Introduction
Property asset management (PAM) plays a pivotal role in the broader field of facilities management (FM), ensuring that physical assets are utilised effectively to support organisational objectives. As a facilities management student, understanding how PAM techniques can be integrated into FM functions offers valuable insight into optimising resource use, reducing operational costs, and enhancing workplace environments. This essay explores the application of PAM techniques within the FM function, aligning these approaches with organisational procedures. It examines the key principles of PAM, outlines specific techniques applicable to FM, and evaluates their relevance through practical examples and theoretical perspectives. By considering the importance of compliance with policies and the need for strategic alignment, the essay demonstrates a sound understanding of how these techniques contribute to organisational efficiency while acknowledging some limitations in their application.
Understanding Property Asset Management within Facilities Management
Property asset management refers to the strategic oversight of an organisation’s property portfolio to maximise value, minimise risks, and support core business functions. In the context of FM, PAM focuses on the operational and tactical management of buildings and infrastructure to ensure they meet user needs and organisational goals (Edwards and Ellison, 2004). FM, as defined by the British Institute of Facilities Management, encompasses the integration of processes within an organisation to maintain and develop agreed services that support and improve the effectiveness of its primary activities (BIFM, 2014). PAM, therefore, acts as a subset of FM, concentrating on the lifecycle management of physical assets from acquisition to disposal.
The alignment of PAM with FM is critical because facilities managers are often tasked with balancing cost efficiency with the delivery of safe and functional environments. For instance, a facilities manager might use PAM techniques to assess the condition of a building, plan maintenance schedules, or evaluate whether a property should be retained or sold based on organisational needs. This synergy ensures that property assets are not merely maintained but are strategically leveraged to support broader business objectives (Then, 1999). However, the application of PAM within FM must adhere to organisational procedures to ensure consistency, accountability, and compliance with legal and financial frameworks, a point I will explore further in subsequent sections.
Key Property Asset Management Techniques in Facilities Management
Several PAM techniques are directly applicable to the FM function, each contributing uniquely to operational efficiency. One such technique is lifecycle costing, which involves evaluating the total cost of owning and operating a property over its entire lifespan. In FM, lifecycle costing helps facilities managers make informed decisions about maintenance budgets, replacement schedules, and capital investments. For example, a facilities manager might decide to invest in energy-efficient systems that, although expensive initially, reduce long-term operational costs—an approach that aligns with organisational goals of sustainability and cost reduction (Kishk et al., 2003).
Another essential technique is condition assessment, which involves regularly inspecting and evaluating the physical state of property assets. Within FM, this technique ensures that potential issues, such as structural wear or safety hazards, are identified and addressed promptly, thereby preventing costly disruptions. Organisational procedures often mandate specific intervals for these assessments, ensuring compliance with health and safety regulations like the UK’s Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSE, 2020). By integrating condition assessments into daily FM operations, managers not only maintain asset functionality but also protect the organisation from legal and financial risks.
Space management is a further PAM technique that holds significant relevance for FM. This involves optimising the use of available space to meet organisational needs, such as reconfiguring office layouts to accommodate hybrid working models. Indeed, effective space management can reduce overheads by minimising underused areas, aligning directly with organisational procedures that prioritise cost efficiency (Haynes, 2007). However, challenges arise when organisational goals conflict, such as balancing cost savings with employee satisfaction—an area where FM practitioners must exercise careful judgement.
Aligning Techniques with Organisational Procedures
Organisational procedures serve as a blueprint for implementing PAM techniques within FM, ensuring consistency and alignment with strategic priorities. Typically, these procedures encompass policies on budgeting, risk management, and compliance with statutory regulations. For instance, facilities managers must adhere to financial guidelines when applying lifecycle costing, ensuring that expenditures are within approved budgets and deliver measurable returns on investment. Failure to align with such procedures can lead to inefficiencies or even breaches of governance, undermining organisational trust (Booty, 2009).
Moreover, procedures often outline the need for stakeholder consultation, a critical aspect of PAM in FM. Before undertaking significant property decisions—such as major refurbishments or disposals—facilities managers must engage with departments such as finance and human resources to ensure the decision supports overarching objectives. This collaborative approach not only mitigates risks but also fosters transparency, a value often embedded in organisational policies. Nevertheless, the process can be time-consuming, and differing stakeholder priorities may complicate decision-making, highlighting a limitation in the seamless application of PAM techniques (Atkin and Brooks, 2015).
Practical Applications and Challenges
To illustrate the application of PAM techniques in FM, consider a university campus managing multiple buildings with varying ages and purposes. A facilities manager might use condition assessments to prioritise maintenance for older lecture halls while employing space management to convert underused areas into student collaboration zones. These actions, guided by organisational procedures, ensure resources are allocated efficiently while supporting the university’s mission of providing a conducive learning environment. However, budget constraints may limit the scope of maintenance, demonstrating a practical challenge in applying PAM techniques fully.
Additionally, technological integration, such as the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM), enhances PAM within FM by providing detailed data on asset conditions and usage patterns. BIM supports lifecycle costing and condition assessments by offering predictive insights, enabling proactive decision-making (Whyte, 2019). While technology offers significant advantages, its adoption may be restricted by organisational procedures that lack funding or training provisions, underscoring a key limitation in some contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, property asset management techniques such as lifecycle costing, condition assessment, and space management are integral to the facilities management function, enabling the effective stewardship of physical assets in line with organisational goals. Their application, when aligned with organisational procedures, ensures compliance, accountability, and strategic coherence, as demonstrated by practical examples like university campus management. However, challenges such as budget constraints, stakeholder conflicts, and technological limitations highlight areas where application may be restricted, necessitating adaptive approaches by FM practitioners. The implications of these findings suggest that while PAM significantly enhances FM operations, ongoing evaluation and policy support are essential to address limitations and maximise impact. As a student of facilities management, understanding these dynamics equips me to contribute effectively to organisational efficiency in future professional roles, balancing strategic asset management with procedural adherence.
References
- Atkin, B. and Brooks, A. (2015) Total Facilities Management, 4th edn. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Booty, F. (2009) Facilities Management Handbook, 4th edn. Routledge.
- British Institute of Facilities Management (BIFM) (2014) What is Facilities Management? BIFM.
- Edwards, V. and Ellison, L. (2004) Corporate Property Management: Aligning Real Estate with Business Strategy. Blackwell Publishing.
- Haynes, B.P. (2007) Office productivity: a shift from cost reduction to human contribution. Facilities, 25(11/12), pp. 452-462.
- Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2020) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. HSE.
- Kishk, M., Al-Hajj, A., Pollock, R., Aouad, G., Bakis, N. and Sun, M. (2003) Whole life costing in construction: a state of the art review. Construction Innovation, 3(1), pp. 31-54.
- Then, D.S.-S. (1999) An integrated resource management view of facilities management. Facilities, 17(12/13), pp. 462-469.
- Whyte, A. (2019) Integrated design and operation of building systems using building information modelling in facilities management. Journal of Facilities Management, 17(2), pp. 132-146.
