Adewunmi, Y; Omirin, M and Koleoso, H (2016) Prioritising facilities management services for benchmarking in selected cities in Nigeria. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 21(1), pp. 131-145. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
Due to the high cost of benchmarking, it is often difficult to provide required resources for it. Therefore, to benchmark successfully, it is often necessary to identify services that are most important for the efficiency of the organisation and prioritise them. This paper examines the facilities management (FM) services that are most in need of benchmarking in Nigeria. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires that were sent to 120 facilities management organisations in Lagos metropolis, 50 in Abuja and 15 in Port Harcourt. The survey achieved a total response rate of 76% in Lagos, 58% in Abuja and 87% in Port Harcourt respectively. The five services that need benchmarking the most were found to be: Utilities, maintenance, security, cleaning and waste disposal, property management and Information Technology in that order. Also, repeated measures analysis of variance results showed that the differences indicated in the respondents' rating of how important it is to benchmark these FM services is statistically significant. Kruskal Wallis test showed that there was difference in the importance of FM services for benchmarking based on professional affiliation of the FM. The study provided information on how to prioritise these services for benchmarking in order to conserve resources of Nigerian organisations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; facilities management services; Nigeria |
| Index terms: | Nigeria, utilities, prioritizing, variance, efficiency, cleaning, property management, Lagos, survey, facilities management services, information technology, Abuja, benchmarking, facilities management, waste disposal, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, measurement and scaling, environmental engineering, maintenance engineering, performance management, management, performance measurement, service delivery, Geography, real estate economics, data collection methods, construction type, computing systems |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Risk Management |
| 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