Benchmarking of workplace performance

Abstract

This paper aims to present a process model of value adding corporate real estate and facilities management and to discuss which indicators can be used to measure and benchmark workplace performance.

In order to add value to the organisation, the work environment has to provide value for money by a positive trade-off between the benefits i.e. support of the organisational objectives and the primary processes, and the costs, time and risks connected with achieving these benefits. Widely used indicators to measure the costs are the investment costs, running costs, and the Total Cost of Occupancy. These metrics are primarily connected to efficiency i.e. to optimally use the resources of a firm, but much less to effectiveness and benefits such as user satisfaction, productivity and well-being.

The paper compares performance measurement and benchmarking theory with empiric data from different work environments. The paper mostly builds on two books on adding value through buildings, facilities and services, both edited and co-authored by the authors of this paper. The books were based on literature reviews, interviews with practitioners, cross-border studies of performance measurement and benchmarking, and in-depth analyses of various value parameters by experts from various countries. In addition, theory and empirical examples of benchmarking have been included in the paper.

The paper presents 12 value parameters that may be relevant in measuring and benchmarking of workplace performance: four people oriented parameters, four business processes related values, two economic parameters and two social indicators. Because not all values can be easily expressed in monetary units, various other ways of measuring are presented that can help to monitor and to benchmark workplace performance. The findings can be used as input to a more integrated business case approach that goes beyond “dollar-metrics” and spreadsheet based decision-making. Applying both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators and including both hard and soft factors is needed to define the trade-off between the costs and benefits of interventions in corporate real estate, facilities and services, and to cope with the interests and needs of different stakeholders.

The paper links performance measurement and benchmarking to value adding corporate real estate and facilities management and presents new ways to measure and benchmark the performance of buildings, facilities and services in connection to organisational performance.