Post on 01-Nov-2014
description
FINAL REPORT May 2012
The Future of Corporate Real Estate
and the Workplace
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcing
Principal Author
Kathy Brister
Contributing AuthorsBlake Layda, Jones Lang LaSalle
Kurt Ochalla, MBA, MCR, CEng,
Expense Management Solutions
Contributing EditorsJessica Beers, MCR, Senior Director, UGL Services
Hunter Fleshood, Capital One
Brandon Forde, Studley
Lisa Huls-Fry, Cassidy Turley
Connie Hughes, CCIM, CPM, Cassidy Turley
Sherri Parman, CPA, MBA, Capstan Advisors
Team LiaisonMelissa Securda, CoreNet Global
SERvIcE DEL IvERy AND OuTSOuRcINgFINAL REPORT May 2012
The enclosed information is provided to CoreNet Global, Inc. members/subscribers as an industry benefit. CoreNet Global, Inc. has worked to ensure the accuracy of the
information it provides. Members/recipients should use their own discretion and business judgment in using the information contained herein. Despite the efforts by CoreNet
Global, Inc. in the development of the information, it does not represent objective, empirical information that is beyond question or conflicting interpretation and CoreNet Global,
Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information or its analysis in all cases. The information is based on personal opinions, subjective analysis and data obtained from many
sources. CoreNet Global, Inc. is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. Its projects should not be construed as professional advice on any
particular set of facts or circumstances. Readers requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.
IN NO EVENT SHALL CORENET GLOBAL, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOST PROFITS, OR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM USE OF THE INFORMATION, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN) RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE INFORMATION, ITS CONTENT, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHETHER BASED
ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT CORENET GLOBAL, INC. IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
© 2012, CoreNet Global, Inc. All rights reserved.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
3
I. Introduction 4
II. Research Methodology 5-6
III. Executive Summary 7-11
IV. Historical Evolution of Service Delivery 12-18
V. Current State of Service Delivery 19-25
VI. Bold Statements 26-39A. Bold Statement 1 27-28 Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more integrated with Procurement and, therefore, more sophisticated and complex.B. Bold Statement 2 29-31 Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as it becomes more widespread as a means of delivering corporate real estate strategy. C. Bold Statement 3 32-33 Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms globally.D. Bold Statement 4 34-35 Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional service provider enter the race.E. Bold Statement 5 36-37 With corporate real estate utilizing their service providers as an incubator/training ground for noncore business, human resources and training capabilities will become a heightened requirement.F. Bold Statement 6 38-39 Pricing and performance management models will become more value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on purely financial objectives.
VII. Conclusions 40
VIII. Appendices 41-51A. Corporate Real Estate 2020 Team Leaders and Sponsors 41B. Professional Leaders Interviewed by Service Delivery and Outsourcing 42 C. Corporate Real Estate 2020 Service Delivery and Outsourcing Interview Guide 43-47D. Service Delivery and Outsourcing Summary of Responses to Bold Statements 48E. Corporate Real Estate 2020 Service Delivery and Outsourcing Participants 49-50F. Corporate Real Estate 2020 Participating Companies 51
taBle OF cOntentS
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
4
intrODuctiOnHave you ever tried to imagine what work will be like in 2020? It’s
not easy, but that is exactly what CoreNet Global’s Corporate Real
Estate 2020 initiative is all about – envisioning the future of corporate
real estate (CRE) and the workplace. Corporate Real Estate 2020 is a
research and leadership development program designed and managed
by CoreNet Global members to address the business environment in
the future and to collect and distribute best practices, tools and studies
to meet future business needs effectively. A follow up to Corporate
Real Estate 2000 and CoRE 2010, Corporate Real Estate 2020 has
brought together more than 280 of the industry’s most thought-pro-
voking and leading minds, as well as several other professionals from
areas outside the CRE realm.
Given today’s climate of protracted economic uncertainty, forecasting
has never been more challenging. Predictive modeling is often an in-
exact science, yet considering the outcomes of many of the forecasts
CoreNet Global has made in previous renditions, it can prove to be an
effective tool for setting expectations. Volatility withstanding, compa-
nies, industries, professions and other types of networks need to set
a baseline to gauge and anticipate change as best as current indicators
and history allow.
This report explores the major trends discovered and studied by the
eight research teams to aid corporate real estate executives and pro-
fessionals in becoming the most effective leaders in an increasingly
complex business environment.
Corporate Real Estate 2020 has brought together more than
of the industry’s most thought-provoking and leading minds
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
5
reSearcH MetHODOlOgyCorporate Real Estate 2020 began in August
2011 and continued through May 2012. The
program was launched at the AT&T headquarters
in Dallas, where a group of more than 70 senior
thought leaders convened to discuss the business
environment in the year 2020 and create an overall
vision of the future and what the impact on CRE will
be. From this discussion, it was concluded that the
research would be carried out by breaking down the
profession into eight dimensions unique to CRE.
Following the official launch meeting in Dallas,
each of the eight teams was tasked with defining
its goals and predictions. Using the overall vision of
the world in 2020 and its impact on CRE as context,
each team created a set of Bold Statements.
The Bold Statements were developed, evaluated
and finalized throughout the first months of the
project using recent research findings from a variety
of resources and topic-specific group discussions.
The statements, a prediction of where a typical
CoreNet Global member firm would stand in 2020,
were based on what the teams “thought” would
happen, not what they “wanted” to happen,
reflecting varying degrees of forward thinking.
The predictions were also presented at the CoreNet
Global Paris, Atlanta and Singapore Summits, where
members from the across the globe were given a
chance to provide feedback on the Bold Statements.
These predictions served as the research questions
to be validated based on in-depth qualitative
interviews with CRE leaders and topical content
experts plus a quantitative survey of CoreNet
Global’s end-user members across the world.
Throughout the process, leading organizations and
industry experts were identified for interviews and
further research. Telephone and in-person interviews
that followed a structured interview guide (Appendix
C) were documented and analyzed for patterns to help
the teams understand the current views and future
perspectives of these business leaders. In addition,
case-study materials were solicited as part of the
interview process, and some of those real-world
examples have been incorporated into this report. The
research teams also used articles, books and reports
to ground the theories and compare results.
eigHt reSearcH areaS
EnterpriseLeadership
Service Delivery & Outsourcing
SustainabilityLocation Strategy & the Role of Place
Technology Tools
Partnering with Key Support Functions
WorkplacePortfolio Optimization & Asset Management
Using the overall vision of the world in 2020 and its impact on CRE as context, each team created a set of Bold Statements.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
6
reSearcH MetHODOlOgyInterview insights, materials and Summit feedback
were synthesized on a number of levels. The research
team met regularly to review the materials collected to
determine emerging viewpoints and implications.
The following diagram illustrates the research
timeline/process. Appendices B and E list the
Service Delivery and Outsourcing team members
and organizations interviewed.
valiDateD anD FinaliZeD
By inDuStry leaDerS
valiDateD tHrOugH glOBal
enD-uSer MeMBer Survey
intervieWS cOnDucteD WitH PrOFeSSiOnalS
evaluatiOn OF BOlD
StateMentS at cOrenet glOBal
SuMMitS
MaterialS analyZeD anD cOncluSiOnS agreeD uPOn
BOlD StateMentS
createD
San DiegO SuMMit reSultS
PreSentatiOn
creatiOn OF eigHt reSearcH
teaMS
rePOrtS DiStriButeD
viSiOning Meeting in
DallaS
FIGURE I.I | Key StePS in reSearcH PrOceSS
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
7
Corporate Real Estate 2020 was established to document the indus-
try’s thinking about the corporate real estate (CRE) environment of the
future; the key characteristics of a successful enterprise; and the im-
plications for the corporate real estate profession, based on the latest
and best ideas from senior CRE and infrastructure leaders.
Looking toward 2020, real estate leaders interviewed and surveyed
identified high-level business drivers they predict will shape the indus-
try’s future. Among these are globalization, technology and data-driven
business intelligence, value- and cost-based metrics, evolving out-
sourcing models, industry consolidation and expansion and access to
well-trained and experienced workers.
Always-on connectivity is changing the perception of the workplace
and redefining “corporate space.” Technology also is changing CRE’s
traditional modes of operation and the expectations CRE executives
place on service providers. The service provider of the future must go
beyond task-oriented accomplishments to become a strategic, collab-
orative partner whose data-driven insights can help end-users make
informed decisions.
This presents a challenge to an industry that traditionally measures
success by the square foot, but it also opens the door to unprecedent-
ed opportunities. To seize upon them, end-users and providers must
rethink the role and function of corporate real estate. The future is less
about space and more about services and strategy.
The Corporate Real Estate 2020 research initiative is focused on how
the many facets of the industry will evolve – technology, the nature
of work, integrated infrastructure resources, leadership and more. As
a key facet of the industry, service delivery must react to and evolve
with the continually changing internal business structures and environ-
ments that are driven by external economic influences.
The research presented in this report indicates new models and roles
will emerge that will allow corporations to better leverage their external
networks to deliver more value and to give them a competitive edge.
For the purpose of this research effort, the service provider includes
eXecutive SuMMaryFOreWOrD
The future is less about space and more about services and strategy.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
8
eXecutive SuMMaryeverything from the provision of tactical, day-to-day operations support
to the design and delivery of a strategic vision for an organization. This
broad view of the market supports the ever-expanding roles that service
providers are being asked to assume. To some organizations, service
delivery may still only involve the tactical execution of specific tasks, but
at today’s leading-edge businesses, the added value that service provid-
ers can bring to the table goes well beyond that definition.
Through a series of preliminary discussions and industry work ses-
sions, the Service Delivery and Outsourcing team established research
premises based on a perceived expansion of and dependence upon
outsourcing. In the future, CRE executives will look to service provid-
ers not only to deliver more administrative services but also to manage
those services provided by other vendors. A corresponding degree
of risk and responsibility will shift to the service providers: They will
be expected to deliver multi-domain services using highly skilled and
efficient teams. They will be expected to advise on and add to the end
user’s strategic vision. They will be expected to compete on value, as
well as price.
The Service Delivery and Outsourcing team is focused on how the ex-
ternal resource and capabilities network will integrate and organize to
interact most effectively with the evolving internal organizations. As a
part of this research effort, the Service Delivery and Outsourcing team
conducted more than 20 interviews to gain insight into today’s service
delivery models and assess what the future may hold. While many of
the interviewees were CRE or administrative service directors from
major global business entities, other interviewees were representa-
tives from the market’s leading service providers. In addition, the team
also interviewed industry thought leaders.
The findings were used to formulate hypotheses about high-level business
drivers, challenges and opportunities that will shape the future of CRE.
Over the past seven decades, the overall business environment and
the CRE sector have evolved in tandem, with developments in one
driving change in the other. Changing company demands regarding
real estate led first to the creation of centralized internal real estate
Over the past seven decades, the overall business environment and the CRE sector have evolved in tandem, with developments in one driving change in the other.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
9
eXecutive SuMMarydivisions and to the development of an entirely new external service
delivery industry, which has consolidated and grown in complexity and
sophistication in recent years.
Real estate outsourcing is now modus operandi for most large com-
panies, but one single methodology does not fit all. Desires to meet
the demands of rapid globalization while continuing to manage costs
are universal. But corporations are employing a variety of outsourcing
strategies and structures to achieve these goals – among them best-
in-class, bundled and integrated outsourcing models.
For their part, service providers are striving to meet end users’ demands
for strategic global portfolio optimization, workplace mobility, process
improvement, energy management, sustainability and cost reduction –
all while seeking to shift the value proposition of their services from a
cost-based structure to one that pegs success on broader definitions
of “value.”
CRE executives who want these more diverse and sophisticated
services expect true expertise from their providers. A case in point:
End users who contract data management services from providers
want them to deliver not only data reports but also the kind of in-depth
analysis that provides strategic insights. Such expanded requirements
have opened the door to some non-traditional service providers; firms
that once focused exclusively on food services or business processing,
for example, are beginning to move into facilities management.
Current market trends and conditions will propel the CRE service deliv-
ery sector into a future already being imagined by the industry’s best
and brightest decision makers and thought leaders. To capture their
views, the Service Delivery and Outsourcing team interviews centered
on carefully developed hypotheses about what lies ahead. These hy-
potheses were presented to interviewees as Bold Statements:
End users who contract data management services from providers want them to deliver not only data reports but also the kind of in-depth analysis that provides strategic insights.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
10
eXecutive SuMMaryBold Statement 1:
Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more
integrated with Procurement and, therefore, more sophisticated
and complex.
Experts’ Overview: The collaboration between CRE and Procurement
will yield greater discipline and buying power than the CRE department
possesses on its own, but it also will add complexity to decision making.
Bold Statement No. 2: Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as
it becomes more widespread as a means of delivering corporate
real estate strategy.
Experts’ Overview: Service providers will own the systems that can
manipulate and analyze data coming from end users, but most companies
will continue to own and house the data, especially if their business is
highly competitive or heavily regulated. Service providers’ ability to glean
insights from shared data will be a core competency and competitive dif-
ferentiator, and this will factor significantly into customer retention.
Bold Statement No. 3: Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms globally.
Experts’ Overview: End users will expect service providers to antici-
pate global business drivers and emerging markets and have estab-
lished service offerings before corporate real estate executives request
them. To enable that nimbleness, service providers increasingly will
partner with local providers in key markets.
Bold Statement No. 4: Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation
of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional ser-
vice provider enter the race.
Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional service provider enter the race.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
11
eXecutive SuMMaryExperts’ Overview: Nontraditional providers will enter the market to
compete outright with mainstream CRE offerings or to erode the value
proposition of specialty services offered as part of service provider
bundles. Mid-size and small service providers will combine to compete
against the largest firms.
Bold Statement No. 5: With corporate real estate executives utilizing their service providers
as an incubator/training ground for noncore business, human resourc-
es and training capabilities will become a heightened requirement.
Experts’ Overview: End users will require service providers to con-
tractually ensure adequate human resources/training capabilities, and
HR and training capabilities will become competitive differentiators
among service providers.
Bold Statement No. 6: Pricing and performance management models will become more
value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on
purely financial objectives.
Experts’ Overview: Organizations will recognize the potential detri-
mental impact of cost cutting on productivity, which will change the
conversation from cost containment to value creation. Cost control will
move down the list of metrics, but it will remain one of the key mea-
sures of success.
The real estate leaders’ views on these Bold Statements provided
insights into the industry’s future. To achieve success as we move to-
ward 2020, end users and service providers must rethink the role and
function of CRE, these experts say. The future is more about services
and strategy than square footage.
Pricing and performance management models will become more value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on purely financial objectives.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
12
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
Since the end of World War II, the global business
environment has dramatically, irrevocably changed,
and corporate real estate (CRE) has changed right
along with it. Real estate’s organizational models,
roles and responsibilities underwent distinct evo-
lutionary periods. Changes within CRE were both
reactions to and drivers of broader economic trends.
Ultimately, they created an entirely new external
service delivery industry.
Pre-1960s: Setting the Stage After two decades of economic depression and
war, businesses in the 1950s were readjusting to a
peacetime economy with a sense of optimism in a
perceived new world order. For the most part, busi-
nesses picked up essentially where they had left off
before World War II. While the mature industries
of manufacturing and agriculture still dominated
economic activity, few companies served markets
outside specific domestic regions, and even fewer
served a global client base.
With the exception of capital-intensive industries (such
as steel, automobiles and chemical production), busi-
nesses tended to be small, locally based, entrepre-
neurial in approach and homogenous in nature. Many
organizations only supported one line of business,
producing closely related product types. Industries
were highly fragmented, and businesses typically
served specific, nearby markets because the existing
transportation network limited the efficient flow of
finished goods. For the most part, businesses operated
in a decentralized manner, with production and support
functions distributed throughout the organization to
serve specific business units.
A similar mindset was common for administrative
support functions. It is generally accepted that prior
to the 1960s, most corporations had not yet estab-
lished a CRE function and real estate was managed
in a highly decentralized fashion. Each business
unit typically coordinated its own transactions and
managed its own facilities portfolio. Real estate
assets were strictly considered “agents of produc-
tion,” and real estate decisions were not particularly
strategic in nature.
Corporations kept real estate service providers at
arm’s length and did not consider them as valuable
networks that could be leveraged to improve organi-
zational performance. Most organizations were confi-
dent that functional knowledge and industry best prac-
tices should be developed and managed internally.
This limiting approach prevented the development of
relationships with real estate service providers.
In this pre-1960s period, the real estate service provider
function was mostly limited to support for real estate
transactions. Aside from real estate brokerage and prop-
erty management services for investor/owners, few
other services were offered. Real estate firms tended
to be small and were focused on providing transaction
support for specific property types in defined market
areas. Corporations called on service providers for spe-
cific engagements, as the external parties were only
considered to be “order takers.”
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
13
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
The 1960s to the 1980s: Conglomerates and Centralization In 1956, President Eisenhower created the inter-
state highway system as an integral part of the
national defense system. However, the commercial,
economic and social ramifications of this system far
outweighed its military value. As the system devel-
oped in the 1960s, national markets expanded rap-
idly and a new kind of business model was needed
to serve the increasingly larger and more dispersed
markets. In response to this economic market
expansion, industries consolidated and fewer, larger
corporations emerged.
Consolidation provided better access to capital and
greater economies of scale. The new business models
required the kind of centralized control that was pro-
vided by hierarchical organizational structures. Compa-
nies no longer accepted the inevitability of struggling
through business cycles with a single business line or
product. Instead, they added new product lines or pur-
chased companies with products that complemented
their existing efforts. Mergers and acquisitions prolifer-
ated, conglomerates became prevalent, and these large
companies pursued increased market share.
At the same time, administrative support functions,
such as finance, accounting, personnel, legal and real
estate, were being centralized at corporate headquar-
ters. As businesses became more complex, the need
for access to information and efficient communica-
tions was met by the physical proximity of employees
in centralized locations. The new business environ-
ment forced a change in the way administrative func-
tions were managed within corporations.
In the 1960s, as the structure of organizations’ real
estate portfolios became more complex, centralized
CRE groups started to form within large corporate
entities. While certain services and functions, such
as property management and facilities management,
often still were coordinated at the business unit level,
the management and approval of real estate transac-
tions were undergoing consolidation. In addition, cor-
porations began to out-task some activities based on
internal capacity restrictions and the need to expedite
certain engagements. The volume of out-tasking was
rather limited; only local and regional vendors existed
in the marketplace, and they varied by geography.
Both the real estate group and the vendor organiza-
tions were relatively small.
By the 1980s, centralized CRE departments were
well established within corporations. The CRE de-
partments had grown significantly and increased the
scope of services provided by internal staff, which
now included a cadre of specialists. By the 1980s,
the CRE department was often responsible for site
selection, lease-versus-buy analysis, real estate
Mergers and acquisitions proliferated, conglomerates became prevalent, and these large companies pursued increased market share.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
14
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
transactions, space planning, design and project man-
agement for construction. Compared to the 1960s,
when real estate groups only handled real estate
transactions, a significant amount of complexity and
responsibility had been allocated to CRE departments
by the 1980s. However, the CRE department’s role
was still that of an “order taker,” which carried out the
requests of the business units to build and maintain
physical facilities. The CRE department supported the
organization’s business strategy but had no role in its
strategic-planning efforts.
In the service provider industry, the volume of out-
tasking (when a service provider executes a discrete
piece of work under specific direction from and con-
trol by the corporate end user) was still rather limited,
and only a few vendors had established extensive
positions in the marketplace. Since large corporations
had in-house expertise, they were less likely to pay
the unit-cost premium charged by external service
providers unless significant benefits could be derived
from outsourcing (when a service provider takes over
complete, or near complete, responsibility of desig-
nated operations). It was generally accepted that no
greater efficiency or effectiveness could be gained
by shifting workload to external service providers. In
addition, the service providers’ profit was seen as an
additional cost that would not be incurred if activities
were maintained in-house. As such, the workload
completed by service providers remained task-fo-
cused and was driven by internal capacity restrictions
and the need to expedite delivery.
Toward the end of the 1980s, a few innovative compa-
nies like Baxter Healthcare and Ameritech started
to rethink the CRE function and planted the seeds for
the streamlining of these large and sometimes cum-
bersome internal structures. At the same time, new
concepts were emerging to shift workload efficiently
and effectively from internal resources to external
resources, through large real estate services delivery
contracts with select, top-tier providers.
It was generally accepted that no greater efficiency or effectiveness could be gained by shifting workload to external service providers.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
15
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
The 1990s: Cost Reduction and Outsourcing With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the removal of sev-
eral trade barriers, U.S. corporations were suddenly
exposed to global competition and were at a distinct
cost disadvantage. During the 1990s, Japanese busi-
nesses were ahead of most of the world in terms
of cost efficiency, and U.S. companies scrambled to
restructure and become more cost-competitive. The
efforts to lower costs were supported by a global eco-
nomic downturn of considerable severity and duration.
In this environment, Wall Street began to question the
monolithic structure of corporate America and started
to reward those companies that focused on their core
business activities. Corporations were now focused on
maximizing return on invested capital by establishing
distinct, competitive advantages and by selling off large
portions of their businesses that were considered to be
non-core. Enabled by advances in information technol-
ogy, corporations began to outsource many of the func-
tions that were formerly handled in-house, in an effort
to further reduce costs and enhance focus.
These technological advances significantly reduced
the costs associated with information sharing and
enabled corporations to rapidly coordinate and roll up
financial and operational data across very complex
global organizations using enterprise-wide data man-
agement systems. Highly centralized organizations
were no longer justified or necessary, and technol-
ogy facilitated global expansion.
By the 1990s, out-tasking was more common with
corporations more effectively leveraging external
service providers for many administrative support
functions. New technologies had reduced the trans-
action costs of doing business with external provid-
ers, and the proliferation of personal computers,
data management systems and the Internet made it
easier to manage and communicate across internal
and external networks.
In response to a big out-tasking push on the part of
CRE, internal departments began to downsize, and the
real estate service provider industry grew significantly.
However, while there was a substantial increase in
the number of vendors, the organizational maturity
profile of these vendors had not changed much. As
was true in the 1980s, real estate service providers
were offering multiple service or product lines to their
customers, but the services were not being delivered
in an integrated fashion. At best, services were being
“bundled” or “packaged” in an effort to sell multiple
services to the same customer and increase profits
through overhead efficiency gains.
As was true in the 1980s, real estate service providers were offering multiple service or product lines to their customers, but the services were not being delivered in an integrated fashion.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
16
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
The continued downsizing of internal administrative
support functions – often coupled with the adoption
of an administrative service organization structure that
integrated and aligned functions like human resources,
information technology and CRE – led to an increased
reliance on external providers. As a result, the service
provider industry engaged in major expansion ef-
forts throughout the 1990s. Mergers and acquisitions
between the larger American and European providers
fueled consolidation. Examples include the merger/ac-
quisition activity between CB Commercial and Richard
Ellis, Jones Lang Wootton and LaSalle Partners,
and Cushman & Wakefield.
These new, larger service provider firms also began
adding higher-value services to their core capabilities,
including financial re-engineering for portfolio cost
structures, balance sheet impact analysis and platform
alignment to better address issues that were most
relevant to senior corporate executives. The corporate
services approach was well on its way to acceptance
by the mid-1990s, and the relationships between CRE
departments and external providers transitioned from
a vendor focus to a partnership focus.
Service providers began to offer greater efficiency,
cost effectiveness and flexibility. United Systems
Integrators was a prime example. Established in 1991,
real estate service firm USI was founded on the belief
that corporations would increasingly improve return
on invested capital and obtain higher valuations by
outsourcing non-core functions. Jones Lang Woot-
ton’s merger with LaSalle Partners in 1997 was largely
driven by the corporate client need for creative and of-
ten integrated approaches to manage their real estate
portfolios and meet their complex occupancy needs.
In the early 1990s, outsourcing of corporate real estate
at Baxter Healthcare demonstrated to the industry that
the corporate real estate function could be managed in
new and different ways. Baxter was the first company
to outsource many services, and thereby reduce the
size of its internal CRE department. It was the first time
that management of many of these functions was taken
outside a large company. Ameritech soon took a similar
course. Then other corporations, including Microsoft
and Sun Microsystems, followed the example in
an effort to realize similar benefits. These companies
began to see that all-encompassing, large internal CRE
departments made them less nimble and too rigid, and
burdened them with unnecessary exposure. Change
was cumbersome and difficult to implement.
It was the culmination of a trend that had been devel-
oping for some time, as the out-tasking or outsourcing
of commodity activities such as transaction implemen-
tation, project management and facility management
gave corporate real estate groups more flexibility to
respond to business unit requirements and to maxi-
mize return on invested capital. The larger real estate
service providers expanded their service portfolios to
include the complete life cycle of real estate services,
adding valuation analysis, mortgage banking, project
management, and real estate consulting and property
development services. These “bundled” services
were sold as packages to corporate clients.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
17
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
In addition, corporations established single-source
contracts or preferred vendor arrangements with
large real estate service providers to achieve volume
discounts. This “one-stop shopping” concept allowed
corporate real estate departments to reduce the
number of vendors required to provide services. In the
new model, the role of the remaining CRE department
staff was to manage the outside vendors, negotiate
pricing and ensure accountability.
The 2000s: Globalization and Strategic Alignment In the 2000s, four major business drivers – glo-
balization, information technology, administrative
organizational structure and labor – combined with a
high degree of economic fluctuation to reshape and
redefine internal and external real estate service de-
livery. Enabled by technology and trade liberalization
agreements and driven by an intense drive to cut
costs, organizations outsourced back-office admin-
istrative and support functions to third parties, not
only to more cost-effective domestic markets but
also to third parties in other countries – so called
“off-shoring.” This trend, combined with develop-
ing markets’ phenomenal growth – which increased
even during a deep recession that hobbled many
developed economies – led to increased globaliza-
tion of major corporations.
During this time, several organizations, including Nortel
Networks, American Express, United Technologies
Corp. and Bank of America, emerged as best-practice
operations in integrating and leveraging external provid-
ers for strategic CRE service delivery. As opposed to
allocating limited internal staff resources to the hands-
on implementation of non-core activities, the CRE
departments at these organizations focused on devel-
oping and managing long-term outsourcing strategies
to deliver these non-core activities. This reflected an
evolution of corporate real estate’s role from taskmas-
ter to business strategist.
This “one-stop shopping” concept allowed corporate real estate departments to reduce the number of vendors required to provide services.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
18
HiStOrical evOlutiOnOF Service Delivery
a lOOK BacK
Meanwhile, U.S. companies increasingly off-shored
work to countries like India and China. And, as these
developing economies grew, major corporations be-
gan to view them not only as suppliers of cost-effec-
tive goods and labor but as markets in their own right.
Corporations began to seek real estate solutions that
would allow them to set up manufacturing and cus-
tomer contact operations to serve customers in North
America and Europe and also would enable them to
sell goods and services to ever-richer businesses and
consumers in these emerging markets.
As end users’ needs changed – often rapidly – service
providers honed their relationship management skills,
working to align service and delivery structures to the
needs of customers. Providers realized understand-
ing their customers’ needs and monitoring how well
they delivered against those needs while being able
to measure performance and deliver sophisticated
reporting was a competitive differentiator.
Between the first major implementation at Baxter
Healthcare in 1990 and the close of the 2000s, CRE
and facilities outsourcing became commonplace at
major corporations. Large, established companies
such as General Motors and Bank of America were
now out-tasking multiple real estate functions and
wholesale outsourcing of the entire real estate func-
tion was an option on the table. Many endeavors
started small, by outsourcing the most tactical func-
tions, such as food service. As CRE departments real-
ized benefits and became more confident that quality
of service would not be compromised, other functions
were outsourced.
As outsourcing evolved it also changed the responsi-
bilities of in-house CRE. Internal staff that had once
spent their time completing transactions and man-
aging projects and facilities instead were managing
the work of external service providers who assumed
day-to-day responsibilities. However, most of these
outsourcing relationships still focused on tactical
services. The development of strategic plans for the
real estate portfolio and the CRE organization were
still typically internal activities.
The development of strategic plans for the real estate portfolio and the CRE organization were still typically internal activities.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
19
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
In today’s Corporate Real Estate (CRE) market
outsourcing is a given, but one single outsourcing
methodology does not fit all. Trends toward cost-
containment are universal, as exemplified by
the increasing collaboration between CRE and
Procurement. But corporations are employing a
variety of outsourcing strategies and structures to
achieve such efficiencies.
For their part, providers are striving to meet end-
users’ demands for strategic portfolio optimization,
workplace mobility, process improvement and
optimization, energy management and sustainability
and cost reduction. Key service providers have met
these end-to-end CRE demands by consolidating
with former rivals in an effort to increase
capabilities and reach.
Among end users, CRE leaders are concerned
with aligning assets to meet local market needs
amid increasing globalization. Globalization is one
of the key trends causing some CRE executives to
move away from single-source “bundled” services
toward “best-in-class” (also called “best-of-breed”)
options for multiple markets. A few CRE executives
are outsourcing the management of these various
vendors to “integrators.” Corporations whose
business is well suited to the “bundled” model say
they continue to benefit from volume buying and
the efficiency of coordinating and collaborating with
a limited number of vendors. Other firms find the
administrative burden of managing several different
suppliers to be risk laden and cost prohibitive.
End users are requiring increasingly diverse and
complex capabilities from service providers – turning
to them for everything from food service to data
management. That diversity of requirements has
opened the door to some nontraditional providers;
firms that once focused exclusively on cafeteria
management or business processing, for example, are
beginning to move into facilities management.
CRE professionals who want more of these diverse
and sophisticated services expect true expertise. For
example, end users who contract data management
services from providers want them to deliver not only
data reports, but also the kind of in-depth analysis
that provides strategic insights. End users increasingly
understand that these offerings require a level of
training and experience that cannot necessarily be
delivered by the lowest bidder, and their RFPs are
evolving to become value and outcome oriented
rather than strictly focused on cost.
“The transactional model is not the future of where outsourcing is going. It needs to be a partnership.”
– Donna Inch, Ford Motor Land Corp.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
20
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
The Integrator Model: A Hybrid Sourcing Strategy
Over the past decade, CRE decision mak-ers had two main outsourcing choices: Achieve consistency and simplicity but reduce granular flexibility with a “bundled” model linked to one primary service provider. Or opt for a “best-in-class/best-of-breed” model that enables high-quality, local-level services but requires juggling multiple vendors in multiple markets.
Today, however, a single company is testing a new model – the integrator – that com-bines some aspects of bundling and best-in-class. The integrator is, in essence, an outsourcing hybrid, and a major corporation views it as offering the best of both worlds.
What makes this model different is that a CRE executive gives a single partner – the integrator – responsibility to oversee and measure the performance and consistency of multiple vendors. The integrator shares accountability for the performance of these service providers.
The integrator is responsible for: • Driving consistency of process and service delivery across multiple vendors to create a uniform experience for the end user
• Sourcing, managing and tracking vendor work allocation and the quality of service delivery
• Developing and managing a formal control structure for mitigating risk
• Establishing a data system capable of managing and reporting on vendor work performed across the portfolio
• Developing continuous improvement plans at strategic and tactical levels
• Managing a budget that supports capital and operating expense plans
The integrator model can be adapted to match the degree of responsibility and control
the integrator exerts over other service part-ners. For example, the integrator may man-age with a light touch and simply oversee and report on work completed. Or the integrator may take a hands-on approach, acting more as a prime contractor who dictates exactly how work should be completed and has 100-percent accountability for the quality of the work and outcomes.
As a still-emerging model, the integrator is a question mark for many end users and service providers. While it conceptu-
ally solves for many weaknesses of the bundled and the best-of breed sourcing models, the integrator model does create unique issues of its own, including the potential for management duplication and the necessity to have a robust and transparent governance structure in place to foster success.
Clearly it is up to each CRE organization to determine whether the integrator fits with its desired roles and responsibilities, needs, risk tolerance and corporate culture.
Differences Among Outsourcing Models
Source: CoreNet Global’s The Leader, March/April 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
21
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
Deliberate Approach to Outsourcing: State Street Bank Case Study Background
State Street Corporation (SSC), a financial holding company, is one of the world’s leading investment service providers, focused solely on serving institutional investors worldwide. State Street has operations in 29 countries, serving clients in more than 100 markets, with more than 29,600 employees worldwide. State Street serves some of the most sophisticated institutions through a flexible suite of services that spans the investment spectrum, including investment management, research and trading and investment servicing.
This sector of the financial services industry is highly competitive and the real estate services group is expected to provide a high level of service in an efficient and cost effective manner. Back in 2005, State Street had a global footprint of approximately six million square feet (557,418 square meters), with 93 percent of the integrated facilities management (IFM) functions being self-delivered through an in house staff. The challenge was to take an IFM service delivery model that was self-performed, with extensive out-tasking, and consolidate all of the services under one IFM service agreement.
The Approach State Street took a very structured approach to its first-generation outsourcing initiative, implementing segments of the portfolio in a methodical manner. Since the organization had a heavy presence in the Boston area, in 2005 they decided to consolidate the IFM services being
provided in Eastern Massachusetts first with a single provider. The portfolio under consideration in the first phase included approximately four million square feet (371,612 square meters), excluding their one-million-sq.-ft. (92,903 sq. m.) corporate headquarters.
State Street also realized that for the first outsourcing initiative to be successful, it needed to allocate sufficient resources to the project, so it engaged Expense Management Solutions (EMS) to manage the sourcing process. EMS helped State Street develop a best-practices master services agreement, a comprehensive set of IFM service level agreements and an enhanced pricing structure.
Based on the quality of proposals, State Street selected a single provider, CBRE, to deliver the IFM services across the Eastern Massachusetts portfolio. A comprehensive performance management program was developed and implemented to continually rate the supplier’s performance and determine the amount of “at-risk” fees to award on a quarterly and annual basis. The final negotiated pricing also represented a significant savings over the company’s current costs.
Upon realizing the success of its first outsourcing initiative, in early 2006 State Street decided to competitively bid their one-million-sq.-ft. corporate headquarters in Boston. This second phase was also won by CBRE. Not resting on their laurels, in late 2006 State Street initiated the third phase of its outsourcing plan by adding 1.3 million square feet (120,774 square meters) that included the balance of its North American portfolio. In this round, State Street chose to pursue negotiated pricing with the existing provider, utilizing EMS to develop an abbreviated RFP and pricing model, rather than a full market bid. At the conclusion of this phase, State Street had effectively centralized the management of its entire North American portfolio under a single provider.
Going Global Following the success of the sourcing consolidation in North America, State Street looked to pursue opportunities in the global portfolio. In late 2006, the Global Realty Services team put the EMEA portfolio out to a full market bid, and Serco was awarded the contract for approximately 94,000 square meters (one million square feet) in 35 sites. The
CASE STudy: State Street Bank
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
22
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
Asia Pacific region went to bid next in 2008, consisting of a dozen assets and over 360K SF. CBRE once again won the assignment, and over the years State Street has continued to expand its relationship with CBRE as indicated in the table above.
By mid-2011, the State Street global footprint had grown to 7.4 million square feet (687,482 square meters), and its outsourced relationships had grown as well, with 65 percent of the IFM services managed by outsourced providers. The key responsibilities that SSC maintained in house included asset management,
project management, engineering strategy, lease administration, transaction management and space strategy and metrics. EMS was brought back in 2011 to take the existing North American IFM relationship with CBRE and negotiate an expanded scope of work to include the entire APAC portfolio. The negotiated pricing resulted in further reductions in supplier costs under a consolidated contract.
Looking Back Reflecting back on the approach taken over the seven-year period, State Street has realized that despite its success,
there were some things the company might have done differently. First, it would have been more aggressive on initial outsourcing scope and not taken as many interim steps with the portfolio. This phased approach was partly because of the fact that the team over-estimated its customer’s transitional concerns. State Street also would have redefined the roles and responsibilities between internal GRS employees and the service provider in a more direct manner to avoid ambiguity. Other lessons learned include being less restrictive on CBRE’s ability to change the model more quickly. Finally, it is important to understand there is dual responsibility for success in the outsourcing process, with both the internal CRE team and the service provider sharing equal responsibility to ensure that the transition is smooth.
Going forward, State Street will continue to evaluate additional outsourcing opportunities that make sense in the overall business model. They will also pursue global consistency in the delivery of services and roles and responsibilities. Given State Street’s track record and deliberate approach, there is no doubt it will be successful in achieving the desired results.
CASE STudy: State Street Bank (continued)
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
23
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
Faced with significant changes to its business following a 2009 merger with Schering-Plough, Merck & Co. engaged Jones Lang LaSalle, one of their three regional service delivery partners to help its Global Real Estate Services (GRES) team increase customer focus while reducing costs. The need to find financial and operational efficiencies—even in the high-stakes R&D function—was a high priority. Significant location overlap created a milestone opportunity for the corporate real estate function to play a leadership role in realizing the $3.5-billion overall merger synergy targets.
Working under a bundled outsourcing model for facility and real estate management functions enabled close collaboration and support of an extremely complex global initiative with an equally complex goal: achieve $200 million in occupancy cost savings within three years, while creating a highly effective workplace for the combined organization.
Several objectives were established at the outset:
1. Rationalize the portfolio. Following the merger, Merck establish a primary goal, “… to create a real estate footprint that enables a high-performance workplace in as efficient a manner as possible,” and a commitment to consolidating the portfolios by reducing operational costs rather than other factors such as write-offs or geographic preference. Determining which locations to expand, consolidate or close was a complex decision involving many factors and required detailed analysis.
2. Maintain core facility operations and evaluate third-party suppliers. With significant ongoing change
and corporate mandates to reduce expenses, Merck was seeking to engage a third-party supplier manager to evaluate and manage suppliers and to protect and enhance Merck’s facilities. The net result has been an increase in the level of service and improved overall appearance of the facilities, as well as cost savings and an increase in the amount spent with diverse suppliers.
3. Ensure people care. Merck places high value on its people, so the team wanted its employees to land with a service provider that could absorb them and offer long-term opportunity. More than 250 staff were interviewed and hired by Jones Lang LaSalle, and all but one leadership position was filled with existing long-term Merck employees. Today, management leaders remain in place and overall employee retention exceeds 95 percent.
Making it work Having a seat at the table was critical to the team’s success. During the most intense period of operational planning, sometimes site selection and consolidation strategies were confirmed in less than a week – a process that would typically require months. What made such rapid movement on consolidations and other value-creation strategies possible was GRES’ confidence in those decisions, despite real estate portfolio data gaps. M&A regulations block the free flow of portfolio information before a merger deal is closed. To fill in some of those gaps, the external alliance relationship proved its value, as local market teams were able to provide real-time market intelligence that was not available through internal channels. This on-the-ground information was used to inform
critical consolidation, move management and real estate portfolio strategic moves, establishing a strong, if never all-encompassing, foundation. Confidence in the data they did have, in the in-house and outsourced team, as well as in GRES processes, made it possible to avoid getting mired in red tape.
Informed partners, informed real estate strategies External and internal teams must share an understanding of an organization’s corporate culture and business objectives to work together effectively under ambitious timeframes. The fact that a centralized integrated facilities management and real estate relationship was already in place kept the focus on the merger goals, not on team ramp-up. Also, the leadership role the corporate real estate and facilities function played on the integration team meant senior management backing for the tough decisions.
CASE STudy: Merck
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
24
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
The Integrator Model in Action at Microsoft
Microsoft was an early adopter of outsourcing and has been an innovator in adapting outsourcing to the company’s changing needs. The technology powerhouse has begun a next-generation plan that combines the best-in-class and bundled approaches into a hybrid outsourcing model: the integrator.
The Outsourcing Challenge Microsoft Corp. operates in 107 countries around the globe, which makes outsourcing both the right solution for the software giant and one of its top corporate real estate challenges.
“For many years, we had global service providers for things like project management or transaction management,” explains Bob Kaplan, Director of Global Resources for Microsoft Real Estate and Facilities. “What we found is while those global service providers were great in lots of places; there was no service provider out there who was great everywhere we operate.”
Microsoft considered various options, and then decision-makers settled on an outsourcing model that combines bundled and best-in-class approaches to aim for a higher level of service quality in every market and for every task. This hybrid model is managed by a single provider, called “the integrator.”
The Integrator Solution The next step was to figure out who that integrator would be. “We needed someone – and it could have been either us internally or an outside vendor – to manage across all those different service providers and drive consistent processes, best practices,
CASE STudy: Microsoft
Microsoft’s Integrated Governance Plan
Snapshot Headquarters: Whitehouse Station, NJ
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Geography: Global
Portfolio type: Corporate and sales offices, research and development centers
CRE Portfolio: 100 million SF/600 sites globally (global RE services and 32 million SF/30 sites (U.S. and Canada) under IFM with Jones Lang LaSalle)
Dedicated CRE employees: 250
Outsourced CRE services:
• Integrated facilities management
• Occupancy planning
• Move management
• Project management
• Strategic consulting
• Transaction management
CASE STudy: Merck (continued)
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
25
tHe current StateOF Service Deliverya Picture OF tHe PreSent
reporting and data management,” Kaplan explained.
After looking at various service providers – including business services companies like Tata and Accenture – as well as mainstream providers such as Jones Lang LaSalle and Cushman & Wakefield – Microsoft chose real estate firm CBRE as its integrator. “The conclusion we came to was to really manage brokers, or project managers or facilities companies well, you need people with deep knowledge of real estate. So that’s why we went to market to CRE providers, and ended up with CBRE.”
“They build the strategy. They do the procurement around it. They do the contracting around it. They manage the service providers. They do the reporting around it. They do the onboarding and training around it,” Kaplan said. This integrated approach gives Microsoft the benefits of a single-source “bundled” provider and the benefits of best-in-class service in all of its key markets, he said.
The Role of Governance Getting ready for the integrated model required significant internal preparation, Kaplan noted. Microsoft had to carefully define governance policies and procedures for supplier contracts that fit under the integrator’s purview. For example, because CBRE is the integrator, the governance structure prohibits the integrator firm from competing for any projects that fall under the integrator’s scope. “None of the other project-management vendors would be willing to work in the model if they knew they were competing against the people who were managing it,” said Kaplan.
“We had to build a governance structure that allows that to work and that allows our people to have interaction with those project-management vendors, as well as with the CBRE people who are responsible for procuring them and managing them and paying them,” he said. A governing organization now sits at the center of Microsoft’s integrated outsourcing structure.
Initial Results of The Integrator Model Kaplan said it is too early to assess the overall integrator model’s success – such as any significant upticks in local market service quality or any potential savings – but the approach already has had an effect on seeing competition for service, quality of staff and choice of providers; all things they wanted to accomplish, as well as change how CRE operates within Microsoft. “It has shifted the importance [of CRE functions] to relationship management with our business units – to understanding their needs on a much higher level,” he added.
Snapshot Founded in 1975, Microsoft is a worldwide leader in software, services and solutions for businesses and consumers.
Headquarters: Redmond, Wash.
Employees: 92,303 worldwide
Fiscal 2011 Revenue: $69.94 billion
CRE Portfolio: • Owns approximately 16 million square feet (1.5 million square meters) at 105 sites
• Leases approximately 17.6 million square feet (1.6 million square meters) at 532 sites
Outsourcing Model: The Integrator and stables of tier 1 providers for real estate, project management and facilities management.
CRE Hierarchy: CRE sits within the finance organization. The head of real estate and facilities reports to the chief administrative officer, who reports to the chief financial officer.
CRE Operational Structure: Four regional divisions (Headquarters campus; Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific) and two center of excellence teams (Global Workplace Strategies – responsible for workplace design, research and productivity and Global Resources – responsible for best practices in real estate, design and construction, facilities, employee services, sustainability, technology, communications, supplier relationship management, reporting and customer satisfaction measurement).
Organizational Domains: CRE is closely aligned with Procurement, which also sits under the same organization in finance. HR and IT are in separate areas. IT, in particular, has a unique design at Microsoft as it is considered a product testing ground for Microsoft software and technology and is tightly linked to product development and delivery.
Key CRE Skill Sets: Ideal CRE employees not only have real estate and facilities knowledge, but also strong customer relationship and integration skills.
CASE STudy: Microsoft (continued)
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
26
BOlD StateMent reSearcH HyPOtHeSeS
The future of corporate real estate (CRE) will be
shaped by today’s visionary leaders. To capture and
present what they see on the horizon, the Service
Delivery and Outsourcing team conducted more than
20 interviews centered on service delivery industry
issues of today and tomorrow. These issues were
presented to interviewees as six Bold Statements,
essentially hypotheses about what lies ahead.
Bold Statement No. 1: Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more integrated with Procurement and, therefore, more sophisticated and complex. Bold Statement No. 2: Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as it becomes more widespread as a means of delivering corporate real estate strategy.
Bold Statement No. 3: Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms globally. Bold Statement No. 4: Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional service provider enter the race. Bold Statement No. 5: With corporate real estate utilizing their service providers as an incubator/training ground for noncore business, human resources and training capabilities will become a heightened requirement. Bold Statement No. 6: Pricing and performance management models will become more value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on purely financial objectives.
Many of the interviewees were CRE or
administrative service directors from major global
business entities. Other interviewees were
representatives from the market’s leading service
providers. In addition, the team also interviewed
industry thought leaders and conducted a survey of
CoreNet Global’s end-user members worldwide.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
27
BOlD StateMent 1
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
FIGURE .I | BOlD StateMent 1 Survey reSultS
2%
6%19%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
50%
22%
Disagree Agree
End Users Foresee More Real Estate and Procurement Integration by 2020
Procurement plays an ever-larger role in CRE
transactions, an outsourcing-related trend that can
be attributed to a continuing push for lower costs,
increasingly sophisticated client demands for bundled
offerings that combine space with services and a
desire for more discipline around real estate contracts
and related spending.
The latter is what Richard Chalker, Managing Director
at financial services firm Morgan Stanley, sees as
a primary driver. “An effective procurement system
gives a check and balance to the process, especially
in project management and property operations,” he
said. “Procurement gives best practices around vendor
management and managing the relationship between
the service provider and the functional owner.”
At production-oriented companies like Ford Motor
Co. and MillerCoors, the partnership between
CRE and Procurement is not a trend but a tradition.
“Procurement support is integrated into the CRE
group; there has been this tight linkage historically,”
said Donna Inch, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Ford Land, which provides real estate,
construction and facility services to many tenants,
including automobile manufacturer Ford Motor Co.
The business advantages of the CRE-Procurement
structure are increasingly apparent as Ford Land aims
for rapid but efficient and economical growth in the
post-recession environment, said Inch.
At MillerCoors, Director of Real Estate Pat Crumley,
MCR, also sees Procurement’s traditional role in CRE
gaining importance for the beer maker. “Real estate
goals and objectives are more sophisticated and
complex because they have to be woven into the
business objectives and goals of the corporation,”
she said. “That sophistication is being driven by
markets that are much more competitive.”
Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more integrated with procurement and, therefore, more sophisticated and complex.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
28
BOlD StateMent 1
Wayne Taub, Vice President of Real Estate for media
and entertainment company Time Warner, agrees but
cautions that a Procurement approach will not work for
every aspect of CRE. “There’s a strategic piece around
real estate decisions that probably will not be part of
any Procurement efforts, which are more financially
driven than strategic in nature. Procurement has an
opportunity to play the biggest role in tactical areas
of real estate,” he said, “such as supplies, facilities
management services, engineering and energy.”
Procurement brings rigor and fairness to the process,
but as subject matter experts, CRE owns the
decision. A recent CoreNet Global survey of CRE
end users around the world showed that nearly
three-quarters of respondents believe that real estate
objectives and goals will become more integrated
with Procurement by 2020, driving a higher degree
of sophistication in how outsourcing is done.
A View of the Future
Looking ahead, several real estate experts
interviewed by CoreNet Global see evolutionary
trends for real estate-related procurement:
• Procurement’s focus will move from a
commodities-driven, cost-centric approach
to focus on multiple criteria that can drive
total value.
• To that end, real estate-related RFPs will broaden
to concentrate on wider goals and objectives
rather than on a laundry list of cost-based
deliverables. How the service providers will get to
the end game – the goals and objectives – will be
what distinguish them during the bidding process.
• Procurement professionals will specialize in CRE-
related spend, becoming part of a dedicated team
that understands the ins and outs of real estate
transactions.
• The combination of CRE and Procurement
will yield greater buying power than the CRE
department possesses on its own, but it also will
add complexity to decision-making.
• Rigor will increase around CRE-related vendor
selection. Decision-makers will have to justify
choices.
Chalker said Morgan Stanley already has discovered
that the key to successfully combining real estate
and Procurement efforts lies in creating harmony
rather than discord. “If you have an adversarial
relationship with Procurement,” he said, “then it’s a
constant battle.”
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
29
BOlD StateMent 2
Data-backed insights and business intelligence are an
increasingly important component of business plan-
ning and strategy in every sector, including CRE. But
CRE’s legacy and structure creates challenges for
fully leveraging data, real estate experts say.
“Today, data is the big gaping hole for most real
estate functions,” said Christopher Staal, MCR,
Vice President, Global Head of Real Estate and
Facilities Management for financial information and
media company Thomson Reuters. The problem is
two-fold: The CRE department traditionally has not
been at the forefront of technology innovation, and
the industry’s structure of service providers and us-
ers can add complexity to the already tricky task of
determining who owns data.
Nonetheless, most experts interviewed by CoreNet
Global say that by 2020, data access and usage
will be essential to both making real estate-related
decisions and to the services that end users expect
service providers to offer.
The December 2011 CoreNet Global survey of CRE
end users indicated 80 percent of respondents fore-
see a future in which:
• Data streams from different parts of an organization
are integrated into cross-functional dashboards to
better support real-time decision making.
• Service providers not only collect and report on data
but also analyze it properly to guide CRE strategy.
• CRE providers and end users easily share non-
proprietary information.
• Standardized portfolio metrics enable side-by-side,
value-based comparisons across global operations.
All this means that the critical importance of data is
not in dispute. What is in question is whether the
tug-of-war over data ownership will hamper the CRE
department’s ability to get the most out of the avail-
able information.
“Some larger, risk-averse and heavily regulated compa-
nies have data and systems highly insourced, secured
and protected from service providers,” noted Thomas
McCarty, Managing Director of Strategic Consulting
for commercial real estate firm Jones Lang LaSalle.
Pharmaceutical, health care and financial services firms
are among the most cautious about their data.
Morgan Stanley’s Chalker said competitive advan-
tages and confidentiality and regulatory concerns
Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as it becomes more widespread as a means of delivering corporate real estate strategy.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
30
BOlD StateMent 2
will ensure that end users like banks maintain tight
control over data. “I do agree that companies will get
more sophisticated about the data they share with
service providers to drive better partnerships,” he
said. But he added, “The company will ultimately
maintain full control of the data.”
Nonetheless, technological innovations like cloud
computing already are changing companies’ posi-
tions on the exclusivity of and protection around
their data, said an interviewee responsible for leas-
ing and construction projects in North America.
“You would expect that by 2020 service providers
will take a more active role in both systems and
data management [for clients], assuming they can
meet all the security and expertise requirements,”
continued the interviewee. “I think between now
and 2020, the biggest investment for many service
providers is going to be their technology platforms
because many of their clients are going to demand
it, expect it and call them to task on it.”
Data management requirements already are becom-
ing an increasingly important requirement on RFPs,
and end users want more than reports. They want
analytical, insightful analysis of what the data shows.
Data usage will become more widespread as a
means of setting corporate real estate strategy and
vendors will take a more active role in the manage-
ment of the data stream.
A View of the Future
All of the real estate experts interviewed by CoreNet
Global say data will be an integral part of the service
provider/end-user relationship going forward. By
2020, they envision:
• A tiered structure for determining which pieces of
data get shared and how the data is controlled.
The less critical the information is to a company’s
competitive advantage, the more likely it is that
the end user will hand it off to a service provider
for management and/or analysis.
• Vendors will have access to some data, but most
companies will continue to own and house the
data, especially if their business is highly competitive
or heavily regulated.
FIGURE .2 | BOlD StateMent 2 Survey reSultS
2%
6%19%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
50%
22%
Disagree Agree
Data Will Play an Essential Role in Corporate Real Estate Operations by 2020
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
31
BOlD StateMent 2
• Service providers will own the systems that can
manipulate and analyze data coming from end-
users. The systems will need to be easy to use and
flexible – for example, “dashboard” portals that
plug into enterprise resource planning systems like
SAP and Oracle.
• Service providers’ ability to glean insights from
shared data will be a core competency; end users
will expect service providers to be able to deliver
this kind of business intelligence.
• Providing these technology solutions will become a
competitive advantage for service providers, whose
data-rich bundle of services will tether them to
clients – making end users less likely to move
business elsewhere.
McCarty of Jones Lang LaSalle predicts companies
will increasingly desire the efficiencies to be gained
from using service providers’ data management and
analytics capabilities. End users will look to service
providers to “manage processes and make decisions
for them or in conjunction with them.”
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
32
BOlD StateMent 3
The industry catchphrase of 2012 may be “global,”
but saying it and achieving it are two different
things, real estate experts contend. The pressure on
service providers to increase the geographic scope
of offerings will intensify as we march toward 2020.
But even in 2020, a truly “seamless” global CRE
environment will not be a reality, warn some of the
industry players interviewed by CoreNet Global.
End users want providers to offer global real estate
services that will allow them to scale quickly over-
seas to meet growing demand and seize emerging-
market opportunities. But end users need to realize
that the challenges they face in growing their own
global operations also create obstacles for their real
estate service providers, said Crumley of MillerCo-
ors, who formerly worked on the service provider
side in positions at Cushman & Wakefield and
Jones Lang LaSalle.
“The local laws and the local practices are really going
to dictate how things happen,” she said. “I think it’s a
big responsibility of corporate real estate executives
to truly understand how the business works. … There
needs to be recognition of the realities of what it takes
to do these things internationally and a willingness to
figure out how to work through that.”
For service providers to grow their platforms globally,
they must employ what Crumley calls “workarounds,”
partnerships with local real estate vendors that allow
a service provider to offer space and services in many
markets but that may not ensure adequate control
over all operations.
“Standards vary from country to country,” agreed
Koo Stengle, Strategic Planning Manager for bank-
ing firm BB&T. “To be a true international platform,
service providers will need to integrate locally.” That
integration takes place through partnering with,
merging with or buying local providers. That already
is happening, and the trend will gain momentum –
and sophistication – in the future, experts say.
Inch of Ford Land foresees service providers doing all
of the above to create the global platform that end-
users will expect. “Global reach will continue to be a
part of the selection criteria for the CRE department
because it is easier from a global account standpoint
to be operating with one vendor,” she said.
Tom LaDue, Senior Director of Real Estate Relation-
ship Management at health care technology and prod-
ucts supplier McKesson, agreed and added that the
end-user also has high expectations. “We want the
same level of service in Ireland or Belgium that we
get here [in the U.S.].” The demand will only increase
for this consistency and standardization, he says.
Taub of Time Warner said the push for global real
estate offerings from existing service providers is
Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms globally.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
33
BOlD StateMent 3
a matter of necessity, but also convenience. “It is
easier for corporations to have two or three one-
stop shops versus six or seven,” he noted. “It’s
great to be able to rely on the same service provid-
ers … domestically and globally.”
A View of the Future
The move toward increased global offerings will be
constant, but the realities of cobbling together of-
ferings from diverse local markets will mean steady,
rather than speedy, progress, say the experts inter-
viewed by CoreNet Global. They predict:
• Clients will expect service providers to show
capabilities in markets around the world before an
agreement is signed. That means service providers
must anticipate the business and set up offerings
before end users request them.
• Partnerships between large service providers and
local providers in key markets will increase in
number and sophistication.
• Companies will want single-source vendor
relationships for global markets.
• Globalization will increase standardization of facilities,
especially those used for world-wide collaboration.
The bottom line, says Staal of Thomson Reuters, is
service providers will be expected to lead the way
in enabling global operations. “They should be do-
ing some heavy investing,” he said.
FIGURE .3 | BOlD StateMent 3 Survey reSultS
0%
6%18%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
46%
30%
Disagree Agree
Service Providers Will Expand Globally to Meet Increased CRE Demand
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
34
BOlD StateMent 4
The advent of nontraditional providers entering the
market already is upon us, real estate experts say,
and it’s not only driven by economics but also by new
opportunities. They cite a few recent examples of non-
traditional firms carving out space in the CRE space:
• Food service vendors Compass and Sodexo are
offering facilities management services.
• Regus, which built its business around supplying
as needed meeting space and services for small
operations, has entered the corporate space.
• Business processing firms like Xchanging and
Wipro are competing against the value proposition
of CRE providers’ full-service offerings.
Additional niche-based nontraditional providers
could alter the landscape, experts said, with end-
users choosing providers who offer specialties that
are of critical importance to their operations. What’s
more, traditional technology or consulting firms
could enter the space with new, broader solutions.
Experts list several possibilities: Cisco, SAP, IBM,
Hewlett-Packard, Accenture, PricewaterhouseCoo-
pers and Ernst & Young.
Staal of Thomson Reuters predicts such new en-
trants would create significantly disruptive change:
“The brokerage side of the business may be im-
pacted uniquely.”
There will be continued consolidation of the service
provider industry with the appearance of stronger,
more viable regional partners and nontraditional
service providers emerging in this space.
Consolidation among traditional service providers
already has transformed the market, and several
experts question how much bigger the largest players
can get. But they do foresee a number of smaller ser-
vice providers consolidating to form an operation large
enough to compete with the service provider giants.
Another possibility, they say, is that smaller providers
will join together to create deal-specific consortiums –
perhaps rich in regional expertise – that put them on a
level playing field in highly complex bids.
John Jordan, who heads the Global Workspace
Association and is President of BusinesSuites, said
consolidation itself may create competitive oppor-
tunities: “Perhaps a smaller boutique firm will find
Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional service provider enter the race.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
35
BOlD StateMent 4
creative ways to address the gaps in the market-
place created by consolidation.”
A View of the Future
• Nontraditional providers will enter the market to
compete outright with mainstream CRE offerings
or to erode the value proposition of specialty
services offered as part of service provider bundles.
• Mid-size and small service providers will combine
to compete against the largest firms.
• Consolidation may open new doors for smaller
providers who can fill resulting gaps in service.
“Consolidation is a natural evolution,” said Chalker of
Morgan Stanley. “It’s the survival-of-the-fittest model.”
FIGURE . | BOlD StateMent 4 Survey reSultS
1%
5%
20%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
58%
16%
Disagree Agree
Consolidation and New Entrants Will Reshape the Corporate Real Estate Marketplace. There will be continued consolidation of the service provider industry with the appearance of stronger, more viable regional partners and nontraditional service providers emerging in this space.
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
36
BOlD StateMent 5
End users are asking service providers to deliver increas-
ingly complex and operationally essential offerings, and
that has increased awareness of how well the service
providers’ employees are prepared to do their jobs.
This is an area of extreme focus, said Maxine Hewer,
Global Category and Supplier Manager for technology
equipment maker Cisco, and it presents challenges
today and tomorrow. Do service providers have the
skilled employees that end users expect? Are they
hiring and training strategically to ensure they will have
the manpower to meet end users’ future needs?
The reality, noted Crumley of MillerCoors, is that real
estate services have melded into domain-oriented
corporate services, and that changes the needs and
expectations. “Yes, [service providers] are doing the real
estate, but they’re also managing the mail room or the
fleet or running the cafeteria,” she said. “There needs to
be some serious employee training and development to
help people expand into these broader responsibilities.”
McCarty of Jones Lang LaSalle says the heightened
needs and expectations have changed the nature of
CRE outsourcing. “It is no longer a default practice
to simply ‘re-badge’ the outsourced team,” he said.
“Service delivery capabilities are now much more
sophisticated – integrated with and dependent on
technology, and that requires more advanced skills
and training.”
Corporations want to know service providers’ human
resources divisions are up to the task, said Stengle of
BB&T. “We want to see what the training looks like,
and we want to make sure that if a service provider
has a particular core function that they are doing it well.
They need to be trained.”
At McKesson, LaDue said he wants to know details
about service providers’ preparedness. “We’re very
interested in understanding how they train and man-
age staff because, essentially, these teams end up
being dedicated to us full time as though they are
our employees,” he said. “We’re definitely interest-
ed in what kind of support they get and how they’re
being continually educated and trained. We want
them growing and not becoming stagnant.”
A View of the Future
The experts interviewed by CoreNet Global see train-
ing as an essential component of any future success-
ful supplier/client partnership. They forecast that:
With corporate real estate executives utilizing their service providers as an incubator/training ground for noncore business, human resources and training capabilities will become a heightened requirement.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
37
BOlD StateMent 5
• End users will require service providers to
contractually ensure adequate human resources/
training capabilities.
• HR and training capabilities will become competitive
differentiators among service providers.
• Recruiting, training and retaining top talent will
become increasingly important for service providers,
heightening the pressures on and requirements for
HR divisions.
• Successful managers and employees frequently
will move back and forth between service providers
and end users and be tasked with training others
for success.
• Service providers’ succession plans will get more
attention internally and externally.
• A talent gap looms unless the industry does more
to recruit young workers and make training both
relevant and required.
Jay Bechtel, Project Executive for Google, said
service providers’ human resources capabilities
will become increasingly critical to end users as
2020 approaches. “As we outsource more to ser-
vice providers, the quality of their people is more
important, and thus, HR and training plays a critical
role,” he added. “Absolutely, the service providers
are an extension of us as they interface directly
with our users.”
“We will see more fluidity of people working for corporations and service providers, and a greater acceptance of the movement between the two. … In the future, the focus will be more about being a professional in the industry.”– Christopher Staal, MCR, Thomson Reuters
FIGURE .5 | BOlD StateMent 5 Survey reSultS
4%11%
30%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
41%
14%
Disagree Agree
Human Resources and Training Will Gain Importance Service providers’ HR and training capabilities will become more essential to clients.
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
38
BOlD StateMent 6
During the recession of the late 2000s, cost cutting
was everyone’s mantra. Now that a slow but steady
economic recovery has taken hold, companies are
beginning to move away from a reactionary focus on
costs and move toward requirements and assess-
ments that are based on quality-oriented metrics,
say most of the real estate experts interviewed by
CoreNet Global.
“[Key performance indicator] contracts are more
prevalent,” said McCarty of Jones Lang LaSalle. In a
related trend, he noted, end users are shifting to the
service providers the responsibility for ensuring that
quality. “The service providers now must manage
performance requirements down through the supply
chain to their suppliers and subcontractors.”
It’s a risk-and-reward structure, he explained, in which
providers get penalized for poor performance by the
companies they hire and rewarded for performance
that exceeds time, cost or performance expectations.
LaDue of McKesson predicts that trend will continue.
“We’re already envisioning something different in the
future that’s much more outcome-based. What was
the value brought at the end of the day? We’re moving
toward less emphasis on how a service provider gets
it done, as long as we get a good outcome,” he said.
“Are they being proactive in how they attack issues,
with different alternatives and creative solutions?
That’s what we should be measuring and reward-
ing them for,” LaDue said. The process an end user
requires the provider to follow is important, he said,
but it is the means to the end, not the measure of
success. The outcome is the end. “If they’re not fol-
lowing the process, they they’re probably not going to
have good outcomes. So you’ll still be able to reward
and penalize around process, but you’re not spending
a lot of time watching and measuring it,” he added.
An interviewee based in Asia-Pacific agreed that a
value-based standard is gaining momentum among cor-
porate real estate executives. But, the interviewee said
that the challenge is how to measure “value.”
“We’re struggling ourselves to measure even what
we deliver internally,” the interviewee noted, despite
access to technology tools and databases theoreti-
cally designed to gauge performance on real estate-
related objectives. “If we can’t get that right, how
are we going to track providers helping us deliver.”
This interviewee would like to see an accurate,
relevant value-tracking system developed for the
industry by 2020 but is not optimistic. “People have
been trying to sell that for 10 years,” continued the
interviewee. “I haven’t seen real success.”
Barry Varcoe, Global Head of Corporate Real Estate
and Facilities Management for Zurich Insurance
Group agrees that it’s a worthy goal, but also fore-
sees problems with tracking something amorphous
like “value” compared to tracking something easily
quantifiable, like cost. “Attempts to measure value
that I have seen included productivity … and reten-
tion,” he said. “Those are tough to prove.”
Real estate executives from financial services firms say
quantitative measures will continue to be an important
Pricing and performance management models will become more value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on purely financial objectives.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
39
BOlD StateMent 6
criterion when compared to qualitative ones in their
industry. “Price is always an issue,” says Chalker of
Morgan Stanley, “but one must take into consideration
the quality of the service as well.”
Kendall Bateman, Senior Vice President of Bank
of America’s West Region, said, “Heavily regulated
industries like banking and financial services have a
tougher time” moving away from quantitative metrics.
A View of the Future
Many real estate experts interviewed by CoreNet
Global say a focus on value is gaining momentum but
warn that challenges with tracking and measuring
value-based metrics hamper change. They predict:
• Organizations will recognize the potential detrimental
impact of cost cutting on productivity, which will
change the conversation from cost containment to
value creation.
• End users will expect service providers to take on
responsibility for ensuring quality measures are met.
• Cost control will move down the list of metrics for
many CRE executives, but it will remain one of the
key measures of success.
• Some business, such as financial services, will stick
to straightforward, quantifiable metrics, even if the
broader real estate industry focuses more on value-
based measures.
Staal of Thomson Reuters proposes that one way to
measure value is to gauge how much service pro-
viders enhance strategic decision-making and the
outcomes of executing that strategy. “If the service
providers play a part in the strategy,” he said, “then
you’re paying for value.”
“CRE and service provider relationships are still adversarial and will need to be more collaborative. … There needs to be better alignment between the goals of the corporation and the goals of the service provider for the industry to move forward.”– Kendall Bateman, Bank of America
FIGURE .6 | BOlD StateMent 6 Survey reSultS
3%
5%
26%
Strongly Disagree
Neutral Strongly Agree
44%
23%
Disagree Agree
Pricing Models Will Become More Value Based
Source: CoreNet Global End User Survey December 2011
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
40
cOncluSiOnS
The Corporate Real Estate 2020 Service Delivery and
Outsourcing team documents the industry’s thinking
about its past, present and future.
Interviews with more than 20 corporate real
estate (CRE) and service provider executives and
results from a survey of global end users indicate
globalization; technology and data-driven business
intelligence; value- and cost-based metrics;
evolving outsourcing models; industry consolidation
and expansion; and access to well-trained and
experienced workers will shape corporate real estate
as we head toward 2020.
To meet evolving business demands, corporations
are employing a variety of outsourcing strategies
and structures – among them best-in-class, bundled
and integrated outsourcing models. For their part,
service providers are striving to meet end users’
increasingly sophisticated and varied demands
while shifting the value proposition from a cost-
based metric to one that measures success using a
broader definition of “value.”
Based on the Service Delivery and Outsourcing
team’s hypotheses about what lies ahead, industry
leaders offered these insights:
• A combination of CRE and procurement will
yield greater discipline and buying power than CRE
possesses on its own, but it also will add
complexity to decision-making.
• Service providers will own the systems that
can manipulate and analyze data coming from
end-users, but most companies will continue to
own and house the data. Service providers’ ability
to offer data-rich business intelligence will be a
competitive differentiator.
• End users will expect service providers to
anticipate global business drivers and emerging
markets, and to set up service offerings before
CRE requests them.
• The CRE sector will be reshaped by continued
consolidation and by nontraditional service
providers entering the market.
• End users will require service providers to put in
place skilled workers who benefit from the
providers’ high-quality human resources and
training capabilities.
• Organizations will begin to shift from cost containment
toward value creation as a contractual metric, but
pricing will remain a key measure of success.
As we move toward 2020, experts say, end users and
service providers must re-envision CRE, putting the
emphasis on services and strategy, rather than space.
Service providers will own the systems that can manipulate and analyze data coming from end users, but most companies will continue to own and house the data. Service providers’ ability to offer data-rich business intelligence will be a competitive differentiator.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
41
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX a:
cOrPOrate real eState 2020teaM leaDerS anD SPOnSOrS
Enterprise LeadershipMark Schleyer, AT&T
Michael Creamer, Cushman & Wakefield
Location Strategy and the Role of PlaceMary Jane Olhasso, MCR, County of San Bernardino
Partnering with Key Support FunctionsCraig Robinson, Cassidy Turley
Portfolio Optimization & Asset ManagementJack Burns, Cresa
Keith Keppler, Cresa
Russ Howell, MBA, Jones Lang LaSalle
Service Delivery & OutsourcingBlake Layda, Jones Lang LaSalle
Scott Bumpas, Cresa
Lisa Huls-Fry, Cassidy Turley
SustainabilityLeigh Stringer, HOK
Technology ToolsLarry Sweeney, AT&T
Robin Ellerthorpe, HOK
WorkplaceAnne Nathe, Johnson Controls, Inc.
Chris Mach, MCR, AT&T
Cindy Beavers, Steelcase Inc.
Margaret Gilchrist Serrato, PhD, MBA, AIA, ASID, LEED AP, Herman Miller
Michael Leone, Regus
Patricia Roberts, Jones Lang LaSalle
Rob Wright, Johnson Controls, Inc.
Russ McFadden, AT&T
Steve Hargis, MCR, LEED AP, HOK
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
42
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX B:
PrOFeSSiOnal leaDerS intervieWeD By tHe Service Delivery anD OutSOurcing teaM
Corporate real estate and workplace leaders who were
interviewed as part of the study Service Delivery and
Outsourcing included:
Bank of AmericaKendall Bateman, MCR, Senior Vice President, West Region
BusinesSuites and Global Workspace AssociationJohn Jordan, President
BB&TKoo Stengle, Strategic Planning Manager
Cisco Systems, Inc. Maxine Hewer, MCR, Global Category and Supplier Manager
Google Jay Bechtel, Real Estate and Construction Project Manager
Ford Motor Land Corp.Donna Inch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Ericsson Ed Buckley, Director, Facilities Management
Infrastructure OntarioToni Rossi, Executive Vice President of Real Estate Management Henry Chow, SVP Asset Management
Jones Lang LaSalleThomas McCarty, Managing Director of Strategic Consulting
Lam ResearchRandall Knox, Senior Director, Worldwide Facilities and Real Estate, formerly with Adobe Systems
McKessonTom LaDue, Senior Director of Real Estate Relationship Management
Morgan Stanley Richard Chalker, Managing Director
Microsoft Bob Kaplan, Director of Global Resources for Microsoft’s Real Estate and Facilities
MillerCoorsPat Crumley, MCR, Director of Real Estate
Standard Chartered BankSimon Wise, Head of Regional Project Management, Southeast Asia
State Street BankBanc Winsor, SVP and Director of Realty Services, State Street Bank
Thomson ReutersChristopher Staal, MCR, Global Head of Real Estate and Facilities Management
The Travelers Companies, Inc.Jim Scannell, SVP Administrative Services
Time WarnerWayne Taub, Vice President of Real Estate
Zurich Insurance GroupBarry Varcoe, Global Head of Corporate Real Estate & Facilities Management
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
43
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX c:
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcingintervieW guiDe
The purpose of this document is to assist the
research teams in setting up the interview
by providing consistent information on the
background of the project, research areas,
purpose of the interview, timeline, deliverables
and expectations. Some of the people being
interviewed may be very familiar with the
project, while others may not. Reviewing this
information prior to the formal interview can
help to insure that all interviews are conducted
in a consistent manner and the people being
interviewed have a clear understanding of the
overall project and their role in the process.
Background
CoreNet Global is the world’s leading association
for corporate real estate (CRE) and workplace
professionals, service providers and economic
developers. Nearly 7,000 members, who include
70% of the Fortune 100 and nearly half of the
Forbes Global 2000, meet locally, globally and
virtually to develop networks, share knowledge,
learn and thrive professionally.
Program Description
• Corporate Real Estate 2020 is a research and
leadership development program designed
and managed by CoreNet Global to address
the business environment in the future and to
collect, package and distribute state-of-the-art
best practices, tools, models and case studies
to help our members prepare to meet future
business needs.
• To achieve this objective, we are interviewing a
number of senior industry leaders to validate a
new vision for the industry and develop a series
of transition strategies to assist corporate real
estate organizations in transforming themselves
to meet the challenges ahead as the economy
changes and new business models evolve.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
44
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX c:
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcingintervieW guiDe
Research Areas
We have also developed a number of key Research
Areas to assist our members in migrating from their
current real estate practices to the new skills and
strategies needed to survive and grow in the years
ahead. These include strategies for the following areas:
Research Process
There are numerous steps in the overall research
process including the development of a research
premise, goal and hypotheses for each of the above
research areas – which are, in turn, validated through
one-on-one interviews with industry leaders and
experts, industry surveys and other techniques.
Deliverables
Deliverables from this project will include research
reports; web-based white papers; learning seminars;
workshops and panels at Summits; material and
speakers for chapter programs; articles in LEADER
Magazine and industry and business press; and
topics and speakers for other learning events.
Timeline
Corporate Real Estate 2020 was officially launched
in August 2011 in Dallas. Since then the teams
have been refining their research hypotheses and
synthesizing input from members obtained at the
Paris and Atlanta Global Summits. Our goal is to
complete the interview process by the end of January.
Research teams will make their final presentations
at the CoreNet Global Summit in San Diego in April
2012, with final research reports due in May.
Intellectual Property
Before we begin, I also want to explain the
intellectual Property Guidelines for Corporate Real
Estate 2020.
Please do not share any confidential or proprietary
information with any member of the research team.
If we use any specific information or materials from
this interview that refer to you or your Company,
we will offer you the opportunity to review that
information prior to publication.
eigHt reSearcH areaS
EnterpriseLeadership
Service Delivery & Outsourcing
SustainabilityLocation Strategy & the Role of Place
Technology Tools
Partnering with Key Support Functions
WorkplacePortfolio Optimization & Asset Management
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
45
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX c:
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcingintervieW guiDe
Background Information
Note: Interviewers are encouraged to review the Annual Report and 10K form for the firm prior to the interview.
1. What is the primary industry classification for your organization? (check one)
Energy
Engineering / construction
Financial Services / Insurance
Food / Beverage
Healthcare
Heavy Manufacturing
High Tech Manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Retail / Wholesale
Telecom
Transportation
Other (please specify)
____________________________________________
Purpose of the Interview
The purpose of this interview is to capture your
knowledge and thoughts on Service Delivery and
Outsourcing in the year 2020.
Do you have any questions before we get started?
Interview length approximately 1 hour
Validate the correct spelling of your name and
official title:
Name:
Title:
Company:
Date of Interview:
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
46
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX c:
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcingintervieW guiDe
2. What was the annual revenue for your firm last year? Please specify ________ or check one of the following:
Less than $1 Billion
Equal to or more than $1 Billion but less than $5 Billion
Equal to or more than $5 Billion but less than $10 Billion
Equal to or more than $10 Billion but less than $25 Billion
Equal to or more than $25 Billion
3. In how many countries do you operate? Please specify ________ or check one of the following:
The US only
The US and less than 5 countries
Equal to or more than 5 but less than 25
Equal to or more than 25 but less than 100
Equal to or more than 100
4. What is the approximate number of employees in your firm?
Please specify ___________ or check one of the following:
Less than 5,000
Equal to or more than 5,000 but less than 10,000
Equal to or more than 10,000 but less than 25,000
Equal to or more than 25,000 but less than 100,000
Equal to or more than 100,000
5. What is the approximate size of your company’s portfolio in square feet (or square meters)? __________ .
For which of these is the CRE group responsible?
% of Assets Location of Assets
_______ % Office
_______ % Retail
_______ % Laboratory
_______ % Manufacturing
_______ % Warehouse
_______ % Call Center
_______ % Fleet Facilities
_______ % Other
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
47
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX c:
Service Delivery anD OutSOurcingintervieW guiDe
Research Questions
Context on your business and the Corporate Real Estate (CRE) group
1. What business strategies or strategic initiatives are currently being deployed by the company’s core
business to improve its competitive position (e.g. cost reduction, market share, M&A, etc.)?
2. Describe how your CRE group is organized, and how it reports up into the corporate organization.
3. Describe your current model for Service Delivery / Outsourcing.
Research Hypotheses developed by the Service Delivery and Outsourcing team
Please respond to each of the following research hypotheses regarding Service Delivery and Outsourcing in
2020. Do you agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts?
1. Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more integrated with procurement and therefore
more sophisticated and complex.
2. Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as it becomes more widespread as a means
of delivering CRE strategy.
3. Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms internationally.
4. Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers and we expect to
see a non-traditional service provider enter the race
5. With CRE utilizing their service providers as an incubator / training ground for non-core business; HR and
training capabilities will become a heightened requirement.
6. Pricing and performance management models will become more value based (more strategic and
proactive) while less focused on purely financial objectives.
Final Questions
1. How do you see your current outsourcing model changing by the year 2020?
2. What other thoughts do you have about successful Service Delivery and Outsourcing practices in the year 2020?
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
48
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX D:
reSPOnSe tO tHe 2020 Service Delivery anD OutSOurcing BOlD StateMentS
The Service Delivery and Outsourcing team tested six Bold Statements, or research hypotheses, through interviews with senior executives, Summit education sessions and the results of the Corporate Real Estate 2020 End-user Survey. A summary of results to the specific hypotheses is provided below:
1. Real Estate business objectives and goals will become more integrated with Procurement and, therefore, more sophisticated and complex.
Finding: Seventy-two percent of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The
role of Procurement is becoming more aligned with
real estate. Study participants noted that real estate
RFP’s need to encompass wider goals and objectives
and move from a commodities-driven, cost-centric
approach to one that drives total value.
2. Vendors will become responsible for data access and usage as it becomes more widespread as a means of delivering CRE strategy.
Finding: Seventy percent of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Data
access and usage will be essential to both making
real estate-related decisions and to the services that
end users expect service providers to offer. This will
drive a more interdependent relationship between
CRE and IT.
3. Clientele will drive service providers to grow their platforms internationally.
Finding: Seventy-six percent of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Service
providers will need to take the lead and anticipate the
business need for global service delivery capabilities.
Local integration of the service provider platform will
become increasingly more important.
4. Due to economic pressures, there will be continued consolidation of service providers, and we expect to see a nontraditional service provider enter the race.
Finding: Seventy-four percent of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Senior
leaders interviewed noted the recent consolidation of
service providers and expect this trend to continue,
especially among smaller service providers and
those with regional expertise.
5. With CRE utilizing their service providers as an incubator/training ground for noncore business, human resources and training capabilities will become a heightened requirement.
Finding: A slight majority, 55% of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. End-
users will require service providers to contractually
ensure adequate human resources/training capabilities,
and HR and training capabilities will become
competitive differentiators among service providers.
6. Pricing and performance management models will become more value-based (more strategic and proactive), while less focused on purely financial objectives.
Finding: Sixty-seven percent of survey respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The
focus on value is gaining momentum but there are
challenges with tracking and measuring value-based
metrics. Cost control will move down the list of
metrics for many CREs, but it will remain one of the
key measures of success.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
49
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX e:
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 Service Delivery anD OutSOurcing teaM ParticiPantS
Francisco Acoba, MCR, SLCR, Senior Manager, CRE Transformation, Deloitte Consulting LLP
Jeremy Amin, RPA, Regional Head of Business Services, Macquarie Group
Jay Bechtel, Real Estate & Construction Project Manager, Google
Jessica Beers, MCR, Senior Director, UGL Services
Douglas Beers, MCR, Director, Supplier Governance, Johnson & Johnson
Linda Breymeyer, Director Business Operations, Verizon Communications Inc.
Ann Brown, Sr. Director, Global Real Estate, Medtronic, Inc.
Edwin Buckley, SLCR, Director, Facilities Management, Ericsson Inc.
Scott Bumpas, Executive Managing Director, Corporate Services, Cresa
Joseph Candella, Director, Senior Project Manager, Vanguard Construction & Development
Steven Chon, MSc, Associate Director, Global Corporate Services, CBRE
Michael Christian, Regional Vice President CRE, The Travelers Companies, Inc.
Frank Cuevas, MCR, RE & WP Portfolio Leader-Field Ops, Deloitte Services LP
Alexander Darragh, Senior Managing Director, CBRE
William Early, SIOR, CCIM, MBA, Senior Vice President, Copaken Brooks
Karen Ellzey, Executive Managing Director, CBRE
David Endelman, Managing Director, Studley
Hunter Fleshood, LEEDAP, Corporate Real Estate, Retail Facilities Management, Capital One
Brandon Forde, Executive Vice President, Strategic Portfolio Solutions, Studley
Kim Fuchs, B.A., MBA, LEEDAP, Operations Director, Cushman & Wakefield
Jamie Harvey, National Business Development, Lead Move Management, Jones Lang LaSalle
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
50
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX e:
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 Service Delivery anD OutSOurcing teaM ParticiPantS
Connie Hughes,CCIM, CPM, Senior Managing Director, Principal, Cassidy Turley
Lisa Huls-Fry, Executive Managing Director, Cassidy Turley
Anthony Korvessis, CCIM, MCR, Regional Real Estate Manager – NA, Procter & Gamble Co.
Ashok Kumar, Principal & Managing Director, Cresa India
Blake Layda, Executive Director, Jones Lang LaSalle
John Leddy, Senior Vice President, Jones Lang LaSalle
Robby Lowe, Director of Business Development, Balfour Beatty Construction
Kurt Ochalla, MBA, MCR, C.Eng., Director, Real Estate Services, Expense Management Solutions
Sherri Parman, CPA, MBA, Partner, Capstan Advisors
Elizabeth Parry, MCR, Real Estate Manager, Cisco Systems
Robert Reilly, Senior Vice President, Fidelity Investments (HQ)
Kenneth Rudy, Managing Director, Jones Lang LaSalle
Al Stabile, Managing Director, Studley Gravitas Real Estate Solutions
Sheena Stone, Business Development Manager, Studley
Greg Trujillo, PMP, Project Manager, Operations, Turner Construction Company
Yannick Villar, M.Sc, Business Development Director, Sodexo
Kent Wiegel, MCR, Managing Partner, Capstan Advisors
Michael Wolff, PE, President, Project Solutions Group, Inc.
Ronald Zappile, MBA, Principal, The Zappile Group, LLC
James Boyle, Chairman & CEO, Sustainability Roundtable Inc.
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 2020 FINAL REPORT: SERvICE dELIvERy ANd OuTSOuRCINg
51
cOrPOrate real eState 2020 | ParticiPating cOMPanieSaPPenDiX F:
cOrPOrate real eState 2020ParticiPating cOMPanieS
AccentureadidasAdobeADPAedasAir New ZealandAllsteelAltisourceAmerican AirlinesAmerican ExpressAmerican Medical SystemsANZAssociated British FoodsAstraZenecaAT&TAtmos EnergyBank of AmericaBank of New ZealandBASFBB&TBMC SoftwareBoston ScientificBrenau UniversityBusinesSuitesCarnegie Mellon UniversityCASP-RCBRECBSChevronCienaCiscoCitigroupCoca-Cola RefreshmentsColonial First StateCornell UniversityCorporate Portfolio AnalyticsDEGWDelft University of TechnologyDeutsche BankDow ChemicaleBayEli LillyEMCEquifaxEricssonErnst & YoungFidelity InvestmentsFischer & CompanyFord LandFuture of Work…unlimitedGenentechGenslerGeorgia Institute of Technology, School of Building Construction
Global Workspace AssociationGoogleHarvard Business SchoolHaworthHewlett-PackardHilton Hotels and ResortsHindustan Unilever LimitedHOKHoneywellIA Interior ArchitectsIMC OctaveInfineraInfrastructure OntarioING BankIntelInterfaceinVentiv HealthiOpener InstituteIron MountainJacobs EngineeringJDS Uniphase CorporationJohn DeereJohnson & JohnsonJohnson ControlsJones Lang LaSalleKraft Foods Lance Capital LLCLiberty Mutual GroupLockheed MartinMarsh & McLennan CompaniesMartin Prosperity Institute, University of TorontoMary Kay Inc.Massachusetts Institute of Technology McCarthy Consulting GroupMcKessonMetLifeMichelin MicrosoftMicrosoft IndiaMillerCoorsMorgan StanleyNetAppNokiaNokia Siemens NetworksNorthern Trust Novellus NVIDIAOraclePacific Gas & Electric Pan-European HR Network Parsons PfizerPhilips International
PolycomProcter & GamblePrudential FinancialRaytheon Red HatRegusRoyal Dutch Shell plc.Salesforce.comSAPShell Oil CompanySiemens AGSiemens Building TechnologiesSony ElectronicsSouthern California EdisonSprint NextelStandard Chartered BankStaplesSteelcaseSybaseTargetTD Bank GroupTeknionTelstraTenet HealthcareTexas InstrumentsThe HartfordThe Occupiers’ Journal LimitedThe Sage GroupThomson ReutersTIGNUMTime WarnerTimkenT-MobileTravelersU.S. General Services AdministrationUnileverUnilever UKUnitedHealth GroupUniversity at Buffalo SUNYUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Texas at AustinVerintVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityVirtual PremiseVisaVodafone Vodafone NZWestpacYahoo!Zurich Insurance Group
eigHt reSearcH teaMS
Enterprise Leadership Service Delivery & Outsourcing
SustainabilityLocation Strategy & the Role of Place
Technology ToolsPartnering with Key Support Functions
WorkplacePortfolio Optimization & Asset Management
CoreNet Global Georgia-Pacific Center
133 Peachtree Street, Suite 3000Atlanta, GA 30303 US