, or as an outsourced arrangement, where an external service provider is contracted into the organisation (Ikediashi et al 2014).…”