SPICE FM (Structured process improvement for construction 

environments ­ facilities management )Haigh, RP, Amaratunga, RDG and Sarshar, M

Title SPICE FM (Structured process improvement for construction environments ­ facilities management )

Authors Haigh, RP, Amaratunga, RDG and Sarshar, M

Type Monograph

URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/10083/

Published Date 2001

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non­commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, pleasecontact the Repository Team at: usir@salford.ac.uk.

SPICE FM A step by step organisational development framework for facilities management

£ 30.00

The Centre of Excellence for Construct IT has been set up to co-ordinate and promote research in IT in Construction in the UK to improve competitive performance of the UK construction industry

The administrative office of the Centre is based at Bridgewater Building, University of Salford, Salford, M7 9NU, UK.

Organisations who have expertise in their use of IT are invited to approach the Centre.

Please contact the administrators if you wish to become a member.

SPICE FM FrameworkSPICE FM Framework

Panel of ExpertsPeter Wearmouth (Chair) NHS EstatesMarjan Sarshar (Project Manager) University of SalfordRon Stone (Champion) NHS EstatesRobert Jackson (DETR Project Manager) Davis LangdonKeith Alexander Centre for Facilities ManagementDilanthi Amaratunga University of SalfordDavid Baldry University of SalfordStephen Brown North Tees & Hartlepool NHS TrustRoger Dyson WS AtkinsPaul Featherstone Manchester Community Healthcare TrustJohn Flannery Bolton Hospital NHS TrustRichard Haigh University of SalfordKeith Hamblett BT PropertyMartin Jarrett CITEXPeter Jessamine Continuum ConsultancyWeng Lee EC HarrisMargaret Nelson University of SalfordNigel Palmer Bolton Hospital NHS EstatesEric Stokes University of SalfordAdrian Yates Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

Bridgewater BuildingUniversity of SalfordSalford M7 9NUUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0)161 295 5317Fax: +44 (0)161 295 5011E-Mail: spicefm@sun.scpm.salford.ac.ukWeb: http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm

* SPICE FM was a research project funded by the EPSRC (Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council) and the DETR (Department of Environment Transport andthe Regions) in the UK.

SPICE FM*

On behalf of the Secretary of State for Health my business is developing policy andimproving performance of buildings and services within the NHS, the largest estateportfolio under Government responsibility in Europe.

This brings together professionals and specialists from many disciplines operating within achange management system as the healthcare estate adjusts to the modernisation agenda.In simple terms, this entails management of a complex system of numerous inter-relatedactions, which needs a common understanding, a method of control and a monitoringsystem to ensure the outputs are delivered in a cost effective and timely manner.

A key on-going requirement is to find, develop and test management tools to assist ourprofessional staff in meeting these objectives. Working with the SPICE and SPICE FMteams has generated a confidence that an NHS Trust, or any business, can make overallimprovements using the step-by-step principle to organisational maturity.

Problems in the past were often addressed in isolation by adopting a procedure thatfinished when a conclusion was reached. In contrast, SPICE adopts process thinking,which is continuous, developing constant improvement and links with other acceptedsystems such as critical success factors, the balanced scorecard and the EFQM model.

In my opinion SPICE and SPICE FM are powerful tools if used energetically and by acommitted organisation.

The feedback we have received from the test bed trusts has been very positive and I wouldcommend the system to all estates and facilities managers for consideration in continuouslyassessing and improving their service provision.

Peter Wearmouth

Acting Chief Executive

NHS Estates

Foreword

SPICE FM FrameworkSPICE FM Framework

Panel of ExpertsPeter Wearmouth (Chair) NHS EstatesMarjan Sarshar (Project Manager) University of SalfordRon Stone (Champion) NHS EstatesRobert Jackson (DETR Project Manager) Davis LangdonKeith Alexander Centre for Facilities ManagementDilanthi Amaratunga University of SalfordDavid Baldry University of SalfordStephen Brown North Tees & Hartlepool NHS TrustRoger Dyson WS AtkinsPaul Featherstone Manchester Community Healthcare TrustJohn Flannery Bolton Hospital NHS TrustRichard Haigh University of SalfordKeith Hamblett BT PropertyMartin Jarrett CITEXPeter Jessamine Continuum ConsultancyWeng Lee EC HarrisMargaret Nelson University of SalfordNigel Palmer Bolton Hospital NHS EstatesEric Stokes University of SalfordAdrian Yates Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

Bridgewater BuildingUniversity of SalfordSalford M7 9NUUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0)161 295 5317Fax: +44 (0)161 295 5011E-Mail: spicefm@sun.scpm.salford.ac.ukWeb: http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm

* SPICE FM was a research project funded by the EPSRC (Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council) and the DETR (Department of Environment Transport andthe Regions) in the UK.

SPICE FM*

On behalf of the Secretary of State for Health my business is developing policy andimproving performance of buildings and services within the NHS, the largest estateportfolio under Government responsibility in Europe.

This brings together professionals and specialists from many disciplines operating within achange management system as the healthcare estate adjusts to the modernisation agenda.In simple terms, this entails management of a complex system of numerous inter-relatedactions, which needs a common understanding, a method of control and a monitoringsystem to ensure the outputs are delivered in a cost effective and timely manner.

A key on-going requirement is to find, develop and test management tools to assist ourprofessional staff in meeting these objectives. Working with the SPICE and SPICE FMteams has generated a confidence that an NHS Trust, or any business, can make overallimprovements using the step-by-step principle to organisational maturity.

Problems in the past were often addressed in isolation by adopting a procedure thatfinished when a conclusion was reached. In contrast, SPICE adopts process thinking,which is continuous, developing constant improvement and links with other acceptedsystems such as critical success factors, the balanced scorecard and the EFQM model.

In my opinion SPICE and SPICE FM are powerful tools if used energetically and by acommitted organisation.

The feedback we have received from the test bed trusts has been very positive and I wouldcommend the system to all estates and facilities managers for consideration in continuouslyassessing and improving their service provision.

Peter Wearmouth

Acting Chief Executive

NHS Estates

Foreword

1

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM research project was aimed at developing a step-by-step organisational development framework for Facilities Management(FM) organisations.

This booklet provides an overview of the framework devised by theSPICE FM project. This framework integrates a strategic managementtool with a model organisations can use to evaluate and improve theirprocesses. Together, these elements can assist FM organisations tofocus on strategy and continuously improve on service delivery.

Who should read this?This booklet has been written specifically for directors and managerswith responsibility for facilities management in the public and private sectors.

What can SPICE achieve?The SPICE FM framework can help FM organisations to: -

■ increase their awareness of the need for strategy

■ focus on improving core FM processes

■ improve their ability to implement a strategic vision

The aims of this booklet 1

Executive summary 2

Introduction 3

Use of the Balanced Score Card in FM 4

Process Thinking in FM 8

Creating a Continuous Improvement Infrastructure 20

Real Life Examples 23

Relationship with EFQM Model 38

Summary 40

Appendix A – Extract from the SPICE FM Process Maturity Questionnaire 41

Glossary 43

References and Bibliography 44

Table of Contents The Aims of this Booklet

SPICE FM Framework

1

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM research project was aimed at developing a step-by-step organisational development framework for Facilities Management(FM) organisations.

This booklet provides an overview of the framework devised by theSPICE FM project. This framework integrates a strategic managementtool with a model organisations can use to evaluate and improve theirprocesses. Together, these elements can assist FM organisations tofocus on strategy and continuously improve on service delivery.

Who should read this?This booklet has been written specifically for directors and managerswith responsibility for facilities management in the public and private sectors.

What can SPICE achieve?The SPICE FM framework can help FM organisations to: -

■ increase their awareness of the need for strategy

■ focus on improving core FM processes

■ improve their ability to implement a strategic vision

The aims of this booklet 1

Executive summary 2

Introduction 3

Use of the Balanced Score Card in FM 4

Process Thinking in FM 8

Creating a Continuous Improvement Infrastructure 20

Real Life Examples 23

Relationship with EFQM Model 38

Summary 40

Appendix A – Extract from the SPICE FM Process Maturity Questionnaire 41

Glossary 43

References and Bibliography 44

Table of Contents The Aims of this Booklet

SPICE FM Framework

3

SPICE FM Framework

Despite large investments and considerableachievements, the field of Facilities Management(FM) remains under-researched. The drivetowards best practice is supported by aninadequate knowledge base, with few well-established methods and techniques (Nutt, 1999). FM professionals recognise theneed for strategic focus, and that improvementsin operational processes can improve businessperformance. However, FM organisations lackclear guidelines to direct their improvementefforts and to benchmark their performanceagainst other organisations.

SPICE FM is a learning framework for FMorganisations. Kaplan and Norton (1996) listthree essential ingredients for an effectivelearning process within organisations:

1 - A shared strategic framework that communicatesstrategy and allows participants to see howtheir activities contribute to the achievementof the strategy.

2 - A feedback process that collects performancedata about the strategy and allows anyassumptions or hypotheses to be tested.

3 - A team problem solving process that can adapt the strategy to emerging conditionsand issues.

The SPICE FM framework combines theBalanced Scorecard with the SPICE maturityframework to meet these three objectives.

The SPICE maturity framework draws adistinction between organisations that have‘mature’ or well-established processes, and thosewhere the processes are ‘immature’.Characteristics of immature organisationsinclude difficulties in meeting expectations onservice delivery time, cost and quality. They also have difficulty in managing peopleand introducing new technologies.Organisations with greater maturity arecharacterised by improved capability on deliveringservice to cost, timescale, and quality. Mature organisations align technology andpeople management with efforts to improve processes.

SPICE FM aligns this process maturityframework with the strategic managementsystem of the Balanced Scorecard. It creates anenvironment where improvement priorities forFM providers are directly linked to strategicbusiness directions.

SPICE FM is a step-by-step organisationaldevelopment framework for FacilitiesManagement (FM) providers, including in-house departments and external contractors. It allows FM organisations to continuouslyreview and improve their business performance.

Around 90% of organisations that develop astrategy fail to implement it effectively. For mostorganisations, translating strategic directionsinto on-the-ground operational terms andcommunicating them to employees has provedexceedingly challenging. Creating an on-goingstrategic focus is a continuous process thatrequires appropriate tools and techniques.

The SPICE FM research project was designed toaddress this challenge. The research resulted inthe approach shown in figure 1. It has two corecomponents that can be used individually ortogether to enhance FM performance: -

■ The Balanced Scorecard is a strategicmanagement tool that can help FMproviders understand their role in meetingthe needs of the core business. The Scorecard combines financial measureswith operational issues and customer and

staff issues. All of these are vital to growthand long-term competitiveness.

■ SPICE FM is a step-by-step processevaluation tool that helps FM providersevaluate and continuously improve theirservice delivery at an operational level.

■ The strategic management and processevaluation tools can be used together, so thatimproving service delivery is aligned with thestrategic objectives of the core business. The FM provider is thus able to develop itscapabilities while assisting the core businessto implement its vision.

This booklet describes these three approaches toimproving FM performance. It includes real-lifecase studies that illustrate how the frameworkhas been used by several hospitals and a largeretail chain.

However, this booklet does not contain sufficientinformation to actually implement SPICE FMwithin your organisation. If you would like toimplement the framework, please contact theproject team at the University of Salford(www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm), which canput you in contact with relevant organisations.

2

SPICE FM Framework

Executive Summary Introduction

Figure 1: The SPICE FM approach

Top Down

The ‘Balanced Scorecard’identifies an organisation’sbusiness objectives based onfour perspectives; Customer;Internal Process; Financial;and Learning and Growth

Middle Out

The Process Maturity Modelimproves the capability of themanagement processes thatsupport the implementation of anorganisation’s business strategy.

Senior Management

Middle Management

Line Employees

3

SPICE FM Framework

Despite large investments and considerableachievements, the field of Facilities Management(FM) remains under-researched. The drivetowards best practice is supported by aninadequate knowledge base, with few well-established methods and techniques (Nutt, 1999). FM professionals recognise theneed for strategic focus, and that improvementsin operational processes can improve businessperformance. However, FM organisations lackclear guidelines to direct their improvementefforts and to benchmark their performanceagainst other organisations.

SPICE FM is a learning framework for FMorganisations. Kaplan and Norton (1996) listthree essential ingredients for an effectivelearning process within organisations:

1 - A shared strategic framework that communicatesstrategy and allows participants to see howtheir activities contribute to the achievementof the strategy.

2 - A feedback process that collects performancedata about the strategy and allows anyassumptions or hypotheses to be tested.

3 - A team problem solving process that can adapt the strategy to emerging conditionsand issues.

The SPICE FM framework combines theBalanced Scorecard with the SPICE maturityframework to meet these three objectives.

The SPICE maturity framework draws adistinction between organisations that have‘mature’ or well-established processes, and thosewhere the processes are ‘immature’.Characteristics of immature organisationsinclude difficulties in meeting expectations onservice delivery time, cost and quality. They also have difficulty in managing peopleand introducing new technologies.Organisations with greater maturity arecharacterised by improved capability on deliveringservice to cost, timescale, and quality. Mature organisations align technology andpeople management with efforts to improve processes.

SPICE FM aligns this process maturityframework with the strategic managementsystem of the Balanced Scorecard. It creates anenvironment where improvement priorities forFM providers are directly linked to strategicbusiness directions.

SPICE FM is a step-by-step organisationaldevelopment framework for FacilitiesManagement (FM) providers, including in-house departments and external contractors. It allows FM organisations to continuouslyreview and improve their business performance.

Around 90% of organisations that develop astrategy fail to implement it effectively. For mostorganisations, translating strategic directionsinto on-the-ground operational terms andcommunicating them to employees has provedexceedingly challenging. Creating an on-goingstrategic focus is a continuous process thatrequires appropriate tools and techniques.

The SPICE FM research project was designed toaddress this challenge. The research resulted inthe approach shown in figure 1. It has two corecomponents that can be used individually ortogether to enhance FM performance: -

■ The Balanced Scorecard is a strategicmanagement tool that can help FMproviders understand their role in meetingthe needs of the core business. The Scorecard combines financial measureswith operational issues and customer and

staff issues. All of these are vital to growthand long-term competitiveness.

■ SPICE FM is a step-by-step processevaluation tool that helps FM providersevaluate and continuously improve theirservice delivery at an operational level.

■ The strategic management and processevaluation tools can be used together, so thatimproving service delivery is aligned with thestrategic objectives of the core business. The FM provider is thus able to develop itscapabilities while assisting the core businessto implement its vision.

This booklet describes these three approaches toimproving FM performance. It includes real-lifecase studies that illustrate how the frameworkhas been used by several hospitals and a largeretail chain.

However, this booklet does not contain sufficientinformation to actually implement SPICE FMwithin your organisation. If you would like toimplement the framework, please contact theproject team at the University of Salford(www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm), which canput you in contact with relevant organisations.

2

SPICE FM Framework

Executive Summary Introduction

Figure 1: The SPICE FM approach

Top Down

The ‘Balanced Scorecard’identifies an organisation’sbusiness objectives based onfour perspectives; Customer;Internal Process; Financial;and Learning and Growth

Middle Out

The Process Maturity Modelimproves the capability of themanagement processes thatsupport the implementation of anorganisation’s business strategy.

Senior Management

Middle Management

Line Employees

5

SPICE FM Framework

Attempting to introduce a performancemanagement system that links FM measures tostrategy has been a major task for FM organisations.In this context, SPICE FM uses the BalancedScorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) approachto link measures to strategy, thus emphasisingthe strategic importance of FM and exploringits contribution to the core business.

The Balanced ScorecardIt is often argued that performance measuresshould be derived from strategy: that is, theyshould reinforce the importance of certainstrategic objectives (Skinner, 1989). A strategicmanagement system should address this andcreate an organisation that:

■ Is healthy, balanced, efficient and effective;

■ Provides service to its customers as well as itsemployees; and

■ Puts value on results

The Balanced Scorecard presents such a modelfor strategic performance measurement.

The Scorecard measures performance anddevelops strategies by analysing results across arange of activities. It also attempts to overcomethe deficiencies of existing measurement systems.

It translates the organisation’s vision into a set ofperformance indicators covering the followingfour perspectives:

■ Customer: how must we look to our customers?

■ Internal processes: what internal processesmust we excel at?

■ Financial: how will we look to the shareholders?

■ Innovation: how can the organisation learnand improve?

This rounded assessment provides managementwith a “balanced” view of the business.Through the Scorecard, the organisationmonitors both its current performance (in termsof finances, customer satisfaction, and businessprocess results) and its efforts to improveprocesses, motivate and educate employees, and enhance information systems. The Scorecardstill includes hard financial indicators, but itbalances these with other, so-called “soft” measures,such as customer satisfaction and organisationallearning. In viewing an organisation from fourdifferent perspectives (Figure 2), the BalancedScorecard links the short-term operationalcontrol of the business to the long-term visionand strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

The FM Sector Facilities Management (FM) is a large emergingbusiness sector. The FM budget of a typicalorganisation often accounts for 30-40% of itsrunning costs, coming second only to payroll.The latest surveys estimate the provision of FMservices to be worth £5.9 billion, up by 90%since 1995 (Facilities Management Solutions,2001). Alexander (1996) states that “Facilities arean organisation’s second largest expense and canaccount for as much as 15% of turnover” and “theyare also the largest item on the balance sheet, typicallyover 25% of all fixed assets”.

According to the latest report from Market andBusiness Development, sales turnover in the FMsector totals £75.5billion, representing a 5%increase. The report also argues that the markethas the potential to expand three fold.However, according to FBA (Professionals inFacilities Management), poor understanding ofFM at the highest level is costing Britishbusiness £7 billion a year (1999). A survey of FMoperations among top companies in the bankingand financial services, legal, technology andcommunications sectors has identified that over90% operate considerably below best practice(BIFM, 1999).

FM is generally viewed as a support function foran organisation’s core business. Many managersand directors therefore believe that its roleshould be mainly operational.

However, due to the financial significance ofFM, and its direct impact on customer andemployee satisfaction, these views are changing.Many now believe that FM should play a majorrole in achieving and implementing anorganisation’s overall business strategy.

Strategic Importance of FacilitiesManagementThe need to draw attention to FM as a factor inoverall business strategy has been a major issuein recent years. In particular, there has been aneed to raise awareness at senior managementlevel (Then, 1999).

The FM role within organisations should bebuilt on an aspiration to continuously add value.This is achieved by providing appropriate andinnovative ‘facilities solutions’ to businesschallenges through the skilful manipulation ofall business resources. In other words, the FMrole should achieve the optimum balancebetween people, physical assets and technology.

It is therefore increasingly necessary todemonstrate the performance links between theFM role and the core business.

Relationship between FacilitiesManagement, Facilities Managementstrategy and the core business A lack of strategic integration between FM andthe core organisation could result incontradictory objectives and goals.

The message is that management must acknowledgethat facilities are a business resource. FM has toestablish its strategic role by demonstrating itsrelevance to the overall business process.

However, practitioners and academics are stillstruggling to establish meaningful FM measures,how to measure them and how to drawrelationships with the core business.

Some organisations have begun to touch onnon-financial or ‘soft’ issues as well as traditionalaccounting variables, suggesting that thesemeasures have assumed a place on theiragendas. However, this does not seem to havepermeated most FM organisations.

Use of Balanced Scorecard in FM

4

SPICE FM Framework

Skandia “We have achieved a great deal through the use of Balanced Scorecard. Marrying our IT system to theScorecard produced the perfect tool for strategic business management on all levels of the organisation. It guides Skandia on the corporate level, subsidiary level, and the individual contributor level. By enablingeveryone in the organisation to see the overall picture and realise they can have an influence, the Scorecardis helping to make Skandia a great company”.

Financial

BalancedScorecardCustomer Learning

& Growth

InternalProcess

Figure 2: The Balanced Scorecard

5

SPICE FM Framework

Attempting to introduce a performancemanagement system that links FM measures tostrategy has been a major task for FM organisations.In this context, SPICE FM uses the BalancedScorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) approachto link measures to strategy, thus emphasisingthe strategic importance of FM and exploringits contribution to the core business.

The Balanced ScorecardIt is often argued that performance measuresshould be derived from strategy: that is, theyshould reinforce the importance of certainstrategic objectives (Skinner, 1989). A strategicmanagement system should address this andcreate an organisation that:

■ Is healthy, balanced, efficient and effective;

■ Provides service to its customers as well as itsemployees; and

■ Puts value on results

The Balanced Scorecard presents such a modelfor strategic performance measurement.

The Scorecard measures performance anddevelops strategies by analysing results across arange of activities. It also attempts to overcomethe deficiencies of existing measurement systems.

It translates the organisation’s vision into a set ofperformance indicators covering the followingfour perspectives:

■ Customer: how must we look to our customers?

■ Internal processes: what internal processesmust we excel at?

■ Financial: how will we look to the shareholders?

■ Innovation: how can the organisation learnand improve?

This rounded assessment provides managementwith a “balanced” view of the business.Through the Scorecard, the organisationmonitors both its current performance (in termsof finances, customer satisfaction, and businessprocess results) and its efforts to improveprocesses, motivate and educate employees, and enhance information systems. The Scorecardstill includes hard financial indicators, but itbalances these with other, so-called “soft” measures,such as customer satisfaction and organisationallearning. In viewing an organisation from fourdifferent perspectives (Figure 2), the BalancedScorecard links the short-term operationalcontrol of the business to the long-term visionand strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).

The FM Sector Facilities Management (FM) is a large emergingbusiness sector. The FM budget of a typicalorganisation often accounts for 30-40% of itsrunning costs, coming second only to payroll.The latest surveys estimate the provision of FMservices to be worth £5.9 billion, up by 90%since 1995 (Facilities Management Solutions,2001). Alexander (1996) states that “Facilities arean organisation’s second largest expense and canaccount for as much as 15% of turnover” and “theyare also the largest item on the balance sheet, typicallyover 25% of all fixed assets”.

According to the latest report from Market andBusiness Development, sales turnover in the FMsector totals £75.5billion, representing a 5%increase. The report also argues that the markethas the potential to expand three fold.However, according to FBA (Professionals inFacilities Management), poor understanding ofFM at the highest level is costing Britishbusiness £7 billion a year (1999). A survey of FMoperations among top companies in the bankingand financial services, legal, technology andcommunications sectors has identified that over90% operate considerably below best practice(BIFM, 1999).

FM is generally viewed as a support function foran organisation’s core business. Many managersand directors therefore believe that its roleshould be mainly operational.

However, due to the financial significance ofFM, and its direct impact on customer andemployee satisfaction, these views are changing.Many now believe that FM should play a majorrole in achieving and implementing anorganisation’s overall business strategy.

Strategic Importance of FacilitiesManagementThe need to draw attention to FM as a factor inoverall business strategy has been a major issuein recent years. In particular, there has been aneed to raise awareness at senior managementlevel (Then, 1999).

The FM role within organisations should bebuilt on an aspiration to continuously add value.This is achieved by providing appropriate andinnovative ‘facilities solutions’ to businesschallenges through the skilful manipulation ofall business resources. In other words, the FMrole should achieve the optimum balancebetween people, physical assets and technology.

It is therefore increasingly necessary todemonstrate the performance links between theFM role and the core business.

Relationship between FacilitiesManagement, Facilities Managementstrategy and the core business A lack of strategic integration between FM andthe core organisation could result incontradictory objectives and goals.

The message is that management must acknowledgethat facilities are a business resource. FM has toestablish its strategic role by demonstrating itsrelevance to the overall business process.

However, practitioners and academics are stillstruggling to establish meaningful FM measures,how to measure them and how to drawrelationships with the core business.

Some organisations have begun to touch onnon-financial or ‘soft’ issues as well as traditionalaccounting variables, suggesting that thesemeasures have assumed a place on theiragendas. However, this does not seem to havepermeated most FM organisations.

Use of Balanced Scorecard in FM

4

SPICE FM Framework

Skandia “We have achieved a great deal through the use of Balanced Scorecard. Marrying our IT system to theScorecard produced the perfect tool for strategic business management on all levels of the organisation. It guides Skandia on the corporate level, subsidiary level, and the individual contributor level. By enablingeveryone in the organisation to see the overall picture and realise they can have an influence, the Scorecardis helping to make Skandia a great company”.

Financial

BalancedScorecardCustomer Learning

& Growth

InternalProcess

Figure 2: The Balanced Scorecard

7

SPICE FM Framework

The hierarchical nature of theBalanced ScorecardThe Balanced Scorecard helps organisationsmap the long-term requirements of thebusiness’s overall strategy with that ofdepartments (such as FM), teams andindividuals. Through this process, departmentalperformance remains focused on theorganisation’s overall objectives. Also, the goalsof teams and individuals can be linked to overallobjectives; thereby building capabilities that willenable longer-term strategic goals to beachieved. Figure 3 illustrates these relationships.

As shown above, in the ideal world, everyperson in the organisation, from the boardroomto the back room, would understand the overallstrategy and how individual goals support the‘big picture’. The Balanced Scorecard permitssuch a top-to-bottom alignment.

The challenge: Implementing the strategySeveral hundred global businesses have nowadopted the Scorecard approach, althoughcommitted advocates have differing interpretationson how to deploy and use it. One objective thatis shared by all organisations is having theability to implement business strategy quickly.However, up to 70% of organisations fail to fullyimplement their Balanced Scorecard.

For most FM organisations, developing astrategy is only the first step. The key issue isachieving a strategically focused organisation,which is continually evolving and responding tonew customer and market demands.

The introduction to this booklet suggested threecharacteristics for a learning organisation,namely: Strategic focus; a feedback loop; and ateam problem solving culture. While the BalancedScorecard provides the strategic focus, further toolsand techniques are required to create the feedbackloop and the team problem solving cultures.

FM organisations need the necessary infrastructureto communicate strategic direction to operationalmanagers and employees. They must receivefeedback on the impact of strategy on day-to-dayoperational issues, and launch appropriateimprovement initiatives. Strategy must translateinto the day-to-day actions of employees.

The SPICE FM assessment process helps providea feedback loop as well as a team problem solvingculture. It therefore creates the infrastructure tolink day-to-day operational activities to FM strategy.

Applying the SPICE FM concept is noguarantee of formulating a successful strategy,nor of assessing FM process capability oraligning strategy within FM organisations. But the great strength of the concept lies in thevery process of deploying it, which is aneffective way of expressing the organisation’sstrategy and vision in tangible terms and togather support for it throughout the organisation.

Four strategic perspectivesThe Balanced Scorecard allows managers tolook at the business from the four perspectives.

A brief overview of the four perspectives is given below:

Customer perspectiveThis captures the ability of the organisation toprovide quality goods and services, and todeliver overall customer satisfaction. It placesimportance on the organisation’s ability toachieve its vision, and how it wants to be seen byits customers. This perspective guides theinternal processes and development efforts ofthe company. It is at the heart of the scorecard:if the company fails to deliver the right productsand services to satisfy customer needs in theshort and long term, then the business will notgenerate revenue and will eventually wither and die.

Internal processes perspectiveThis is about identifying and measuring theprocesses that organisations must excel at toachieve their financial and customer strategicgoals. To meet their own objectives andcustomers’ expectations, organisations must firstidentify these key business processes, thenmonitor them to ensure satisfactory outcomes.These key internal processes enable the businessunit to deliver customers’ value propositionsand satisfy shareholder expectations of financial returns.

This perspective reveals a fundamentaldifferences between the traditional approach toperformance measurement, and the BalancedScorecard. While traditional approaches attemptto monitor and improve existing businessprocesses, the Scorecard identifies entirely newprocesses at which the organisation must excelto meet customer and financial objectives.

Financial perspectiveFinancial performance measures define thelong-term objectives of the business unit. While most businesses emphasise profitability,other financial objectives are also possible.Financial performance measures indicatewhether the organisation’s strategy andimplementation are contributing to bottom-lineimprovement. A well-designed financial controlsystem can actually enhance an organisation’smanagement system.

Learning and growth perspectiveThe predominant element in this perspective iswhether organisations can continue to improveand create future value for their stakeholders.This, in turn, identifies the infrastructure theorganisation must build to create long-termgrowth and improvement. This perspectiveexamines the ability of employees, the quality ofinformation systems, and the effects oforganisational alignment in meeting anorganisation’s goals. Once organisations haveestablished their strategic objectives, they needto identify the performance measures neededto promote continuous organisational, divisionaland group learning and growth.

6

SPICE FM Framework

Siemens“We’ve always had strategies, but through Balanced Scorecard we bring them to life. Every business unitscorecard and uses it to focus attention on designated critical success factors. Moreover, each employeeknows his or her contribution to the strategy, enforcing alignment and accountability throughout theorganisation. It’s the way we manage our business.”

Figure 3: Top-to-bottom alignment of strategy

Suppost Functions

SBU A SBU B SBU C

Teams andIndividuals

Core Business

7

SPICE FM Framework

The hierarchical nature of theBalanced ScorecardThe Balanced Scorecard helps organisationsmap the long-term requirements of thebusiness’s overall strategy with that ofdepartments (such as FM), teams andindividuals. Through this process, departmentalperformance remains focused on theorganisation’s overall objectives. Also, the goalsof teams and individuals can be linked to overallobjectives; thereby building capabilities that willenable longer-term strategic goals to beachieved. Figure 3 illustrates these relationships.

As shown above, in the ideal world, everyperson in the organisation, from the boardroomto the back room, would understand the overallstrategy and how individual goals support the‘big picture’. The Balanced Scorecard permitssuch a top-to-bottom alignment.

The challenge: Implementing the strategySeveral hundred global businesses have nowadopted the Scorecard approach, althoughcommitted advocates have differing interpretationson how to deploy and use it. One objective thatis shared by all organisations is having theability to implement business strategy quickly.However, up to 70% of organisations fail to fullyimplement their Balanced Scorecard.

For most FM organisations, developing astrategy is only the first step. The key issue isachieving a strategically focused organisation,which is continually evolving and responding tonew customer and market demands.

The introduction to this booklet suggested threecharacteristics for a learning organisation,namely: Strategic focus; a feedback loop; and ateam problem solving culture. While the BalancedScorecard provides the strategic focus, further toolsand techniques are required to create the feedbackloop and the team problem solving cultures.

FM organisations need the necessary infrastructureto communicate strategic direction to operationalmanagers and employees. They must receivefeedback on the impact of strategy on day-to-dayoperational issues, and launch appropriateimprovement initiatives. Strategy must translateinto the day-to-day actions of employees.

The SPICE FM assessment process helps providea feedback loop as well as a team problem solvingculture. It therefore creates the infrastructure tolink day-to-day operational activities to FM strategy.

Applying the SPICE FM concept is noguarantee of formulating a successful strategy,nor of assessing FM process capability oraligning strategy within FM organisations. But the great strength of the concept lies in thevery process of deploying it, which is aneffective way of expressing the organisation’sstrategy and vision in tangible terms and togather support for it throughout the organisation.

Four strategic perspectivesThe Balanced Scorecard allows managers tolook at the business from the four perspectives.

A brief overview of the four perspectives is given below:

Customer perspectiveThis captures the ability of the organisation toprovide quality goods and services, and todeliver overall customer satisfaction. It placesimportance on the organisation’s ability toachieve its vision, and how it wants to be seen byits customers. This perspective guides theinternal processes and development efforts ofthe company. It is at the heart of the scorecard:if the company fails to deliver the right productsand services to satisfy customer needs in theshort and long term, then the business will notgenerate revenue and will eventually wither and die.

Internal processes perspectiveThis is about identifying and measuring theprocesses that organisations must excel at toachieve their financial and customer strategicgoals. To meet their own objectives andcustomers’ expectations, organisations must firstidentify these key business processes, thenmonitor them to ensure satisfactory outcomes.These key internal processes enable the businessunit to deliver customers’ value propositionsand satisfy shareholder expectations of financial returns.

This perspective reveals a fundamentaldifferences between the traditional approach toperformance measurement, and the BalancedScorecard. While traditional approaches attemptto monitor and improve existing businessprocesses, the Scorecard identifies entirely newprocesses at which the organisation must excelto meet customer and financial objectives.

Financial perspectiveFinancial performance measures define thelong-term objectives of the business unit. While most businesses emphasise profitability,other financial objectives are also possible.Financial performance measures indicatewhether the organisation’s strategy andimplementation are contributing to bottom-lineimprovement. A well-designed financial controlsystem can actually enhance an organisation’smanagement system.

Learning and growth perspectiveThe predominant element in this perspective iswhether organisations can continue to improveand create future value for their stakeholders.This, in turn, identifies the infrastructure theorganisation must build to create long-termgrowth and improvement. This perspectiveexamines the ability of employees, the quality ofinformation systems, and the effects oforganisational alignment in meeting anorganisation’s goals. Once organisations haveestablished their strategic objectives, they needto identify the performance measures neededto promote continuous organisational, divisionaland group learning and growth.

6

SPICE FM Framework

Siemens“We’ve always had strategies, but through Balanced Scorecard we bring them to life. Every business unitscorecard and uses it to focus attention on designated critical success factors. Moreover, each employeeknows his or her contribution to the strategy, enforcing alignment and accountability throughout theorganisation. It’s the way we manage our business.”

Figure 3: Top-to-bottom alignment of strategy

Suppost Functions

SBU A SBU B SBU C

Teams andIndividuals

Core Business

9

SPICE FM Framework

Process ThinkingDue to changes in the market place andcustomers’ increasing expectations, task orientated or functional thinking hasbecome outdated. Many management thinkersbelieve that organisational infrastructure andcapabilities are far more decisive in securingcompetitive advantage than isolated moments ofstrategic brilliance. After all, it is far easier for acompetitor to copy a strategic decision than toduplicate mature and effective businessprocesses. The EFQM (European Foundationfor Quality Management) model, which manyEuropean businesses embrace, emphasises theimportance of process thinking in drivingbusinesses forward.

Many of the early advocates of process thinking,such as Michael Hammer and James Champy,argued for radical changes to business processesin the form of Business Process Re-engineering(BPR), in the early nineties. BPR is a large scale,high-risk approach. Despite some earlysuccesses, the majority of the organisationsfailed to implement BPR. Furthermore, BPRresulted in serious business failures for someorganisations (Davenport, 1992).

Businesses have subsequently shifted towards anevolutionary approach, in the form of businessprocess improvement. Here, the key questionsare how to:

■ Make the cultural change to one ofcontinuous improvement; and

■ Initiate and implement continuous businessprocess improvement.

Process institutionalisationA process determines the way we act and react.The activities and tasks we perform to achieve acertain goal form the ‘process’ for achieving thatgoal. A disciplined process will result in orderedand consistent patterns of behaviour, whether byindividuals or by groups of people. The processdefines how we act or react, or it defines theactivities needed to fulfil a certain task. We havea process for ‘going to work’, a process for‘defining service standards’, and so on.

In organisations, processes involve groups andteams of people. To achieve a process disciplineshared by the whole organisation, the processneeds to be established or ‘institutionalised’.Without organisation-wide established processes,every individual would follow his or her ownway of performing a task. Attempts to adhere toa common process are likely to be ad-hoc oreven chaotic, which could lead to conflict and stress.

On the other hand, in organisations wherecommon processes are institutionalised, staffperform the process painlessly, smoothly and inharmony with each other. The process itselfbecomes invisible or ‘transparent’, because it isthe natural way of performing business activities.

IntroductionDespite considerable achievements in recentyears, FM remains a fairly new business sector.Traditionally, FM has lacked specificmanagement tools that meet its needs, and hasborrowed methods and tools frommanufacturing industries.

This section introduces the SPICE FM processmaturity model, a methodology for increasingFM organisations’ ability to identify andimprove key business processes. The model is astep-by-step approach to continuousimprovement that aims to secure long-termcompetitive advantage.

■ A method for measuring the maturity ofcurrent business processes;

■ A five level framework for achieving step-by-step improvements.

Definition of a processThere are many definitions of a process. Table 1 gives two examples. The two definitionsemphasise different aspects of a process.

Characteristics of a processA process has several essential features, which Ould (1995) lists as follows:

■ A process involves activity. People orequipment do things.

■ A process also generally involves more thanone person or piece of equipment. A processis therefore about groups, and concernscollaborative activity.

■ A process has a goal. It is intended to achievesomething and to produce results.

These features have implications. (i) Since aprocess must be shared among groups, it needsto be defined. (ii) The definition and knowledgeof the process must be passed to those whoperform it. Hence there is a requirement forprocess learning. The knowledge of the processshould drive and align the behaviour andactivities of those who perform it. (iii) The processleads to process results. This is shown in Figure 4.

8

SPICE FM Framework

Process Thinking in FM

Course of action, proceeding,esp. series of operations inmanufacturing, printing,photography, etc.

A process is a sequence of stepsperformed for a given purpose.More simply stated, process iswhat you do. The processintegrates people, tools andprocedures together.

TheConciseOxfordDictionary

SEI CMM®

(CapabilityMaturityModel)

Source Definition

Table 1: Process DefinitionPROCESS DEFINITION

PROCESS RESULTS

ACTIVITIES,PEOPLE AND

TOOLS

Figure 4: Aspects of a process

9

SPICE FM Framework

Process ThinkingDue to changes in the market place andcustomers’ increasing expectations, task orientated or functional thinking hasbecome outdated. Many management thinkersbelieve that organisational infrastructure andcapabilities are far more decisive in securingcompetitive advantage than isolated moments ofstrategic brilliance. After all, it is far easier for acompetitor to copy a strategic decision than toduplicate mature and effective businessprocesses. The EFQM (European Foundationfor Quality Management) model, which manyEuropean businesses embrace, emphasises theimportance of process thinking in drivingbusinesses forward.

Many of the early advocates of process thinking,such as Michael Hammer and James Champy,argued for radical changes to business processesin the form of Business Process Re-engineering(BPR), in the early nineties. BPR is a large scale,high-risk approach. Despite some earlysuccesses, the majority of the organisationsfailed to implement BPR. Furthermore, BPRresulted in serious business failures for someorganisations (Davenport, 1992).

Businesses have subsequently shifted towards anevolutionary approach, in the form of businessprocess improvement. Here, the key questionsare how to:

■ Make the cultural change to one ofcontinuous improvement; and

■ Initiate and implement continuous businessprocess improvement.

Process institutionalisationA process determines the way we act and react.The activities and tasks we perform to achieve acertain goal form the ‘process’ for achieving thatgoal. A disciplined process will result in orderedand consistent patterns of behaviour, whether byindividuals or by groups of people. The processdefines how we act or react, or it defines theactivities needed to fulfil a certain task. We havea process for ‘going to work’, a process for‘defining service standards’, and so on.

In organisations, processes involve groups andteams of people. To achieve a process disciplineshared by the whole organisation, the processneeds to be established or ‘institutionalised’.Without organisation-wide established processes,every individual would follow his or her ownway of performing a task. Attempts to adhere toa common process are likely to be ad-hoc oreven chaotic, which could lead to conflict and stress.

On the other hand, in organisations wherecommon processes are institutionalised, staffperform the process painlessly, smoothly and inharmony with each other. The process itselfbecomes invisible or ‘transparent’, because it isthe natural way of performing business activities.

IntroductionDespite considerable achievements in recentyears, FM remains a fairly new business sector.Traditionally, FM has lacked specificmanagement tools that meet its needs, and hasborrowed methods and tools frommanufacturing industries.

This section introduces the SPICE FM processmaturity model, a methodology for increasingFM organisations’ ability to identify andimprove key business processes. The model is astep-by-step approach to continuousimprovement that aims to secure long-termcompetitive advantage.

■ A method for measuring the maturity ofcurrent business processes;

■ A five level framework for achieving step-by-step improvements.

Definition of a processThere are many definitions of a process. Table 1 gives two examples. The two definitionsemphasise different aspects of a process.

Characteristics of a processA process has several essential features, which Ould (1995) lists as follows:

■ A process involves activity. People orequipment do things.

■ A process also generally involves more thanone person or piece of equipment. A processis therefore about groups, and concernscollaborative activity.

■ A process has a goal. It is intended to achievesomething and to produce results.

These features have implications. (i) Since aprocess must be shared among groups, it needsto be defined. (ii) The definition and knowledgeof the process must be passed to those whoperform it. Hence there is a requirement forprocess learning. The knowledge of the processshould drive and align the behaviour andactivities of those who perform it. (iii) The processleads to process results. This is shown in Figure 4.

8

SPICE FM Framework

Process Thinking in FM

Course of action, proceeding,esp. series of operations inmanufacturing, printing,photography, etc.

A process is a sequence of stepsperformed for a given purpose.More simply stated, process iswhat you do. The processintegrates people, tools andprocedures together.

TheConciseOxfordDictionary

SEI CMM®

(CapabilityMaturityModel)

Source Definition

Table 1: Process DefinitionPROCESS DEFINITION

PROCESS RESULTS

ACTIVITIES,PEOPLE AND

TOOLS

Figure 4: Aspects of a process

11

SPICE FM Framework

10

SPICE FM Framework

FM process focusMost FM organisations focus on the services theyprovide. In such a business culture, people arenaturally inclined to emphasise issues that aretangible, visible or measurable. Many organisationsare likely to resist process improvementactivities that do not contribute to short-termtangible results. Consequently, FM managersoften view process related work as low priority.

In contrast, process-focused organisationsconsider tangible results in service delivery to bejust one aspect of the business picture. For suchorganisations, how the service is delivered is

equally important. The objective is that processthinking should be accepted and usedconsistently. The process is seen as a disciplinedway of conducting business.

In contrast to functional definitions, a processperspective in FM focuses on the tasks andactivities that take place internally in the FMorganisation. The emphasis is on how the workis done, rather than the functionalresponsibilities.

Table 2 shows the characteristics of organisationswith process focus, as opposed to those withoutsuch a focus.

Core, support and management processesBusiness processes can be divided into threebroad types: (i) core processes; (ii) supportprocesses; (iii) management processes. Figure 5illustrates this.

Core processes concentrate on satisfyingcustomers. They directly add value to theproduct in a way that clients understand. These processes respond to the needs ofcustomers and generate customer satisfaction.

Support processes concentrate on satisfying‘customers’ within the organisation. They might add value to the business indirectly,by supporting a core business process, or directly, by providing a suitable environment.

Management processes are concerned withmanaging the core and support processes.

SPICE FM is primarily concerned withmanagement processes. The underlyingphilosophy is that if management processes arewell performed, they will have an impact on theperformance of core processes. SPICE FM doesnot prescribe how organisations should performcore processes. Instead, it focuses on creating amanagement infrastructure that allows membersof staff to perform core processes successfully.

Table 2: Characteristics of a process focused organisation

Without process focus With process focus

ManagementProcesses

coreInput Output

SupportProcesses

Figure 5: Types of processes

Process discipline

Organisation

Management

Skills & training

Tools & technology

Processes are defined and followedby staff and management; processdiscipline is the norm.

Functions and roles are defined insupport of the process.

■ Staff performance is measured interms of process performanceand results

■ Such measurements are definedand agreed

■ Managers focus on the quality ofboth process and service delivery

Training is planned and is definedin the support of end to end process

Tools and technology are selected insupport of the end to end process andthe automation of process activities

The staff and their management inthe course of performing theiractivities improvise processes.

Functions and roles do notnecessarily align with the process requirements

■ Staff performance is measured interms of the number of hours(irrespective of whether theywere productive or not)

■ Managers are usually focused on solving immediate crises (fire fighting)

Training is ad hoc and orientedtowards personal inclinations

Tools and technology are acquiredas ad hoc point solutions without anoverall plan and strategy

11

SPICE FM Framework

10

SPICE FM Framework

FM process focusMost FM organisations focus on the services theyprovide. In such a business culture, people arenaturally inclined to emphasise issues that aretangible, visible or measurable. Many organisationsare likely to resist process improvementactivities that do not contribute to short-termtangible results. Consequently, FM managersoften view process related work as low priority.

In contrast, process-focused organisationsconsider tangible results in service delivery to bejust one aspect of the business picture. For suchorganisations, how the service is delivered is

equally important. The objective is that processthinking should be accepted and usedconsistently. The process is seen as a disciplinedway of conducting business.

In contrast to functional definitions, a processperspective in FM focuses on the tasks andactivities that take place internally in the FMorganisation. The emphasis is on how the workis done, rather than the functionalresponsibilities.

Table 2 shows the characteristics of organisationswith process focus, as opposed to those withoutsuch a focus.

Core, support and management processesBusiness processes can be divided into threebroad types: (i) core processes; (ii) supportprocesses; (iii) management processes. Figure 5illustrates this.

Core processes concentrate on satisfyingcustomers. They directly add value to theproduct in a way that clients understand. These processes respond to the needs ofcustomers and generate customer satisfaction.

Support processes concentrate on satisfying‘customers’ within the organisation. They might add value to the business indirectly,by supporting a core business process, or directly, by providing a suitable environment.

Management processes are concerned withmanaging the core and support processes.

SPICE FM is primarily concerned withmanagement processes. The underlyingphilosophy is that if management processes arewell performed, they will have an impact on theperformance of core processes. SPICE FM doesnot prescribe how organisations should performcore processes. Instead, it focuses on creating amanagement infrastructure that allows membersof staff to perform core processes successfully.

Table 2: Characteristics of a process focused organisation

Without process focus With process focus

ManagementProcesses

coreInput Output

SupportProcesses

Figure 5: Types of processes

Process discipline

Organisation

Management

Skills & training

Tools & technology

Processes are defined and followedby staff and management; processdiscipline is the norm.

Functions and roles are defined insupport of the process.

■ Staff performance is measured interms of process performanceand results

■ Such measurements are definedand agreed

■ Managers focus on the quality ofboth process and service delivery

Training is planned and is definedin the support of end to end process

Tools and technology are selected insupport of the end to end process andthe automation of process activities

The staff and their management inthe course of performing theiractivities improvise processes.

Functions and roles do notnecessarily align with the process requirements

■ Staff performance is measured interms of the number of hours(irrespective of whether theywere productive or not)

■ Managers are usually focused on solving immediate crises (fire fighting)

Training is ad hoc and orientedtowards personal inclinations

Tools and technology are acquiredas ad hoc point solutions without anoverall plan and strategy

13

SPICE FM Framework

12

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM Process MaturityModelThe SPICE FM process maturity modelpromotes continuous process improvementbased on many small, evolutionary steps. It provides a system for initiating andimplementing continuous improvement.

The model divides these evolutionary steps intofive maturity levels, which lay the foundationsfor continuous process improvement. The maturity levels form a scale for measuring the capability of an FM provider'smanagement processes.

Each level of maturity is defined by a set of keyprocesses. When an organisation is successfullyapplying each key process, it can stabilise animportant part of the service delivery processand achieve the next level of maturity. The fivelevels also provide guidelines on how toprioritise efforts at process improvement.

Figure 6 illustrates the five stages of the SPICEFM framework. For each level, the modelspecifies a number of ‘key processes’. By following the steps in the model, an organisation can achieve effective andcontinuous improvement based on evolutionary steps.

An organisation can only be at one level of themodel at any one time. If an organisation is atlevel 1, but implements some of the keyprocesses of level 3 or 4, it is still considered alevel 1 organisation. This is because each levellays successive foundations for the next. An organisation has little to gain by addressingissues at a higher level if all the key processes atthe current level have not been implemented.

To date, the research has focused on defining the characteristics of Levels 1 and 2 of the model.

Stepwise improvements inorganisational maturityThe process maturity model lays foundationsfor continuous process improvement, by establishing controls on service deliverymanagement processes before focusing ontechnical issues. Starting with ad-hoc processes,the evolutionary 5-stage model guides FMorganisations towards developing their processcapability (Sarshar et al, 2000).

In the SPICE FM framework, organisations atlevel 1 have little process focus. Organisations atlevel 2 have achieved high capability inmanaging service delivery. Level 3 focuses onknowledge management and sharing bestpractice across the organisation. In levels 4 and5, the model introduces statistical controls andmeasurement.

Level 1 of SPICE FM is the entry to theframework and has no key processes.Organisations at level 1 focus on achieving theseven key processes at level 2. This lays thefoundation for the key processes at the next level.

Each key process is defined by a set of criticalpractices that indicate if the process has beenimplemented in a way that is effective,repeatable and lasting. Table 3 lists the keyprocesses at level 2 and their “enablers”. To determine whether they satisfy these criticalpractices, organisations can use a processmaturity questionnaire. Appendix A contains an extract from the SPICE FM processmaturity questionnaire.

The SPICE FM approach is not prescriptive interms of how activities are performed. Instead, the model focuses on the broader issueof process management. Effective processmanagement encourages and supportsinnovative approaches to solving day-to-daybusiness problems, rather than constrainingorganisations to a particular way of working.

Process myths and factsBased on this understanding of processes,Zahran (1998) lists a number of interestingmyths that prevail in many organisations.Some of these myths are suited to facilitiesmanagement organisations and are listed below:

The documentation myth “We have a set of standarddocuments that specify the steps ofmanaging facilities. We think wehave a process.”

Wrong! A standard document on its own,without being trained and enforced, is nomore than “shelfware”. It could do harmrather than good. It gives the false impressionto management that there is a process inplace. A document is a dead object. It onlycomes to life when it turns into knowledge inpeople’s brains and memories. It only becomeseffective when such knowledge drives people’s behaviour.

The trust myth“We already train our staff in theprocess. We automatically assumethat they practise what they havelearned. We think we do not have to

monitor their activities or put enforcementprocedures in place. We trust our staff.”

Wrong! This is “wishful thinking”.An effective process environment is designedto work effectively and endure throughoutgenerations of staff. Without follow up, people tend to revert to their old habitualways of performing activities.

Why should they change? People can attendmany training events but still act as if they hadreceived no training. Without enforcement,you can not guarantee that everyone in theteam will follow the process.

The sponsorship myth“We have a senior managementsponsor who believes in the value ofthe process improvement effort.We do not have to justify our

investment and effort in process improvement.”

Wrong! Unless the business benefits of theprocess improvement are continuouslymonitored, measured and made visible,management sponsorship could be lost.The process improvement effort could bestopped at the first business crisis. Businessbenefits attributed to process discipline shouldbe uncovered and publicised.

The stability myth“We have the process defined,documented, trained and enforced.The process is stable, and it shouldremain effective without any change.”

Wrong! The process will only be effective if itis aligned with the business goals. If thebusiness goals change, the process goals mustbe realigned. A stable process does notnecessarily mean that the process is effective.The process should reflect the latest changesin business, techniques and methods. It shouldbe continuously realigned to reflect anychanges in the business goals.

13

SPICE FM Framework

12

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM Process MaturityModelThe SPICE FM process maturity modelpromotes continuous process improvementbased on many small, evolutionary steps. It provides a system for initiating andimplementing continuous improvement.

The model divides these evolutionary steps intofive maturity levels, which lay the foundationsfor continuous process improvement. The maturity levels form a scale for measuring the capability of an FM provider'smanagement processes.

Each level of maturity is defined by a set of keyprocesses. When an organisation is successfullyapplying each key process, it can stabilise animportant part of the service delivery processand achieve the next level of maturity. The fivelevels also provide guidelines on how toprioritise efforts at process improvement.

Figure 6 illustrates the five stages of the SPICEFM framework. For each level, the modelspecifies a number of ‘key processes’. By following the steps in the model, an organisation can achieve effective andcontinuous improvement based on evolutionary steps.

An organisation can only be at one level of themodel at any one time. If an organisation is atlevel 1, but implements some of the keyprocesses of level 3 or 4, it is still considered alevel 1 organisation. This is because each levellays successive foundations for the next. An organisation has little to gain by addressingissues at a higher level if all the key processes atthe current level have not been implemented.

To date, the research has focused on defining the characteristics of Levels 1 and 2 of the model.

Stepwise improvements inorganisational maturityThe process maturity model lays foundationsfor continuous process improvement, by establishing controls on service deliverymanagement processes before focusing ontechnical issues. Starting with ad-hoc processes,the evolutionary 5-stage model guides FMorganisations towards developing their processcapability (Sarshar et al, 2000).

In the SPICE FM framework, organisations atlevel 1 have little process focus. Organisations atlevel 2 have achieved high capability inmanaging service delivery. Level 3 focuses onknowledge management and sharing bestpractice across the organisation. In levels 4 and5, the model introduces statistical controls andmeasurement.

Level 1 of SPICE FM is the entry to theframework and has no key processes.Organisations at level 1 focus on achieving theseven key processes at level 2. This lays thefoundation for the key processes at the next level.

Each key process is defined by a set of criticalpractices that indicate if the process has beenimplemented in a way that is effective,repeatable and lasting. Table 3 lists the keyprocesses at level 2 and their “enablers”. To determine whether they satisfy these criticalpractices, organisations can use a processmaturity questionnaire. Appendix A contains an extract from the SPICE FM processmaturity questionnaire.

The SPICE FM approach is not prescriptive interms of how activities are performed. Instead, the model focuses on the broader issueof process management. Effective processmanagement encourages and supportsinnovative approaches to solving day-to-daybusiness problems, rather than constrainingorganisations to a particular way of working.

Process myths and factsBased on this understanding of processes,Zahran (1998) lists a number of interestingmyths that prevail in many organisations.Some of these myths are suited to facilitiesmanagement organisations and are listed below:

The documentation myth “We have a set of standarddocuments that specify the steps ofmanaging facilities. We think wehave a process.”

Wrong! A standard document on its own,without being trained and enforced, is nomore than “shelfware”. It could do harmrather than good. It gives the false impressionto management that there is a process inplace. A document is a dead object. It onlycomes to life when it turns into knowledge inpeople’s brains and memories. It only becomeseffective when such knowledge drives people’s behaviour.

The trust myth“We already train our staff in theprocess. We automatically assumethat they practise what they havelearned. We think we do not have to

monitor their activities or put enforcementprocedures in place. We trust our staff.”

Wrong! This is “wishful thinking”.An effective process environment is designedto work effectively and endure throughoutgenerations of staff. Without follow up, people tend to revert to their old habitualways of performing activities.

Why should they change? People can attendmany training events but still act as if they hadreceived no training. Without enforcement,you can not guarantee that everyone in theteam will follow the process.

The sponsorship myth“We have a senior managementsponsor who believes in the value ofthe process improvement effort.We do not have to justify our

investment and effort in process improvement.”

Wrong! Unless the business benefits of theprocess improvement are continuouslymonitored, measured and made visible,management sponsorship could be lost.The process improvement effort could bestopped at the first business crisis. Businessbenefits attributed to process discipline shouldbe uncovered and publicised.

The stability myth“We have the process defined,documented, trained and enforced.The process is stable, and it shouldremain effective without any change.”

Wrong! The process will only be effective if itis aligned with the business goals. If thebusiness goals change, the process goals mustbe realigned. A stable process does notnecessarily mean that the process is effective.The process should reflect the latest changesin business, techniques and methods. It shouldbe continuously realigned to reflect anychanges in the business goals.

15

SPICE FM Framework

14

SPICE FM Framework

Level 1 – InitialLevel 1 is the basic entry level to the model, and has no key processes. An FM provider atthis level has little focus on process, and serviceperformance is poor. Good practices are local,and are not repeated or ‘institutionalised’ acrossthe organisation. The ineffective capture and co-ordination of service requirements tends toundermine good practices. Organisations makecommitments that staff or the supply chaincannot meet, which results in crises.

During a crisis, facilities managers typicallyabandon planned procedures; instead,individuals do whatever activities it takes to getthe job done, with little regard for the effects onother people. Figure 7 represents this focus onresults. Time, cost, quality and customersatisfaction may all suffer. For an organisation atlevel 1, effective service delivery dependsentirely on having an exceptional manager anda competent team. When these managers leave,their stabilising influences leave with them.Consequently, the organisation is unable toconsistently meet the requirements of the core business.

Level 1 organisations must implement all of thelevel 2 key processes in order to progress, or‘mature’, to the second level of the model.

Level 2 – Service DeliveryManagementAt this level, service performance can bepredicted to a certain degree. A level 2organisation has established policies andprocedures for managing and deliveringcustomer requirements. Service performancestandards are established, and service delivery isco-ordinated to minimise disruption to the corebusiness. As the service is being delivered,continuous monitoring ensures thatperformance standards are met.

Activityto produce

input to

to improve

Evaluation

Preparation

Results

Figure 7: At level 1, individual focuson individual performance

Figure 8: At level 2, processes areplanned and evaluated

Figure 6: The SPICE FM process maturity model

Table 3: Level 2 key processes and their enablers

Level 5Continuously

Improving

Level 4Quantitatively

Controlled

Level 3Knowledge

Management

Level 2Service Delivery

Management

Level 1Initial

Activity ResultsLevel Key Process Areas Generic Process Enablers

2 - Service Delivery Management

Service Requirement Management

Service Planning

Service Performance Monitoring

Supplier and ContractorManagement

Health and Safety Management

Risk Management

Service Co-ordination

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

15

SPICE FM Framework

14

SPICE FM Framework

Level 1 – InitialLevel 1 is the basic entry level to the model, and has no key processes. An FM provider atthis level has little focus on process, and serviceperformance is poor. Good practices are local,and are not repeated or ‘institutionalised’ acrossthe organisation. The ineffective capture and co-ordination of service requirements tends toundermine good practices. Organisations makecommitments that staff or the supply chaincannot meet, which results in crises.

During a crisis, facilities managers typicallyabandon planned procedures; instead,individuals do whatever activities it takes to getthe job done, with little regard for the effects onother people. Figure 7 represents this focus onresults. Time, cost, quality and customersatisfaction may all suffer. For an organisation atlevel 1, effective service delivery dependsentirely on having an exceptional manager anda competent team. When these managers leave,their stabilising influences leave with them.Consequently, the organisation is unable toconsistently meet the requirements of the core business.

Level 1 organisations must implement all of thelevel 2 key processes in order to progress, or‘mature’, to the second level of the model.

Level 2 – Service DeliveryManagementAt this level, service performance can bepredicted to a certain degree. A level 2organisation has established policies andprocedures for managing and deliveringcustomer requirements. Service performancestandards are established, and service delivery isco-ordinated to minimise disruption to the corebusiness. As the service is being delivered,continuous monitoring ensures thatperformance standards are met.

Activityto produce

input to

to improve

Evaluation

Preparation

Results

Figure 7: At level 1, individual focuson individual performance

Figure 8: At level 2, processes areplanned and evaluated

Figure 6: The SPICE FM process maturity model

Table 3: Level 2 key processes and their enablers

Level 5Continuously

Improving

Level 4Quantitatively

Controlled

Level 3Knowledge

Management

Level 2Service Delivery

Management

Level 1Initial

Activity ResultsLevel Key Process Areas Generic Process Enablers

2 - Service Delivery Management

Service Requirement Management

Service Planning

Service Performance Monitoring

Supplier and ContractorManagement

Health and Safety Management

Risk Management

Service Co-ordination

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

17

SPICE FM Framework

16

SPICE FM Framework

At level 2, FM providers have effective processesto directly meet the requirements of the corebusiness. An effective process is one that ispractised, enforced, trained, documented, evaluatedand able to improve, as shown in Figure 8.

To date, most of the efforts of the SPICE FMproject have concentrated on defining andraising confidence at level 2 of the model. The research has identified seven key processesat level 2 which are described below.

Key process 1- Service requirementmanagement Effective management of service requirementsidentifies the needs of the organisation and itsusers. The service delivery team identifies howmany tiers of customers it has and how theirrequirements differ. The team has a clear senseof priority in term of its customers and theservice mixes it offers.

Service level agreements and performancestandards are developed and continuouslyreviewed to remain consistent with customerrequirements. They are also communicated toall staff involved in service delivery.

Key process 2- Service planningService planning establishes realistic schedulesof work based on customer requirements.Estimates (e.g., resources, maintenanceschedules, budgets, purchasing) are preparedfor all work to be performed (e.g., scheduledand reactive maintenance).

Key process 3- Service performancemonitoring Service performance monitoring ensures thatservices are delivered in a manner that isconsistent with the service level agreements andperformance standards established with thecustomer. Feedback is gathered (e.g., fromcustomers and staff) to monitor customersatisfaction levels. Performance measures

(e.g., waiting times, error rates, processingtimes) are reviewed on a regular basis, with theinvolvement of staff, and corrective action istaken when service delivery deviatessignificantly from service plans.

Key process 4- Supplier and contractormanagementThis key process starts with the selection ofsuitable suppliers and contractors. Service levelagreements and performance standards areestablished and their performance iscontinuously reviewed.

Key process 5- Health and safetymanagementHealth and Safety Management ensures thatservices are delivered in compliance with, or exceed, all mandatory health and safetylegislation. Health and safety risks are identified,assessed, and action taken to eliminate orminimise the likelihood of any incidents.

Key process 6- Risk managementRisk management involves identifying andevaluating risks so that action can be taken,either to reduce the likelihood of an eventoccurring or to limit the consequences shouldthat event occur. Risks are identified in all areasof the business (e.g., to the environment, supplybreakdown, property, financial performance).Staff are actively involved in identifying risksand taking steps to prevent risks becoming a reality.

Key process 7- Service co-ordinationService co-ordination draws on the experienceof other service teams, suppliers and customersto meet customer requirements effectively.Co-ordination between these three groupsensures that disruption to the core business isminimised. Representatives with responsibilityfor co-ordination are appointed, and co-ordination methods are agreed.

Level 3 – Knowledge ManagementA level 3 organisation builds on theachievements of level 2. At this level, the organisation has the capability to captureand share knowledge across the organisation, as shown in Figure 9.

So far, the SPICE FM research has had lessfocus on level 3, which is anticipated to be thesubject of future research. The principles of theSPICE model for the construction industry arediscussed below.

At Level 3, an organisation creates “ProcessImprovement Teams (PITs)”, which capture andinstitutionalise best practices. PIT members helpcreate organisation-wide process libraries, which act as process standards. FM departmentsuse these standards to define their uniqueprocesses. Employees in any part of theorganisation can easily refer to these standard processes.

A well-defined process includes standarddescriptions and models for performing thework, and mechanisms to verify that the workhas been done correctly (such as peer reviews).It will also incorporate completion criteria, toprovide an insight into progress.

Experience from the software industry offersguidelines on what life at a Level 3 organisationfeels like. Characteristics of a Level 3organisation include: (i) pro-active customermanagement; (ii) an effective defect trackingsystem, which drives service management; (iii)an organisation-wide focus on “getting it right”.

For managers, working in a level 3 organisationcan be summarised as eyes on, hands off.Professionals feel confident in what theyproduce. They are equipped to do the job, andfeel empowered to innovate. There are focusedand planned inductions for new starters, withexplanations for what, why and how.

Activity to produce

input to

input to

input to

to improve

Evaluation

Preparation

ResultsKnowledge Captureand Sharing

Figure 9: At level 3, knowledge is shared throughout the organisation

17

SPICE FM Framework

16

SPICE FM Framework

At level 2, FM providers have effective processesto directly meet the requirements of the corebusiness. An effective process is one that ispractised, enforced, trained, documented, evaluatedand able to improve, as shown in Figure 8.

To date, most of the efforts of the SPICE FMproject have concentrated on defining andraising confidence at level 2 of the model. The research has identified seven key processesat level 2 which are described below.

Key process 1- Service requirementmanagement Effective management of service requirementsidentifies the needs of the organisation and itsusers. The service delivery team identifies howmany tiers of customers it has and how theirrequirements differ. The team has a clear senseof priority in term of its customers and theservice mixes it offers.

Service level agreements and performancestandards are developed and continuouslyreviewed to remain consistent with customerrequirements. They are also communicated toall staff involved in service delivery.

Key process 2- Service planningService planning establishes realistic schedulesof work based on customer requirements.Estimates (e.g., resources, maintenanceschedules, budgets, purchasing) are preparedfor all work to be performed (e.g., scheduledand reactive maintenance).

Key process 3- Service performancemonitoring Service performance monitoring ensures thatservices are delivered in a manner that isconsistent with the service level agreements andperformance standards established with thecustomer. Feedback is gathered (e.g., fromcustomers and staff) to monitor customersatisfaction levels. Performance measures

(e.g., waiting times, error rates, processingtimes) are reviewed on a regular basis, with theinvolvement of staff, and corrective action istaken when service delivery deviatessignificantly from service plans.

Key process 4- Supplier and contractormanagementThis key process starts with the selection ofsuitable suppliers and contractors. Service levelagreements and performance standards areestablished and their performance iscontinuously reviewed.

Key process 5- Health and safetymanagementHealth and Safety Management ensures thatservices are delivered in compliance with, or exceed, all mandatory health and safetylegislation. Health and safety risks are identified,assessed, and action taken to eliminate orminimise the likelihood of any incidents.

Key process 6- Risk managementRisk management involves identifying andevaluating risks so that action can be taken,either to reduce the likelihood of an eventoccurring or to limit the consequences shouldthat event occur. Risks are identified in all areasof the business (e.g., to the environment, supplybreakdown, property, financial performance).Staff are actively involved in identifying risksand taking steps to prevent risks becoming a reality.

Key process 7- Service co-ordinationService co-ordination draws on the experienceof other service teams, suppliers and customersto meet customer requirements effectively.Co-ordination between these three groupsensures that disruption to the core business isminimised. Representatives with responsibilityfor co-ordination are appointed, and co-ordination methods are agreed.

Level 3 – Knowledge ManagementA level 3 organisation builds on theachievements of level 2. At this level, the organisation has the capability to captureand share knowledge across the organisation, as shown in Figure 9.

So far, the SPICE FM research has had lessfocus on level 3, which is anticipated to be thesubject of future research. The principles of theSPICE model for the construction industry arediscussed below.

At Level 3, an organisation creates “ProcessImprovement Teams (PITs)”, which capture andinstitutionalise best practices. PIT members helpcreate organisation-wide process libraries, which act as process standards. FM departmentsuse these standards to define their uniqueprocesses. Employees in any part of theorganisation can easily refer to these standard processes.

A well-defined process includes standarddescriptions and models for performing thework, and mechanisms to verify that the workhas been done correctly (such as peer reviews).It will also incorporate completion criteria, toprovide an insight into progress.

Experience from the software industry offersguidelines on what life at a Level 3 organisationfeels like. Characteristics of a Level 3organisation include: (i) pro-active customermanagement; (ii) an effective defect trackingsystem, which drives service management; (iii)an organisation-wide focus on “getting it right”.

For managers, working in a level 3 organisationcan be summarised as eyes on, hands off.Professionals feel confident in what theyproduce. They are equipped to do the job, andfeel empowered to innovate. There are focusedand planned inductions for new starters, withexplanations for what, why and how.

Activity to produce

input to

input to

input to

to improve

Evaluation

Preparation

ResultsKnowledge Captureand Sharing

Figure 9: At level 3, knowledge is shared throughout the organisation

19

SPICE FM Framework

18

SPICE FM Framework

Level 4 – Quantitatively ImprovedSo far, the SPICE FM research has had littlefocus on level 4 and 5. Most of the issuesdiscussed here are subject to further researchand development. The principles of the CMM®

model are discussed below.

At this level, organisations are capable of settingquality goals for (i) the service, (ii) the process,and (iii) supply chain relationships. The organisation will have a programme thatmeasures productivity and quality for importantprocess activities related to service delivery.This programme forms an objective basis formeasuring the process, customer satisfaction,and harmony across the supply chain.

Organisations gain control of service delivery bynarrowing variations in process performance, so that they fall within acceptable boundaries.Meaningful variations can be distinguished fromrandom variations.

Level 5 – Continuously ImprovingThis level is also subject to further research.The expectation is that at level 5, the entiresupply chain is focused on continuous processimprovement. Level 5 organisations can identifyweaknesses and strengthen processes before anyproblems emerge, and can do so in acollaborative manner. Data on the effectivenessof the process is used to perform cost benefitanalysis on any new technologies and onproposed changes to processes. This increased level of understanding allowsorganisations to consider large-scale changes totheir processes. Innovations that exploit bestpractice are identified and adopted throughoutthe organisation.

Process EnablersAnecdotal evidence from the research suggeststhat if managers are asked: “Do you implementlevel 2 key processes?” they are likely to respond“yes”. On the other hand, current studiesindicate otherwise. So how can managers ensure that they are performing the keyprocesses adequately?

The SPICE FM research has identified fiveprocess enablers, which are either activities ormodes of thinking. These enablers are pre-conditions for implementing the process.They are based on principles established inCMM® (Paulk et al, 1994) and SPICE (Sarshar et al, 2000) that were developed for the software engineering and constructionsectors respectively.

Process enablers focus on the results that can beexpected from a key process. This is a forward-looking approach, which indicates anorganisation has process capability before aprocess takes place. Process enablers detail thefeatures a key process must have before it canyield successful results. Ensuring that all theprocess enablers are in place improves theperformance and predictability of key processes.

Process enablers apply across all the key processes.

CommitmentThis involves an organisation taking action toensure that the process is established and islasting. Typically, this means establishing policiesthat are shared by the whole organisation.Some processes need sponsors or leaders in theorganisation. Commitment ensures that

leadership positions are created and filled, andthat the relevant organisational policystatements exist.

AbilityThis describes the conditions that must existbefore a process can be implementedcompetently. It normally means havingadequate resources, an appropriateorganisational structure, and training in place.

VerificationA verification procedure checks that activitiesare performed in compliance with the agreedprocess. Adopting such verification checks as aprocess enabler emphasises the need forindependent quality assurance. The focus is onexternal verification of processes.

EvaluationThis involves internal process evaluation andreviews to help control and improve processes.During the early stages of maturity, this willmean efforts by the team to improve existingprocesses. The focus here is on the projectteam’s internal improvements.

ActivitiesThis describes the activities, roles andprocedures necessary to implement processes.They typically involve establishing plans andprocedures, performing the work, tracking it,and taking corrective action as necessary.

19

SPICE FM Framework

18

SPICE FM Framework

Level 4 – Quantitatively ImprovedSo far, the SPICE FM research has had littlefocus on level 4 and 5. Most of the issuesdiscussed here are subject to further researchand development. The principles of the CMM®

model are discussed below.

At this level, organisations are capable of settingquality goals for (i) the service, (ii) the process,and (iii) supply chain relationships. The organisation will have a programme thatmeasures productivity and quality for importantprocess activities related to service delivery.This programme forms an objective basis formeasuring the process, customer satisfaction,and harmony across the supply chain.

Organisations gain control of service delivery bynarrowing variations in process performance, so that they fall within acceptable boundaries.Meaningful variations can be distinguished fromrandom variations.

Level 5 – Continuously ImprovingThis level is also subject to further research.The expectation is that at level 5, the entiresupply chain is focused on continuous processimprovement. Level 5 organisations can identifyweaknesses and strengthen processes before anyproblems emerge, and can do so in acollaborative manner. Data on the effectivenessof the process is used to perform cost benefitanalysis on any new technologies and onproposed changes to processes. This increased level of understanding allowsorganisations to consider large-scale changes totheir processes. Innovations that exploit bestpractice are identified and adopted throughoutthe organisation.

Process EnablersAnecdotal evidence from the research suggeststhat if managers are asked: “Do you implementlevel 2 key processes?” they are likely to respond“yes”. On the other hand, current studiesindicate otherwise. So how can managers ensure that they are performing the keyprocesses adequately?

The SPICE FM research has identified fiveprocess enablers, which are either activities ormodes of thinking. These enablers are pre-conditions for implementing the process.They are based on principles established inCMM® (Paulk et al, 1994) and SPICE (Sarshar et al, 2000) that were developed for the software engineering and constructionsectors respectively.

Process enablers focus on the results that can beexpected from a key process. This is a forward-looking approach, which indicates anorganisation has process capability before aprocess takes place. Process enablers detail thefeatures a key process must have before it canyield successful results. Ensuring that all theprocess enablers are in place improves theperformance and predictability of key processes.

Process enablers apply across all the key processes.

CommitmentThis involves an organisation taking action toensure that the process is established and islasting. Typically, this means establishing policiesthat are shared by the whole organisation.Some processes need sponsors or leaders in theorganisation. Commitment ensures that

leadership positions are created and filled, andthat the relevant organisational policystatements exist.

AbilityThis describes the conditions that must existbefore a process can be implementedcompetently. It normally means havingadequate resources, an appropriateorganisational structure, and training in place.

VerificationA verification procedure checks that activitiesare performed in compliance with the agreedprocess. Adopting such verification checks as aprocess enabler emphasises the need forindependent quality assurance. The focus is onexternal verification of processes.

EvaluationThis involves internal process evaluation andreviews to help control and improve processes.During the early stages of maturity, this willmean efforts by the team to improve existingprocesses. The focus here is on the projectteam’s internal improvements.

ActivitiesThis describes the activities, roles andprocedures necessary to implement processes.They typically involve establishing plans andprocedures, performing the work, tracking it,and taking corrective action as necessary.

21

SPICE FM Framework

Creating a ContinuousImprovement Infrastructure

20

SPICE FM Framework

So far, this booklet has presented two differingapproaches to improving FM performance: one based on strategic management, the otheron operational process improvement. Used individually, both offer valuableapproaches to organisational change andcontinuous improvement.

However, the SPICE FM framework uses thesetechniques together to offer a powerful businessdevelopment tool.

Why link process improvement to strategy? Gap between strategy formulation and implementation

Surveys indicate that around 90% of developedstrategies fail to be properly executed. Even using the Balanced Scorecard, 70% ofstrategies are not implemented (Fortune, 1997).This highlights the need for a continuouslearning framework that links strategic directionsto operational requirements and improvements.

SPICE FM seeks to create such framework,through two mechanisms:

■ Level 2 of the model focuses on operationaleffectiveness of service delivery in relation to strategy.

■ The SPICE FM assessment process(discussed later in this handbook) providesteams with a problem-solving infrastructureand a partial feedback loop. It involves top-to-bottom cross sections of organisationsdiscussing the effectiveness of operationalprocesses. The teams jointly reach decisionson future improvements.

Justifying the investment required toimprove processesEvidence from other business sectors suggeststhat organisations tend to overlook the need tolink improvements to business objectives.Organisations often choose to follow the exactrequirements of a particular model orframework (such as CMM® or SPICE).This approach can result in quality awards andaccreditations. However, evidence suggests thatif process and quality improvement efforts arenot linked to strategic business directions, theymay fail to promote business competitivenessand survival.

In SPICE FM, businesses can continuously align business goals and process improvementefforts in order to prioritise effort and justify investment.

Continuous improvementFigure 10 illustrates the SPICE FM framework’suse of the Balanced Scorecard and the SPICEFM Maturity Model to prioritise and monitorthe effectiveness of process improvement efforts.

Stage 1: Identify strategic objectivesInitially, the Balanced Scorecard is used toclarify the organisation’s business objectives.Different levels within organisations can developseparate scorecards, all linked to therequirements of the core business.

Stage 2: Evaluate current FM management processesThe FM provider evaluates its managementprocesses using the SPICE Process Maturity Model. This evaluation typicallyhighlights deficiencies in the FM provider’sprocess capability.

Stage 3: Prioritise, implement and monitor Stage 3 of the cycle clarifies the relationshipbetween a process improvement initiative andthe business’s aims and objectives. Processimprovement opportunities are prioritised ontheir contribution to the organisation’s criticalsuccess factors. Once improvement initiativesare selected, the organisation establishesmeasures, baselines and targets to monitor theireffect. The new measures are then incorporatedinto a revised scorecard and the continuousimprovement cycle starts again.

Developing process capabilityBy following the stages in the cycle, the FMprovider is continually improving in accordancewith the needs of the core business. In doing so,the FM provider is developing the capability toimplement the core business’ long term vision.Furthermore, the importance of FM services tothe core business is highlighted, which in turn raises the profile of FM at board level of the core business and enables greaterstrategic input.

Figure 10: The SPICE FM continuous process improvement cycle

1Identify the FM strategy,

linked to the corebusiness's objectives

3Prioritise, implement and

monitor improvementto processes

2Evaluate current FMservice management

processes

21

SPICE FM Framework

Creating a ContinuousImprovement Infrastructure

20

SPICE FM Framework

So far, this booklet has presented two differingapproaches to improving FM performance: one based on strategic management, the otheron operational process improvement. Used individually, both offer valuableapproaches to organisational change andcontinuous improvement.

However, the SPICE FM framework uses thesetechniques together to offer a powerful businessdevelopment tool.

Why link process improvement to strategy? Gap between strategy formulation and implementation

Surveys indicate that around 90% of developedstrategies fail to be properly executed. Even using the Balanced Scorecard, 70% ofstrategies are not implemented (Fortune, 1997).This highlights the need for a continuouslearning framework that links strategic directionsto operational requirements and improvements.

SPICE FM seeks to create such framework,through two mechanisms:

■ Level 2 of the model focuses on operationaleffectiveness of service delivery in relation to strategy.

■ The SPICE FM assessment process(discussed later in this handbook) providesteams with a problem-solving infrastructureand a partial feedback loop. It involves top-to-bottom cross sections of organisationsdiscussing the effectiveness of operationalprocesses. The teams jointly reach decisionson future improvements.

Justifying the investment required toimprove processesEvidence from other business sectors suggeststhat organisations tend to overlook the need tolink improvements to business objectives.Organisations often choose to follow the exactrequirements of a particular model orframework (such as CMM® or SPICE).This approach can result in quality awards andaccreditations. However, evidence suggests thatif process and quality improvement efforts arenot linked to strategic business directions, theymay fail to promote business competitivenessand survival.

In SPICE FM, businesses can continuously align business goals and process improvementefforts in order to prioritise effort and justify investment.

Continuous improvementFigure 10 illustrates the SPICE FM framework’suse of the Balanced Scorecard and the SPICEFM Maturity Model to prioritise and monitorthe effectiveness of process improvement efforts.

Stage 1: Identify strategic objectivesInitially, the Balanced Scorecard is used toclarify the organisation’s business objectives.Different levels within organisations can developseparate scorecards, all linked to therequirements of the core business.

Stage 2: Evaluate current FM management processesThe FM provider evaluates its managementprocesses using the SPICE Process Maturity Model. This evaluation typicallyhighlights deficiencies in the FM provider’sprocess capability.

Stage 3: Prioritise, implement and monitor Stage 3 of the cycle clarifies the relationshipbetween a process improvement initiative andthe business’s aims and objectives. Processimprovement opportunities are prioritised ontheir contribution to the organisation’s criticalsuccess factors. Once improvement initiativesare selected, the organisation establishesmeasures, baselines and targets to monitor theireffect. The new measures are then incorporatedinto a revised scorecard and the continuousimprovement cycle starts again.

Developing process capabilityBy following the stages in the cycle, the FMprovider is continually improving in accordancewith the needs of the core business. In doing so,the FM provider is developing the capability toimplement the core business’ long term vision.Furthermore, the importance of FM services tothe core business is highlighted, which in turn raises the profile of FM at board level of the core business and enables greaterstrategic input.

Figure 10: The SPICE FM continuous process improvement cycle

1Identify the FM strategy,

linked to the corebusiness's objectives

3Prioritise, implement and

monitor improvementto processes

2Evaluate current FMservice management

processes

23

SPICE FM Framework

Real Life Examples

22

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM Assessment ProcessThe SPICE FM assessment process engages stafffrom service delivery teams. It obtains feedbackfrom staff and involves them in improvementdecisions. Consequently, staff feel valued andhave ownership of the subsequent outcomes.

During the case study assessments, the processfollowed five phases: gaining commitment;developing the Balanced Scorecard; servicedelivery fact finding; analysing results andfeedback; and prioritisation and improvements.These are discussed below.

■ Gaining Commitment - Initially, the SPICEteam briefed senior management andobtained their commitment to perform theSPICE FM assessment.

■ Developing the Balanced Scorecard - Existingbusiness plans and documentation, in conjunction with senior managementinterviews, were used to develop a BalancedScorecard for the department. Objectivesand critical success factors that contributeddirectly to the core business’s objectives weredeveloped. In addition, the scorecardidentified appropriate measures for eachcritical success factor.

■ Service delivery fact finding - Next, members ofstaff were selected to participate in a processassessment. This focused on senior andmiddle management, as well as members ofstaff either responsible for or directlyaffected by the key processes being assessed.

The fact-finding comprised standardquestionnaires, followed by semi-structuredinterviews and a limited document review.Extracts from the standard questionnaire canbe found in appendix A.

■ Analysis of results and feedback - Based on thequestionnaires, interviews and documentreviews, the assessment team put together itsdetailed findings, highlighting processstrengths and weaknesses. The findings werealso summarised in a matrix of departmentalprocess capability. The results were sharedwith the participants, who discussed andagreed the findings, then discussed a list ofimprovement opportunities.

■ Prioritisation and improvements - Seniormanagement reviewed the findings andimprovement opportunities. The improvements were prioritised foraction based on their relevance to theobjectives and critical success factors detailed in the Balanced Scorecard. Each improvement initiative wassubsequently viewed as a project in its ownright, with its own resources and timescales.Senior management reviewed progress.

A series of case studies of FM providers,including several NHS Trusts and a large highstreet retailer, has tested the SPICE FMframework extensively. Four of these casestudies are examined in this section.

Study 1 – Maintenance departmentat a NHS TrustBackgroundThe maintenance department of an NHS Trustin the North West of England had responsibilityfor repair and maintenance work to the hospitalexterior and interior. In addition to repairingfaults reported by hospital staff, the department also had a preventativemaintenance programme.

Directly employed labour, including plumbers,joiners and electricians, performed most of thework. The majority of staff were highlyexperienced with extensive on-the-job trainingand appropriate trade qualifications.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment The Balanced Scorecard programme providedcredible and documented assessment of theestates and facilities service system. According tothe process outlined by Kaplan and Norton, the data collection was structured by three main stages:

■ The FM department’s vision andcorresponding objectives;

■ Critical success factors in relation to theseobjectives; and

■ Development of performance measures tosupport the critical success factors.

Critical success factors and correspondingperformance measuresCritical success factors and appropriatemeasures were determined, based on themanagement responses and bearing the FMdepartment’s vision and objectives in mind.It was able to build a Balanced Scorecard byfocusing on aspects of the business whichcreated value for customers, and by re-appraising its philosophy as an organisation andincorporating it into the performancemeasurement system. Some of the criticalsuccess factors identified are listed in Table 4.

23

SPICE FM Framework

Real Life Examples

22

SPICE FM Framework

The SPICE FM Assessment ProcessThe SPICE FM assessment process engages stafffrom service delivery teams. It obtains feedbackfrom staff and involves them in improvementdecisions. Consequently, staff feel valued andhave ownership of the subsequent outcomes.

During the case study assessments, the processfollowed five phases: gaining commitment;developing the Balanced Scorecard; servicedelivery fact finding; analysing results andfeedback; and prioritisation and improvements.These are discussed below.

■ Gaining Commitment - Initially, the SPICEteam briefed senior management andobtained their commitment to perform theSPICE FM assessment.

■ Developing the Balanced Scorecard - Existingbusiness plans and documentation, in conjunction with senior managementinterviews, were used to develop a BalancedScorecard for the department. Objectivesand critical success factors that contributeddirectly to the core business’s objectives weredeveloped. In addition, the scorecardidentified appropriate measures for eachcritical success factor.

■ Service delivery fact finding - Next, members ofstaff were selected to participate in a processassessment. This focused on senior andmiddle management, as well as members ofstaff either responsible for or directlyaffected by the key processes being assessed.

The fact-finding comprised standardquestionnaires, followed by semi-structuredinterviews and a limited document review.Extracts from the standard questionnaire canbe found in appendix A.

■ Analysis of results and feedback - Based on thequestionnaires, interviews and documentreviews, the assessment team put together itsdetailed findings, highlighting processstrengths and weaknesses. The findings werealso summarised in a matrix of departmentalprocess capability. The results were sharedwith the participants, who discussed andagreed the findings, then discussed a list ofimprovement opportunities.

■ Prioritisation and improvements - Seniormanagement reviewed the findings andimprovement opportunities. The improvements were prioritised foraction based on their relevance to theobjectives and critical success factors detailed in the Balanced Scorecard. Each improvement initiative wassubsequently viewed as a project in its ownright, with its own resources and timescales.Senior management reviewed progress.

A series of case studies of FM providers,including several NHS Trusts and a large highstreet retailer, has tested the SPICE FMframework extensively. Four of these casestudies are examined in this section.

Study 1 – Maintenance departmentat a NHS TrustBackgroundThe maintenance department of an NHS Trustin the North West of England had responsibilityfor repair and maintenance work to the hospitalexterior and interior. In addition to repairingfaults reported by hospital staff, the department also had a preventativemaintenance programme.

Directly employed labour, including plumbers,joiners and electricians, performed most of thework. The majority of staff were highlyexperienced with extensive on-the-job trainingand appropriate trade qualifications.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment The Balanced Scorecard programme providedcredible and documented assessment of theestates and facilities service system. According tothe process outlined by Kaplan and Norton, the data collection was structured by three main stages:

■ The FM department’s vision andcorresponding objectives;

■ Critical success factors in relation to theseobjectives; and

■ Development of performance measures tosupport the critical success factors.

Critical success factors and correspondingperformance measuresCritical success factors and appropriatemeasures were determined, based on themanagement responses and bearing the FMdepartment’s vision and objectives in mind.It was able to build a Balanced Scorecard byfocusing on aspects of the business whichcreated value for customers, and by re-appraising its philosophy as an organisation andincorporating it into the performancemeasurement system. Some of the criticalsuccess factors identified are listed in Table 4.

25

SPICE FM Framework

24

SPICE FM Framework

The assessment translated the organisation’svision into a set of objective performanceindicators across the above four perspectives ofthe Balanced Scorecard. The Scorecard alsoassessed the organisation’s efforts to improveprocesses, motivate and educate employees,enhance information and communicationsystems, while at the same time providing bestvalue, cost effective and responsive levels of service.

The management agreed that the programmeprovided a results-oriented approach forevaluating the Trust’s estates and FM system.The Balanced Scorecard looked beyondcompliance and evaluated performance andoperational effectiveness. It gave thedepartment a valuable tool for enablingemployees to understand their organisation,and provided useful documentation fordeveloping control measures. This will guidethe department towards achieving its goals andvision. This programme will remain flexible andencourage continuous improvement whilemaintaining a cost effective monitoring system.

Process capability findingsFigure 11 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model.

At the hub of the department was a helpdeskthat staff throughout the hospital used toregister faults. The SPICE assessment noted thedepartment’s well-defined systems for recordingfaults and for producing cost and time estimatesbefore work was assigned to appropriate staff.The department also held an extensive assetregister to plan preventative maintenance.

Data extracted from the department’sinformation system, in addition to an annualcustomer satisfaction survey, permittedperformance monitoring against established targets.

In addition to these strengths, the assessmentalso highlighted a number of weaknesses thatthe department’s management recognised as important.

Communication between the department and itscustomers was poor, with trade staff often failingto keep the customer informed of delays thatprevented immediate repairs. Poor communicationwas leaving customers uncertain, and consequentlydissatisfied with the quality of service.

A lack of clearly defined expectations for riskassessments sometimes resulted in work beingundertaken without the necessary riskassessments in place. This was in spite ofextensive health and safety training. An over-stretched supervisory team, which had primaryresponsibility for preparing risk assessments,compounded the problem.

Lack of review and evaluation was a weakness across the management processes. Although there was an informal review system,the lack of resources to tackle specific issuesprevented action.

Table 5 demonstrates the importance of theseprocess improvement opportunities by aligningthem with the strategic perspectives of thedepartment’s Balanced Scorecard.

The department’s perspective

“The findings were an accurate review of ourperformance. The fast changing environmentthat we operate in makes it important for us tolook at ways in which we can improve. We don’tusually give ourselves the time to reflect, butSPICE FM did provide us with that opportunity.

The assessment process actively involved ourstaff in the change process, which helped gaintheir commitment. A working group has been setup to take forward a number of issues raised inthe assessment findings. A new informationsystem is being introduced to help us keep thecustomer better informed. We‘ve also introduceda new system for automatically including riskassessments on the job sheets that we issue to ourtrade-staff ”.

Table 4: Critical success factors

Workplace health and quality

Capital asset management

Workforce management

Service performance

Timeliness

Quality

Servicepartnership andco-ordination

Customer FM internalperspective processes

Financial resourcemanagement

CRES (Cash releasingefficiency schemes)

Procurement and purchasing strategies

Asset utilisation strategies

Service deliveryinnovation

Qualitydevelopment andimplementation

Staffdevelopment

Staff strategicawareness

Learning Financialand growth perspective

25

SPICE FM Framework

24

SPICE FM Framework

The assessment translated the organisation’svision into a set of objective performanceindicators across the above four perspectives ofthe Balanced Scorecard. The Scorecard alsoassessed the organisation’s efforts to improveprocesses, motivate and educate employees,enhance information and communicationsystems, while at the same time providing bestvalue, cost effective and responsive levels of service.

The management agreed that the programmeprovided a results-oriented approach forevaluating the Trust’s estates and FM system.The Balanced Scorecard looked beyondcompliance and evaluated performance andoperational effectiveness. It gave thedepartment a valuable tool for enablingemployees to understand their organisation,and provided useful documentation fordeveloping control measures. This will guidethe department towards achieving its goals andvision. This programme will remain flexible andencourage continuous improvement whilemaintaining a cost effective monitoring system.

Process capability findingsFigure 11 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model.

At the hub of the department was a helpdeskthat staff throughout the hospital used toregister faults. The SPICE assessment noted thedepartment’s well-defined systems for recordingfaults and for producing cost and time estimatesbefore work was assigned to appropriate staff.The department also held an extensive assetregister to plan preventative maintenance.

Data extracted from the department’sinformation system, in addition to an annualcustomer satisfaction survey, permittedperformance monitoring against established targets.

In addition to these strengths, the assessmentalso highlighted a number of weaknesses thatthe department’s management recognised as important.

Communication between the department and itscustomers was poor, with trade staff often failingto keep the customer informed of delays thatprevented immediate repairs. Poor communicationwas leaving customers uncertain, and consequentlydissatisfied with the quality of service.

A lack of clearly defined expectations for riskassessments sometimes resulted in work beingundertaken without the necessary riskassessments in place. This was in spite ofextensive health and safety training. An over-stretched supervisory team, which had primaryresponsibility for preparing risk assessments,compounded the problem.

Lack of review and evaluation was a weakness across the management processes. Although there was an informal review system,the lack of resources to tackle specific issuesprevented action.

Table 5 demonstrates the importance of theseprocess improvement opportunities by aligningthem with the strategic perspectives of thedepartment’s Balanced Scorecard.

The department’s perspective

“The findings were an accurate review of ourperformance. The fast changing environmentthat we operate in makes it important for us tolook at ways in which we can improve. We don’tusually give ourselves the time to reflect, butSPICE FM did provide us with that opportunity.

The assessment process actively involved ourstaff in the change process, which helped gaintheir commitment. A working group has been setup to take forward a number of issues raised inthe assessment findings. A new informationsystem is being introduced to help us keep thecustomer better informed. We‘ve also introduceda new system for automatically including riskassessments on the job sheets that we issue to ourtrade-staff ”.

Table 4: Critical success factors

Workplace health and quality

Capital asset management

Workforce management

Service performance

Timeliness

Quality

Servicepartnership andco-ordination

Customer FM internalperspective processes

Financial resourcemanagement

CRES (Cash releasingefficiency schemes)

Procurement and purchasing strategies

Asset utilisation strategies

Service deliveryinnovation

Qualitydevelopment andimplementation

Staffdevelopment

Staff strategicawareness

Learning Financialand growth perspective

Bal

ance

d S

core

card

Per

spec

tive

s

27

SPICE FM Framework

26

SPICE FM Framework

Study 2 – Sterilisation unit at a NHS TrustBackgroundCase study 2 was a unit at an NHS Trust in theNorth West of England with primaryresponsibility for the sterilisation of surgicalinstruments for hospital theatres and wards.The department also received linen and gownsfrom the on-site hospital laundry for pressingand packing before distribution throughout the hospital.

The department had a highly structuredoperational process, similar to a production line.It also had a flat organisational structure where management was closely integrated with operational staff. Many of the staff were unskilled.

These issues made the department an importanttest of SPICE FM’s appropriateness to the broadscope of functions present within the FM sector.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment There are some similarities between this casestudy and the previous one in the design andimplementation of their Balanced Scorecards.In this case, senior managers had traditionallybeen heavily involved in setting goals forindividual divisions and groups. Experience within the department had shownthat appropriately set and defined targetscontributed both to the motivation of employeesand the eventual success of the department.This culture was incorporated into the Balanced Scorecard.

By focusing on the aspects of the business thatcreated value for customers, and by carefully re-appraising the trust’s overall philosophy andincorporating this in to their performancemeasurement system, the organisation was ableto build a Balanced Scorecard. It formed aneffective means of communicating the strategyof the overall trust through the sub-businessunit. Some of the critical success factorsidentified are listed in Table 6.

Management believed that the BalancedScorecard provided a strategic framework andhighlighted the most important elements inachieving the goals of the overall trust.Accordingly, critical measurements wereincorporated into the Scorecard to achieve theobjectives identified above.

The use of the Balanced Scorecard as an aidtowards ongoing management control wasemphasised. It detailed all the key critical successfactors and performance indicators for the sterilisingunit as a way of focusing the organisation’sactivities and measuring its achievements.

Figure 11: The department’s process capability profile

Table 5: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Table 6: Critical success factors

Customer LiaisonInformationSystem

Risk AssessmentTraining

Telephone callsanswered within 5 seconds

Emergencies attendedthe same day

Jobs completed on first visit

Risk assessments in place for jobs

95%

98%

70%

-

99%

100%

80%

90%

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rnal

Pro

cess

Improve Timeliness

Increase CustomerSatisfaction

Improve WorkplaceHealth and Quality

Critical Success Related ProcessMeasure

2000 2001Factor Improvement Baseline Target

Customer Internal processes

Workforce management

Service performance

Quality

Service partnership

LearningFinancial

and growth

Financial resourcemanagement

CRES (Cash releasingefficiency schemes)

Quality developmentand implementation

Staff development

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

Bal

ance

d S

core

card

Per

spec

tive

s

27

SPICE FM Framework

26

SPICE FM Framework

Study 2 – Sterilisation unit at a NHS TrustBackgroundCase study 2 was a unit at an NHS Trust in theNorth West of England with primaryresponsibility for the sterilisation of surgicalinstruments for hospital theatres and wards.The department also received linen and gownsfrom the on-site hospital laundry for pressingand packing before distribution throughout the hospital.

The department had a highly structuredoperational process, similar to a production line.It also had a flat organisational structure where management was closely integrated with operational staff. Many of the staff were unskilled.

These issues made the department an importanttest of SPICE FM’s appropriateness to the broadscope of functions present within the FM sector.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment There are some similarities between this casestudy and the previous one in the design andimplementation of their Balanced Scorecards.In this case, senior managers had traditionallybeen heavily involved in setting goals forindividual divisions and groups. Experience within the department had shownthat appropriately set and defined targetscontributed both to the motivation of employeesand the eventual success of the department.This culture was incorporated into the Balanced Scorecard.

By focusing on the aspects of the business thatcreated value for customers, and by carefully re-appraising the trust’s overall philosophy andincorporating this in to their performancemeasurement system, the organisation was ableto build a Balanced Scorecard. It formed aneffective means of communicating the strategyof the overall trust through the sub-businessunit. Some of the critical success factorsidentified are listed in Table 6.

Management believed that the BalancedScorecard provided a strategic framework andhighlighted the most important elements inachieving the goals of the overall trust.Accordingly, critical measurements wereincorporated into the Scorecard to achieve theobjectives identified above.

The use of the Balanced Scorecard as an aidtowards ongoing management control wasemphasised. It detailed all the key critical successfactors and performance indicators for the sterilisingunit as a way of focusing the organisation’sactivities and measuring its achievements.

Figure 11: The department’s process capability profile

Table 5: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Table 6: Critical success factors

Customer LiaisonInformationSystem

Risk AssessmentTraining

Telephone callsanswered within 5 seconds

Emergencies attendedthe same day

Jobs completed on first visit

Risk assessments in place for jobs

95%

98%

70%

-

99%

100%

80%

90%

Cu

sto

mer

Inte

rnal

Pro

cess

Improve Timeliness

Increase CustomerSatisfaction

Improve WorkplaceHealth and Quality

Critical Success Related ProcessMeasure

2000 2001Factor Improvement Baseline Target

Customer Internal processes

Workforce management

Service performance

Quality

Service partnership

LearningFinancial

and growth

Financial resourcemanagement

CRES (Cash releasingefficiency schemes)

Quality developmentand implementation

Staff development

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

29

SPICE FM Framework

28

SPICE FM Framework

Figure 12: The department’s process capability profileThe Scorecard proved to be a good tool to linktop-level strategic business requirements withday-to-day activities within the department.Applying the SPICE assessment provided anopportunity to identify the process capabilitiesof the organisation. The assessment examinedday-to-day management processes within theorganisation and ensured that the criticalsuccess factors in the Balanced Scorecard wereactually measured and analysed, and that actionplans were developed to satisfy the strategicissues it raised.

Process capability findingsDespite the nature of the department’soperations, the SPICE FM key processes wereappropriate. Due to the high proportion ofunskilled staff in the department, semi-structured interviews were used in place ofquestionnaires. This overcame problems withterminology and highlighted the model’s abilityto adapt to the differing requirements ofindividual departments.

Figure 12 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model. The summary emphasises the maturity of theprocesses used within the department.

However, despite the department’s overallstrengths, the exercise did reveal someopportunities for improvement. Most notably,the department lacked clear guidelines ortraining for developing contingency plans aspart of its risk management activities. Despite this, the managerial staff used theirexperience to ensure a comprehensivecontingency plan was in place. This is anexample of good staff overcoming shortcomingsin the organisational processes.

The department also had insufficient resourcesand information technology to monitor certainaspects of its service performance. Most notably,measures such as ‘instrument down time’,‘turnaround time’, ‘level of re-work’ and ‘failurerate’ were not calculated, even thought theywere included in the hospital’s business plan.

Table 7 summarises these issues anddemonstrates their relevance to department’sstrategic objectives.

The department’s perspective“The Trust recognises the sterilisation unit as anexample of best practice; the SPICE FMfindings confirm this view.

We were concerned that questionnaires wouldbe unsuitable for the type of staff we employ,but the model appeared flexible enough toovercome this. We were also pleased that theassessment process recognised many of theimportant cultural issues that are present withinan environment such as this.

We are in the process of applying for funding topurchase a new bar-coding system that will helpus to monitor certain aspects of ourperformance, something we currently don’thave the capability to do. The SPICE FMmodel, by linking improvement opportunities toour business objectives, justifies the investment”.

Table 7: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Management of departmentalactivities to deliver service levelagreements and achieve efficiency standards.

Meet the requirements of thehospital, particularly the theatresand anaesthetics directorate, interms of provision of sterile services.

Management of departmental activitiesto deliver service level agreementsand achieve efficiency standards.

PerformanceMonitoring

RiskManagementStandards

Increase resourcing (e.g. introduceinformation system) so that monitoringactivities can be accommodated within thecurrent organisational structure.

Implement new measures to monitorperformance (instrument down time,turnaround time, level of re-work, failure rate.

Trust to develop guidelines and standards for the production of contingency plans / risk management. Support withtraining programme.

Areas identified Perspective addressed inSuggested actions

for improvement business plan

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

29

SPICE FM Framework

28

SPICE FM Framework

Figure 12: The department’s process capability profileThe Scorecard proved to be a good tool to linktop-level strategic business requirements withday-to-day activities within the department.Applying the SPICE assessment provided anopportunity to identify the process capabilitiesof the organisation. The assessment examinedday-to-day management processes within theorganisation and ensured that the criticalsuccess factors in the Balanced Scorecard wereactually measured and analysed, and that actionplans were developed to satisfy the strategicissues it raised.

Process capability findingsDespite the nature of the department’soperations, the SPICE FM key processes wereappropriate. Due to the high proportion ofunskilled staff in the department, semi-structured interviews were used in place ofquestionnaires. This overcame problems withterminology and highlighted the model’s abilityto adapt to the differing requirements ofindividual departments.

Figure 12 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model. The summary emphasises the maturity of theprocesses used within the department.

However, despite the department’s overallstrengths, the exercise did reveal someopportunities for improvement. Most notably,the department lacked clear guidelines ortraining for developing contingency plans aspart of its risk management activities. Despite this, the managerial staff used theirexperience to ensure a comprehensivecontingency plan was in place. This is anexample of good staff overcoming shortcomingsin the organisational processes.

The department also had insufficient resourcesand information technology to monitor certainaspects of its service performance. Most notably,measures such as ‘instrument down time’,‘turnaround time’, ‘level of re-work’ and ‘failurerate’ were not calculated, even thought theywere included in the hospital’s business plan.

Table 7 summarises these issues anddemonstrates their relevance to department’sstrategic objectives.

The department’s perspective“The Trust recognises the sterilisation unit as anexample of best practice; the SPICE FMfindings confirm this view.

We were concerned that questionnaires wouldbe unsuitable for the type of staff we employ,but the model appeared flexible enough toovercome this. We were also pleased that theassessment process recognised many of theimportant cultural issues that are present withinan environment such as this.

We are in the process of applying for funding topurchase a new bar-coding system that will helpus to monitor certain aspects of ourperformance, something we currently don’thave the capability to do. The SPICE FMmodel, by linking improvement opportunities toour business objectives, justifies the investment”.

Table 7: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Management of departmentalactivities to deliver service levelagreements and achieve efficiency standards.

Meet the requirements of thehospital, particularly the theatresand anaesthetics directorate, interms of provision of sterile services.

Management of departmental activitiesto deliver service level agreementsand achieve efficiency standards.

PerformanceMonitoring

RiskManagementStandards

Increase resourcing (e.g. introduceinformation system) so that monitoringactivities can be accommodated within thecurrent organisational structure.

Implement new measures to monitorperformance (instrument down time,turnaround time, level of re-work, failure rate.

Trust to develop guidelines and standards for the production of contingency plans / risk management. Support withtraining programme.

Areas identified Perspective addressed inSuggested actions

for improvement business plan

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

31

SPICE FM Framework

30

SPICE FM Framework

Study 3 – Facilities Directorate at a NHS TrustBackgroundThe third case study was a facilities directorateat an NHS Trust in the North West of England.The NHS recognised the Trust as a national andinternational centre of excellence in healthcareand research.

However, as a large and complex organisation,with a turnover in excess of £150m, the Facilities Directorate played an importantpart in ensuring the Hospital’s effectiveness.

At the commencement of the study, theDirectorate’s senior management wereconcerned about staff morale. This was due tothe impending transfer of many of their servicesto the private sector under the Private FinanceInitiative. Furthermore, management wereconcerned about the inability of the Directorateto implement its plans and strategic directives atan operational level. Consequently, they werekeen to see the results of the study.

Four vital services of the department werechosen to participate in the study: catering;operational estates; domestics; portering.

Strategic awareness and performanceassessment The development of the Balanced Scorecard atthe Central Manchester NHS Trust FacilitiesDirectorate attempted to pull together currentmeasures, the Patient Environment Assessmentmeasures and new measures drawn from theNHS plan, into a Balanced Scorecard using itsfour perspectives.

An essential component of the directorate’sstrategy was the establishment of facilitiesperformance targets, against which theperformance of the facilities can be monitoredand measured. The development of a BSCprovided a results oriented approach forevaluating the Trust's facilities managementsystem. The BSC looked beyond complianceand evaluates performance and operational effectiveness.

A BSC was developed to act as an effectivecommunication strategy. Table 8 lists some ofthe critical success factors identified against theBSC’s four perspectives.

Key indicators provide real focus and these canbe cascaded to a departmental level, particularlyimportant in a large organisation such as this.Regular reporting of the measures in thisformat could provide the information necessaryto keep the Directorate on track and to takecorrective action rather than having to waituntil after the event to realise that things havenot gone according to the plan.

Based on the above critical success factors,appropriate performance targets were drawn to ensure:

■ Improvements in the quality of the operationover time;

■ Improvements in statutory compliance,reduction in risk, and achievement ofcontrols assurance standards;

■ Changes in the revenue cost of theoperational estate over time;

■ Improvements in the utilisation of the estateover time; that is, condition appraisal inseeking out underused and surplus estates;and

■ Improvement in the quality of theenvironment for patients.

The facilities directorate has further takenseveral steps to encourage support for BalancedScorecard activities by:

■ Making a commitment at the seniormanagement level;

■ Incorporating the issued identified throughthe BSC development programme to itsbusiness plan;

■ Offering training in improvement techniques;

■ Establishing a reward and recognition systemto foster performance improvements;

■ Breaking down organisational barriers; and

■ Co-ordinating with the entire trust andresponsibilities of other directorates;

Process capability findingsTo ensure the process capability finding’saccuracy, it was necessary to secure arepresentative sample of staff to participate inthe study. Due to the size of the directorate, the assessment team held workshops withoperational staff, thus allowing larger numbers of staff to participate, whilst notrequiring an extension to the overall durationof the assessment.

Figure 13 summarises the directorate’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model.

A key issue revealed by the assessment was thedisparity between levels of staff in theirawareness of strategic directives and processes.For example, at the centre of the NHS’s vision isa National Plan that sets out its future directionand key objectives. Despite its importance, thestudy revealed that many staff at a supervisoryand practitioner level were unaware of theissues raised within the plan and, moreimportantly, the impact it should have on theirday-to-day operations.

Table 8: Critical success factors

Customer Internal processes

Healthcare in partnership

Operational services

Risk Management

Quality

Service partnership

Timeliness

LearningFinancial

and growth

Value for money

Achieving the financialrecovery plan

Development ofFacilities

Staff developmentand training

Service DeliveryInnovation

31

SPICE FM Framework

30

SPICE FM Framework

Study 3 – Facilities Directorate at a NHS TrustBackgroundThe third case study was a facilities directorateat an NHS Trust in the North West of England.The NHS recognised the Trust as a national andinternational centre of excellence in healthcareand research.

However, as a large and complex organisation,with a turnover in excess of £150m, the Facilities Directorate played an importantpart in ensuring the Hospital’s effectiveness.

At the commencement of the study, theDirectorate’s senior management wereconcerned about staff morale. This was due tothe impending transfer of many of their servicesto the private sector under the Private FinanceInitiative. Furthermore, management wereconcerned about the inability of the Directorateto implement its plans and strategic directives atan operational level. Consequently, they werekeen to see the results of the study.

Four vital services of the department werechosen to participate in the study: catering;operational estates; domestics; portering.

Strategic awareness and performanceassessment The development of the Balanced Scorecard atthe Central Manchester NHS Trust FacilitiesDirectorate attempted to pull together currentmeasures, the Patient Environment Assessmentmeasures and new measures drawn from theNHS plan, into a Balanced Scorecard using itsfour perspectives.

An essential component of the directorate’sstrategy was the establishment of facilitiesperformance targets, against which theperformance of the facilities can be monitoredand measured. The development of a BSCprovided a results oriented approach forevaluating the Trust's facilities managementsystem. The BSC looked beyond complianceand evaluates performance and operational effectiveness.

A BSC was developed to act as an effectivecommunication strategy. Table 8 lists some ofthe critical success factors identified against theBSC’s four perspectives.

Key indicators provide real focus and these canbe cascaded to a departmental level, particularlyimportant in a large organisation such as this.Regular reporting of the measures in thisformat could provide the information necessaryto keep the Directorate on track and to takecorrective action rather than having to waituntil after the event to realise that things havenot gone according to the plan.

Based on the above critical success factors,appropriate performance targets were drawn to ensure:

■ Improvements in the quality of the operationover time;

■ Improvements in statutory compliance,reduction in risk, and achievement ofcontrols assurance standards;

■ Changes in the revenue cost of theoperational estate over time;

■ Improvements in the utilisation of the estateover time; that is, condition appraisal inseeking out underused and surplus estates;and

■ Improvement in the quality of theenvironment for patients.

The facilities directorate has further takenseveral steps to encourage support for BalancedScorecard activities by:

■ Making a commitment at the seniormanagement level;

■ Incorporating the issued identified throughthe BSC development programme to itsbusiness plan;

■ Offering training in improvement techniques;

■ Establishing a reward and recognition systemto foster performance improvements;

■ Breaking down organisational barriers; and

■ Co-ordinating with the entire trust andresponsibilities of other directorates;

Process capability findingsTo ensure the process capability finding’saccuracy, it was necessary to secure arepresentative sample of staff to participate inthe study. Due to the size of the directorate, the assessment team held workshops withoperational staff, thus allowing larger numbers of staff to participate, whilst notrequiring an extension to the overall durationof the assessment.

Figure 13 summarises the directorate’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model.

A key issue revealed by the assessment was thedisparity between levels of staff in theirawareness of strategic directives and processes.For example, at the centre of the NHS’s vision isa National Plan that sets out its future directionand key objectives. Despite its importance, thestudy revealed that many staff at a supervisoryand practitioner level were unaware of theissues raised within the plan and, moreimportantly, the impact it should have on theirday-to-day operations.

Table 8: Critical success factors

Customer Internal processes

Healthcare in partnership

Operational services

Risk Management

Quality

Service partnership

Timeliness

LearningFinancial

and growth

Value for money

Achieving the financialrecovery plan

Development ofFacilities

Staff developmentand training

Service DeliveryInnovation

33

SPICE FM Framework

32

SPICE FM Framework

A further example of this problem wasuncovered under the SPICE FM key processrisk management. A recently implementedcontrols assurance standard was fundamental inmanaging the trust’s risk and was a criticalsuccess factor highlighted under the internalprocess perspective of the BSC. The standardemphasised the role that all staff play inmeeting this requirement. Again, the assessmentdemonstrated that many of the operational staffwere unfamiliar with its requirements and theirrespective responsibilities. This was due to a lackof training or specific systems for involving staffat this level.

In contrast, specific training programmes andguidance for service management staff had ledto the development of contingency plans foreach of the service streams.

Another issue applicable to all services related toperformance monitoring. Although each of theservices had monitoring systems in place, suchas patient and customer questionnaires therewas inconsistency and a lack of integrationbetween systems. Furthermore, monitoringwithin the Directorate was being driven by anational initiative titled the ‘PatientEnvironment Assessment’. This was a periodicreview of the Hospital’s environment from apatient perspective carried out approximatelyevery six months. Consequently, short-termefforts were made to monitor and improve inthe weeks prior to an assessment. The result wasa fire-fighting approach that was failing toaddress problems arising during the rest of the year.

The directorate’s management accepted thatimprovement in their monitoring systems wasvital in order to review their performanceagainst national targets established within theNHS Plan. Furthermore, effective monitoringsystems would provide management with aneffective tool to supervise the transition ofservices to the private sector under the PrivateFinance Initiative.

In addition to generic matters, the assessmenthighlighted some service specific process issues.

Each of the services had its own capableprocesses for determining service requirements,planning delivery and managing suppliers.For example, a national patient charterestablished clear guidelines for menus andchoice in the catering service. These broadrequirements were further defined in standardsfor food hygiene, patient feeding, nutritionalrequirements and purchase specifications.These complex standards had been translatedinto clear operating systems for use by staff on aday-to-day basis. Furthermore staff attendedregular training to ensure they remained awareof important issues.

Staff felt service co-ordination within thefacilities directorate had improved since theamalgamation of hotel and estate services.Previously, services such as catering, domesticsand portering were managed separately fromestates under a ‘hotel services’ banner. Despite this restructuring, the directorate’s co-ordination was still based on informalmechanisms, including face-to-facecommunication and meetings.

The different service groups lacked clear andenforceable performance standards, resulting inlong standing disputes between some of theservice delivery teams. Ultimately, these disputeswere reducing the quality of service to clinicalservices and consequently, the patient.

The assessment highlighted a problem specificto domestic services relating to the managementof health and safety. A high turnover ofoperational staff in tandem with an inadequatemanager’s resource was preventing adequatetraining provision for domestic staff.Worryingly, existing verification systems werefailing to highlight this specific problem.Consequently, staff were performing their roleswithout essential training, and therefore,potentially placing themselves, and patients atrisk. The directorate’s management recognisedthis as priority for change.

The directorate’s management were satisfiedthat the findings were a true reflection of theirexisting process capability and are nowaddressing many of the issues raised. Table 9demonstrates the relevance of the issues to thedepartment’s critical success factors andhighlights the subsequent actions.

The department’s perspective“The size of our operations at the Trust makes itdifficult for our senior management team tounderstand the problems faced by ouroperational staff.

We like the approach that SPICE FM takes intrying to bridge the gap between our strategyand day-to-day operations.

The uncertainty surrounding the upcomingmove of many of our services to the privatesector has led to problems with our staff ’smorale. By involving staff in the assessmentprocess, the tool appears to have overcome this.

Following the assessment, we’ve appointed amember of our staff to take the actions forward.We see this as the start of a continuous changeprocess and hope to use the SPICE FM toolagain in the coming months to monitor our progress”.

33

SPICE FM Framework

32

SPICE FM Framework

A further example of this problem wasuncovered under the SPICE FM key processrisk management. A recently implementedcontrols assurance standard was fundamental inmanaging the trust’s risk and was a criticalsuccess factor highlighted under the internalprocess perspective of the BSC. The standardemphasised the role that all staff play inmeeting this requirement. Again, the assessmentdemonstrated that many of the operational staffwere unfamiliar with its requirements and theirrespective responsibilities. This was due to a lackof training or specific systems for involving staffat this level.

In contrast, specific training programmes andguidance for service management staff had ledto the development of contingency plans foreach of the service streams.

Another issue applicable to all services related toperformance monitoring. Although each of theservices had monitoring systems in place, suchas patient and customer questionnaires therewas inconsistency and a lack of integrationbetween systems. Furthermore, monitoringwithin the Directorate was being driven by anational initiative titled the ‘PatientEnvironment Assessment’. This was a periodicreview of the Hospital’s environment from apatient perspective carried out approximatelyevery six months. Consequently, short-termefforts were made to monitor and improve inthe weeks prior to an assessment. The result wasa fire-fighting approach that was failing toaddress problems arising during the rest of the year.

The directorate’s management accepted thatimprovement in their monitoring systems wasvital in order to review their performanceagainst national targets established within theNHS Plan. Furthermore, effective monitoringsystems would provide management with aneffective tool to supervise the transition ofservices to the private sector under the PrivateFinance Initiative.

In addition to generic matters, the assessmenthighlighted some service specific process issues.

Each of the services had its own capableprocesses for determining service requirements,planning delivery and managing suppliers.For example, a national patient charterestablished clear guidelines for menus andchoice in the catering service. These broadrequirements were further defined in standardsfor food hygiene, patient feeding, nutritionalrequirements and purchase specifications.These complex standards had been translatedinto clear operating systems for use by staff on aday-to-day basis. Furthermore staff attendedregular training to ensure they remained awareof important issues.

Staff felt service co-ordination within thefacilities directorate had improved since theamalgamation of hotel and estate services.Previously, services such as catering, domesticsand portering were managed separately fromestates under a ‘hotel services’ banner. Despite this restructuring, the directorate’s co-ordination was still based on informalmechanisms, including face-to-facecommunication and meetings.

The different service groups lacked clear andenforceable performance standards, resulting inlong standing disputes between some of theservice delivery teams. Ultimately, these disputeswere reducing the quality of service to clinicalservices and consequently, the patient.

The assessment highlighted a problem specificto domestic services relating to the managementof health and safety. A high turnover ofoperational staff in tandem with an inadequatemanager’s resource was preventing adequatetraining provision for domestic staff.Worryingly, existing verification systems werefailing to highlight this specific problem.Consequently, staff were performing their roleswithout essential training, and therefore,potentially placing themselves, and patients atrisk. The directorate’s management recognisedthis as priority for change.

The directorate’s management were satisfiedthat the findings were a true reflection of theirexisting process capability and are nowaddressing many of the issues raised. Table 9demonstrates the relevance of the issues to thedepartment’s critical success factors andhighlights the subsequent actions.

The department’s perspective“The size of our operations at the Trust makes itdifficult for our senior management team tounderstand the problems faced by ouroperational staff.

We like the approach that SPICE FM takes intrying to bridge the gap between our strategyand day-to-day operations.

The uncertainty surrounding the upcomingmove of many of our services to the privatesector has led to problems with our staff ’smorale. By involving staff in the assessmentprocess, the tool appears to have overcome this.

Following the assessment, we’ve appointed amember of our staff to take the actions forward.We see this as the start of a continuous changeprocess and hope to use the SPICE FM toolagain in the coming months to monitor our progress”.

35

SPICE FM Framework

Study 4 – Property department at a UK retail groupBackgroundThe fourth case study was the property departmentwithin a major UK retail group. The group’score business included a collection of chainstores serving the high street and retail parks.

From the group’s head office, the propertydepartment managed the outsourcing offacilities management services to regional andnational contractors.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment In contrast to the other SPICE FM studies, this department lacked a clear vision andstrategic direction. This stemmed from the corebusiness, whose strategy was also poorlydefined. Consequently, the property departmentwas unsure how it could best add value to thecore business’s operations and evolve its serviceprovision accordingly.

Although a documented business plan existed, it was ‘shelf ware’, the majority of staff unawareof its existence and even fewer of it content.Moreover, the plan was not a live documentsubject to continuous review, instead layingdormant and becoming irrelevant as thedepartment’s needs changed.

Interviews with staff revealed the extent of theproblem. It became apparent that thedepartment’s management had diverse andsometime conflicting views on the department’sdirection. Naturally, this uncertainty extendedthrough all levels of staff.

Furthermore, there was no clear justification foran extensive change programme that had beenthe focus of their attention in recent months.Although a need to improve reporting had beenidentified within the department, its exactrequirements and focus were unclear.

Process capability findingsAt the time of the SPICE FM assessment, thedepartment was progressing with a changeprogramme aimed at improving thedepartment’s performance. In particular, the changes were attempting to improvereporting mechanisms to senior management.

The change programme represented a potentialobstacle for the SPICE FM assessment, due tothe inevitable collection of contradictoryevidence – a before and after scenario.However, as the assessment progressed itbecame clear that the department wasestablishing the type of process infrastructureadvocated by the SPICE FM model.

Figure 14 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model. The matrix highlights the mature nature of itsprocesses following the change programme.

A weakness typical of many organisations is thelack of process review and evaluation. Withoutthis capability, an organisation’s processes willbecome stale and inappropriate to the needs ofthe business as its requirements inevitablychange. Furthermore, innovation within serviceprovision is unlikely without clear commitmentand resource from senior management.

It was clear from the SPICE FM assessment thatthe department had addressed this issue,appointing a dedicated two-person resource tolead a continuous improvement programme.The change managers used documented actionplans to identify areas for change and assignresponsibilities to key personnel.

34

SPICE FM Framework

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Quality

Timeliness

Service partnership

Staff development and training

Serviceperformancemonitoring

Service co-ordination

Health and safetymanagement

Develop an integrated facilities questionnairefor distribution to customers.

Appoint a dedicated resource to undertakemonitoring activities and drive throughresulting actions

Develop service performance standardsbetween different facilities service streams

Establish a dispute resolution mechanism

Develop an induction programme for newdomestic staff that addresses health and safety

Areas identified Critical success factorsSuggested actions

for improvement addressed

Figure 13: The directorate's process capability profile

Table 9: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

35

SPICE FM Framework

Study 4 – Property department at a UK retail groupBackgroundThe fourth case study was the property departmentwithin a major UK retail group. The group’score business included a collection of chainstores serving the high street and retail parks.

From the group’s head office, the propertydepartment managed the outsourcing offacilities management services to regional andnational contractors.

Strategic awareness and performance assessment In contrast to the other SPICE FM studies, this department lacked a clear vision andstrategic direction. This stemmed from the corebusiness, whose strategy was also poorlydefined. Consequently, the property departmentwas unsure how it could best add value to thecore business’s operations and evolve its serviceprovision accordingly.

Although a documented business plan existed, it was ‘shelf ware’, the majority of staff unawareof its existence and even fewer of it content.Moreover, the plan was not a live documentsubject to continuous review, instead layingdormant and becoming irrelevant as thedepartment’s needs changed.

Interviews with staff revealed the extent of theproblem. It became apparent that thedepartment’s management had diverse andsometime conflicting views on the department’sdirection. Naturally, this uncertainty extendedthrough all levels of staff.

Furthermore, there was no clear justification foran extensive change programme that had beenthe focus of their attention in recent months.Although a need to improve reporting had beenidentified within the department, its exactrequirements and focus were unclear.

Process capability findingsAt the time of the SPICE FM assessment, thedepartment was progressing with a changeprogramme aimed at improving thedepartment’s performance. In particular, the changes were attempting to improvereporting mechanisms to senior management.

The change programme represented a potentialobstacle for the SPICE FM assessment, due tothe inevitable collection of contradictoryevidence – a before and after scenario.However, as the assessment progressed itbecame clear that the department wasestablishing the type of process infrastructureadvocated by the SPICE FM model.

Figure 14 summarises the department’s processcapability against the SPICE FM model. The matrix highlights the mature nature of itsprocesses following the change programme.

A weakness typical of many organisations is thelack of process review and evaluation. Withoutthis capability, an organisation’s processes willbecome stale and inappropriate to the needs ofthe business as its requirements inevitablychange. Furthermore, innovation within serviceprovision is unlikely without clear commitmentand resource from senior management.

It was clear from the SPICE FM assessment thatthe department had addressed this issue,appointing a dedicated two-person resource tolead a continuous improvement programme.The change managers used documented actionplans to identify areas for change and assignresponsibilities to key personnel.

34

SPICE FM Framework

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

Quality

Timeliness

Service partnership

Staff development and training

Serviceperformancemonitoring

Service co-ordination

Health and safetymanagement

Develop an integrated facilities questionnairefor distribution to customers.

Appoint a dedicated resource to undertakemonitoring activities and drive throughresulting actions

Develop service performance standardsbetween different facilities service streams

Establish a dispute resolution mechanism

Develop an induction programme for newdomestic staff that addresses health and safety

Areas identified Critical success factorsSuggested actions

for improvement addressed

Figure 13: The directorate's process capability profile

Table 9: Strategically aligned process improvement opportunities

37

SPICE FM Framework

Senior management visibility into processperformance is another important criteria whenconsidering process capability and is assessedunder the SPICE FM process enabler‘verification’. The department was again viewedas strong in this area due to significantly revisedreporting structures and systems establishedunder the change programme. In addition toproviding information to the department, the reports were providing the core businesswith an insight into its FM performance.

The department was also strong in many otheraspects of its service delivery processes. For example, it had developed individualservice level agreements to meet each chain’sspecific requirements, whilst using a centraltelephone helpdesk to record all reactivemaintenance requirements. This integratedapproach replaced a system whereby each chainwithin the group had its own helpdesk and FMmanagers. On reflection, this was deemed to bean inefficient use of resources with troughs and peaks in resource requirements difficult to manage.

The change to an integrated helpdesk functionwas a good example of the pro-active approachbeing taken within the department to improveservice quality and efficiency.

In addition to these and many other strengths,a number of weaknesses were also identified.Customer feedback mechanisms were lacking, as well as any sort of post job review.Consequently, the department had little visibilityinto the actual performance of contractors.

The department also had no formal riskmanagement system in place, despite having anobvious role in managing the core business’srisk. Again, this stemmed from the lack of aclear directive by the core business to carry outthis activity. Without senior management’scommitment, it is unlikely to be implemented atan operational level.

Case study outcomesThe SPICE FM assessment emphasised theimportance of a well-resourced processinfrastructure to support and improve processesover time. Although the department still hassome weaknesses to address, the necessaryinfrastructure is in place to identify and correctthese issues in the future. Thus it can be saidthat the department is mature in terms of itsprocess capability.

However, it is also clear from the assessmentthat the department lacks clear strategicdirection. Consequently, it remains unsurewhether it is truly meeting the needs of the core business.

In response to these findings, the department’smanagement has decided to commence thedevelopment of a balanced scorecard. This will enable it to clarify its objectives, andensure that its service delivery processes aresupporting them.

36

SPICE FM Framework

Figure 14: The department's process capability profile

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

The department’s perspective“In the past six months we’ve undertaken alarge scale change programme within thedepartment. The SPICE FM assessmentconfirmed that we now have theinfrastructure in place to sustain ourimprovement efforts. That is very re-assuringfrom a management perspective. Moreimportantly, the assessment also highlightedour failure to align improvements to the corebusiness’s needs. We are now taking steps toaddress this within the business.”

37

SPICE FM Framework

Senior management visibility into processperformance is another important criteria whenconsidering process capability and is assessedunder the SPICE FM process enabler‘verification’. The department was again viewedas strong in this area due to significantly revisedreporting structures and systems establishedunder the change programme. In addition toproviding information to the department, the reports were providing the core businesswith an insight into its FM performance.

The department was also strong in many otheraspects of its service delivery processes. For example, it had developed individualservice level agreements to meet each chain’sspecific requirements, whilst using a centraltelephone helpdesk to record all reactivemaintenance requirements. This integratedapproach replaced a system whereby each chainwithin the group had its own helpdesk and FMmanagers. On reflection, this was deemed to bean inefficient use of resources with troughs and peaks in resource requirements difficult to manage.

The change to an integrated helpdesk functionwas a good example of the pro-active approachbeing taken within the department to improveservice quality and efficiency.

In addition to these and many other strengths,a number of weaknesses were also identified.Customer feedback mechanisms were lacking, as well as any sort of post job review.Consequently, the department had little visibilityinto the actual performance of contractors.

The department also had no formal riskmanagement system in place, despite having anobvious role in managing the core business’srisk. Again, this stemmed from the lack of aclear directive by the core business to carry outthis activity. Without senior management’scommitment, it is unlikely to be implemented atan operational level.

Case study outcomesThe SPICE FM assessment emphasised theimportance of a well-resourced processinfrastructure to support and improve processesover time. Although the department still hassome weaknesses to address, the necessaryinfrastructure is in place to identify and correctthese issues in the future. Thus it can be saidthat the department is mature in terms of itsprocess capability.

However, it is also clear from the assessmentthat the department lacks clear strategicdirection. Consequently, it remains unsurewhether it is truly meeting the needs of the core business.

In response to these findings, the department’smanagement has decided to commence thedevelopment of a balanced scorecard. This will enable it to clarify its objectives, andensure that its service delivery processes aresupporting them.

36

SPICE FM Framework

Figure 14: The department's process capability profile

Satisfied

Partially Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Commitment

Ability

Activities

Evaluation

Verification

Serv

ice

Req

uir

emen

t M

gt

Serv

ice

Plan

nin

g

Perf

orm

ance

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sup

plie

r &

Co

ntr

acto

r M

gt.

Hea

lth

an

d S

afet

y M

gt.

Ris

k M

anag

emen

t

Serv

ice

Co

-ord

inat

ion

Level 2 Key ProcessesKey

Pro

cess

en

able

rs

The department’s perspective“In the past six months we’ve undertaken alarge scale change programme within thedepartment. The SPICE FM assessmentconfirmed that we now have theinfrastructure in place to sustain ourimprovement efforts. That is very re-assuringfrom a management perspective. Moreimportantly, the assessment also highlightedour failure to align improvements to the corebusiness’s needs. We are now taking steps toaddress this within the business.”

39

SPICE FM Framework

38

SPICE FM Framework

Relationship with EFQM Model

SPICE FM has been developed to address theneed for process improvement in FacilitiesManagement departments as a means ofimproving services. At present, there is nomethodological mechanism to assess processesand prioritise process improvements.

The European Foundation for QualityManagement (EFQM) seeks to recognise thedynamic environment in which all organisationswork. It undertook major research to developthe ‘EFQM excellence model’ which is a non-prescriptive framework that recognises thatthere are many approaches to achievingsustainable excellence.

Within a similar time frame, the UKgovernment began to step up its drive towardsensuring that the ‘new NHS’ had quality at itsheart (Jackson, 1999). NHS managers and otherstakeholders were expected to determine acohesive way forward for delivering thegovernment’s agenda. The governmentexplicitly “commended” the use of the EFQMexcellence model (NHS Executive, 1999).

There is therefore a need to explore therelationship between SPICE FM and the EFQMmodel as a mechanism to improveorganisational efficiency. It is a significantquestion, as the EFQM model has beenproposed as the framework to be used withinthe NHS for self-assessment audits oforganisational capability or ‘fitness’, and toidentify areas for improvement.

The fundamental concepts of excellenceThe EFQM model is a non-prescriptiveframework that recognises there are manyapproaches to achieving sustainable excellence.The model is based on the premise thatcustomer satisfaction, people (employee)satisfaction and impact on society are achievedthanks to leadership driving policy and strategy,people management, resources and processes.This will lead ultimately to excellence inbusiness results (Shergold and Reed, 1996). The model enables whole organisations,component parts, or individual services withinorganisation to undertake self-assessment.

In essence, the EFQM model subscribes toDeming’s continuous improvement philosophyof “plan-do-check-act”. The process is driven byself-assessment, which Porter and Tanner (1996)maintain is not only a means for measuringcontinuous improvement, but also an excellentopportunity to integrate total qualitymanagement into organisations’ normal operations.

Benefits of using the SPICE FMframework to achieve theobjectives of EFQM modelThe EFQM model is now widely used in manyorganisations. However, there is a surprisinglack of literature offering a critical perspectiveon the EFQM model, considering that there arevarious approaches to applying the model.These emphasise various advantages includingimproved measurement and benchmarking.

The EFQM model does not formulate strategy,nor does it properly evaluate strategy. Instead, it evaluates the process of forming strategy.The danger in the EQFM’s limited involvementin the strategic process is that the model couldbe seen as simply a strategic tool rather thanbeing intrinsically linked to strategy.

The use of SPICE FM within organisations as an enabler in achieving business excellencecan help overcome this deficiency in the EFQM model.

Further, the EFQM model is an audit tool ofwhat is already happening; i.e., it does notindicate best or preferred practice in anorganisational context. In contrast, SPICE FMcan be translated through the workforce bysimple and easily understood approaches, which helps to overcome the complications andbureaucratic aspects of the EFQM model.

Figure 15 summarises how SPICE FM can beused to achieve the business excellenceidentified by the EFQM model:

Figure 15: The relationship between SPICE FM and the EFQM model

Leadership ProcessesKey

PerformanceResults

People

Policyand

Strategy

Partnershipsand

Resources

PeopleResults

CustomerResults

SocietyResults

CustomerPerspective

Process efficiency(SPICE research is very effective in

achieving these areas)

FinancialPerspective

Learning andGrowth Perspective

39

SPICE FM Framework

38

SPICE FM Framework

Relationship with EFQM Model

SPICE FM has been developed to address theneed for process improvement in FacilitiesManagement departments as a means ofimproving services. At present, there is nomethodological mechanism to assess processesand prioritise process improvements.

The European Foundation for QualityManagement (EFQM) seeks to recognise thedynamic environment in which all organisationswork. It undertook major research to developthe ‘EFQM excellence model’ which is a non-prescriptive framework that recognises thatthere are many approaches to achievingsustainable excellence.

Within a similar time frame, the UKgovernment began to step up its drive towardsensuring that the ‘new NHS’ had quality at itsheart (Jackson, 1999). NHS managers and otherstakeholders were expected to determine acohesive way forward for delivering thegovernment’s agenda. The governmentexplicitly “commended” the use of the EFQMexcellence model (NHS Executive, 1999).

There is therefore a need to explore therelationship between SPICE FM and the EFQMmodel as a mechanism to improveorganisational efficiency. It is a significantquestion, as the EFQM model has beenproposed as the framework to be used withinthe NHS for self-assessment audits oforganisational capability or ‘fitness’, and toidentify areas for improvement.

The fundamental concepts of excellenceThe EFQM model is a non-prescriptiveframework that recognises there are manyapproaches to achieving sustainable excellence.The model is based on the premise thatcustomer satisfaction, people (employee)satisfaction and impact on society are achievedthanks to leadership driving policy and strategy,people management, resources and processes.This will lead ultimately to excellence inbusiness results (Shergold and Reed, 1996). The model enables whole organisations,component parts, or individual services withinorganisation to undertake self-assessment.

In essence, the EFQM model subscribes toDeming’s continuous improvement philosophyof “plan-do-check-act”. The process is driven byself-assessment, which Porter and Tanner (1996)maintain is not only a means for measuringcontinuous improvement, but also an excellentopportunity to integrate total qualitymanagement into organisations’ normal operations.

Benefits of using the SPICE FMframework to achieve theobjectives of EFQM modelThe EFQM model is now widely used in manyorganisations. However, there is a surprisinglack of literature offering a critical perspectiveon the EFQM model, considering that there arevarious approaches to applying the model.These emphasise various advantages includingimproved measurement and benchmarking.

The EFQM model does not formulate strategy,nor does it properly evaluate strategy. Instead, it evaluates the process of forming strategy.The danger in the EQFM’s limited involvementin the strategic process is that the model couldbe seen as simply a strategic tool rather thanbeing intrinsically linked to strategy.

The use of SPICE FM within organisations as an enabler in achieving business excellencecan help overcome this deficiency in the EFQM model.

Further, the EFQM model is an audit tool ofwhat is already happening; i.e., it does notindicate best or preferred practice in anorganisational context. In contrast, SPICE FMcan be translated through the workforce bysimple and easily understood approaches, which helps to overcome the complications andbureaucratic aspects of the EFQM model.

Figure 15 summarises how SPICE FM can beused to achieve the business excellenceidentified by the EFQM model:

Figure 15: The relationship between SPICE FM and the EFQM model

Leadership ProcessesKey

PerformanceResults

People

Policyand

Strategy

Partnershipsand

Resources

PeopleResults

CustomerResults

SocietyResults

CustomerPerspective

Process efficiency(SPICE research is very effective in

achieving these areas)

FinancialPerspective

Learning andGrowth Perspective

41

SPICE FM Framework

This section contains an extract from the SPICEFM process maturity questionnaire, anassessment tool that can be used to examine anorganisation against the SPICE FM processmaturity model. A cross-section of staff from theorganisation completes the questionnaire,providing a balanced review of theorganisation’s current performance. The responses highlight areas for furtherinvestigation through semi-structured interviewsand a document review.

The following extract from the questionnairerefers to the level 2 key process ‘ServiceRequirement Management’.

There is growing recognition of the need toraise the awareness of the contributory role ofoperational facilities at senior levels oforganisations. It is important for facilitymanagers to have an influence on strategicdecisions and to demonstrate the contributionthat facilities make to the achievement of anorganisation’s objectives and business targets.

SPICE FM is a step by step organisationaldevelopment framework that providesorganisations with the capability to implementtheir vision by aligning the continuousimprovement of FM services with the needs ofthe core business. The framework combines atop down strategic approach with a middle outprocess focus.

SPICE FM has been used in real facilitiesorganisations to provide a unique, sector specific methodology for sustainableprocess improvement.

Summary Appendix A – Extract from the SPICEFM Process Maturity Questionnaire

40

SPICE FM Framework

41

SPICE FM Framework

This section contains an extract from the SPICEFM process maturity questionnaire, anassessment tool that can be used to examine anorganisation against the SPICE FM processmaturity model. A cross-section of staff from theorganisation completes the questionnaire,providing a balanced review of theorganisation’s current performance. The responses highlight areas for furtherinvestigation through semi-structured interviewsand a document review.

The following extract from the questionnairerefers to the level 2 key process ‘ServiceRequirement Management’.

There is growing recognition of the need toraise the awareness of the contributory role ofoperational facilities at senior levels oforganisations. It is important for facilitymanagers to have an influence on strategicdecisions and to demonstrate the contributionthat facilities make to the achievement of anorganisation’s objectives and business targets.

SPICE FM is a step by step organisationaldevelopment framework that providesorganisations with the capability to implementtheir vision by aligning the continuousimprovement of FM services with the needs ofthe core business. The framework combines atop down strategic approach with a middle outprocess focus.

SPICE FM has been used in real facilitiesorganisations to provide a unique, sector specific methodology for sustainableprocess improvement.

Summary Appendix A – Extract from the SPICEFM Process Maturity Questionnaire

40

SPICE FM Framework

43

SPICE FM Framework

42

SPICE FM Framework

Glossary

Service Requirement Management - Service requirement management identifies organisationaland user needs. Documented service level agreements and performance standards are developedand continuously reviewed to remain consistent with customer requirements. Service levelagreements and performance standards are communicated to all staff involved in the delivery of the service.

1. How important do you consider ‘service requirement management’ to be toyour organisation. (Rate 1-5, 1 = not important, 5 = very important)

2. A policy defining standards for managing servicerequirements is communicated to staff.Comments:

3. Procedures for managing service requirementsare clearly defined and communicated to staff.Comments:

4. Service requirements and performance standardsare documented and communicated to staff.Comments:

5. Service level agreements and performancestandards are subject to continuous review.Comments:

6. Adequate resources and training are provided tomanage service requirements.Comments:

7. Staff reviews and measures the effectiveness ofthe activities for managing service requirements.Comments:

8. Activities for managing service requirements aresubject to QA or other verification.Comments:

Stro

ng

lyA

gre

e

Ag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

es n

ot

app

ly

One of five ‘process enablers’. Ability to perform considers whetheradequate resourcing, appropriate organisational structure andtraining are provided to carry out a process.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Activities to perform considers whetherplans and procedures are developed for the process and whether theperformance is monitored.

A strategic management system that measures performance anddevelops strategies by analysing results across a range of activities.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Commitment to perform considerswhether the organisation will ensure that the process is establishedand will endure.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Evaluation considers whether processesare evaluated on a periodic basis.

Related activities that when performed collectively achieve a set ofcommon goals considered important for establishing process maturity.The key process areas are the principal building blocks that can helpto determine the process capability of an organisation. Each maturitylevel is comprised of key process areas.

The use of performance measurement information to effect positivechange in organisational culture, systems and processes.

A process of assessing progress towards achieving predetermined goals.

The means by which, procedures, methods, equipment and tools areintegrated to produce a desired result.

Five preconditions that must exist in the project to implement theconstruction process competently.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Verifying implementation considerswhether compliance with procedures is determined.

Ability

Activities

Balanced Scorecard

Commitment

Evaluation

Key Process Area

PerformanceManagement

PerformanceMeasurement

Process

Process Enabler

Verification

Stro

ng

lyD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

43

SPICE FM Framework

42

SPICE FM Framework

Glossary

Service Requirement Management - Service requirement management identifies organisationaland user needs. Documented service level agreements and performance standards are developedand continuously reviewed to remain consistent with customer requirements. Service levelagreements and performance standards are communicated to all staff involved in the delivery of the service.

1. How important do you consider ‘service requirement management’ to be toyour organisation. (Rate 1-5, 1 = not important, 5 = very important)

2. A policy defining standards for managing servicerequirements is communicated to staff.Comments:

3. Procedures for managing service requirementsare clearly defined and communicated to staff.Comments:

4. Service requirements and performance standardsare documented and communicated to staff.Comments:

5. Service level agreements and performancestandards are subject to continuous review.Comments:

6. Adequate resources and training are provided tomanage service requirements.Comments:

7. Staff reviews and measures the effectiveness ofthe activities for managing service requirements.Comments:

8. Activities for managing service requirements aresubject to QA or other verification.Comments:

Stro

ng

lyA

gre

e

Ag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

es n

ot

app

ly

One of five ‘process enablers’. Ability to perform considers whetheradequate resourcing, appropriate organisational structure andtraining are provided to carry out a process.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Activities to perform considers whetherplans and procedures are developed for the process and whether theperformance is monitored.

A strategic management system that measures performance anddevelops strategies by analysing results across a range of activities.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Commitment to perform considerswhether the organisation will ensure that the process is establishedand will endure.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Evaluation considers whether processesare evaluated on a periodic basis.

Related activities that when performed collectively achieve a set ofcommon goals considered important for establishing process maturity.The key process areas are the principal building blocks that can helpto determine the process capability of an organisation. Each maturitylevel is comprised of key process areas.

The use of performance measurement information to effect positivechange in organisational culture, systems and processes.

A process of assessing progress towards achieving predetermined goals.

The means by which, procedures, methods, equipment and tools areintegrated to produce a desired result.

Five preconditions that must exist in the project to implement theconstruction process competently.

One of five ‘process enablers’. Verifying implementation considerswhether compliance with procedures is determined.

Ability

Activities

Balanced Scorecard

Commitment

Evaluation

Key Process Area

PerformanceManagement

PerformanceMeasurement

Process

Process Enabler

Verification

Stro

ng

lyD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

45

SPICE FM Framework

References and Bibliography

44

SPICE FM Framework

Bridgewater BuildingUniversity of Salford

Salford M7 9NUUnited Kingdom

Tel: + 44 (0)161 295 5317Fax: + 44 (0)161 295 5011

E-Mail: spicefm@sun.scpm.salford.ac.ukWeb: http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm

Published by Construct IT Centre of ExcellenceCopyright © The University of Salford 2001

Designed by The Design Team, University of Salford, 0161 295 2630

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book can be obtained from the British Library

ISBN 1-900491-51-6

Alexander, K. (1996) ‘Value Management’. In Alexander, K. (Ed). (1996). Facilities Management -Theory and Practice. New York: E & FN Spon.

BIFM (1999) ‘Survey of Facilities Manager’s Responsibilities’. BIFM Members Survey. British Institute of Facilities Management. September.

Davenport (1992) ‘Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work Through Information Technology’.Harvard Business School Press.

Facilities management solutions (2001) http:\\www.fm.net accessed 29th March 2001

FBA – Professionals in Facilities Management (1999) ‘Micro-scan FM – briefing document’. London.

Fortune Magazine, November 1997.

Jackson, S. (1999) ‘Achieving a culture of continuous improvement by adopting the principles ofself-assessment and business excellence’. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,Vol.12, No.2, pp. 56-64.

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996) ‘The Balanced Score Card’. Massachusetts, Boston, HarvardBusiness School Press.

Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1996) ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action’. Harvard Business School press, Boston.

NHS Executive (1999) ‘Clinical Governance: In the new NHS’. Health Service Circular 1999/065, 16th March.

Nutt (1999) ‘Linking FM practice and research’. Facilities, Vol. 17 No.1/2, pp111-117.

Ould (1995) ‘Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement’. Wiley.

Paulk, M., Weber, C., Curtis, B. and Chrissis, M. (1994) ‘The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelinesfor Improving the Software Process’. Addison-Wesley, Massachusett.

Porter, L & Tanner, S.J (1996) ‘Assessing Business Excellence: A Guide to Self-assessment”.Butterworth - Heinman.

Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, D., Baldry, D. and Sexton, M., (2000)‘SPICE: A business process diagnostics tool for construction projects’. Engineering, Constructionand Architectural Management, Vol 7, No 3, pp241-250.

Shergold, K. & Reed, D.M. (1996) ‘Striving for excellence: how self-assessment using the businessexcellence model can result in step improvements in all areas of business activities’. The TQMMagazine, Vol. 8, No.6, pp. 48-52.

Skinner, W. (1989) ‘Manufacturing – missing link in corporate strategy’. Harvard Business Review,May-June, pp.136-145

Then, D.S. (1999) ‘An integrated resource management view of facilities management’. Facilities,Vol.17, No. 12/13, pp.462-469.

Zahran, S. (1998) ‘Software process improvement’. Addison Wesley.

45

SPICE FM Framework

References and Bibliography

44

SPICE FM Framework

Bridgewater BuildingUniversity of Salford

Salford M7 9NUUnited Kingdom

Tel: + 44 (0)161 295 5317Fax: + 44 (0)161 295 5011

E-Mail: spicefm@sun.scpm.salford.ac.ukWeb: http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/spicefm

Published by Construct IT Centre of ExcellenceCopyright © The University of Salford 2001

Designed by The Design Team, University of Salford, 0161 295 2630

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book can be obtained from the British Library

ISBN 1-900491-51-6

Alexander, K. (1996) ‘Value Management’. In Alexander, K. (Ed). (1996). Facilities Management -Theory and Practice. New York: E & FN Spon.

BIFM (1999) ‘Survey of Facilities Manager’s Responsibilities’. BIFM Members Survey. British Institute of Facilities Management. September.

Davenport (1992) ‘Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work Through Information Technology’.Harvard Business School Press.

Facilities management solutions (2001) http:\\www.fm.net accessed 29th March 2001

FBA – Professionals in Facilities Management (1999) ‘Micro-scan FM – briefing document’. London.

Fortune Magazine, November 1997.

Jackson, S. (1999) ‘Achieving a culture of continuous improvement by adopting the principles ofself-assessment and business excellence’. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,Vol.12, No.2, pp. 56-64.

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996) ‘The Balanced Score Card’. Massachusetts, Boston, HarvardBusiness School Press.

Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1996) ‘The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action’. Harvard Business School press, Boston.

NHS Executive (1999) ‘Clinical Governance: In the new NHS’. Health Service Circular 1999/065, 16th March.

Nutt (1999) ‘Linking FM practice and research’. Facilities, Vol. 17 No.1/2, pp111-117.

Ould (1995) ‘Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement’. Wiley.

Paulk, M., Weber, C., Curtis, B. and Chrissis, M. (1994) ‘The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelinesfor Improving the Software Process’. Addison-Wesley, Massachusett.

Porter, L & Tanner, S.J (1996) ‘Assessing Business Excellence: A Guide to Self-assessment”.Butterworth - Heinman.

Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, D., Baldry, D. and Sexton, M., (2000)‘SPICE: A business process diagnostics tool for construction projects’. Engineering, Constructionand Architectural Management, Vol 7, No 3, pp241-250.

Shergold, K. & Reed, D.M. (1996) ‘Striving for excellence: how self-assessment using the businessexcellence model can result in step improvements in all areas of business activities’. The TQMMagazine, Vol. 8, No.6, pp. 48-52.

Skinner, W. (1989) ‘Manufacturing – missing link in corporate strategy’. Harvard Business Review,May-June, pp.136-145

Then, D.S. (1999) ‘An integrated resource management view of facilities management’. Facilities,Vol.17, No. 12/13, pp.462-469.

Zahran, S. (1998) ‘Software process improvement’. Addison Wesley.

SPICE FM A step by step organisational development framework for facilities management

£ 30.00

The Centre of Excellence for Construct IT has been set up to co-ordinate and promote research in IT in Construction in the UK to improve competitive performance of the UK construction industry

The administrative office of the Centre is based at Bridgewater Building, University of Salford, Salford, M7 9NU, UK.

Organisations who have expertise in their use of IT are invited to approach the Centre.

Please contact the administrators if you wish to become a member.