Defining Value from the Customers Perspective

According to Womack and Jones (2003) the customer is the only one that can define value based on the products, goods and or services provided by the organisation. Value

23

is specified in terms of satisfying customers’ needs by providing products and, or services with desired capabilities at a competitive price and lead-time. That might be adequate in a manufacturing setting where actual merchandise and products are manufactured and produced. In facilities management, merchandise or an actual product is not produced; services to the end user of the workplace and organisation occur. The customer is the one that contemplates value through co-creating performance criteria to measure services rendered and time assigned for completion of activities and work order tickets.

2.4.1.1 Defining Value in Facilities Management

As quantified by Alexander (2012) value is essential to collaboration with FM workplace stakeholders. Workplace stakeholders in the FM enterprise as conceived by Coenen and von Felton (2012, p.119) are the “clients, customers, and, or end users”. The “customer co-creates” value in the workplace by collaborating with the FM service provider to develop services, processes and procedures, and performance measures. An FM service can be hypothesised as an intangible act meaning it “cannot be seen, felt, tasted or touched” (Coenen & von Felton 2012, p.118) in the same way as a tangible product.

For instance, if a stakeholder is too hot or too cold, they are usually instructed to call the service desk to file a complaint. The mediation of this complaint cannot be seen or touched from the customer’s perspective. How does the customer know if the work order (sometimes referred to as a work ticket) assigned is completed; how long it might have taken, and if there were any issues involved in mitigating the complaint. After the work order is rectified, the customer could possibly feel the aftermath of the intangible service by feeling more comfortable, or actually seeing that the issue was fixed. It can be surmised that the end user doesn’t know how long it took to fix the issue, if there were any implications such as a part having to be reordered, or a valve replaced. Therefore, value in FM can be viewed as intangible and is co-created with the end user in mind (service industry reference from: Cal Poly, CH2M HILL, EDS, US Pentagon, Pratt Institute and University of Salford).

The term ‘value for money’ was used in the UK’s government restructuring of higher educational reform; it signifies getting the best cost and quality for specified services. An organisation can use the same concept of best value by continuously pursuing quality FM

24

services for the least amount of cost (Atkins & Brooks, 2009). This hinders on the decision of an organisation to either keep FM services in house or to outsource services rendered. According to Atkins and Brooks (2009 p.7) value in FM is all about “cost or price and quality and performance”. FM adds value to the organisation by the performance of workflow activities and safeguarding the workplace accordingly. While keeping employees’ health, safety and welfare in mind linking productivity in the workplace with organisations core goals, missions and visions (Wiggins, 2010).

It is standard for an organisation to determine the value for money based on what they paid for the services last year compared to what the same service is costing them today. The cost factor becomes a tangible determination and is easily calculated. Nonetheless, FM organisations should consider value for money in terms of measuring performance, quality and efficiency of a given service; it’s not always about minimizing cost, unless cost is a major organisation strategic initiative. Another way of determining value in FM, as expressed by Coenen and von Felton (2012), is the co-creation of value through working closely with the supply chain, subcontractors, furniture vendors, and customers to determine value for money, and quality of timely efficient services.

The necessity of human value and the impact on the FM workplace should not be overlooked. The contemporary workplace of today has taken a giant leap from the days of Frederick W. Taylor (1911) and his workplace efficiency experiments. Today’s workplace has become technologically savvy with an importance placed on social media and global connectivity. Additionally, the workplace has always been considered an immense overhead expense. Therefore, the FM department who is partly responsible for managing the workplace and company assets influences “corporate culture, staff behaviour, productivity and the ultimate bottom line” (Stuart, 2012, p.128).

The C-suite, which is the highest executive leadership of a firm, i.e. Chairman, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) (IFMA, 2007; Moore & Sonsino, 2013), is starting to take notice and consider the importance of a “value-focused workplace” that will have considerable benefits and added value, not just financially, “but also by its ethical and environmental performance- commonly known as the Triple Bottom Line” (Elkington, 1998, In Stuart, 2012 p.131). Facility managers will continue to play a larger role in the future workplace where value

25

for money is not just about cost of providing services. It’s about the value of maximising human capital, an educated workforce, creating a learning environment with open communications. Value in the workplace will continue to evolve and facilities management will be at the forefront of this ever-changing global marketplace.