Business Agility: A Model for Improving Responsiveness – Pt. 1

This post begins a short two part series, continuing the subject of business agility first examined in my March 25 post.  Part One of the series addresses the theory behind agility.  Next week’s Part Two will focus on the practice of agility.

AGILITY IN THEORY

Business agility has long been the hallmark of successful organizations, and its importance in contemporary business is growing.  True agility, however, often requires a mindset and operational dynamic that is counter intuitive given industry’s penchant for quick fixes and control.  Real agility requires a business culture and strategy that is sustainable over the long haul.  Typical business reactions such as reducing headcount and services, de-emphasizing customer service, or deferring projects and initiatives that create capability and capacity will work for the short term, but they are not generally sustainable.  These strategies consume or discard resources that may be better used creating and re-energizing.

Defining Agility – An Elusive Quest

One of the problems with “Agility” is defining exactly what one means when one uses the term.  It is a common term and strategy in the IT world, but focuses almost exclusively on IT systems that improve communication and data sharing to speed processes. Manufacturing types express agility in terms of customization and last responsible moment commitments.  Knowledge management professionals describe it as using knowledge management systems to provide greater or faster awareness of changes.

In their paper “Understanding Organizational Agility: A Work-Design Perspective” Holsapple and Li suggest a homogenized definition that can be applied in most cases, identifying alertness and response capability as key dimensions of agility. 

“Agility is the result of integrating alertness to changes (recognizing opportunities/challenges) – both internal and environmental – with a capability to use resources in responding (proactive/reactive) to such changes, all in a timely, flexible, affordable, relevant manner.”

Another important characteristic of agility is recognized in the statement,

“Business Agility is in the mind of the organization and comprises an absolute willingness to constantly monitor one’s position, in a timely and appropriate manner – not just to respond quickly.” 

This statement makes the explicit and often misunderstood point that agility is not just about speed.

Three Levels of Agility

Strategic, Operational, and Episodic agility comprise the agility spectrum.  Each is achieved intentionally through work design that promotes organizational and cultural drivers which are supportive of agility.

Strategic agility can be identified as maximizing organizational alertness to business changes and integrating response capability.  Its purpose is to structure and govern operational work to assure alignment with organizational mission and strategies, thereby enhancing the organization’s ability to identify and take advantage of business opportunities.

Operational agility derives from this integration of alertness and response capability, governing episodic work by allocating resources and setting schedules in the most efficient manner.

Episodic agility refers to what we may more colloquially describe as transactional or task-specific work.  This is where work processes produce tangible value.  It may be intellectual collaboration in the case of knowledge workers, or the fulfillment of specific service or production processes.  Importantly, it is at this level where alertness to task level environmental conditions may lead to process variance.  There is an interesting dichotomy here between agility, which emphasizes alertness and appropriate response to changing conditions, and process management which generally emphasizes control and stability.

The three levels have definite boundaries, support each other, and when taken as a whole permeate the entire organization. In this manner they provide the combined alertness to changes and response capacities that enable taking advantage of opportunities, or adjusting to threats in a nimble manner.

Next week we discuss three specific strategies that help improve agility.

Count the Paper Clips

If you read this blog even occasionally you know that I am a big fan of data and metrics in managing the FM domain.  Our group routinely tracks, analyzes and reports data on the full breadth of services we perform.  As a result we are tuned in to the pace of our business and can almost feel minute shifts that signal change we should be aware of.

We are now reaping the daily dividends of a grass roots effort begun several years ago when “count the paper clips” first came into our lexicon.  That was the direction given when a manager asked, “What should we count?” upon hearing that we were going to undertake a metrics program.  It was a brilliant answer.

That response started us immediately.  If we had said, “Let’s design a program.  We need a system before we can start,” or asked “Who has the knowledge and skillsets we need?” we would have been stalled at the start.  The answer “count the paper clips” mobilized us to immediate action.  We did not have a system, program, or organizational structure, but we knew we could count them and we did.  While we were at it, we counted everything else.

As a result, we now have data going back several years on every facet of our operation.  Over time our capabilities and sophistication have grown.  When we started we knew how to count.  Today, we capture, analyze, project, and plan strategically based on what we know for certain and can predict with high accuracy.  We can anticipate shifts in business patterns before they occur based on well established relationships between disparate data points.

The payoff for us is not simply that we are able to do a better job with greater accuracy.  The job is also more fun.  By enabling our staff with training and giving them a vision we have allowed them to learn, participate, discover, and grow.  The great bulk of the work is accomplished by line staff who are in direct contact with systems, processes, and customers.  Virtually all team members have been trained in basic statistics including data gathering, data structure, pivot tables and pivot charts, data smoothing, analysis, and how to format and report operational data.

This metrics initiative fueled the start of our Continuous Improvement initiative when it came along soon after.  Unlike some others, the Facilities staff knew and understood the importance of data driven planning and were familiar with the routines and discipline required to be effective in the quality improvement effort.

Every month line managers gather to review metrics and analyses that have been produced by staff.  We track and analyze details to identify trouble spots and opportunities.  We investigate causes, analyze data, and adjust operations. We have seen our Customer Satisfaction scores improve markedly while getting more done and focusing our efforts on what really matters.  We work hard at it and the results show it.  Our group is rightfully proud of their abilities and we serve our organization better than we did before.

And it all started with counting paper clips.  

Applying Lean Six Sigma to Facilities Management - Pt. 2

Two Disciplines with Common Goals Combine to Improve Operations and Profitability

This is the second and final installment on applying Lean Six Sigma in Facilities Management organizations.  Last week's post defined Lean and Six Sigma and discussed their histories.  This week we look at how the two disciplines can be integrated and how one FM organization used Lean Six Sigma to solve a long standing problem.

Combining Lean and Six Sigma

The advantage of combining Lean and Six Sigma is in simultaneously improving the speed of work (Lean) and the quality of work (Six Sigma).  This dual-purposed approach integrates initiatives to improve process efficiency and effectiveness as measured by quality, speed and cost.  Critically important is the vision and leadership of senior management.  Without visible commitment from the top Lean Six Sigma risks succumbing to the pressures that endanger all change management initiatives.  For the initiative to be successful the attention to it must be consistent and long lived.

While both Lean and Six Sigma take a customer first approach the perspectives are slightly different.  It is important that a combined program make customer driven requirements, specifications and expectations a pre-eminent part of enterprise culture.  This is not always easy to do and it should be expected that there will be challenges.  Old attitudes must be changed and operational protocols adjusted.  Services that once focused on cost reduction alone while maintaining an acceptable level of quality must now deliver customer driven results of higher quality with lower cost.  Functional or vertical boundaries must take on open characteristics so that cross-functional improvements can reach the breadth of the enterprise.  Attaining this will mean a fundamental analysis and streamlining of every process involved and a willingness to let the facts and data take you where they will without dilution by old issues of turf, inter-departmental competition and the like.

Goals of Lean Six Sigma

Because they are both quality initiatives the goals of Lean and Six Sigma also have much in common.  They strive to increase the importance of customers throughout the value chain by taking a customer focus on process improvement.  Further they strive to drive these changes throughout an enterprise both vertically and horizontally.  The result is that a successful Lean Six Sigma organization is attuned to and indeed driven by customer requirements, dictating a unified and synchronized provision of goods and services in a manner that reduces or eliminates the normal friction of business.

Eliminating waste, streamlining and synchronizing processes across organizational boundaries, and making objective decisions based on hard data are the hallmarks of successful initiatives.  While Kaizen seeks to make incremental changes that result in immediate improvement which often come from front line workers, Six Sigma looks to institutionalize and maximize gains.  Both seek to change corporate culture in fundamental ways.

Implementation Case Study

Shared services organizations are good candidates for Lean Six Sigma programs.  As service organizations they serve internal customers but never the less have great leverage on the corporate bottom line.  Facilities management is nearly always the second largest cost center on a balance sheet and IT is also a giant.  In many shared service organizations these two reside under the same leadership, presenting an opportunity to join forces to improve the quality, speed and cost of services to the larger organization.  Such was the case when the Facilities and IT groups of a mid-sized company teamed up to tackle a vexing problem.

For years the two groups had struggled with aligning data center operations.  One was responsible for providing and operating the physical infrastructure, the other for equipping and managing data center operations that served the global enterprise.  Frequently there were disconnects in project planning and communication.  The key individuals in the two groups, however, had good relationships and jointly recognized the opportunity to investigate and resolve this issue.  Working inside an organization with a strong commitment to Continuous Improvement and in which resources and tools were available gave these practitioners the tools and management commitment they needed to attack the problem.

Working as a joint team this group used a number of Lean and Six Sigma tools to identify, investigate, and analyze root causes.  Using an Ishikawa diagram (Fishbone) they brainstormed issues that contributed to the problem.  The X-Y Matrix tool then led them through a process of scoring and ranking the issues they identified, resulting in a short list of high value opportunities to affect change.  The Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) identified individual failure modes, thereby informing the redesign of the processes involved.

As is usually the case these investigation and analysis tools identified causes that team members were already aware of.  In these cases the issues were quantified and documented to make them visible, understandable, and actionable.  As is also usually the case, this disciplined process of objective investigation revealed causes they were casually aware of without recognizing their full importance, or had been completely blind to.  One such key realization was that annual budgeting cycles for the two groups were not synchronized, with the facilities group being well down the budgeting pathway before the IT group began developing its annual project plans.  The obvious result was that facility budget decisions were made before IT projects and their implications to data center infrastructure were known.  As a result projects were often debated and delayed, preventing IT from providing services internal customers were waiting for. 

While this example may seem obvious that is often the point in these exercises.  The obvious becomes the norm, gets locked in and becomes a part of corporate rubric where it is all but forgotten except in times of stress.  But when discovered these issues can be dealt with and turned from red to green on the process status dashboard.

Keys to Success

As I mentioned this organization enjoyed a long standing commitment to Continuous Improvement and is familiar with Lean Six Sigma principles and protocols.  Over time these have become an ingrained part of their culture.  The environment established by leadership, the continuation of the commitment and the tools provided are all there.  But this is not an organization that has a large quality department.  Rather, Continuous Improvement has been made a requirement of all - it is largely a home grown bootstrap type of initiative. 

That said, tools have been provided.  Key individuals with Six Sigma experience from previous jobs have taken leadership roles as a collateral duty, functioning as coaches and mentors.  All staff in the entire shared services organization down to the first line supervision level (and often beyond) receives training in CI, Lean and Six Sigma courses taught on site by co-workers.  There are no consultants in sight.  Finally, CI project teams and their projects are periodically recognized.

The advantage of adopting Lean Six Sigma in your organization is that it provides a structured set of methodologies and tools which allow you to identify and remove obstacles.  While it is a disciplined approach it is not complicated and need not require a unique set of resources.  Indeed, the best results come from within based on commitment and perseverance. 

Applying Lean Six Sigma to Facilities Management

Note:  This is the first installment of a two part series on Lean Six Sigma.

Two Disciplines with Common Goals Combine to Improve Operations and Profitability

More than ever before companies are under pressure to improve operational efficiency and bottom line profitability.  It does not matter if your business is manufacturing, service or knowledge based; all are under the same pressures.  Increasingly companies are turning to Lean Six Sigma as a strategic tool to achieve measurable improvements at the bottom line, reflecting the results of changes made throughout the value chain, including internal processes, suppliers and most importantly customers.  As a facility management professional you have likely been challenged to keep pace and may have wondered if and how these principles can be applied to your organization.  Rest assured that they can be, and that your staff and internal customers are up for the challenge.   As with any Continuous Improvement (CI) program strong leadership and commitment from the top is a requirement.  Your understanding, sponsorship, and support will help launch and sustain the effort.

What is Lean?

The term “Lean” was first used in reference to quality improvement systems when it was applied to the Toyota Production System (TPS) in the nineteen eighties.  Reduced to its basic premise, the system seeks to improve process efficiency and quality by increasing speed and eliminating waste.  Students of TPS will be familiar with the concepts and methodologies of Kaizen, the never ending effort to discover and eliminate all forms of waste in a process.  While originally developed during Japan’s post-WWII recovery to improve manufacturing quality and efficiency it is now routinely applied to all forms of work processes. 

It is a gross mistake, however, to think of Lean as a one-time project or improvement effort.  It is about establishing a new culture that pervades the organization and becomes a part of its very DNA.  It does not happen overnight, but it can (and should) happen more quickly than you might think.  This rapid adoption occurs best where strong leadership and commitment are obvious to all, setting an expectation.  Including Lean participation and results as a part of performance management signals to every worker at every level just how important it is.  Lean should be viewed as a journey.  One that can begin with early results to be sure, but those first positive outcomes should not lead to a declaration of victory and the sure to follow loss of interest.

Remember that the two prime points of focus in Lean are increasing speed and eliminating waste to improve overall quality and value.  To achieve this Lean practitioners take a customer view of every process and outcome, looking to improve customer value in terms defined by the customer.   Value stream mapping will identify areas for rapid waste elimination opportunities while flow management will optimize the sequence of process steps.  Allowing customers to control the pace of production through pull management systems that deliver products and services based on actual consumption need prevents the waste of over production and the transportation and storage activities associated with it. 

Lean’s attention to eliminating waste evaluates all areas of value provision.  Defects such as bad product or service quality and missed deadlines cause rework and increased resource utilization.  Over producing consumes materials and adds time cost as well as transportation and storage.  And lest you be thinking to yourself, “I see how that applies in a manufacturing environment but what effect does it have for my service organization?” think about the costs associated with your service quality shortfalls, the cost of bad information that leads to bad decisions, or the hidden costs of over-provisioning to provide contingencies that may never be required. 

Lean’s three basic components; Quality, Just-In-Time, and Stable Operations often require a different way of thinking about the work of the enterprise.  Where most are focused along functional lines Lean requires a re-focusing to improve efficiencies throughout the value stream.

  

What is Six Sigma?

Six Sigma is essentially a statistical regime that improves process effectiveness by reducing process variability and improving process yield.  It is a collection of various statistical and analysis tools which are used to discover process defects, and a set of methodologies for curing them.  The term “Six Sigma” represents 3.4 defects per one million opportunities.  Compare that to the average manufacturing quality level of three sigma, or 67,000 defects per million, and think about the human, material and opportunity costs associated with the difference between the two.  Not in manufacturing?  Then think about your service processes and the cost of your defects when applied to your corporation’s cost of producing its products or services.  Customers pay that cost and they know who provides the best quality at the best price.  Customers know where the value is.

Interestingly, the Six Sigma “movement,” if one can call it that, began in the eighties when Motorola took on the challenge of reducing product defects as a way of improving market position at about the time Toyota was inventing its Lean processes.  Like Lean, Six Sigma is best thought of as a philosophy and culture that is customer focused, in which the customer defines product or service specifications and the provider meets those needs with optimized efficiency.

The goals of Six Sigma are much the same as those of Lean but it approaches these from a statistical perspective.  Decreasing process complexity, reducing cycle time, and minimizing defects all contribute to increased customer satisfaction and all can be measured, mapped, analyzed and improved. 

All quality improvement programs include improving financial performance as a goal.  Six Sigma, however, uniquely equips an organization owing to its statistical nature and allegiance to empirical data and the scientific method of investigation.  Pre-project scoping analyses of financial benefits allow management to prioritize projects based on expected beneficial outcomes.  Continuing financial analysis during project evolution keeps the team focused on delivering bottom line results by fine tuning the project.  This also provides management a view into the project’s progress as it evolves, thereby improving and speeding intelligence on “ground level” operational developments.  At the same time it informs management the financial analyses educates the team members and allows them to recognize other opportunities for improvement.

Next week:  Combining Lean and Six Sigma, and a shared services implementation case study.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): Optimize, Collaborate, and Own the Project

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) projects offer many advantages over traditional project delivery systems, including Design-Build and other fast track methodologies.  Integrated Project Delivery requires that entities which previously worked together on projects but with different goals and incentives now collaborate.  It also requires new behaviors, new attitudes, new contracts and new transparency.  Successful Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) projects recognize and exercise these IPD truisms.

Optimization Requires Collaboration:  The whole purpose of IPD is to optimize the project delivery process.  While there are many ways to collaborate with technology, the interpersonal aspects of IPD teams is critical.  Sharing documentation is one thing, rapid recognition of project issues and the ability to quickly convene and resolve them is another.  Although not an absolute requirement, many IPD project teams find that co-locating project personnel in one office speeds this process, encourages deeper collaboration, and results in faster decisions with greater cross-functional buy-in.

Collaboration Unlocks Creativity:  A natural outgrowth of good collaboration is increased creativity.  The free form flow of ideas and instant feedback feeds and helps to accelerate the creative cycle.  Design issues, constructability issue resolution, and every other facet of the project delivery process benefits from this outcome.

Joint Control Creates Joint Ownership:  Unlike traditional projects where separate contracts set up individual “fiefdoms” inside the project, each with its own set of priorities, incentives and penalties; IPD contracts create a project governance system that increases transparency and participation.  Shared decision making results in shared ownership of those decisions, thereby increasing buy-in and speeding execution. 

Challenge Stimulates Creativity but Fear Creates Defensiveness:  Every coin has two sides and IPD is no different.  As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, IPD requires new behaviors and attitudes.  When project participants are unable to make those shifts then the requisite trust among team members does not develop and the free exchange of ideas is inhibited, resulting in loss of project momentum and benefit.  Choosing IPD team members is a critical first step. 

Much of the benefit derived in successful IPD projects comes from enhanced collaboration.  But “it ain’t always easy,” as a wise man once said.  Participants need to make changes in the way they approach projects.  In traditional delivery systems project team members have individual aspirations.  They know how they define project success in terms of financial and other project outcomes.  But, they are not shared by all and sometimes differ significantly across the team.  Individual contracts do little to help and usually more to hinder.  IPD projects are based more on shared values.  IPD contracts unite all participants under the same set of goals with rewards and risks allocated by consensus.  Behaviors are enforced through rewards and consequences that are jointly agreed upon at the outset.

Characteristics of Successful Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Projects

The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) model requires behaviors, collaboration, and alignment of project incentives and risks at a level rarely seen in traditional project delivery systems.  Integrated Project Delivery is a holistic approach to project delivery that seeks to improve project speed, cost and quality.  Successful IPD projects exhibit a common set of characteristics which can be viewed as guidelines to forming your own project environment.

IPD Project Structure Supports Integration:  The project structure is possibly the single most important component in IPD.  Establishing project participants early on and bringing them together with common goals, incentives and risks is critical.  It requires that the Owner decide who all of the team members are long before the project is designed and bid documents are available, and that project control becomes a shared function.  By introducing transparency in control and decision making the group adopts collaboration and consensus as key behaviors, jointly agreeing on incentive/risk sharing and project targets.  This is not to say that the Owner relinquishes all rights.  The Owner establishes primary project outcomes and deliverables, establishes the budget and schedule.  How these targets are reached, however, becomes a much more “engagement centric” exercise than traditional projects experience.

IPD Contracts Serve as an Alignment Tool:  Traditional project structures and contracts create three distinct and often competing agendas.  When an Owner contracts separately with design professionals and Contractors the Owner assumes the responsibility and risk of coordinating project requirements and aligning entities that may be “working toward one common goal.”  At least that’s what we all say.  Reality, however, often suggests a different type of alignment, one in which three separate project teams each have their own set of requirements and definitions of a successful project.  Integrated Project Delivery contracts bring the Owner, Architect and Contractor together in one arrangement with one set of project definitions and goals.  This results in Sub-Consultants and Sub-Contractors also having the same outcomes in mind, as opposed to traditional models where they have more proprietary interests at heart.

Project Participant Mindsets Are Focused on Common Goals:  The transparency required of successful IPD projects engenders increasing trust and collaboration.  It is through these two channels that some of the most rewarding changes come.  Instead of compromising to protect their particular interests in a project all participants must adopt the common (project’s) good as their goal.  While the financial incentive of the shared reward pool is certainly a motivator, the importance and benefits of working together in close collaboration should not be under-valued in this sense.

Synergies Enhance Collaboration and Outcomes:  Technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and protocols like Lean Design and Construction are perfect bedfellows with IPD.  They accelerate projects while minimizing risk and improving quality.   It is no accident that most IPD projects are fast-tracked.  These tools and strategies are designed to do exactly that.  Greater visibility of design evolution and increased constructability input from the earliest stages contributes to early identification of design conflicts or other issues.  Lean Construction accepts time sensitive inputs and prioritizes design and decision making.

BIM and IPD Making Value Engineering Irrelevant

The effective implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) systems and protocols is replacing Value Engineering (VE).  The payoff of this shift is in higher quality, lower budgets and shorter timelines.  Value is increased, not “engineered out” as is often the case with VE.

Value Engineering’s biggest fault is that it was and is typically implemented too late in the project cycle.  It is most often thought of as a tool to bring project costs back in line.  Doing this late in the design process, as is usually the case, means that the cost of the design itself goes up even as the quality turns down.  Compromises made in late stages to fit the design within budget invariably lead to changes that sacrifice aesthetic, functionality and sometimes even programmatic requirements.

BIM and IPD are changing the model.  The design advantages of BIM coupled with communication principles of IPD bring design and budget conflicts to light much earlier in the design process.  As a result, the team is able to search for and select alternatives that meet all project requirements.  Discovering and solving these issues early on saves time, eliminates rework, improves quality, and allows everyone on the project team to be successful. 

But these new tools are not yet common in the marketplace.  At this point I see them being mainly used on very large projects such as new hospitals, research facilities, institutional buildings and the like.  There are too many owners who have not yet gotten the message.  Their “design-bid-build” mentality is meant to ensure minimum cost.  What it really does is force every entity involved in the process to have a parochial mentality, therefore denying the advantages of transparent collaboration to the project, and the owner.  Projects take longer, carry more risk, cost more and deliver less.

BIM and IPD are tools which actively contribute to and improve the value of projects.  As with any new tool, there is a learning process.  New team models and behaviors, increased trust and collaboration, a willingness to be transparent and a “us” mentality are keys to IPD success.  These don’t come easily to everyone, making the selection of team members more important than ever.

In the old model contracts emphasized constraints and penalties.  Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and Lump Sum contracts along with Liquidated Damages clauses and litigation were used to define and enforce project parameters.  In IPD relationships and shared risk take a much more prominent position.  The emphasis is on Design to a Budget principles where project deliverables  and the allowable maximum funding are established.  The profit buffer between the two then becomes an incentive pool.  In the conventional model design and construction were managed to standard of care and warranty requirements.  In the IPD model design and construction are managed by joint decision making and quality adjustments as the project progresses.  In short, the contract becomes a tool, not a threat.

Establishing a Project Management Office (PMO)

One of the initiatives I have on my plate is to establish a PMO within our facilities organization. Like many FM shops everyone on our team wears many hats. A few of us are even pretty good at project management. But ALL of us are at one point or another cast in the Project Manager (PM) role and while we are good at project implementations we need to get better.

At their heart PMO’s have relatively simple goals; establishing policy, setting and implementing project management standards, and measuring performance chief among them. Some might say “bringing order to chaos” would be a tidy summary. Possibly. I don’t think it applies in our case and I hope it doesn’t in yours. There is no arguing the fact, however, that PMO’s require adherence to set standards and that there is a definite process. While ad hoc project management may allow us to feel more “agile” and “nimble” it also contributes to a “tyranny of the urgent” culture. The positive tension in creating a PMO is to retain that agility while implementing a culture that brings standardization, transparency and accountability.

We can provide all the pronouncements we like and have the best of intentions, but the real success of a PMO depends upon other critical factors as well.

• Is the initiative to establish the PMO communicated with the strong endorsement of senior management or is the team left to make it or break it on their own?

• Are clear and measurable objectives established to define the expectations of the new PMO?

• Are project managers selected on the basis of their aptitude and training, or simply because they are available or the projects are in their functional area?

• Is appropriate time, training and software provided, or are members expected to do it out of their hip pocket?

Knowing the answers to those questions will give you a good indicator of the likely success of a PMO launch effort. Positive responses will define the lines of accountability, provide the resources needed and instill confidence.

Buying Strategies for Construction and FM Services

You would think that I should look forward to summer, after all it’s the vacation season and the beaches are in their prime. For many, however, this time of year is defined by budget meetings and projects that are racing to the finish line, just before the end of the Fiscal Year. And so it is these days. I’ve been carrying beach gear in my car for three months and have used it all of three times. Something is wrong with this picture!

Aside from racing to complete projects, I have been struggling with the issue of process requirements for contracting construction and services. Most organizations have strict policies in place for the purpose of protecting investment integrity and assuring maximum value, and I’ve got no problem with either. But there is a disconnect between the requirement to deliver projects rapidly (do it right now) and the requirement to comply with a strict contracting protocol (follow the rules exactly). Again, I am not against either, they just don’t always coexist very well. Having to gain pre-RFP approvals to authorize a project, then subsequently bid to multiple contractors/vendors, and then deliver the project in a severely constrained timeline can be a challenge. It is even worse when the projects or purchases are of relatively small value or when there are multiple instances in process at the same time. Welcome to my world.

But there are ways out of this dilemma. For starters, blanket purchase orders with pre-approved contractors and vendors will shortcut the delivery process. Done correctly these “investment quality contract vehicles” are even appropriate for large projects or tasks. Pre-qualifying contractors and locking in unit costs for various project elements or services enables a much faster response time. In this scenario, contractors have already run the gauntlet of approval requirements (contract agreement, labor rates, unit costs, MBE/WBE/VBE and SBA status, etc.), allowing them to respond quickly when tasked to price a project. Then it is simply a matter of selecting and executing. Some organizations are using this strategy to speed execution of large projects within very large programs where speed of execution is critical. It provides all the due diligence required, properly informs the selection process, and supports quality management.

There is a buying phenomena occurring now also. Given the economic times and difficulty accessing capital we assume that projects are being put on the back burner waiting for better times. Mostly true, but not always.

The normal model is to delay capital investment until the last responsible moment. But, just as real estate managers are renegotiating leases for longer terms (accepting more future risk) in exchange for lease rate or other concessions, some well-heeled organizations are buying construction now on future need projects to take advantage of today’s lower construction costs. This strategy is not for everyone but it is intriguing for those who have high certainty of the need. Private non-residential construction is now 35% below its late 2008 peak and still trending down. Those with the right project portfolio and the required capacity see opportunity and are acting on it.

Is There A Number for Everything?

“We must consider the possibility that if we can’t measure something , it might be the very most important aspect of the problem.”

That from a blog post by Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School at the University of Toronto and one of today’s preeminent business thinkers.

It does raise an interesting question which I think is relevant in the FM domain. Have we become so focused on measuring, metrics and quantitative analysis that we have lost sight of the “soft” side of our business? And, exactly what are the elements we cannot measure but which are important never the less?

Is emotion an important business value? What about motivation, caring, empathy, mentoring, experience, and instinct? I would argue that all are important values and that we too often do a poor job of balancing them against the hard numbers we measure our performance by every day. SLA’s and KPI’s are fine but they do not present a whole picture of your performance or business health.

Take a look at your own organization and ask yourself, “Are we emotionally healthy around here? Which is correct most often, the spreadsheet projections or my gut?” You might be surprised at what you learn.

Is It Strategy vs. Execution, or Strategy and Execution?

That may seem like a simplistic question with an obvious answer, but I wonder what the answers would be if we knew we were free to speak our minds on how strategy is developed, communicated and implemented in our own organizations.

I suspect that many FM’s would say that they are on the lag side of the strategy equation. Someone else formulates the strategy, hands it off to business units, each of which then does their best to align operations and initiatives with the new strategy. That’s fine as far as it goes. What it lacks, however, is cohesive and coordinated integration that recognizes and accommodates interdependencies between units. For example, an organization may have a strategy to improve its competitive position by increasing efficiency and lowering operating costs. That all sounds good, right? But what if IT’s response is to transition to new server and storage technologies while FM’s plan is to aggressively improve energy consumption efficiency? Are those two mutually exclusive? No, they are not. But they must be properly shaped, communicated and coordinated or they could create conflict between goals and execution priorities.

The current issue of the Harvard Business Review carries a series of articles about the linkage between corporate strategy and execution. Roger Martin makes the strong case that separating the two is a sure way to make failure a certainty. His point is that once strategy is decided upon it cannot just be delegated to others to execute. He prefers instead a model he refers to as a “Cascade of Choices” which links the two elements to create a holistic or “virtuous strategy cycle.” This model suggests shifting some decision making (choices) to lower levels as a way of broadening and deepening a strategy’s reach into an organization. It also helps make strategy meaningful to front line staff, a shortcoming that has sunk more than one strategy ship.

If you asked most of us we would say that the biggest obstacles we face include not having enough resources, lack of a clear strategy and conflicting priorities. A sound strategy and implementation plan that has been properly coordinated addresses all of those.

There are lots of homilies we could use to paint a picture most are all too familiar with. “Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best,” and “Catching the right wave is the second hardest thing to do, the first is knowing when to get off of it” are two that come immediately to mind. But a well conceived and communicated strategy identifies required resource shifts and priority changes needed to assure success, helping to mitigate against both conditions.

Said another way, creating and developing a strategy is the easy part. Its success will be determined by the organization’s ability to morph resources, priorities, energy and focus; supporting those things that help the strategy succeed and not supporting those things that work against it – even if they are long held favorites.

As FM’s we are in direct control of a very large portion of organizational assets. What we do and how well we do it makes a big difference at the strategic level. Ask yourself if you have the voice you need to effectively contribute to the strategy discussion and whether you are participating in the alignment and coordination dialogue, or simply taking a series of notes on a new “To Do” pad.

FM should be a thought leader within the organization, not just a bunch of folks working hard to get through today’s set of tasks. Your organization needs you to lead and, oh by the way…. You need you to lead.

Three Pivot Points That Are Influencing the Future of FM – Part 3

This is the third and final in a three part post on issues the author feels are affecting the FM profession


Pivot Point: The Explosion of FM Data

As building operations have increased in complexity over the years so has the data available from building systems and the need to analyze data and make fact-based decisions. FM’s and their cohorts are challenged to make sense of and synthesize data from different systems to present a complete and rational picture of operations. Not to say that we have arrived at a juncture of data and rationality, but at least we can see the intersection from where we are today.

Expanding beyond the building envelope, managing portfolios of multiple properties only increases the complexity of the equation and the challenge of reaching that desired intersection. While there have long been portfolio management systems and building management systems the two have not often worked hand in hand. Too often, in fact, they have not been viewed as part of the same equation. The real estate folks have their systems and the operations team has theirs. Seldom are they integrated.

In today’s world that simply is no longer acceptable.
Large portfolios represent large investment that must be optimized in all dimensions to support financial health and strength. That means that real estate portfolio management and operational systems management should be viewed as part of one whole, not two separates.

Corporate Real Estate (CRE) professionals care about strategic planning, forecasting requirements and business drivers. They understand the financials of the deal but not necessarily the life cycle operating costs of the deal. They need to track inventory, utilization, depreciation and implications to the corporate bottom line. Like FM’s, their operational cousins, they typically deal with a number of different systems to accomplish all of this.

FM’s who are focused on building or site operations deal with a different set of requirements, systems and data. On the building side of their domain they care about operating costs, risk mitigation, compliance issues, energy efficiency, lean processes and meeting service level agreements.

The two worlds seem different but are interdependent. New generations of software will integrate them in ways that improve operations on both sides of the equation, making the interdependencies visible and actionable. Portfolio information about asset management and utilization will help operators understand building profiles. Service KPI’s will be tracked across the enterprise and integrated with financials. Energy management will be dashboarded and enable financial modeling and troubleshooting using the same analytical tools.

One of the positive effects of the economic meltdown will be an increased focus on efficiency coming out of the experience. Capital investment will flow to programs and systems that help to lean operations, improve performance and increase efficiencies.

The Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) has taken on the challenge of expanding the alignment agenda beyond organizational boundaries, with the goal of unifying core processes industry wide, including standardizing how information is shared. OSCRE aims to accomplish this by establishing standards that will be the framework for unifying information flow and execution. Already, standards for Work Request and Work Order Fulfillment, Lease Abstract Exchange, Lease Delivery, Occupiers Cost and Portfolio Information Exchange are in place, with others such as Investment Valuation in process. OSCRE has plans for the operational side of FM as well.

“Facilities Management: An interest group is forming to extend the seminal work on neutral work request and work order exchanges. Work management is fundamental to many categories of capital asset management, accommodations, and maintenance management. This group will first establish market drivers for ongoing initiatives and then start multiple technical workgroups and/or engineering initiatives.”
Excerpt from OSCRE website

FM organizations are now awash in data. But what are we doing with it, and how are we doing it? Is it coherent and meaningful data, or are we simply counting to count? How effective are we in gleaning wisdom from data, and what changes as a result? These are key questions to be dealt with if you have not already. Now and more so in the future, the FM suite will be home to analysts who sift data and look for patterns and trends, discerning nuggets of information that reveal truth, risk and opportunity.

There are others of course, but these three pivot points are vital to our profession in the coming years. Understanding the implications of the social and economic changes that seem to be everywhere these days, aligning ourselves and our organizations to improve speed and agility, and taking advantage of the information explosion are all first level concerns that demand diligent attention and action.

Our world is not the same as it used to be. Most people realize that fundamental changes are occurring. Those who interpret this as good news, as a chance to create and achieve will embrace the changes required to turn opportunity into reality.

IPD, BIM, FM, Lean … All in One Place

Recently I have been working on a personal research project, looking to gather some of the more informative and interesting sources into one bundle.  You may be aware of most of these, but my contribution to the greater good this week is to put them all in one place, and maybe introduce you to one or two you were not aware of.  For those of us who work in the real estate, capital projects and operations side of facilities, these are good sources to have at hand.  Naturally, given where the profession is these days, lean, IPD and BIM are prominent.

The National Institute of Building Sciences’ Whole Building Design Guide offers a wealth of information on built environment standards and best practices.

The mission of the Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) is to deliver global electronic real estate standards.  Members often compete in the business arena but collaborate within the OSCRE framework to further the development of standard real estate measurements and tools.  

The Building Smart Alliance focuses on building system interoperability and full lifecycle implementation to attain lowest overall operating cost, optimum sustainability, energy conservation and environmental stewardship.

The Journal of Building Information Modeling (JBIM) is a publication of the National Institute of Building Sciences which focuses on Building Information Modeling’s (BIM) application to the lifecycle management of the built environment.

Tradeline, Inc. produces excellent conferences primarily geared towards the academic environment.  Register on their site and you have access to a wide array of research reports which will be beneficial regardless of which sector you operate in.

The Construction Users Roundtable is an offshoot of the Business Roundtable.  Founded in 2000 its mission is to create a competitive advantage for construction users by focusing on cost effectiveness, improving construction planning and what Owners allow, require, and accept responsibility for on their global construction projects.

The Lean Construction Institute conducts research on project based production management for capital facilities.

The American Society of Quality’s Design and Construction Division works to advance quality and improvement within the industries that provide services to the built environment.

Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, strives to be the world’s premier academic research center for virtual design and construction.  Its focus is research and education, with main objectives to improve schedule performance, cost conformance, sustainability and globalization.

Projects@Work is a good source for project management information and development.  Here you will find PM case studies, PM leadership tips, and general information of the profession.

For those interested in learning the basics of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), you can check out this article at McGraw Hill’s Continuing Education Center.

IPD FAQ’s by the California Council of AIA.

CMAA’s College of Fellows paper entitled Managing Integrated Project Delivery provides insight and understanding that practitioners can build upon.  Its ideas are thoughtful and sometimes contradictory, as they should be in an intellectual interchange.

The Building Information Management blog reports on a national IPD study conducted by AIA, pointing to demonstrated efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

BIM and IPD Tips to Remember

In the capital projects arena Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) are fast becoming the norm instead of the exception.  While both have been around for some time now they are reaching critical mass in terms of their acceptance.  The reasons why are obvious.  Both support shorter construction timelines and that has a direct affect on cost.  Just as importantly, both offer improved quality when done correctly (although I personally think BIM has the greater leverage here).  As an extra value, BIM provides building operators with full access to all design and specification information on day one, in a way they can actually use immediately and intuitively.  For those of you like me who have sometimes waited months to get that all elusive "Building Manual" this alone makes your mouth water.

BIM provides a complete building model, right down to the hanger inserts if you choose to take it that far, and you should.  Not only does this modeling provide collision detection before systems are fabricated, it also allows completion of shop drawings in the design process (assuming a IPD methodology where contractors are already on board). Another advantage, especially for more complicated buildings with sophisticated process systems, is the ability to operate the facility virtually before the first backhoe bites the dirt.  This allows process system operators and building operators to collaborate on maximizing facility performance and efficiency, and to conduct actual operational training where they interact with system controls exactly as they will in the new completed facility.

IPD is a project delivery method that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction.  From an end-user perspective, IPD improves design team acceptance of the Owner's culture and goals.  The keys here are to find the right partners, trust in each other and make good decisions via collaboration, and to adopt fair risk sharing equations.

Here are a few tips to consider when choosing to implement BIM and IPD on your next project:

• Conduct a process mapping exercise with all team members present
• Also conduct a Value Stream Mapping session to identify gaps and opportunities
• Assure that all contracts are tied to project goals with specific measurables agreed to
• Define profit and risk sharing in the contract
• Define allowable Change Order causes in specific language (no design, fit, or fab issues)
• Co-locate the project team for the duration of each team member's involvement
• Make consensus based decisions
• Focus on process flow
• Set target cost early and align incentives
• Provide rapid cost input to design during the design process, not after
• Write all agreements so that the BIM model is owned by the Owner, not the consultants

One FM’s View of the Immediate Future

As part of an annual scan process we go through in preparation for the beginning of the budget season our organization takes a hard look at the financial world around us. Right now it’s not a pretty picture. Pick an indicator - residential or commercial real estate, manufacturing, job creation – they’re all in trouble. Okay, we know that. But what does it mean for FM's?

Capital to fund projects is going to be hard to come by. The majority of large projects will stay on the back burner as emphasis remains on improving the bottom line through productivity gains and cost savings. Projects that do make it through the approval gauntlet will most certainly be under increased pressure to meet or beat budget and schedule targets. Given current economic indicators corporate capital is expected to remain constrained through at least the next two years.

Commercial real estate will remain in distress through 2011. Default rates continue to rise and are expected to reach 5% this year with the bottom not coming until 2011 at the earliest. That means even tighter credit at a time when many commercial loans are due to reset. Landlords caught in the squeeze are in trouble. Watch your landlord relationships and their financial health. Their risk is your risk. It might be your opportunity as well.

Emphasis on cutting costs and boosting productivity will escalate. Many companies have made the easy cuts and still have to improve to survive, but additional staff cuts run the risk of so deeply depleting the talent pool as to be too risky. For others, the need to improve is a key to competitiveness even if they have so far remained unscathed. Companies will dial up Continuous Improvement initiatives, but the initiatives must demonstrate hard gains through specific metrics. This will include second tier metrics to make certain that credit is not claimed for gains in one sector, cost as an example, at the expense of another, i.e. quality or revenue.

FM service providers are still under pressure. Virtually every firm you depend upon for service or support is under financial duress. Some have improved their position over the last year and most will make it through, but some will not. Keep a close eye on those that are most critical to your operations or present large financial risk should they fail. One way of doing this is to include corporate financial health information in your routine monthly or quarterly contract reviews. They will expect you to be asking so don’t be shy about it. You should be monitoring key ratios, borrowing capacity, credit rating and stock value as a minimum.

Opportunities exist to gain contract concessions. It might be a lease as noted above or renegotiating terms with your largest outsourced service providers. In most cases FM’s will have several of these opportunities. Your goal here is to drive down the cost of the contract in exchange for considerations in their favor such as extending the term of the contract, while maintaining enough resource to get the job done without endangering quality.

Adoption of alternative office strategies will become more common. Even organizations that traditionally have not ventured into this territory will do so. Companies will analyze occupancy and presence data to understand the scale and scope of stranded real estate investment. For companies who need to grow doing so without real estate expansion will become a priority. Densities will increase with shifts in office entitlement policies and standards.

Smart FM’s will watch the scoreboard. You may not consider yourself an economist but now more than ever you need to understand the basics of how business works in this very interdependent world. You should be watching basic market indicators relevant to your business and thinking strategically about risk and opportunity. FM’s should be knocking on the CFO’s door with observations and trends, and proposing actions to take advantage of opportunities and/or mitigate risk. You don’t have to have details. Demonstrating that you are keeping your finger on the pulse and understand what the data potentially means to your business will raise your own stock and protect the company’s as well. Go knock on the door, don’t wait to answer the phone.

Data Interoperability – A Dream Coming True or an Elusive Quest?

As building operations have increased in complexity over the years so has the data available from building systems and the need to analyze the data and make fact-based decisions. Facility Managers (FM’s) and their cohorts are challenged to make sense of and synthesize data from different systems to present a complete and rational picture of operations. Not to say that we have arrived at a juncture of data and rationality, but at least we can see the intersection from where we are today.

Expanding beyond the building envelope, managing portfolios of multiple properties only increases the complexity of the equation and the challenge of reaching that desired intersection. While there have long been portfolio management systems and building management systems the two have not often worked hand in hand. Too often, in fact, they have not been viewed as part of the same equation. The real estate folks have their systems and the operations team has theirs. Seldom are they integrated.

In today’s world that simply is no longer acceptable.

Large portfolios represent large investments. Investments that must be optimized in all realms to support financial health and strength. That means that real estate portfolio management and operational systems management should be viewed as part of one whole, not two separates.

Corporate Real Estate (CRE) professionals care about strategic planning, forecasting requirements and business drivers. They understand the financials of the deal but not the life cycle operating costs of the deal. They need to track inventory, utilization, depreciation and implications to the corporate bottom line. Like FM’s, their operational cousins, they typically deal with a number of different systems to accomplish all of this.

FM’s who are focused on building or site operations deal with a different set of requirements, systems and data. On the building side of their domain they care about operating costs, risk mitigation, compliance issues, energy efficiency, lean processes and meeting service level agreements.

The two worlds seem different but are interdependent. New generations of software will integrate them in ways that improve operations on both sides of the equation, making the interdependencies visible and actionable. Portfolio information about asset management and utilization will help operators understand building profiles. Service KPI’s will be tracked across the enterprise and integrated with financials. Energy management will be dashboarded and enable financial modeling and troubleshooting using the same analytical tools.

One of the positive effects of the economic meltdown will be an increased focus on efficiency coming out of the experience. Capital investment will flow to programs and systems that help to lean operations, improve performance and increase efficiencies.

Tomorrow is on the horizon. It will not look like yesterday. It won’t feel like yesterday. It won’t be yesterday. Crisis always leads to innovation and this one is no different. But it will require that you change as your company, your priorities and the knowledge you need to be successful change.

Change. There’s that word again. Don’t ya just love it?

I hope so. It’s the key to your future.

Data Center Energy Efficiency: The Savings Are in the Details

We all know that data center energy usage is growing at a pace that far outstrips demand growth in other areas. Gartner’s 13% Combined Annual Growth Rate metric has been in place for several years now and remains constant, while global non-data center engergy consumption growth averages 2.5% each year. As if that weren’t bad enough the cost of energy is soaring at the same time. Data centers, yours and mine included, are part of the problem. New server technology and increasing densities are part of the equation, but they are only a part. And they are a part that most FM’s do not have control over. When it comes to the data center most of us say we are in reactive mode most of the time, responding to IT initiatives that we may not have known about until the trouble calls started coming in. What then, can FM’s do to be ahead of the curve, increase energy efficiency, decrease energy expense and contribute to good environmental stewardship?

Not all of the answers to these questions are difficult or expensive. Even if you are not undertaking a major project you can work the details inside your data centers and likely improve performance in each of these areas.

Chase the Air: Start by making sure air flow efficiency is maximized in order to minimize cooling energy consumption. Walk the floor with a keen eye and look for leaks or improperly placed air grilles. Pay attention to plenum penetrations for piping and cables and make sure they are tightly sealed. Pull cabinets away from the wall and look for openings that may have been allowing air leakage for years. Check the ceiling and do the same. Look everywhere, find the leaks and seal them. All that wasted air flow means an air conditioning unit is running to produce it, and that means wasted energy consumption, not to mention increased maintenance costs.

Investigate the Air: Investing a few engineering dollars to develop Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) models of your data center air flow will likely be an eye opening exercise if you haven’t done it in some time. The CFD analysis will show you where your hot spots and cold spots are and illuminate other air flow issues.

Organize the Air: Use the CFD analysis data to prioritize low cost and self-help projects that will improve operational efficiency, such as creating hot and cold aisles that will cool your equipment in the most efficient manner. If the analysis points to bigger issues then use the data and science of the analysis to justify capital investments required to take on more substantial projects.

Data center operations can be thought of as a three legged stool. Mechanical systems that provide air to cool the center, electrical systems that provide power to both the mechanical and computing systems, and lastly the computers themselves. In order to truly maximize data center operations efficiency you will need to apply the same rigorous discipline to each leg, chasing the details and resolving issues where you find them.

Good luck in your search for the holy grail of data centers – infrastructure efficiency. It may be a long and arduous task but the rewards are well worth the effort. Besides, just think of how green the grass will be then!

Lease Green, But Know What It Means

Green leasing is in vogue these days and I suppose that’s a good thing. As with any initiative, however, it is important that it be done right; and that can vary from tenant to tenant and landlord to landlord. Many companies are taking advantage of current economic conditions to leverage concessions from landlords, renegotiating leases to lower rates in exchange for extended terms. More and more frequently green leasing is included in these discussions. For some it may even be a prime goal.

It is important that landlord and tenant agree on what their particular form of green lease will include. For some it may be as basic as assuring that building service providers use green products or that a good recycling program is in place. Others may set standards for common spaces, ventilation, natural light or other elements. Some property owners are investing in green building projects as a way of differentiating themselves in a tough market.

Aside from requiring consensus on what green means in a particular case, a green lease also brings accountability for measuring and reporting performance against the green lease standards. The parties must agree here also. What will be measured? What is the standard? How will it be reported? How often will it be reported?

The lease should also be specific and fair in how projects will be capitalized and benefits allocated. For example, an owner will have a hard time justifying capital to retrofit building energy systems to increase efficiency if the resulting benefit goes primarily to tenants. In short, the lease should be crystal clear on the questions of who is responsible for paying for projects or initiatives, how benefits are shared, tracking mechanisms and how differences of opinion will be resolved.

Tenants who occupy a majority or very large portion of a building have more leverage with the landlord and can help move the green initiative along. If this is you, don’t forget to network with other tenants in the building. Including them in the process will be beneficial to them and you, demonstrate your recognition of their role in the building and help speed acceptance by other tenants and the landlord.

If You Can’t Follow the Moon Then Live in the Cloud

In the July 26 post to this blog I discussed the “follow the moon” strategy being implemented by some data operators. As beneficial as the moon strategy may be, however, it is only viable for organizations which possess both the need and capacitiy for such a distributed infrastructure. Most companies do not fall into that category. What then is a small to mid-size organization to do by way of providing needed computing capacity and application diversity while still supporting a green data initiative? One answer is cloud computing. Reduced to its basics, cloud computing is an infrastructure in which applications and their attendant servers belong to someone else. This “software as a service” (SaaS) approach allows you to access applications that are held remotely while the resulting files are maintained locally. Your subscription fee for the service then pays for not only the application license but also your proscribed share of development and operating costs.

David Bradshaw, International Data Corporation research manager for European software as a service, says "… it is clear that SaaS has become accepted by the mainstream of user organizations around Europe. This will result in continued strong growth, making SaaS a rising star in a very largely depressed European software market." He goes on to note that that the overall European SaaS market will grow from €237 million in 2004 to a projected €6,005 million in 2013 (as of April 2009).

Here in the U.S. we see a similar pattern. One noteable market segment that is shifting to cloud computing is the education sector. In some cases entire college districts or systems are converting to a cloud architecture, allowing the system or students to purchase netbook computers at a typical cost of $200 USD instead of something ten times that amount. This is a good example of a disbursed enterprise with diverse computing needs. The cloud solution allows standardization on an affordable computing platform with access to a wide array of software.

In a small business context the solution may be as simple as Google Apps, Yahoo’s Zimbra or one of the other products of similar ilk. Again, this allows you access to a wide variety of software at a fraction of the cost of owning the software, shifts responsibility for software updates and maintenance to the provider, and allows you the option of downsizing the cost of your computing hardware.

Following the moon isn’t for everybody and neither is cloud computing, but the cloud offers substantial benefit to a much wider set of enterprises. Software diversity, cost avoidance, time saved supporting your software and other advantages are all make the cloud an attractive solution.

Report on IFMA WorldWorkplace 2009

As you no doubt noted from my last post, there was no shortage of fun in Orlando. But, we also networked, sat through numerous educational sessions and walked our way through the exhibition floor learning about new products and technologies. Although the event was smaller this year (no surprise there) the content quality that I experienced seemed to have improved over my last visit to WorldWorkplace. Kudos to the IFMA team, volunteers and especially to those who took the time to prepare and present information that FM practitioners need to improve our own quality and outcomes.

As you might suspect renewable energy, LEED, and all other things green were in prominence. It was appropriate then that Andrew Winston, author of Green to Gold present the opening keynote address to set the tone. In some regard this felt a bit like “preaching to the choir” since FM’s are keenly attuned to the issue of environmental responsibility. Still, there were good reminders and insights that may help you make the green case in your workplace. Here are a few attention getters from Andrew:

75% of MBA students believe that Corporate Social Responsibility is a requirement.

Every year China builds the equivalent of 31 Manhattan’s – not one year, every year.

Being “lean” is no longer just smart, it is becoming a necessity as resources are diverted to developing and emerging economies.

The U.S. automobile industry didn’t collapse so much because of the credit crunch as to market forces. Companies like Honda, Nissan and Subaru all grew year over year because they had the right energy efficient products.

Toyota’s Prius is the most successful green product ever (to date).

In another session Dave Alpert focused on recent and developing environmental legislation in California that will directly affect FM’s operating in the state. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 for example requires renewable energy be a part of every development project. Exactly what that means is yet to be determined, but the message is clear. Renewable energy is a key element of California’s forward strategy. AB113, modeled after European Union regulations will require the monitoring and reporting of energy use by large facilities. And in Dave’s and multiple other presentations it is clear that Cap and Trade legislation is now presumed. Some companies are investing in green technologies to lean new projects underway now in anticipation, spending now to create a new revenue stream when Cap and Trade legislation becomes law.

Those are just a few of the many highlights. To those of you who missed the trip we’re sorry you weren’t there and hope to see you next year in Atlanta.