Del evento al acontecimiento

This is the core of operations and maintenance performance, and the responsibility of management personnel, team leaders, directors, and staff members that oversee work functions. Operation standards need to be set up, in facilities management this can be developing service level agreements and key performance indicators for work tasks. There needs to be a set of performance criteria that each job function is measured against. Visual standards are “simply to capture technical and procedural standards in a visual format, then to install these as close to the point of use as possible” (Galsworth, 2005, p.132).

Visual displays can be customer service boards, assembly displays, operations and maintenance work displays. Maintenance work order display boards show what work has been done, what work orders need to be completed by what dates and who is working on them, they should be colour coded as well. Manufacturing displays can be linked to changeover in production scheduling. Visual displays, additionally can advertise organisation policies, procedures, marketing brochures, strategic initiatives, and human resource benefits and policies.

Visual standards instruct employees on the process and procedures that need to be performed for job activities. Visual standards do not change employee behaviour, “they tell us what to do; they cannot make us do it” (Galsworth, 2005, p.133). Developing process and procedural standards in the workplace will have a direct influence on the budget, quality, safety, method, and performance of each function in the workplace.

Visual performance metrics measure data criteria of job functions against cost, performance, quality, safety and time. It is a useful tool for quality improvement, by measuring performance, and developing performance reports for management to monitor services provided, and to realise where changes are needed. It raises the ‘red flag’ and helps in deciding what systems need to be amended, and what systems are doing well. Setting up key performance indicators and service level agreements are visual performance metrics that should be used in the facilities management industry. Another

45

visual tool that is highly effective in the workplace is a visual A-3 report. An A-3 report is a visual representation of a managerial, product, or service issue developed on an A3, 11 x 17 piece of paper. It can have structure or non-structure, colour coded with graphics or no graphics. Additional key visual performance indicator tools that can be used are SWOT analysis, SMART analysis, and Balance Scorecards.

2.6.4.3.1 Performance Indicators as Visual Methods in Facilities Management

According to Amaratunga and Baldry (2000, p.293), “facilities management (FM) is based on the premise that the efficiency of any organisation is linked to the physical environment in which it operates and that the environment can be improved to increase efficiency” (Grimshaw & Keeffe, 1993, In Amaratunga & Baldry, 2000, p.293) through the use of key performance indicators. Becker (1990) suggests that the total function of FM in the workplace is to manage ecologies related to employees, and building operations and maintenance to include assets, furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E), which can lead to the overall success of an organisation. The aim of FM should not just optimise costs of operating and maintaining buildings; it should raise the efficiency level of the workplace. This is based on the notion that the facility managers’ role is to manage building assets and resources in order to achieve the mission, vision and goals of the organisation holistically (Spedding & Holmes, 1994; Amaratunga & Baldry 2000). Loosemore and Hsin (2001) contend that FM and real estate organisation’s main objective is acknowledging property performance, which is approximately 80% – 90% of total costs (Valins & Salter, 1996, In Loosemore & Hsin, 2001, p.465).

As the world economy continues to drive organisations to review procurement systems, re-examine business practices and efficiencies in the workplace it is up to the facility managers to validate that their department efforts are in line with overall organisations strategic initiatives. In optimising facilities services within the entire organisation one must select the appropriate performance measurement tools. In 1992 when Kaplan and Norton introduced the balanced scorecard (BSC), the intention was to set up a visual management tool that would support managers in compiling financial practices with operational practices on issues that look intensely at internal processes and procedures, customer satisfaction, company initiatives, and future improvements. The BSC has gradually gained popularity; the International Facility Management Association adopted it as part of their strategic plan. They introduced the FM industry to a strategic visual

46

management tool that can be generated to link FM core values and strategic competencies of the organisation holistically.

This is in line with the findings by Meng (2011) and the fact that Amaratunga and Baldry (2000) applied the (BSC) method to develop a conceptual framework for measuring FM performance in higher education (HE) properties. In retrospect, Mok (2005) and Hamid (2009) established that HE in the UK has suffered financial pressure due to reductions in funding from the UK Department of Education. Resulting in UK universities transforming the way they manage university estates. Similar to the lean transformation that Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK is experiencing. Consequently, university leadership is depending ever more on the facility managers, who operates and maintains the university estate to perform a more strategic role in bridging the gap between the estate and university. There has been little acknowledgement from senior leadership in the past aligning facilities management with the university holistically.

It is particularly common for governments when they encounter reduced financial capacity to decrease financing the growing demands of higher education (HE). Universities are then tasked with increasing student tuition (Mok, 2005; Hamid, 2009; Comm & Mathaisel, 2005; Department of Education, 2010) as is currently happening throughout the UK higher educational system. Higher education providers are adapting to a more competitive world where resources are scarcer. Attaching far more weight to efficiencies, contemporary universities are under immense pressures to transform their roles and adapt to rapid socio-economic and socio-political changes. Universities have a duty to accommodate increasing demands from local communities, parents, students and employers (Currie & Newson, 1998; Mok & Currie, 2002; Comm & Mathaisel, 2005). This is evident at The Kangan Institute in Melbourne, Australia, not only do they teach a curriculum in lean visual management, the university itself is experiencing an institution wide lean visual management strategic transformation (Kangan, 2010) all due to reasons stated above.