Published: September 2012
Price: £295 (Extended licence: £495)
About this report
This market report summarises the findings from a series of 15 in-depth confidential interviews which we carried out with senior-level decision makers during July and August 2012.
Our recent review of the integrated facilities management market explored how it is steadily moving from the provision of individual services by separate specialist providers working under standalone contracts to multi-service and integrated facilities management (IFM) deals where a single provider is responsible for a wide range of services – which it either provides itself, via subcontractors or a hybrid model.
This type of arrangement is now being widely advocated, by government, advisors and leading IFM providers, as a way to enable the public sector to meet spending reduction targets while maintaining, or even enhancing, levels of public service provision.
However, in carrying out research for our study, we picked up some evidence that suggested some of the companies who had entered into such arrangements were less than satisfied with how they have worked out in practice. In some cases, this has included action or intention to bring elements of FM activity back in-house when current contracts expire.
Given the importance of the issue – for both the private and public sectors – we decided to explore satisfaction with IFM arrangements more deeply. In particular, we wished to shed more light on the following important facilities management market questions:
– What do those who have (or have had) IFM arrangements say works well and where they would like to see improvements?
– Do they expect to stay with the model? If so, is this because, on balance, they prefer it, or because switching back is too difficult?
– Does their experience suggest the model is suitable to be rolled-out across the public sector?
Our interviewees all have experience of large multi-service or IFM outsourcing deals.
They had a range of titles including Heads of Facilities Management, FM Director, Finance Director, Procurement Director and General Manager.
The majority of the sample was drawn from the private sector, comprising financial institutions, professional services firms and industry. However, it also included two NHS trusts and a university.
Service providers used by those interviewed included many of the leading groups, such as MITIE, ISS, Balfour Beattie Workplace, Initial and OCS, as well as some smaller providers who operate mainly outsourced models.
Our aim was to have detailed exploratory discussions to identify and flesh out issues rather than a large-scale quantitative survey approach to test specific hypotheses. This approach produced powerful, and in some cases surprising, findings regarding views and experiences of IFM clients and the wider Integrated Facilities Management market.
The discussions covered a range of issues including:
– overall perspectives on the facilities management market
– how satisfied they are with their FM arrangements now they are underway
– whether the arrangements met objectives for cost reduction and service quality
– what has gone well and what could have gone better
– what they intend to do when their contracts expire
– what they see as realistic alternatives available to them and how they compare
Contents (UK Integrated Facilities Management Market Report: insights and lessons from experience)
Customer satisfaction with IFM arrangements – 7
Objectives of IFM arrangements – 8
Extent to which objectives have been met in practice – 9
– Cost savings
– Service level
Supplier selection – 12
Future intentions – 14
Switching and reversing IFM arrangements – 16
Own staff vs. use of sub-contractor – 18
Advice for those considering IFM – 20
– Should the public sector embrace IFM?
– Specific needs of hospitals
Appendix – 23
List of figures (UK Integrated Facilities Management Market Report: insights and lessons from experience)
1. How satisfied are you with your IFM arrangement?
2. What was your main objective in moving to an IFM arrangement?
3. Proportion of respondents saying that their IFM arrangement met their objectives.
4. What specific factor made you select your IFM provider?
5. What do you intend to do when your IFM contract expires (what did you do when it expired)?
6. What would make you switch from your current supplier?
7. Views on difficulty of reversing IFM arrangements and switching suppliers.
8. Should an integrated FM provider be able to deliver services with its own staff?
9. How smooth was the process of outsourcing services to your provider?
Integrated Facilities Management Market Insight Report