Naji, K K; Gunduz, M and Maki, O (2023) Development of a campus facility management operational framework using a modified Delphi method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(7): 04023052, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
An effective facility management process is crucial to overall firm performance and is becoming a core competency for organizations seeking to gain a competitive advantage. The recent literature on facility management reveals that poor facility management is a major cause of management inefficiency, leading directly to budget overruns, maintenance delays, repetition of work, variations, noncompliance incidents, unnecessary risk, and dissatisfied customers. Therefore, facility management firms should pay close attention to the most critical success factors in order to effectively manage and measure performance. This paper presents a multidimensional campus facility management performance framework (CFMPF) that addresses both operational and systematic factors. Facility management companies, owners, contractors, and consultants can use this framework to identify systemic weaknesses using key indicators to specifically assess the effectiveness and success of facility management. The significance of 45 key facility management success factors across seven categories was determined via a literature review, expert interviews, and the Delphi method. The seven process groups are: Campus Facility Work Force Management, Campus Facility Communication Management, Campus Facility Systems Management, Campus Facility Organizational Management, Campus Facility Financial Management, Campus Sustainability & Environment Management, and Campus Facility Assets Management. To verify the overall agreement via the Delphi rounds, the score percentage and standard deviation to mean ratio were examined. Mean value and interrater agreement (IRA) analyses were conducted to evaluate the correlation between the factors and facility performance. This research adds to the body of knowledge by presenting a systematic operational framework for campus facility management that identifies the underlying factors influencing performance and fills the gaps left by previous studies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | campus facility management; critical project success factors; Delphi; key performance indicators; operational framework; performance evaluation; planning; project management performance |
| Index terms: | key indicator, project management, effectiveness, owner, deviation, firm performance, Delphi method, financial management, systems management, competitive advantage, key performance indicator, project success, becoming, critical success factor, body of knowledge, performance evaluation, budget overrun, variation, facility management firm, organizational management, literature review, success factor, interview |
| Subjects: | control systems, data collection methods, business, organization, data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, project delivery, financial and cost management, analytical methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, contractual condition, project management theory and practice, performance measurement, business analysis, performance management, philosophical process, market analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here