Editorial

Citation

Finch, E. (2010), "Editorial", Facilities, Vol. 28 No. 1/2. https://doi.org/10.1108/f.2010.06928aaa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Facilities, Volume 28, Issue 1/2

Following many years of debate among academics and protracted discussions we now have a recognised definition of facilities management (FM). The definition of FM provided by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and ratified by BSI British Standards is:

“Facilities management is the integration of processes within an organisation to maintain and develop the agreed services which support and improve the effectiveness of its primary activities”

However, defining FM continues to be problematic. One is often under the impression that the discipline is much more than simply “coordination”. The papers included in this issue illustrate this point. The paper by Shen and Langston illustrates the role of facilities manager as “forecaster”. The evidence from this research suggests that while our understanding of physical obsolescence is well defined, our understanding of the functional and economic life of facilities is much less exact. Using a metric known as the “adaptive reuse potential” the paper sheds a fascinating light on differences which exist between Hong Kong and Australia. The message, which emerges is that the cultural setting and cultural practice are strong determinants in exploiting adaptive reuse potential. Clearly such a tool could provide a useful benchmark to enable global comparisons of this kind.

Moving to the paper by Pemsel, Widén and Hansson we see the emerging role of facilities management as a “psychologist” and coach. In their study of the needs of end-users in relation to a hospital and university building it was quite apparent how behavioural and pedagogical skills transcended the traditional process driven role of the facilities management team. Part of this activity involved getting end-users to focus on long-term as well as short-term goals.

We then move onto the role of the FM role as “technologist” in the paper by Low and Goh. The argument running throughout their paper is that the profession needs to look beyond traditional “construction technology” boundaries in identifying answers for the future. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the sustainable agenda. Two technologies developed by NASA were considered as possible options for incorporation in green building solutions: the voltage controller and self-illuminating materials. The method used in the paper provides a useful insight into “thinking outside of the box” and the opportunities that exist for using ‘frontier technology”.

Like the surveying profession, FM is under continued pressure to reduce costs. This has provided the incentive for practitioners to adopt value management (VM) as a problem-solving tool. However, the technique is much more than a cost reduction tool as argued by Bowen, Cattell, Edwards and Jay: a point evidently lost by many practitioners. In the paper on the uptake of VM Bowen et al. address the quantity surveying profession in South Africa. The analysis considers the assertion that VM is “widely accepted as an important tool in the management of projects”. The findings of the research suggest otherwise.

The paper by Sarshar, Sertyesilisik and Parry, highlights the role of the facilities manager as “relationship manager”. The authors suggest that FM providers need to continuously self assess the need for their services and strive to adapt appropriately. This outward facing view of the FM team goes well beyond that of “integrator” and demonstrates the ever increasing entrepreneurial skills sought by the FM role.

In the words of the renowned architect Louis Kahn, “Design is not making beauty, beauty emerges from selection, affinities, integration, love”. In the pursuit of well-designed and operated buildings, integration is only one of several faculties the FM team must draw on.

Edward Finch