Facilities Management

Dr. Roberto Garrone

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Market for Facilities Management

1.2. Relevant Law

2. THE USE OF KPIs IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

2.1. Strategic Performance Measurement

2.2. Life Cycle Analysis

2.3. Benchmarking

2.4. Key Performance Indicators

2.5. Risk Management

3. CATEGORIZATION OF KPIs

3.1. Holistic Indicators

3.2. Construction and Renovation

3.3. Maintenance

4. CASE STUDY: STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS

4.1. Industry Analysis

4.2. Performance Measurement System and Balanced Scorecard

4.3. Marketing Variables

5. CONCLUSIONS

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

1. INTRODUCTION

Historically, total quality management and lean production programs seek to assess and improve quality to increase customer satisfaction, reduce costs and create competitive advantage. Such continuous improvement requires to assess the performance of processes and facilities in order to utilize the appropriate tools and to create the right policies (Stanley and Wisner, 2003). Clearly property may have different weight among industries, but the need for continuous improvement in all the critical areas of business is reflected from the corporate strategy into the management of the facilities instrumentally used to achieve business objectives and excellence (Amaratunga, Baldry and Sarshar, 2000b; Cable and Davis, 2004).

Drickhamer (2004) reported common points of effective measurements: such measures

• are linked to the strategy of the firm

• are relative to what customers care about

• have due regard for quality, cost, timing and volume

• are concerned with the way things are done

• should be many but not too much, as well as all linked to firm’s goals

In the following FM is shortly characterized, then the PMS, the different types of KPIs, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as their usefulness in the facilities management context are discussed in order to underline FM contribution in realizing corporate strategies and objectives.

1.1 The Market for Facilities Management

The potential market in the UK may be segmented by type of contract, see diagram 1:

Segmentation may occur for Total Facilities Management and Contracted Out FM, as shown into table 1 revenues from PFI rise instead cleaning and landscaping sectors decline.

3

1.2 Law and Facilities Management

The main issues are represented into diagram 2. Large part of the market is shaped by the public sector, as well as demand is influenced by government legislation, policy and initiative.

As reported by Mintel (2014): ‘in the late 1980s, the introduction of Compulsive Competitive Tendering (CCT), followed by the revised ‘Best Value’ scheme, encouraged outsourcing. More recently, the prevalence of PFI and PPP in the past two decades has increased the role of facilities management companies, alongside trends in the construction sector, such as increasing use of Build, Own and Operate (BOO) contracts. The creation of the Crown Commercial Service is the most recent change to affect the market, increasing central government purchasing power’.

2. THE USE OF KPIs IN FACILITES MANAGEMENT

Within FM, five core themes can be identified:

• facility planning and management • building operation and maintenance • real estate and finance • human and environmental factors • risk evaluation

Building operation and maintenance often includes performance measurement and benchmarking (Quah, 1992; Barrett, 1995), but KPIs have been used in all the core themes. The holistic approach relates such themes to the wider impact of effective FM on the firm’s processes and goals.

2.1.Strategic Performance Measurement

Amaratunga, Baldry and Sarshar (2000b) recognized PM as essential to achieve effective decision-making. Varcoe (1993) underlined the requirement for specialized systems to control the performance of facilities that on average account for 20% of financial resources and that directly enable and impact business operations. Varcoe (1993) and Amaratunga, Baldry and Sarshar (2000b) suggested that the evaluation of such systems and the required course of action should have due regard for the overall performance and strategy of the business. Bon, McMahan and Carder (1998) argued such evaluation blending the dimensions of real estate with that of finance and human resources, and driven by corporate processes and feedback instead of functions and transactions. Lindholm and Nenonen (2006) proposed seven possible real estate strategies on the assumption that corporate strategy could be revenue growth or profitability growth:

• increased value of assets • promote marketing and sales

4

• increase innovations • increase employee satisfaction • increase productivity • increase flexibility • reduce costs

The link among the strategic approach, the customer, the methods and the wider meaning of the measurement has been further investigated in the FM context. Meng and Minogue (2011) comparative study reported Key Performance Indicators, Balanced Scorecard and Business Excellence Model as the most adopted PMSs within FM organizations. Amaratunga and Baldry (2000c) analyzed the outcomes of applying the BSC approach on higher education settings, evidencing a bias towards the financial perspective. As reported by Mussatche and Languell (2001) initial cost reductions lead often to higher costs during the life cycle of establishments as well as lower users satisfaction. In road infrastructure, Tyrogianni, Alkias, Politou and Kotzampassi (2012) evidenced how redefining service level targets to match cost reduction and customer feedback provided forecasting assistance and monitoring capabilities, as well as resulted into higher firm’s performances. Similarly in the community healthcare subsector, Featherstone and Baldry (2000) argued the requirements of all user groups need to be taken in account in order to integrate the FM function at the strategic level, recognizing the added value to organizational operations. The specialized function of the Community Help Trust substantially increased service level with effective facilities and user satisfaction management (Amaratunga and Baldry, 2002).

2.2.Life Cycle Analysis

Various attempts tried to condense into a single economic figure initial and operating cost of a building. Life-Cycle Costing and Life-Cycle Assessment techniques profile cost and environmental performance respectively, and may be used to evaluate alternatives in construction and renovation contexts. Although seldom used, the two tools indirectly impact the industry through codes and standards. In practice, capital costs are instead used when comparing alternatives, and incurred costs are informally assimilated as part of the decision making process (Cole and Sterner, 2000). Meinrenken, Sauerhaft, Garvan and Lackner (2014) highlighted the opportunity to gain insights into the value chain from the facility level as well as from the product level. The extensive use of LCA produced a set of KPIs that are

• directly related to operational and financial metrics • updated from the inventory cycle of the firm and thus monitored continuously • grouped by brand, and thus easily fitted into existing firm structures and functions

When historical data are unavailable, LCO has been successfully used to forecast long term costs of FM services for acute care buildings through stochastic modelling and KPIs. The approach related the physical characteristics of hospital buildings with FM costs, allowing to structure and model data from trust level to single building level recognizing acute care as a context where information about the specialization of work processes is determinant (Kirkham and Boussabaine, 2000; Kirkham, Boussabaine, Belal and Awwad, 2002). Lavy (2011) reported about the complexity of the selection process for a set of KPIs in order to sustain the relationship between customer and provider of services. Such process depends upon the type of users as well as the public or private nature of the organization and its facilities, favouring maximization of quality and excellence instead of profit.

Kaya and Alexander (2005) evidenced the classification of FM by host organization as a limiting factor to performance improvements and decision making processes, since such classification assumes HOs to behave similarly when competing. In fact, as pointed out by Mintel (2014), a number of firms operating in the sector originated as M&E and technical services contractors before developing facilities management services as a diversification strategy, including Emcor Group and Planned Maintenance Engineering. From organizational management studies Kaya and Alexander derived six characteristics for grouping businesses:

5

• Chain of command (hierarchy) • Specialization’s degree of work processes • Career’s routes/paths availability • Geographical dispersion • Reporting line • Size, relative to HO

The research found three main patterns, with healthcare forming a group by itself; the remaining two groups, instead, were differentiated by management type, decision making process, specialization and willingness to outsource FM processes.

2.3.Benchmarking

Camp (1989) and Tucker and Pitt (2008) suggested the importance of Benchmarking in introducing elements of innovation using cross industry shared knowledge and best practices; Tucker and Pitt developed a dedicated Customer Satisfaction PM. But, as pointed out by Massheder and Finch (2005), benchmarking is often applied solely for the comparison of measures to historical series.

2.4.Key Performance Indicators

Various categorizations emerged as a factual aid for KPIs selection process, although different in the approach taken, on the common ground that KPIs served their purpose differently in the general management context (Amaratunga, Baldry and Sarshar, 2000b; Amaratunga and Baldry, 2003; Cable and Davis, 2004; Lavy, 2011). The relationship among KPIs and the causes behind the performance has been widely considered. The findings of Rodriguez, Saiz and Bas (2009) attempt to quantify such relationship, although not in the FM context. Lavy, Garcia, Scinto and Dixit (2014) proposed simulation technique in order to further investigate the relations among categories as well as to provide FM managers a tool to improve decision-making to effectively align with firm goals. Haynes (2012) proposed a framework to model such alignment highlighting property as an organizational asset and not just a liability. Khanna, Van der Voordt and Kopples (2013) evidenced the communication impact on brand values when property is managed in such way.

In large public developments, Toor and Ogunlana (2010) highlighted a trend towards more qualitative performance measurements (like safety, efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction of stakeholders, reduced disputes and conflicts). Accordingly to these findings, the mix of measurements proposed by Van Truong, Soo-Yong and Tuan-Anh (2008) to apply benchmarking techniques to the evaluation of contractors for large residential developments in emerging markets includes qualitative aspects. Instead, Javed, Lam and Zou (2013) argued the findings struggle to apply to Australian large economic and social infrastructure Public Private Partnerships since the number, complexity and subjectivity of the KPIs to track become factually unmanageable and prone to ambiguous interpretations of the output specifications. In the construction industry, Ugwu and Haupt (2007) defined a sustainability envelope of six dimensions: economy, environment, society, resource utilization, and project management. In design and build projects, the relation among KPIs and such dimensions qualifies sustainable infrastructure in three main directions: training of stakeholders, institutional transformation initiatives and efficient decision-making.

2.5.Risk Management

Readability of documents, like technical sheets, is often a crucial issue for multinational firms where the spectrum of cultures, languages and technical backgrounds is wide. Lindhout, Kingston-Hawlett and Ale (2010) evidenced the same issue for safety documents. Airport safety and security services require qualitative KPIs to effectively manage FM services in contexts like destructive or criminal behaviour, evacuation in emergency and breach of security (Enoma and Allen, 2007).

6

3. CATEGORIZATION OF KPIs.

The categorization process of KPIs balances the requirement for broader applicability and potential use with the effectiveness of the decision making process to achieve the proposed outcomes in the selected industry.

3.1.Holistic Indicators

Amaratunga and Baldry (2003) categorize KPIs according to four basic principles: customer relations, FM internal processes, learning and growth, financial implications. Similarly, Lavy, Garcia, Scinto and Dixit (2014b) grouped industry used KPIs into

• Financial indicators, express costs and expenditure of establishments as systems and provide a holistic appraisal of financial performance in terms of currency expended per unit area, person, or output/product

• Functional indicators, relate business mission, space, employees and support facilities to the functioning performance of the buildings in terms of adequacy and productivity

• Physical indicators, qualitative and quantitative measures that represent the actual state of a building with respect to its function, quality of space, accessibility and resource consumption

• User satisfaction indicators, qualitative/survey based measures that represent expectations and goals

Table 2: Categorization of KPIs. Holistic approach. Source: Lavy, Garcia, Scinto and Dixit (2014b).

Gumbus (2005), instead, organized performance measures into the four perspectives of the BSC.

3.2.Maintenance

Shohet and Lavy (2004) proposed a method for maintenance performance evaluation (relating to hospital facilities) that combines four primary KPIs:

• building performance indicator (BPI) • maintenance service provisions • maintenance efficiency indicator (MEI) • organizational effectiveness

Financial Functional Productivity User Satisfaction

Operating costs Occupancy costs Utility costs Capital costs Building maintenance cost Grounds-keeping cost Custodial and janitorial cost Current replacement value (CRV) Deferred maintenance Capital renewal Maintenance efficiency indicators (MEI) Churn rate and churn costs Facility condition index (FCI)

Building physical condition (Qualitative and Quantitative) Building performance index (BPI) Resource consumption – energy; water; materials Property and real estate Waste Health and safety Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) Accessibility for disabled Security Site and location

Parking Space utilization Employee or occupant’s turnover rate Mission and vision, and Mission dependency index (MDI) Adequacy of space

Customer/building occupants’ satisfaction with products or services Community satisfaction and participation Learning environment, educational suitability, and appropriateness of facility for its function Appearance

7

as well as a slightly more qualitative version:

• building performance indicator (BPI) • manpower sources diagram (MSD), in-house vs outsourcing • maintenance efficiency indicator (MEI) • managerial span of control (MSC)

Tyrogianni, Halkias, Politou and Kotzampassi (2012) presented the system successfully used for toll-way operations:

• response time to incidents

• closed lanes due to maintenance

• hours of queue

• electronic toll collection penetration

In industrial plants, Naughton and Tiernan (2012) developed a nine step individualised maintenance framework that enforced the role of stakeholder and corporate knowledge for maintenance processes. In diagram 3, the value tree of KPI and MPI for a glass processing facility is shown.

3.3.Construction and Renovation

Adams, Watkins and White (2005) estimated the impact of planning on Commercial markets with a functional approach resembling KPIs. In the model, planning permissions will increase with increasing planning applications and favourable regime. The number of requests will rise with developer demand that in turn will rise with increasing rents and decreasing costs (Bramley 1998; RICS 1994; Antwi and Henneberry, 1995).

8

Ugwu and Haupt (2007) six dimensions of sustainability envelope:

Table 3: Dimensions of sustainability envelope 1. Source: Ugwu and Haupt (2007).

Economy Environment Society

Initial cost Life cycle cost Resettling cost of people Rehabilitating cost of ecosystem Adverse impact on tourism values Employment of labour

Extent of land acquisition Extent of tree felling Extent of loss of habitat or feeding grounds Connectivity with hinterland Impact Water reuse Impact Air outlet design Ventilation design—during construction Ventilation design—service stage Design flexibility towards noise reduction measures View from assessor on visual impact Harmony with surrounding Waste management: solid construction material; solid dredged/excavated material; toxic liquid waste; non-toxic liquid waste

Extent of encroachment upon concerned areas Footprint of project in archaeological site Complaints from local parties/villages Extent of diversion Extent of blockage Extent of congestion View from local authorities

P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t / Administration

Resource Utilization Health and Safety

Type of contract Inclusion of sustainability related clauses in project specification Project duration Project complexity Amount of paperwork Approach/criterion towards contractors Approach/criterion towards suppliers Choice of delivery systems e.g. design-build

Routes for waste disposal Routes for construction traffic Site access: availability of construction material Local materials Prefabricated material Innovative material Early contractors’ involvement Early suppliers’ involvement Reusability of moulds, formwork etc Scrap value after decommissioning Ease of quality control

Short-term health (e.g. spread of diseases, cleanliness of site etc.) Long-term health (e.g. respiratory duct disease, permanent deafness etc.) Accidents, injuries, fatalities etc Management systems (e.g. policy, program etc) Public health Public safety

9Table 4: Dimensions of sustainability envelope 2. Source: Ugwu and Haupt (2007).

Moussatche and Languell (2001) used Life Cycle Costs to evaluate the best flooring option for education facilities. In table 5 it is shown how they linked processes and physical characteristics of materials.

To model the available choices represented below, the authors acquired documents from operations and accounting departments, as well from technical sheets.

10

4. CASE STUDY: STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS

The industry analysis and balance scorecard of Starwood Properties and Resorts are briefly commented in order to show the tight integration between FM and strategic management. A simple PMS composed of few KPIs is illustrated to highlight concepts and principles presented in the previous sections.

4.1.Industry Analysis

In the slides below, the forces influencing the luxury hotel industry are reported following Pestel’s and Porter’s approaches; the main factors are highlighted in bold.

11

4.2.Performance Measurement System and Balanced Scorecard

Lai and Choi (2015) used analytic hierarchy process to develop a PMS in teaching hotels, realizing that education support was the most important KPI followed by facilities performance and financial indicators. Generally, in the hotel industry, Haktanir and Harris (2005) measured six aspects:

• business dynamics

• overall performance

• employee performance

• customer satisfaction

• financial performance

• innovative activity

Both perspectives highlight the requirement to be aligned with business mission and goals, as well to measure to ensure that processes and activities match customer and corporate expectations in order to achieve such holistic approach to FM.

The strategic stance taken by Starwood require a continuous process of improvement having as dimensions locations, designs, experiences, emotions, lifestyles. The main processes involved are traversal to the corporate functions and represented by squares. Example of activities created by such processes are listed near the squares.

The thousands of facilities managed include owned and licensed properties, Starwood is moving into the direction of outsourcing to accomplish its objective to manage relations and not hotels. Rahim, Refsdal and Kenett (2010) highlighted that vision, values and commitment are necessary to create and sustain a culture where customer expectations and company objectives can be met. Their model for asset integrity management (5C) is aimed at extending the life of corporate assets beyond original specifications. Starwood approach to new hotel concept and format exemplify the state of the art of such asset integrity management. In fact, renovation of old structures to meet customer desires require effective measurement to accomplish such task with tight financial constraints.

12

Corporate resources and capabilities are required to create and manage the activities and the main processes; in the case in object corporate culture plays a fundamental role. The Balanced Scorecard reproduced below reports the dimensions to measure the corporate functions involved in managing and assessing the processes, activities and dimensions represented above.

The financial indicators highlighted in the BSC (RevPAR, RevPOR, occupancy and ADR) refer to the same underlying components that are object of maintenance performance measurements. Lai and Yik (2012) observed that electrical installations of guestrooms constituted a wide part of expense in all work trades (air-conditioning, electrical, plumbing and drainage), significantly correlating with rooms downtime. Sourouklisa and Tsagdisb (2013) evidenced the impact of workforce diversity on hotel performance in internal-KPIs like measures of commitment, productivity, staff turnover, and satisfaction. Staffing initiatives, and especially recruitment policies, have the widest positive effects (both qualitative and quantitative). Starwood corporate culture and values blend meritocracy and leadership with the aim to reward the workforce every time corporate goals and expectations are met.

4.3.Marketing Variables and Corporate Responsibility

Starwood marketing approach is developed around the customer and blended with brand image management and development. In each geographical market, such variables and corporate objectives may adjust. In the Macao hotel industry environmental matters are characterized by low customer demand, poor knowledge and lack of governmental regulations and practices (Penny, 2007). Zadek (2004) argued firms need to pass into different phases before developing the kind of corporate responsibility required to defeat the financial aspects and impacts of responsible policies and expenses. Clearly, the luxury hotel industry is at the latent stage and environmental management is not recognized as a driver to increase performance and competitive advantage. Starwood’s new hotel concept development process may encounter environmental marketing variables when matching financial constraints. Xu, Chan and Qian (2012) evidenced building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) benefits consist in reducing energy consumption, encouraging environmental protection, rationalising the use of resources and contributing to the sustainability of existing buildings.

13

5. CONCLUSIONS

The previous discussion highlighted FM as characterized by

• shaping force of law and government, affecting labour regulations, fiscal aspects, trends and demand

• operational impact on strategic objectives. Although the FM function is recognized, the degree and extent may vary depending on the peculiarities of the industry

and in respect to these two aspects, KPIs in FM effectively permit to achieve objectives like

• safeguarding public values in liberalized sectors with measurement of the effectiveness of government policies (for example sustainability indexes)

• increasing firm’s performance with the improvement of corporate image and brand, the reduction of costs, the increase of employee satisfaction and labour productivity

provided that indicators reflect the correct measurement to support the correct evaluation and correspondent action. Selection and application of KPIs it is not one size fits all procedure since easier selection and broader applicability may reduce the effectiveness of the decision making process, critical factors are

• entity culture and acceptance of the measurement and its interpretation • willingness to adopt and integrate lessons learnt into workflows and practice • degree of specialization for the work processes measured • host organization characteristics

Therefore, KPIs value and efficacy increase with the level of experience and knowledge required to design and monitor indicators. Such complex procedure combines into measurements different dimensions of processes, resources and capabilities. Interpretation of KPIs should require the same care, as well as performance measurement systems should model and enforce the purpose for the measurement in order to abstract the correct information to support the management.

Symmetrically, usefulness limits of KPIs in FM lay close to

• strategic relevance of change for services and assets, long running or long lasting facilities do not need to be assessed often

• requirement for performance versus costs, sometimes less expensive is really enough • measurement cannot substitute human judgement in completeness and accuracy,

although it may simulate or approximate well it could not always be a feasible answer

The requirement for a deep understanding of the scope, outcomes and limits of the technique of measurement is specially relevant for qualitative KPIs, main issues are

• readability of specifications and measurements • stakeholder learning to the specific issues and consequences • acknowledgement and understanding of the causal relation among KPIs, context and

time frame • agreement on the required actions and desired objectives

In conclusion, performance measurement systems like KPIs provide effective solutions to many of the issues of strategic FM. Substantially, individualised or customized systems grant the best results because FMO processes are progressively more integrated into the core operations of firms, as well as because FMO often originated as technical contractors that diversified into FM.

14

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D., Watkins, C., White, M. (2005). Planning, Public Policy & Property Market, Blackwell.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., (2003), A conceptual framework to measure facilities management performance, Property Management, 21(2), 171-189.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., (2000a), Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties, Facilities, 18(7/8), 293-301.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., (2000b), Assessment of facilities management performance – what next?, Facilities, 18(1/2), 66-75.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., (2002),Moving from performance measurement to performance management, Facilities, 20(5/6), 217-223.

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., (2000c), Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties, Facilities, 18 (7/8), pp. 293-301.

Antwi, A., Henneberry J., (1995), Developers, non-linearity and asymmetry in the development cycle, Journal of Property Research, 12, 217-239.

Bon, R., McMahan, J., F., Carder, P., (1998), Property performance measurement: from theory to management practice, Facilities, 16(7/8), 208-214.

Bramley, G., (1998), Measuring Planning: indicators of planning restraint and its impact on housing land supply, Environment and Planning, 25(1), 31-57.

Cable, J.H., and Davis, J.S. (2004), Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios, Federal Facilities Council Technical Report 147, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Camp, R.C., (1989), Benchmarking – The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, ASQC Quality Press, New York, NY.

Cole, R., J., Sterner, E., (2000), Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle costing, Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 368-375.

Daragh, M., Tiernan, N., P., (2012), Individualising maintenance management: a proposed framework and case study, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 18(3), 267-281.

Drickhamer, D., (2004), Don’t Fool Yourself with Metrics, Industry Week, 253(10), 85

Enoma, A., Allen, S., (2007), Developing key performance indicators for airport safety and security, Facilities, 25(7/8), 296-315.

Featherstone, P., Baldry, D., (2000), The value of the facilities management function in the UK NHS community health-care sector, Facilities, 18(7/8), 302 311.

Gumbus, A. (2005), Introducing the balanced scorecard: creating metrics to measure performance, Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 617-30.

Haktanir, M., Harris, P., (2005), Performance measurement practice in an independent hotel context: A case study approach, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1), 39–50. Haynes, B., P., (2012), Corporate real estate asset management: aligned vision, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 14(4), 244 254.

Javed, A.A., Lam, P.T.I., Zou, P. X.W., (2013), Output-based specifications for PPP projects: 15

lessons for facilities management from Australia, Journal of Facilities Management, 11(1), 5-30.

Kaya, S., Alexander, K., (2005), Classifying FM organisations using pattern recognition, Facilities, 23(13/14), 570-584.

Khanna, C., Van der Voordt, T.,J.,M., Koppels, P.,W., (2013), Corporate real estate mirrors brand: a conceptual framework and practical applications, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 15(3/4), 213-230.

Kirkham, R. J. and Boussabaine, A. H. (2000), Developing a framework for whole life costing in the National Health Service Estate. In 16th Annual Conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Caledonian University, Glasgow.

Kirkham, R. J. and Boussabaine, A. H., Belal H. Awwad, B., H., (2002), Probability distributions of facilities management costs for whole life cycle costing in acute care NHS hospital buildings, Construction Management and Economics, 20(3), 251-261.

Lai, J., H., K., Yik, F., W., H., (2012), Hotel engineering facilities: A case study of maintenance performance, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 229-235.

Lai, J., H., K., Yik, F., W., H., (2015), Performance measurement for teaching hotels: A hierarchical system incorporating facilities management, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 16, 48-58.

Lavy, S., (2011), A Literature Review on Measuring Building Performance by Using Key Performance Indicators, AEI.

Lavy S., Garcia, J., A., Scinto, P., Dixit, M., J., K., (2014), Key performance indicators for facility performance assessment: simulation of core indicators, Construction Management and Economics, 32(12), 1183-1204.

Lavy S., Garcia, J., A., Scinto, P., Dixit, M., J., K., (2014b), KPIs for facility's performance assessment, Part I: identification and categorization of core indicators, Facilities, 32(5/6), 256-274.

Lindholm, A., L., Nenonen, S., (2006), A conceptual framework of CREM, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8(3), 108-119.

Lindhout, P., Kingston-Howlett, J., C., Ale, B., J., M., (2010), Controlled Readability of Seveso II company safety documents, the design of a new KPI, Safety Science, 48, 734-746.

Massheder, K., Finch, E., (1998), Benchmarking methodologies applied to UK facilities management, Facilities, 16(3-4), 99-106.

Meinrenken, C.,J., Sauerhaft, B., C., Garvan, A.,N., Lackner, K., S., (2014), Combining Life Cycle Assessment with Data Science to Inform Portfolio-Level Value-Chain Engineering: A Case Study at PepsiCo Inc., JIE, 18(5), 641-651.

Meng, X., Minogue, M., (2011), Performance Measurement Models in Facilities Management: a Comparative Study, 29(11-12), 472-484.

Mintel Group Ltd. (2014). Facilities Management Report. London: Market & Business Development. Moussatche, H., Languell, J., (2001), Flooring materials – life-cycle costing for educational facilities, Facilities, 19(10), 333-343.

Penny, W., Y., K., (2007), The use of environmental management as a facilities management tool in the Macao hotel sector, Facilities, 25(7/8), 286-295.

16

Pitt, M., Tucker, M., (2008), Performance Measurement in Facilities Management: driving innovation?, Property Management, 26(4), 241-254.

Pitt, M., Tucker, M., (2009), Customer Performance Measurement in Facilities Management, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(5), 407-422.

Quah, L.K. (1992), Facilities Management, building maintenance and modernization link, Building Research and Information, 20(4), 229-232.

Rahim, Y., Refsdal, I., Kenett, R., S., (2010), The 5C model: A new approach to asset integrity management, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 87, 88-93.

Rodriguez, R.,R., Saiz, J., J., A., Bas, A., O., (2009), Quantitative relationships between key performance indicators for supporting decision-making processes, Computers in Industry, 60, 104-113.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, (1994), Understanding the property cycle, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, May, London

Sourouklisa, C., Tsagdisb, D., (2013), Workforce diversity and hotel performance: A systematic review and synthesis of the international empirical evidence, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 394-403.

Stanley, L.L., Wisner, J.D. (2003). Process Management, Cengage Learning.

Toor S., Ogunlana, S.O., (2010), Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects, IJPM, 28, 228-236.

Tyrogianni, H., Halkias, B., Politou, A., Kotzampassi, P., (2012), The Attica Tollway Operations Authority KPI Performance System, Procedia- Social and Behavioural Sciences, 48, 2999-3008

Ugwua, O.O. Hauptb T.C. (2007), Key performance indicators and assessment methods sustainability—a South African construction industry, Building and Environment, 42, 665-680.

Van Truong, L., Soo-Yong, K., Tuan-Anh, H., (2008), Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach, IJPM, 26, 758-769.

Varcoe, B.J. (1993), Facilities performance: achieving value-for-money through performance measurement and benchmarking, Property Management, 11(4), 301-30.

Xu, P., P., Chan, E., H.W., Qian, Q,. K., (2012), Key performance indicators (KPI) for the sustainability of building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) in hotel buildings in China, Facilities, 30(9/10), 432-448.

Zadek, S., (2004), The Path to Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Best Practice

17