FMJ Facilities Management magazine providing industry-specific intelligence to FM and property professionals
Adam Atkins, Co-Founder and Group Chief Executive of Coat Facilities Group
Investing time and money into building an in-house IT system sophisticated enough to handle the complexities of facilities management service delivery can seem overwhelming, unnecessary or even unattainable. But, in a world where FM companies are increasingly seeking to position themselves as strategic partners rather than simply delivery providers, the advantages for those who have already made that investment have proved significant.
Developing and rolling out an internal portal can be costly, it can be a lengthy process, and it’s certainly not got the ease of an ‘off the shelf’ purchased solution. But when you start to explore the real benefits – both for the provider and their clients – it is clear why this is the direction FM leaders are increasingly taking.
The difference an in-house system makes
Far from just being an operational tool, the IT systems FM providers rely on can become a service differentiator, not only setting them apart from competitors using standard outsourced tools – but also showcasing the very real value that they can add to clients’ businesses.
While initial development costs can be challenging, the lack of ongoing licence fees soon delivers a return on investment. Another added benefit is the control the FM provider gains, with no third party to seek permission from during integrations – and the ability to tailor the system to suit both them and their clients in a quicker, more cost-effective manner.
Through the ownership of cohesive workflows, dashboards, reporting, compliance records and mobile assets, teams can provide faster, more transparent and more consistent service delivery. This is due to their enhanced ability to schedule and allocate resources, the reduction in duplicated admin tasks, faster onboarding of new contracts, and better margin visibility. Essentially, they hold one set of comprehensive data which gives them oversight of every contract, site, engineer, client and project.
For clients, that transparency provides added value: they can see what has been completed and what has not, where their money is being spent, and even compare performance across locations where they have multiple sites. By giving them sight of and control over all of the insights they need, FM providers can work with their clients to make data-led decisions – leading to a more strategic partnership between the two organisations.
Systems can incorporate CAFM (including reactive jobs, planned maintenance schedules, service level agreements, quote approvals and completion evidence) as well as asset registers, condition data and service histories to ensure effective lifecycle management. Compliance management tools can bring together information vital to prove conformance including statutory inspections, certificates, audit trails and document storage.
And then there are mobile apps for engineers covering job details, risk assessments and other information needed on-site. In addition, clients can be given access to a portal which gives them the live status of every job, as well as invoices, performance dashboards and quote approvals – reducing the administrative burden on both sides which can come from repeated calls and emails to request or send information.
Cost versus value
There is of course a cost associated with building, hosting and maintaining in-house systems. Yet if we focus on value rather than cost, there is a clear picture emerging.
Fewer admin hours reduces the burden upon operational staff, leaving them able to spend more time directly supporting clients or building new relationships; better engineer utilisation allows jobs to be completed more efficiently; and complete oversight of each project means SLAs are more likely to be fulfilled – a positive sign when the time comes to submit a new tender to a client.
Add in faster invoicing, better client reporting, reduced compliance risk, and the list of benefits is plentiful – and growing apace with the rapid development of new technologies and tools.
Of course, there are alternatives: providers, especially smaller organisations, may point to the viability of off-the-shelf CAFM systems. Certainly, these have a lower upfront cost and can be implemented in a much shorter timeframe; but a lack of adaptability means providers may well end up flexing their contracts around the software rather than the other way round.
System management
There may be a requirement for providers to use clients’ systems to log and update jobs, and upload invoices and compliance documents. This undoubtedly creates additional workload for administrative teams and engineers alike, and gives rise to the possibility of duplicated entries, delays and inconsistent reporting.
Yet, technology has provided a work-around in the form of API integrations, while implementing stringent processes and clear data ownership rules can also support operational visibility and seamless use of both portals.
Even where the use of dual systems adds in complexity, having a good in-house system in place means clear job information (which they can access quickly) for engineers; workload visibility and smarter planning options for operational teams; and enhanced trust and confidence for clients.
As with any technology, the real advantage comes in not just having a tool for the sake of it – it comes from identifying pain points and then building technology which effectively overcome them. The time and cost of creating in-house systems more than pays off if this effort results in a joined-up operating model where engineers, operations teams and clients all have instant, constant and reliable access to all the information they need.
By reducing friction and improving compliance, the right IT can turn facilities management from a reactive service into a strategic partnership – helping providers showcase their value, and work smarter not harder.
