Facilities Management quality and user satisfaction in

outsourced services
Andrew Smith and Michael Pitt
School of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street,
Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK

Abstract
Facilities management as a profession should be used strategically to provide quality
working environments. The available quality management and performance
management techniques are reviewed, which can be applied to facilities management
service providers where facilities management functions are outsourced. It provides a
case that performance management is an essential element of the tendering process
and is necessary to enable continuous improvement in a climate of increasing
competition among service providers, many of which have diversified into many
different industry strands. It is also argued that there should be a shift in outsourcing
trends to an increased number of specialist service providers rather than the current
predominant model of bundled services. Office design is also presented as a strategic
tool in improving productivity and reducing absenteeism.
Keywords: quality, performance management, perceptions, outsourcing, user
satisfaction

Introduction
Facilities management is a diverse profession, the main aim of which should be to
provide quality environments, which are fit for the purpose for which they have been
designed. For Alexander, (1996) it is a total quality approach to sustaining an
operational environment and providing support services to meet the strategic needs of
an organisation.
FM is a constant balancing act between the competing pressures of time, cost and
quality. However, with ever-decreasing budgets and competition in the market place,
cost often becomes the prevalent factor. However, Wauters (1995) has identified that
reducing facilities costs does not automatically increase bottom line profits and points
out that unless savings are effected without impairing the organisations performance
dependent on these facilities, the opposite may occur, i.e. profits will fall.
It is possible to achieve quality whilst positively affecting the balance sheet. A quality
workplace can induce productivity gains in the workforce, improve workplace
satisfaction and act as a catalyst in attracting and retaining talented members of staff,
thereby increasing profits. In a time of increasing numbers of the workforce deserting
the traditional office in favour of home working, the provision of quality working
environments is becoming increasingly important.

However, it is the diversity of the profession that is one of the key barriers to the
provision of quality working environments. Traditionally facilities managers have
come from engineering backgrounds and may have a different focus to the new breed
of facilities managers who come from many diverse backgrounds, increasingly in soft
services such as catering, interior design or landscaping for example. A key challenge,
therefore, is for facilities management to tailor itself to the needs of these diverse
backgrounds. It should also be borne in mind that the facilities manager is not the key
customer. The customer is the user of the facility.
To provide a quality workplace, the customer must define their requirements clearly.
However, requirements tend to be defined by facilities managers, largely without
input from the building users. Does the facilities manager, therefore, know what is
required? Can a mechanical engineer, for example, know what catering requirements
to specify or what plants are best for particular offices? Likewise, can a caterer know
what Mechanical and Electrical maintenance strategy will be most effective? It
appears that greater interaction is required with the users of the facility in defining
requirements and desirables.
It is also difficult to cater for individual needs in terms of the working environment.
For example, while one building occupant may feel cold, another finds it too warm;
one may want the light above their desk turned off, while their neighbour feels it is
too dark. This is an inherent problem in open plan offices, which are now the norm.
Therefore, in considering quality working environments, consideration must be given
to how individual needs can be catered for and building occupants given greater
control over their immediate environment.
This paper considers trends in outsourcing and how facilities management service
providers can meet the requirements of the industry by implementing quality and
performance management techniques into their processes.

Quality Facilities Management

Quality management techniques have been used with great success in the
manufacturing industries for many years. For example, in Japan the cornerstone of the
success of Japanese industries since the 1950s was their absolute belief in Total
Quality Management (TQM), an obsession with giving the customers what they want
and continually striving for improved performance (Grigg, 1996).
However, the manufacturing industry differs from facilities management in that it
produces tangible products in large batches via repeat processes, whilst FM projects
are mainly undertaken in single batches and the product is not necessarily a tangible
item, it may be a service or a process (Pheng, 1996).
The value to be gained through a total quality approach is increasingly being
recognised in business (Alexander, 1996), including the construction industry, which
is similar to facilities management in that quality is difficult to measure and factor in
to the contractor selection process (Yasamis et al, 2002). Attempts have also been
made to apply TQM to the service industries such as hotel and catering (Pheng, 1996).

Facilities management can learn a great deal from the hospitality industry in terms of
providing customer centric FM. Over the last decade attempts have been made to
relate TQM to facilities management.
There is now pressure for change and improved quality in facilities management
which has come from external sources by well-informed clients (Pheng, 1996) and
consumers are now better able to give clear objectives to service providers (AatsaloSallinen, 2006). Quality management is, therefore, essential to the FM industry in
order for it to be competitive and to maintain the identity of the FM function as a key
strategic business tool.
For TQM to be successful there must be support for the concept from top-level
management, which must act as a facilitator in what is an enabling process (Grigg,
1996). It must, however, include all people at all levels and in all functions (Pheng,
1996).
The key to a successful quality system is in the interpretation of correct quality (Park,
1998). This does not necessarily mean the best possible quality as this would be
uneconomical but the service or product must match the users expectations in terms
of accuracy, durability, serviceability and ease of operation (Park, 1998). For example
if we compare a Formula One racing car to a family saloon, the perceived quality is
different, however, both suit their customers requirements in terms of the quality
demanded. Quality considerations for the Formula One car might be speed,
aerodynamics, driver protection, space for sponsors adverts while the considerations
for the family saloon are more likely to be reliability, low cost and comfort.
With ever-increasing competition among facilities management service providers, it is
essential for providers to implement quality management processes to continue to
meet and exceed expectations in order to differentiate their product in an increasingly
service saturated market. Many service providers are moving towards a diverse range
of services and organisations that have traditionally offered specialist services are
now becoming general facilities management organisations. The question of the
subjective nature of value and the consequential need for a bespoke service offering
within FM is therefore of paramount importance.
Current outsourcing trends in facilities management are pursuing the non-specialist
route of bundled services as discussed below. However, from the service provider
viewpoint it is possible to provide a higher quality service by focusing on the core
service, i.e. a specialist service. For the service user it is surely preferable to receive
quality service from a number of suppliers rather than a range of mediocre services
from one non-specialist supplier. In generic terms this defines the standard value
proposition.
Benchmarking
One tool, which is used extensively to gauge quality of service provision and bring
about performance improvements is benchmarking.

Benchmarking is a tool for supporting a process of continual improvement, the

objective of which is to identify current performance in relation to best practice in
areas of concern to the organisation (Atkin & Brooks, 2005).
The key to success in benchmarking is to identify success and emulate it as the
process evaluates who is achieving best value for money and how they are doing it
(Wauters, 2005). The selection of an appropriate peer group with which to benchmark
is critical to the success of the operation (Williams, 2000 in Wauters, 2005). The peer
group must always have a good level of performance (Wauters, 2005).
Benchmarking has been brought into a facilities management context as a form of
performance measurement rather than a distinct process reliant on performance
criteria (McDougall and Hinks, 2000) but benchmarking alone cannot form the entire
performance management function in an organisation.
There are a number of approaches to benchmarking in practice, such as databases
provided by the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) for example,
benchmarking clubs and various arrangements between organisations. Measurements
traditionally focused on quantitative data such as energy costs and cost per square
metre but qualitative measurements are now increasingly utilised in benchmarking
exercises.
The tool advocated by Atkin and Brooks (2005) is Micro-Scanfm, which has an
overall approach similar to that of the balanced scorecard reviewed below. The
system compares the responses to 80 questions across respondents and organisations
making it possible to compare understanding, attitudes and actions within a single
organisation as well as across many. The baseline or benchmark against which scores
are calibrated is that of best practice (Atkin and Brooks, 2005).
The scores can be presented diagrammatically as shown in figure 1.

Fig. 1 Comparing an organisation with the benchmark (best practice). (Atkin

& Brooks, 2005)

It is advisable for facilities management service providers to implement

benchmarking exercises with organisations in their own or other business sectors to
improve performance and remain competitive. This should be an element within their
performance management programmes.
The problem with benchmarking, however, is that performance is compared with
perceived best practice. Therefore, you are constantly playing catch-up and can only
be as good as your nearest competitor, who is already implementing their latest
innovation and moving ahead of the competition. Whilst benchmarking can be a
powerful tool, it is best used in conjunction with a range of performance management
tools including innovation and creativity techniques. The challenge is to achieve bestin-class status for which effective innovation stimulation and management are
required.
Performance management
Facilities management can contribute to the performance of organisations in a number
of ways, which include strategy, culture, control of resources, service delivery, supply
chain management and change management (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2002).
The constructs of performance measurement in facilities management are neither
well-established nor standard (Ameratunga, 2000). The approach to performance
measurement in facilities management has historically tended to concentrate on
financial measures in line with the rest of the business world, then broadening into an
emphasis on customer satisfaction and quality as it was acknowledged that financial
measures are inadequate for demonstrating workplace effectiveness (McDougall and
Hinks, 2000). Modern business requires dynamic measures that motivate continuous
improvement in critical areas such as customer satisfaction, flexibility and
productivity (Varcoe, 1993).
However, to use performance assessment effectively, facilities management needs to
make the transition from measurement to management (Ameratunga and Baldry,
2002).
Facilities management service providers should implement performance management
initiatives in order to measure their current position and bring about future
improvements. Additionally, this can be used as a marketing tool and it may be
advantageous to describe appropriate performance management techniques in
tendering situations for example.
An increasingly popular technique for measuring performance criteria that are not
immediately linked to profits, but will have a potential impact on future profits, is the
balanced scorecard (Sarshar, 2006). A number of authors (Amaratunga et al, 2000;
Amaratunga and Baldry, 2000, 2003; Walters, 1999) have advocated the use of the
Balanced Scorecard for facilities performance measurement.
The balanced scorecard can provide real insight into an organisations operations,
finances and drivers of future performance and it assists in implementing strategy
(Niven, 2003).

Balanced scorecard measures are built around the following four perspectives
(Sarshar, 2006):

Customer what do existing and new customers value from us?

Internal processes what processes must we excel at to achieve our financial
and customer perspective?
Learning and Growth can we continue to improve and create future value?
Financial how do we create value for our shareholders?

These perspectives are shown diagrammatically in figure 2.

Fig. 2 Balanced Scorecard (adapted from Kaplan and Norton, 1996)

The four perspectives of the balanced scorecard can be adapted to the context of
facilities management as follows (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2004):

Customer how do the facilities users see us?

Internal processes how efficient and effective is the delivery of facilities
management services?
Learning and growth how does the facilities management function continue
to improve in itself and to assist the core business?
Financial how is the facilities management function managed in terms of
value for money?

Given the characteristics of the operating environment of facilities management,

recognising and satisfying the needs of the core business is vital for commercial
survival in the long term. To ensure satisfaction of various customer needs, it is
essential that facilities management identifies, focuses on, and monitors key
performance indicators (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2004). This applies to client
organisations and service providers alike and individual organisations may adapt the
Balanced Scorecard as appropriate for the service provided. The balanced scorecard is
particularly suitable for the differing types of service providers due to its adaptability
to different industries and businesses.

It is also important for the Balanced Scorecard to be reviewed and, where necessary,
updated on a regular basis if the scorecard is to remain relevant and useful
(Amaratunga and Baldry, 2004).
An Australian study (Brackertz, 2006) related physical performance and service
performance using the Logometrix tool, which has a similar approach to that of the
Balanced Scorecard. The research used empirical data to investigate the contribution
of physical performance of community facilities to the strategic aim of delivering high
quality services from these facilities.
The Logometrix system enables internal benchmarking of facility performance and
strategic decision making about facilities (Brackertz, 2006). Logometrix considers
service, physical, environmental, community, utilisation and financial perspectives of
facility performance, each represented by a KPI (Brackertz, 2006). These perspectives
are shown in figure 3.

Fig. 3 Six perspectives of facility performance (Brackertz, 2006)

Hinks and McNay (1999) present a management by variance tool for FM performance
assessment. Their research was undertaken for a major financial services company
whose premises department had previously attempted to benchmark against external
organisations but had encountered difficulties in the comparability of performance
measures.
A Delphi exercise was undertaken using an expert group of members of the premises
department and their internal customers in equal balance in order to identify and
prioritise appropriate performance measures (Hinks and McNay, 1999).

The Delphi exercise was carried out in four phases as follows (Hinks and McNay,
1999):
Phase 1: Definition of the research problem The researchers undertook structured
group interviews with members of the premises department, followed by individual
structured interviews with each senior manager, focusing on their current performance
assessment techniques and their perceptions of FM priorities. A literature review was
also conducted to identify any existing performance assessment tools or indicators
could be applied or adapted. Following the literature review it was decided to produce
a bespoke set of performance indicators, the challenge being to address all the issues
identified in the literature review in one tool. Due to the lack of a comprehensive
alternative, it was agreed that a bespoke tool would be developed using a bespoke set
of KPIs, using a combination of premises department and business customer views.
Phase 2: Selection of KPIs A literature review was used to identify a list of 172
indicators in an arbitrary manner to avoid leading the group. From this long list of
potential indicators, the Delphi group were tasked with selecting a comprehensive and
coherent set of performance indicators. This list was to be as short as they deemed
possible. Group members completed individual questionnaires to assess the
importance of each KPI. Each respondent was asked to identify whether they believed
each KPI was essential, desirable or of tertiary level importance. Only those identified
as essential were taken forward for discussion by the Delphi group and following
discussions, a final set of 23 KPIs was selected.
Phase 3: Prioritisation of KPIs Each individual prioritised the selected list of 23
KPIs anonymously using a scaling measure before discussion by the group to reach a
consensus.
Phase 4: Rating of FM Performance In this stage the group rated the current level
of FM service against each KPI against a semantic scale including unsatisfactory,
satisfactory, good, excellent and world class performance. The results were
differentiated between customer views and premises department views and are shown
in the draft tool developed by Hinks and McNay (figure 4).

Fig. 4 Management-by-Variance Tool (Hinks and McNay, 1999)

While this study (Hinks and McNay, 1999) was undertaken for internal performance
measurement with internal customers, this approach could also be useful for service
providers to measure performance. This technique relies on inclusion of the customer
in the process and it has been shown that it is essential to involve the customer in
order to provide services that add value to the customers workplace. Therefore,
management by variance could be a key technique in setting performance
measurement parameters when contracts are initialised.
FM performance management should always be linked to core business outputs. It
makes little sense to monitor performance from various perspectives whilst
benchmarking against the industry average in isolation. The key value to all
organisations has to be the extent to which the services deliver additional outputs. It is
all about added value within the bespoke delivery framework developed for the client.
This is the underlying reason for generic FM delivery not being as efficient as a well
managed targeted programme. Hence cleaning hospital wards should be related to
recovery rates and space management must be linked to personnel productivity.

Customer perceptions of Facilities Management Services

Research has suggested that users perceptions of their environment may be more
significant and, therefore, more relevant to facilities management than reality
(Fleming, 2004). Performance specifications in facilities management must take user
perception into account. As discussed below, the physical work environment can have
an effect on employee productivity, with user perceptions playing an important role in
the users experience of the environment.
It is probable that building users apply differing perceptions of facilities management
services based on their experiences and work patterns within a building. For example,
a study by Folkes (1988), considered student perceptions of escalator maintenance in
a university campus building. The sample of students studied by Folkes was split into
those who habitually used a combination of stairs and the escalator and those who
only used the escalator to attend classes on upper floors. The students were asked to
estimate what percentage of time the escalator was broken. Those who used only the
escalator perceived it was broken 54 percent of the time, while those who used the
stairs and the escalator perceived it was broken 31 percent of the time (Folkes, 1988).
The distinctive experience of using a non-functioning escalator is thought to have
increased the importance of the failure to the habitual users (Fleming, 2004). It is also
probable that those using only the escalator recalled failure incidents more easily
because walking was distinctive and also comments made by themselves or
classmates about having to use the stairs were distinctive (Folkes, 1988).
Hinks and McNay (1999) also found that the perception of the facilities management
team towards the performance and importance of facilities management services was
different to that of the customers. In this study, discussions on Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) indicated that the definitions of KPIs being used tended to be
particularised to their own business context, an issue which had rarely been associated
with other attempts to identify generic performance indicators, thus reinforcing the
need for a bespoke set of performance indicators for a bespoke application (Hinks and
McNay, 1999).
However, there is still a general lack of understanding of the function of facilities
management, particularly in strategic terms among its customer groups. Facilities
management, it appears, is often perceived as purely the maintenance team, who
repair things reactively when they break. This points to a lack of awareness of how
facilities management can add value strategically.
Hinks and McNay (1999) found that customers tended to interpret the premises
department role in the organisation studied from an operational viewpoint and that
attempts by the premises department to raise the more strategic issues associated with
their function remained unrecognised. Shaw and Haynes (2004) contend that facilities
managers need to be looking at developing performance models that are more
sensitive to the needs of the customer in order to change the perception of FM as an
expensive overhead towards a customer-focussed and essential business component,
capable of adding real value.

It appears also that among facilities management teams there may be a perception that
the department is looked upon in a negative light by its customers. This has a lot to do
with the fact that many facilities managers only deal directly with their customers
when there is a problem or a complaint is received. While it is conceivable that if FM
services are working as they should, the customer should have little need to interact
with the facilities team, regular feedback from well-informed customers may
highlight positive cases which could help to change this perception. Furthermore,
without feedback from customers, it is unlikely that the services provided will meet
their requirements. In this respect the facilities management profession can learn a lot
from the hospitality industry in terms of customer service and if it is to be recognised
as a strategic discipline, concepts employed in other sectors and industries should be
considered in an outward-looking approach.
Perceptions of how any organisational unit, not necessarily the facilities management
team, is looked upon within the organisation can also relate to the physical
environment. For example, the facilities management team of a major public sector
organisation known to the authors is located in the basement of the building it
occupies. Certain members of the facilities management department have expressed
perceptions that this causes the rest of the organisation to literally look down upon
them.
It can be seen, therefore, that perceptions play an important role in users overall
experience of the facility. Perceptions must be an important consideration in
providing facilities management services. This should include analysing user trends,
i.e. defining how the facility is used in greater detail than tends to be the norm.
However, it can be problematic to provide services to individual requirements and
perceptions. Further research is required in the area of user perceptions to define
methods to adequately provide for this idiosyncratic consideration.

Outsourcing
In recent years there has been a trend towards outsourcing facilities management
services. There was a slowing of growth in outsourcing in the late 1990s (Barrett and
Baldry, 2003). However, according to Falconer (2006) this is still increasing and
buyers and suppliers are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Most facilities
management services can be procured externally and most companies will outsource
some facilities management functions (Barrett and Baldry, 2003).
The main reasons for organisations to outsource their FM services tend to centre
around reducing costs, enabling a focus on the core business and benefiting from the
expertise provided by specialist suppliers.
A range of outsourcing options are available, the starting point being to outsource one
service, following progressively until all services are outsourced by individual
contracts. Some services may be grouped together and placed with one contractor; a
concept known as bundling (Barrett and Baldry, 2003).

Although the trend in facilities management seems to be continuing towards

integrated services provided by one supplier, the trend in the wider outsourcing
market seems to be tending towards selecting specialist providers, selecting the best
of breed provider for each rather than bundling services (Falconer, 2006). If the
quality aspects of facilities management are given greater prominence in the aims of
the department, it is likely that FM will follow this general trend into the more
specialised market. For this to happen, the facilities management profession must be
recognised as a strategic quality tool.
Control of quality from outsourced service providers is essential (Park, 1998) from
the point of view of the client organisation. Therefore, it is essential to service
providers to implement quality management processes in order to meet the
requirements of the facilities management profession. Furthermore, it is likely that
service monitoring will become the responsibility of the provider rather than the client
(Falconer, 2006).
Partnering with service providers has been increasingly common to pursue mutual
business benefits, increase trust and facilitate improved working relationships
between supplier and client organisations. Perry (2002) advocates supplier integration
as a step further than partnering. It involves the client organisation becoming bound
up with the aims, philosophies and objectives of suppliers because any adverse effects
on their business could also reflect poorly on the client.

Office design and workplace satisfaction

Scientific research has indicated that improving the working environment results in a
reduction in the number of complaints and absenteeism and an increase in
productivity (Roelofsen, 2002). Although design and facilities management often
occur as two separate entities, it is the responsibility of the FM team to provide
suitable working environments for the building users. This means meeting user needs
in terms of providing a quality working environment, creating a sense of workplace
satisfaction. The work environment may be used as a strategic tool to attract and
retain talented members of staff.
It can be seen that the work environment also has the potential to reduce productivity
and increase absenteeism in cases where the workplace is not optimal to the operation
of the organisation. Obvious examples are where sick building syndrome is present or
the office layout is not conducive to productive activity.
For an organisation to deliver maximum value to its customers, it must receive
maximum value from its suppliers (Rogers, 2005) and therefore, it is essential from
the service provider point of view to provide appropriate products or services to meet
the requirements of a quality workplace. For example, in provision of furniture,
cleaning services or plantscaping.
The service provider must make a decision on their target market and decide what
level of quality will meet the needs of this market. In certain circumstances it will be
up to the service provider to raise the bar to higher levels of quality for high end
facilities, i.e. show the customer what the benchmark is in terms of top quality. This

will enable the service provider to achieve a unique position in the market and
become the benchmark.
Research has shown that the indoor environment in particular is regarded as a major
problem within the scope of building management, maintenance and design
(Roelofsen, 2002). Indoor air quality is one of the major areas of dissatisfaction
amongst workers (Atkin & Brooks, 2005).

Conclusion
This paper has highlighted the requirement for facilities management service
providers to implement quality and performance management techniques in order to
meet the needs of corporate clients.
The facilities management profession as a whole still needs to have a greater focus on
quality but this requires top-level management support and accurate requirements
defined by customers. Value for money will be achieved by reaching an appropriate
balance between time, cost and quality.
In the current climate of innovation and increasing competition among suppliers, it is
imperative for facilities management service providers to implement quality
management. The manufacturing industry has achieved much success by introducing
quality management techniques. Although it is more difficult to translate these
techniques across to the service industries such as facilities management it is possible
and there is now a body of literature to support this. Again, there must be top-level
support for any initiatives and quality management must be used to check that the
correct level of quality is being provided in line with that defined by the customer.
Benchmarking was highlighted as an appropriate tool to gauge performance in
comparison to competitors as part of the overall performance management approach
of the service provider.
The performance management techniques employed must be appropriate to the
service provider and also measurable. These need to consider a range of factors rather
than focusing purely on cost or elements which are easy to measure. The balanced
scorecard was presented as an appropriate tool to represent an organisations
performance at a strategic level. The flexibility of this tool makes it appropriate for
use by a range of different organisations in the public and private sectors and,
therefore, particularly useful in a facilities management setting. Logometrix is a
similar tool to the balanced scorecard and another suitable tool identified is the
Management-by-Variance tool.
User perceptions of a working environment have been shown to be of perhaps greater
importance than reality. Further research is required in this area in order for
appropriate consideration to be given to user perceptions of the service provided. This
service requires to be individualised as far as possible.
The current trend in outsourcing appears to be towards bundling services with general
facilities management suppliers. It is argued that this may change in line with the

general outsourcing market to move towards a range of services being provided by

specialist suppliers.
It has also been shown that office design has a major impact on user satisfaction.
Productivity can be improved and absenteeism reduced by improving the internal
environment. It is important for service providers to understand this and for them to
be integrated into the facilities management departments aims to provide a quality
workplace.

References
AATSALO-SALLINEN, J., (2006) A need to measure quality. European FM
Insight, November 2006, pp. 13-14. Euro FM.
ALEXANDER, K. (1996) Facilities Management Theory and Practice. E and F
Spon.
ALEXANDER, K., et al (2004) Facilities Management: Innovation and
Performance. Spon Press.
AMERATUNGA, D., (2000) Assessment of facilities management performance.
Property Management, Vol. 18, 4, pp. 258-266.
AMERATUNGA, D., et al (2000) Assessment of facilities management performance
what next? Facilities, Vol. 18, 1 / 2, pp. 66-75.
AMERATUNGA, D., BALDRY, D., (2000) Assessment of facilities management
performance in higher education properties. Facilities, Vol. 18, 7 / 8, pp. 293-301.
AMERATUNGA, D., BALDRY, D., (2002) Moving from performance
measurement to performance management. Facilities, Vol. 20, 5 / 6, pp. 217 223.
AMERATUNGA, D., BALDRY, D., (2003) A conceptual framework to measure
facilities management performance. Property Management, Vol. 21, 2, pp. 171-189.
AMERATUNGA, D., BALDRY, D., (2004) Developing Balanced Scorecards for
Facilities Management. In: ALEXANDER, K., et al (2004) Facilities Management:
Innovation and Performance. Spon Press., pp. 109-116.
ATKIN, B., BROOKS, A. (2005) Total facilities management. 2nd ed. Blackwell.
BARRETT, P., BALDRY, D. (2003) Facilities management: towards best practice.
2nd ed. Blackwell Science.
BRACKERTZ, N., (2006) Relating physical and service performance in local
government community facilities. Facilities, Vol. 24, 7 / 8, pp. 280-291.
FALCONER, H. (2006) The future of facilities management outsourcing. Facilities
Management, Vol. 13, 5, pp. 10-13.

FLEMING, D. (2004) Facilities management: a behavioural approach. Facilities,

Vol. 22, 1 / 2, pp. 35-43.
FOLKES, V. (1988) The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15, 1, pp. 3-23.
GRIGG, J. (1996) Facilities Quality Management. In: ALEXANDER, K. (1996)
Facilities Management Theory and Practice. E and F Spon. pp.58-70.
HINKS, J., MCNAY, P. (1999) The creation of a management by variance tool for
facilities management performance assessment. Facilities, Vol. 17, 1 / 2, pp. 31-53.
KAPLAN, R., NORTON, D. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business
School.
MCDOUGALL, G., HINKS, J. (2000) Identifying priority issues in facilities
management benchmarking. Facilities, Vol. 18, 10/11/12, pp. 427-434.
NIVEN, P.R. (2003) Balanced scorecard step-by-step for Government and Nonprofit
Agencies. Wiley.
PARK, A. (1998) Facilities Management: An Explanation. 2nd ed. Macmillan.
PERRY, P. (2002) Just how well do you know your suppliers? Facilities
Management, Vol. 10, 1, pp. 10-12.
PHENG, L.S. (1996) Total quality facilities management: a framework for
implementation. Facilities, Vol. 14, 5/6, pp. 5-13.
ROELOFSEN, P. (2002) The impact of office environments on employee
performance: the design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement.
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1, 3, pp. 247-264.
ROGERS, P.A. (2005) Optimising supplier management and why co-dependency
equals mutual success. Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 4, 1, pp. 40-50.
SARSHAR, M. (2006) Improving service delivery in FM: a case study of a UK
hospital facilities directorate. Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 4, 4, pp. 271285.
SHAW, D., HAYNES, B. (2004) An evaluation of customer perception of FM
service delivery. Facilities, Vol. 22, 7/8, pp. 170-177.
VARCOE, B.J. (1993) Facilities performance: achieving value-for-money through
performance measurement and benchmarking. Property Management, Vol. 11, 4, pp.
301-307.
WALTERS, M., (1999) Performance measurement systems a case study of
customer satisfaction. Facilities, Vol. 17, 3 / 4, pp. 97-104.

WAUTERS, B. (2005) The added value of facilities management: benchmarking

work processes. Facilities, Vol. 23, 3 / 4, pp. 142-151.
YASAMIS, F., et al, (2002) Assessing contractor quality performance.
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, 3, pp. 211-223.