Peeking Over Fences

Once upon-a-time Facilities Management was largely an in-house function, but the growth of the outsourcing market has led to an increasing number of facilities professionals following career paths that never lead them to acquire client-side experience.  As someone who has always worked client-side, when I meet a peer who has only ever worked on the supplier-side, I find they quite often want to ask me the same thing – what’s it like over on my side of the fence?  This blog is the result of one such request for information and gives my thoughts about what you might see if you were to peek over that fence.

I’m part of a minority in FM networking circles: I started off ‘in-house’ and despite making a number of career moves, somehow I’ve managed to stay there.  It’s been more by chance than by conscious design, though I have tended to express a preference towards in-house opportunities because I think they suit me fairly well.  In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that I’m something of an advocate for in-house FM.  But this blog is not about whether it is better on to be client-side or the supplier-side: this blog is about the differences that matter to an FM professional. And it started with an email. 

The email was from a respected industry peer. In contrast to me, their background is supplier-side, but they had an opportunity to interview for an exciting client-side role.  It was one of those too-good-to-resist opportunities with a very well known brand name and as they didn’t know much about how in-house FM worked, they thought it would be a good idea to reach out to their network and ask? They wanted to understand how things get done.  Things like; how in-house FMs deal with budgets, KPIs, planning, etc?  Who the stake-holders are and what interactions are expected, who ensures compliance, do we get audited, how do we support culture, how is success measured, etc?  These are all excellent and fundamental questions I replied and you should definitely ask them at the interview because I really can’t answer how they might do it.  I can tell you how my organisation does it, or how any of my previous organisations do it, but each of them do it differently.  You see the thing about in-house FM is that it can vary significantly.
At its core of course, in-house FM is interested in all the same things that outsourced FM is: the basic need to provide safe and comfortable work environments and the amenities that support the work activities taking place. Things like budgets, SLAs, risk management, legal-compliance, etc, all derive from this. But what is really different is the way in which business needs are determined, defined and met.  The outsourced FM industry is well established and as a result of learned best practices, good procurement principles and supplier convenience the basic framework of most outsourced contract arrangements are broadly similar.  Now that is not to say that there isn’t a great deal of variation in the way that outsourced FM is delivered, but just to say that a supplier-side FM moving from one contract or employer to another will generally feel like they are on familiar ground, because the framework behind the service set-up is broadly similar.

In-house FM is different.  It has more flavours than a well-stocked ice cream parlour.  An in-house FM moving to a new employer could well find themselves feeling like they’ve tumbled down the rabbit hole and ended up in wonderland: the basic needs are the same but there are no hard and fast rules about how they are met.

It all goes back to the basic agreement between client and supplier for the provision of services.  In an outsourced arrangement we refer to this as a contract, in an in-house provision we might generously call it a strategy, although it could just as easily be based upon the attitude of key players (including the FM), policies, financial organisation, organisational hierarchy, culture, history, attitude to risk or a multitude of other factors.   It’s an important difference: at the heart of the client/outsourced-supplier relationship, there is a (legally) binding agreement that defines the client’s needs, the required services, expected quality standards, the principles of measuring success, etc.  If these needs change, they get re-negotiated.  In an in-house arrangement, the agreement for the provision of services between client and the FM function is much less tangible. It might be documented, though partially documented or undocumented are equally, if not more likely.  But regardless of how well defined the agreement might be, the chances of it being binding are slim to none. This can be something of a double-edged sword: the existence of a contract can shield an outsourced-FM from the worst excesses of whimsicality and prevent goalposts from unexpectedly getting up and moving around the pitch, but absence of that very same binding agreement gives a canny in-house FM an inherent flexibility. An In-house FM can re-write policy, define new standards and bend, flex or even change the rules completely if they can exert sufficient influence on those that define needs, set standards or determine budgets. 

So what does this mean in practice?  Well take KPIs and SLAs as an example.  In an outsourced arrangement, performance measures and success criteria are usually defined by the contract.  The outsourced FM at least knows and understands the rules of the game and the rules cannot be changed without their agreement. The downside being that sometimes this can lead to slightly farcical situations, such continuing to report SLAs which have ceased to have relevance or carrying out unnecessary actions simply to serve the needs of an SLA or even being able to demonstrate success despite it being evidentially obvious that a service is failing.

Most In-house Facilities functions will also have an interest in SLAs and KPIs and may report on both internal and external ones.  However in-house FM is a lot more “personality-driven” and the rules around performance measures and success criteria (particularly the internal ones) may be much less clear.  They will often be based on what a senior executive deems to be of importance or interest and they can change as quickly as the weather during Wimbledon.  Half a dozen complaints could be enough to see a new KPI established and a change of personnel might completely change the landscape overnight.  In a personality-driven landscape, requirements can vary depending on the role of those further up the hierarchy: whilst it would be grossly over-generalising to say that a Finance director would only be interested in cost saving and a HR director in colour-schemes, it is obvious that the FM function would be influenced by the objectives and priorities of the role to which it reports.  Of course the great thing for an in-house FM is that personal influence cuts both ways:  An FM who is able to exert sufficient influence can make quite sweeping changes. 

Now although I’ve focussed my explanation on performance indicators and success criteria, the situation is very similar for most of the other areas my peer was asking about: budgets, interactions, standards, etc.  In general the big difference between in-house and outsource is that: the outsourced arrangement is inherently stable and is great for delivering a standard (which in many cases can be very high) and ensuring compliance.  Whilst in-house FM is inherently flexible, which provides potential opportunities for FMs to take a more direct role in needs definition, specification and method of delivery.  FM’s working in the outsource-sector usually have access to a level of support, resources, expertise and knowledge from within their own organisations that in-house FMs in all but the largest organisations would give their right arms for and are protected to a certain degree from flights of fancy and sudden changes of direction. But on the other an in-house FM is playing without binding rules (legal compliance aside) and the only real barriers to increasing funding, services or changing the culture are the extent to which the FM can exert their influence.  And FMs are excellent influencers. 

Dances With Wolves

If there existed such a thing as a Facilities Management rule book, it is generally held that rule number one would be “develop good relationships with your stakeholders”.  So why does the idea of engaging certain groups of stakeholders fill an FM with dread?  Let me explain using one of my favourite techniques: the animal simile.  Stakeholders are like wolves.

Those who know me well, know that I love a good simile. And no, that’s not a miss-spelling of smilie, although if you follow me on twitter (@JGurd) you’ll know that I also love a good smilie :)  . People are always saying that standards in education are declining, but ask any 8 year old what a simile is and quick as a flash they’ll tell you that it’s a figure of speech which is used to compare things to one another by using the words like or as. Pretty smart people, those kids and they even know a thing or two about smilies, but that’s digressing even more so I’ll try to get broadly back on track with the point I was making; I am particularly fond of the animal simile.  Through popular culture, childhood impressions, etc, we naturally endow certain animals with particular qualities or characteristics; lions are regal, mice are quiet, foxes are cunning and donkeys are well.........  well, let’s say fortunate.  And this is kind of my point, I haven’t said it, but you know exactly what I mean and this is why the animal simile works so well – the associations feel perfectly natural.  So let’s get back to my rather outlandish statement shall we? Not the one about donkeys, the other one.  Why is it tempting for a Facilities Manager to hide out in the plant room all day and avoid their stakeholders? Because stakeholders are like wolves.  Allow me to explain......

Regardless of how soft and furry it may appear on the outside, we instinctively understand that deep down  a wolf can be a fearsome predator, with sharp teeth, wicked claws and a killer instinct.  They might look a lot like man’s best friend, but they’re feral beasts and an unplanned or unexpected encounter with one and you could well end up with more than a few chunks being torn off. Basically, just like stakeholders.

Of course there are degrees of deadliness: The lone wolf, grizzled veteran of a thousand fights can be the most fearsome of all, but even a cub can take a finger if you’re not paying attention.  But worst of all, just like stakeholders, wolves are at their deadliest when they hunting in packs.
Almost all Facilities Managers will have at some time experienced that entering the lion’s den feeling that is a prelude to meeting with a large group of stakeholders.  They tend to be monthly meetings and I have a theory that I’m working on that it has something to do with lunar cycles – I can’t prove it, but mine mostly seem to fall on the same day as the full moon..........  Coincidence I’m sure.

As we step into that meeting, we know that we are going to be significantly outnumbered. It can feel like being circled by sharks and you know that as soon as they scent blood in the water, there’s going to be a feeding frenzy.  As you shuffle your agenda and your notes from the previous meeting, your pulse quickens and from somewhere deep down something primal pushes to the surface. Instinctively you prepare yourself for fight or flight.

So should you fight or should you flee?  Which is the best choice? Actually it’s neither. There is a third way which is all about getting your attitude right in advance as I’ll explain shortly, but first, let me try to explain why you should ignore that instinctive response.

Ok, so we wouldn’t actually fight in a meeting and probably wouldn’t go quite as far as running out the door screaming either, but in a modern day business context, you could think of them instead as going in all guns blazing or adopting a strategy of appeasement. 

Fighting it out can seem initially attractive. You can refuse to accept any criticism or blame, counter your opponent’s claims and blind them with science, etc. If you’re aggressive enough, you can probably even push the blame right back at them for failing to read the memo, not filling in the form, etc, etc.  If you go in all guns blazing, you’ll probably put the fear of god in them and they’ll never dare criticize you again which is a surely a good thing right? Well not really. It doesn’t actually work like that: if they don’t feel like they can talk to you, in the future, they’ll just go behind your back, around you or over your head. As an FM you almost certainly have the skills to win most of your battles, but FM is about cooperation not confrontation; what are you fighting for? If you’re trying to win hearts and minds, winning battles can cost you the war.

With that in mind, you might decide it’s just easier not to be confrontational at all. If you just give everyone whatever they ask for, they’ll all be perfectly happy and they will just leave you alone right?.  Well.... before you choose a strategy of appeasement, there’s something you should know: it didn’t work in the run up to the Second World War and it doesn’t work now.  Ultimately, demands are not always reasonable; if you agree to everything, eventually you’ll end up promising things you can’t deliver and your stakeholder frustration will increase.

So let’s talk about the other way instead.  Our ancestors learned how to domesticate the wolf and we too can learn to tame the stakeholder.  There are limits of course: they’re not going to chase sticks or retrieve your slippers, but it is definitely possible to develop mutually beneficial relationships and even get them working for you, being your eyes and ears and championing your causes. The key is getting the balance right; less fear, more respect, more confidence, less aggression. Most importantly of all, remember that communication is a two way process: if you give you should also take.

So how does that work in reality?  Well this blog was inspired by some advice I recently gave to a peer about stakeholder meetings which went something like this:  You should always participate in meetings as an equal: remember that you are there because of your skills, knowledge and expertise. Be confident but not aggressive:  you are not there as a punch bag and you are certainly not there to spend your time apologising for the level of service, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen and learn. Don’t be defensive; accept constructive feedback and never tell people that their experiences of the service are wrong – if someone is cold, no amount of telling them that they're not will make them any warmer or happier. If you can learn something from the things they tell you, you may be able to improve the service.  Most importantly, remember that communication is a two-way process; the pact you make with your stakeholders is that; in return for getting direct access to you to raise team complaints, you get to use them as a conduit for communicating information in the other direction.  And it doesn’t hurt to give a little constructive feedback of your own. After all, if you’ve listened to their views about the way the front desk works, then quid pro quo, you’re perfectly entitled to ask them to try and get their teams to be more considerate when using meeting rooms.  Finally, remember that, this is your opportunity to talk about the good things you’ve done and the good things coming up. It’s your chance to spread the vision.

So going back to wolves. As I mentioned earlier, like stakeholders they can be at their most effective when they work as a pack and with the right balance of attitude, respect and communications, you could find the pack working on your behalf; disseminating your message and spreading your vision.  And when that happens, the sight of the moon, full in the night sky will have you howling for joy, rather than trembling in fear.

Holding Out For A (Silent) Hero

Facilities Managers are heroes. Fact. When the chips are down and it’s all going wrong, you can rely on an FM to swoop in and save the day. But is this really something we want to be known for? In this blog post, I make the case for keeping your pants on under your trousers.

The idea for this blog started with a snatch of overheard conversation: an FM colleague was asked to describe their role in Facilities Management to which they responded: “we’re the people you turn to when it all goes wrong”.  It’s a description that many would agree with.  After all, Crisis Management is an important part of any Facilities professional’s role and most are justifiably proud of their problem solving abilities. It is these moments of extreme adversity that enable us to show people what we are really made of, prove our value and earn the respect that we truly deserve. These moments of converting mountains into glorified molehills become personal pinnacles of achievement, each one a badge of honour on our CV. Surely we should embrace these difficulties for presenting opportunities to bring our skills into the limelight?  Or should we? Before we get too carried away thinking about what a crisis means to us, maybe we should try to consider what it might mean to others.

No such thing as bad press?

It is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but I'm not sure I agree. Averting disaster and turning failure into success is undeniably personally rewarding, but whilst you are basking in the glory of being the man (or woman) of the hour, others may be looking around for opportunities to apportion blame and if you’re distracted by enjoying your moment in the sun, you could easily find yourself becoming a scapegoat. Now you may argue that this won’t happen to you because your organisation operates a "no blame" culture, but at the end of the day, human nature will almost certainly trump organisational policy and it is human nature to speculate about who got what wrong.

You see whilst we might be acutely aware that managing to get that aged chiller up and running in two days (even though the parts had to be shipped from Belgium) was nothing short of miraculous, there's a good chance your customers will just see it as one more failure that occurred on your watch.  Of course you and I know that that’s not really a fair assessment of the facts because………. you did try and replace it last year but the board wouldn’t release the funds. You may choose to tell customers this and shield yourself from the blame, but before you do that, maybe you should have a good think about whether this is a story that you really want to share.

The blame game

Blaming the boss may help build some common ground with your customers, but pointing the finger further up the chain isn't going to win you any friends there. These are the people who can directly influence your resources to do your job: unless you think you can use the situation to launch a full blown coup and win total control of your own budgets, sooner or later you'll be crawling cap in hand to them trying to get the money for something else.  These are people you need as friends not enemies.  Besides, there are those who will point the finger right back at you for not making the business case compelling enough.

Survival training

Ok, so I’ll admit the picture I’ve painted is pretty bleak, but there’s no need to despair just yet, for all is not lost. With the potential pitfalls I’ve described above, it’ll come as no surprise when I say that good Facilities people need to develop highly effective political skills to be successful in a corporate environment. Crisis is your opportunity to hone these skills.  Here are a few points to consider.

• Keep your cool.  At the end of the day, and even with the most meticulous planning, disasters will happen. They will still need to be managed and Facilities people will almost always play a vital role in doing this.  But be careful not to get too caught up in the drama. Do communicate your successes, but don't oversell them, you will build a far better reputation through calm efficiency in the face of adversity, than you will for rushing to the edge to pull the company back from the abyss.
• Be careful not to court disaster.  Career defining challenges might boost the adrenalin and raise your profile, but a Facilities Manager has a management responsibility to manage risk. When things go wrong make sure you take the opportunity to learn lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again.  If you ensure that any learning points form part of your communications strategy, you will be able to raise your profile by developing your reputation as a good risk manager.
• Think very carefully before pointing the finger - some people might think you're passing the buck and you could easily make powerful enemies. If the root cause sits further up the chain, a more strategic approach could involve outwardly shielding the responsible party and playing down the severity of their error, whilst speaking frankly to them about it directly. You may take a little more heat from your customers than you would if you just pass the blame onwards, but you can play this down by choosing your language carefully and in the longer run, you may well earn the gratitude of a powerful ally.

As I said, disasters do happen and as a Facilities Manager, you'll almost certainly have to be part of the solution, but I hope I've adequately demonstrated in this blog that there is much to gain by not always making too big a deal about being the hero.  Maybe next time you've got to save the day, rather than rush to the nearest phone box, like me, you'll take a more strategic view and keep your pants on under your trousers instead.

SLAs: A help or a hindrance?

A report from the debate at the 32nd FM Forum in Stansted

There was a sharp intake of breath from across the room as Liz Kentish posed her opening question in the debate about the usefulness of SLAs.  The assembled delegates looked around the room to find only two half-raised hands in response to the request about who would consider getting rid of their SLAs altogether.  One of those hands was mine, although I had only half-raised it – I’ll get to that bit later.

To be honest, our expectations going into the debate were quite modest. Being on as the last show of the day (and after the bar has opened) is not traditionally the best slot, but I’ll admit we were pleasantly surprised by the turnout and even more pleasantly surprised by the extent of audience participation. It would appear that SLAs are a contentious topic. In fact, this very report is a product of the ongoing interest we received after the debate.

I think it was a strong and diverse panel – that’s something that always helps a debate go well.  With myself (Jason Gurd) providing the client-side view, Robert Cunliffe the service-provider perspective, Adeyemi Adeboye providing expertise of operating PFI contracts. The debate was chaired by the BIFM Deputy Chair, Liz Kentish.

The panel put forward their cases and invited input from the audience.  There was some initial discussion about whether SLAs served any real purpose, with myself suggesting that most of us just settle for supplier’s out-of-the-box SLAs anyway. I’d already made the point that, getting to me in 4-hours wasn’t really all that impressive when you considered how far I could get from Stansted in 4-hours.

It was debated whether SLAs offer more protection to the client or the supplier, with cases being made for both sides. There were suggestions that SLAs were more often stick, than carrot, a get out-clause, if you like and the practicality of actually using that stick was also discussed. 

 Adeyemi and Robert both made strong cases for SLAs being a way to manage expectations and although there was a general consensus that they couldn’t replace a good client/supplier relationship, Adeyemi was able to use his knowledge of PFI to demonstrate that there are times when the client is significantly removed from the delivery.  This led to the almost inevitable question about whether FM is too procurement driven, followed by an equally inevitable round of “procurement-bashing”.  It was light-hearted, but I did step in to support our procurement colleagues by pointing out that it was down to FM’s to demonstrate leadership and influence in specifying services, but that we also need to make use of procurement functions to help us buy more effectively.

There was a lot of discussion about whether drawing a “line-in-the-sand” was a good thing when it came to service standards or not. I argued that, whilst there is a case for KPIs, continuous improvement demands that we seek to improve. Adeyemi countered by talking about the mechanisms which can allow SLAs to develop. 

There was also a great deal of discussion about whether SLAs could really enhance the client/supplier relationship, with Robert providing one of the most interesting examples of the night about how SLAs could be used to support organisational objectives, such as offering Local Authorities SLAs relating to creating local employment.

It was a pretty heated debate and I think most people were genuinely disappointed when it came to a close. I don’t think we managed to resolve the question, but I do think we managed to make a room full of FMs decide to think a lot harder about what SLAs they will ask from their suppliers in the future. 

To wrap this report off, I’d like to leave you with the closing thoughts of each of our panellists & chair;

Robert Cunliffe       
@robertcunliffe 
http://fmfuture.blogspot.co.uk/


“SLAs should be intertwined with KPIs and penalties or credits to ensure that the service provider has a framework to understand the quality expectations of the customer.  SLAs  & KPIs should not get in the way of building a good relationship between supplier and customer to further improve or enhance services so the customer is genuinely happy, however they provide a safety net should the relationship deteriorate.  To provide a true partnership SLAs and KPIs should focus on outcomes or the customer’s business priorities, as only then will the supplier really understand what the customer really, really wants.”

Adeyemi Adeboye 

@Yemmycornelius


“Forums like these, which bring the provider and the client together to discuss how the equilibrium of demand and supply of service agreements could be improved upon, is not only a necessity but a requirement for an enhanced and positive experience.  SLAs in this modern business age are here to stay: Whether you achieve your strategic goals and objectives will be down to how you structure your service level objectives in relation to your organisational goals."

Jason Gurd 

@jgurd

http://everythingfacilities.blogspot.co.uk/

“Even I’m not enough of a maverick to completely dispense with SLAs all together, but I do think FMs should give serious thought to what SLAs they ask for and whether they really need to be accepting all of those out-of-the-box ones.  I would suggest you might get a better service if you dispensed with the majority of your SLAs and focussed on the ones that are really important to you.”

 

Liz Kentish (Chair)  

@FMCoach   

http://www.lizkentishcoaching.co.uk/

“I love it when FMs get together and talk about what works!  Our debate at the FM Forum demonstrated that there is of course a place for SLAs, but they must be regularly reviewed and amended when services change.  Key to service delivery and managing expectations is the relationship between the service provider and the client, whether in-house or not.  One of the courses we run is influencing skills and managing relationships, and the feedback is always that this is what really makes a difference - get it right, as an FM, and your life will be an awful lot easier!”

And the survey says.........

We asked one hundred Facilities Managers what the golden rule of FM was? And they said......... “keep your customers happy”.  Then we asked..... how did they know how happy their customers are, or, if they were more or less happy than they used to be?

And they said......... “Um, well, I’m not sure really. I mean they don’t complain as much for a start. I suppose you could always do a workplace satisfaction survey of some kind, but what sort of questions would you ask? And do they really tell you anything useful anyway?”
 

OK, so I admit the opening part of this blog is somewhat fabricated, but it is a situation that many FMs will recognise.  The consensus of opinion seems to be that surveys are a good idea in principle, but the results don’t often tell you that much.  I disagree.  What the results usually tell you is how well the survey was planned out before it was published.

The whats, whys and wherefores

The problem is that most surveys start life in exactly the way described above.  Someone makes the decision that we need to find out how happy our customers are, someone else suggests a survey, then everyone starts brainstorming the questions, someone writes them down, they get circulated and a load of junk comes back.

For a survey to be an effective tool, you need to break the process before the brainstorming, wind it back a few notches, accept a few universal truths and put a little thought into the whats, whys and wherefores. 

The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!

One of the first things you need to establish is why you are measuring satisfaction.  It sounds obvious, but it’s not.  If we’re honest about it, many surveys don’t set out with the altruistic objective of simply finding out how happy people are, cynically, many are sent out as a way of trying to prove that a certain standard is being delivered.  If your objective is more cynical, you should be warned that it could well back-fire. The people most likely to respond are those who have something to complain about. 

Of course if your goal is to find out what is wrong so you can try and fix it, well..... you’ll rarely have a problem finding people who will tell you what is wrong. Fixing these things of course is down to you and you should be aware that if you’re the one asking the question, then you’ll be setting an expectation that you will act on the information you’ve asked for. 

Great expectations

Sometimes there is an assumption that survey results can tell you how well the service is being delivered. Usually they can’t. The customer’s response to the survey depends on how well their expectations are being met.  But expectations are a slippery business and they should not be confused with truth or fact. They’re not always fair, logical or reasonable and they can change based on experience. You may be delivering gold-standard service, but if the customer expects platinum-standard they will mark you down.

A survey can be a useful  way to gage and measure your customer’s expectations and as we’re all fond of saying in the world of Facilities Management: if you can measure it, you can manage it. Expectations are no exception.  My recommendation is that you actively invite comment and welcome discussion. The information and engagement you get in return will often teach you far more about service performance than the actual statistics. It also shows you customers that you value what they have to say.

iPads and holidays

Something very important to understand about your workplace satisfaction survey, is that the only people really interested in it, are you, maybe your boss, and everybody with an axe to grind.  Think back to the last survey you filled in – it was a pain right?  Why did you do it? Oh that’s right, you wanted to win an iPad ..............

I’m presuming your facilities survey budget probably doesn’t even stretch to a year’s supply of post-it-notes, so do try to accept the fact that most people will not want to fill it in.  Sorry - that’s just how it is.  But if you do want to maximise your returns, the most effective way is to make it really quick to do and really, really, easy. Think pretty hard in advance about the format and agree a few principles up front.  Here are some of my suggestions:

Keep the number of questions to a minimum
If you can, aim for less than ten. If it takes more than 60 seconds, most people will be turned-off from doing it.

Use a simple scoring system. 
I like 1-to-4 rather than 1-to-5. It stops people sitting on the fence – Is it good or not?  If you do use 1-to-5 then personally I suggest you treat 3 or below as a failure. Are you content that your customers are satisfied with your service?  You shouldn’t be: the golden rule of is to keep your customers happy, not satisfied.  

Phrase your questions exactly the same way
Keep your question and answer format the same for every question.  If you know that 4 is always the top score and 1 the lowest, it’s much easier to answer the questions. If your question change polarity half way through, people often won’t notice and will score it in the same manner as the one above. You may have to rephrase a question to switch it from positive to negative to do it (i.e. instead of how dissatisfied, how satisfied). If you don’t you may get anomalous results in your data.  Remember most people are just scanning through it as quickly as possible to try and win that iPad.
Use simple language
Use everyday language and avoid jargon. This is true of all good communications and your survey is no exception.

Be realistic
Finally, be pragmatic about what you can realistically learn from your survey.  It’s a useful tool for continuous improvement and gauging the general feeling, but if you want to know the ins and outs of how your service is performing or perceived to be performing, well I’m afraid you’re just going to have to do it the old fashioned way: get up from the desk every now and again, take a walk around the building and ask your customers what they think.  And to be honest, if you do that, your survey statistics will look a lot friendlier too.

Future FMs: Are the signs already there?

One of the most hotly debated topics in the Facilities industry at the moment is the question of how we get young people to choose a career in FM. Well we could try answering that question about the future, by taking a closer look at the past. Specifically: our own pasts.

Here's another interesting question: what sort of young person would choose to work in FM?  It sounds tongue-in-cheek, but it’s a serious question. Whilst most FMs will freely admit they fell into the industry, as result of chance, luck, bad-karma, etc, at some point or another they all made the choice to stay. The first question: Why?  The second: With the benefit of hindsight, could we have predicted that they would? Were the signs there all along?

Should I stay or should I go (now)

I am an FM who chose to stay. In this blog I'm going to take you on a jouney into my deepest, darkest, past. Think of this as either as a journey of self-discovery, or if you prefer, an accident investigation.  Cue the wobbly screen effects.........

I'm turning back the clock to the early 1990’s.  Thatcher is still running the country, Rave music is on the rise and we are all about to discover that Robin Hood was actually an American.  Oh, and a scrawny fellow called Jason is starting his teens: the beard (and glasses) are a decade away. Ever safety conscious (even then), he uses enough hair product to make his head  impact-resistant.

As a kid I think I was (relatively) normal.  Well, I wasn’t (exceptionally) weird. I mean, I wasn't still hanging out with my imaginary friends at secondary school and I didn't sit around quietly pulling the wings off of butterflies. Outwardly at least, there seemed no sign that I was destined for a career in FM.  Actually, there was no real sign that I was heading in any particular direction at all.....  Maybe that was the first sign.

Lacks direction.......

If you’d asked the pre-beard Jason what he wants to do when he’s older, he’ll confidently tell you that he wants to work in an office.  He’s going to spend the rest of the decade figuring out that an office is a location, not a career. 

Looking back, I don’t think I wanted to work in an office, I just didn’t want to do manual work, education, healthcare, the forces, or any of the other options that seemed available.  Mind you, none of the traditional office careers appealed either. I didn’t mind accounting, sales, marketing, etc, I just don’t think I wanted to commit to one thing the rest of my life.  I guess somehow, I just had the feeling that, in the meritocracy of the commercial world, I’d figure it out somehow.  In a sense I did.

When he sets his mind to it........

Lack of direction probably wasn’t the only sign. I do know some people who describe me using the words “academic” and “intellectual” but scoot forward a handful of years to my GCSEs and I have the exam results to prove that I'm neither.

I took my GCSEs in 94 and my grades were straight across the middle of the spectrum (predominantly B's).  For years, my school reports had read “could try harder” and my exam results were no exception. But still, they were probably better than I deserved and many teachers expressed surprise at just how well I’d done, considering the effort I’d been putting in. These days I think of it as an early example of my possessing one of the most useful skills in an FM’s toolkit: the ability to pull a rabbit from a hat when it really matters. 

You see, when it came to exam time, I figured out that the things I would be tested on were actually all in the syllabus. I took the view that I wouldn’t worry too much about  the stuff I knew reasonably well, I’d focus on my areas of weakness and I’d pretty much disregard all non-syllabus stuff, so that it didn’t take up valuable short-term memory space.  I might not have worked hard in the run up to the exams, but my revision plan was actually pretty tightly focussed for rapid up-skilling in a short space of time.  It meant that, although I didn’t get the top results, in most cases I got at least one grade higher than predicted. Knowing how to prioritise limited resources in order to achieve a result is essential for an FM. 

Asks a lot of questions.....

Those who’ve only ever known me as an adult, where I’m renowned as a voracious seeker of knowledge, skills and qualifications, are often amazed to learn that I mostly found school boring.

At school, I couldn’t see how the things I learned would be of use to me. With hindsight, I think some of my teachers struggled to convey those practical uses to me.  It wasn’t because they didn’t understand it, it was just that they had never actually used their skills in anger, and lacking practical experience to fall back on, their teaching just seemed to lack depth. So when my teachers tried to impart their knowledge, I tended to probe and challenge it, to see how much they really knew.  I’m sure it was very irritating for some of them, although those who really knew their onions, never seemed to mind. 

This willingness to challenge an expert about their subject matter and put their knowledge to the test can be irritating in a teenager, but it can make adults extremely effective and I think schools should do more to encourage it.  As FMs we deal with experts all the time and we need to level the field, making sure that what they say actually makes sense and is not just an attempt to blind us with science is incredibly important.

Should focus on academic subjects.......

Another reason I found school a little boring, was the pressure applied on me to take academic subjects:  yes I could do them, but I would have probably found practical subjects far more engaging. 

As a boy growing up at a time when there were only three TV channels, I spent a great deal of time playing with Lego, putting together Airfix kits,  making tree-houses and generally doing practical things.  But a few years later, all my teachers saw was a child capable of achieving academic results. It was implied to me that if I could achieve academic results, practical subjects were in some way inferior.  It’s not a view I subscribe to at all.  I think my life might have turned out very differently indeed with a couple of decent results in Design & Technology related subjects.

That said, I never lost was my ability to use tools and generally do things of a practical nature as the staff at my local DIY store will attest.  I can safely say that, a willingness to get one’s hands dirty and an ability to handle a screwdriver the right way round, are also very useful FM skills to have.

What’s the story?

So what has this trip down memory lane taught me? It’s taught me that if we want to attract young people into FM, we could do worse than starting with those young people who might end up getting into it later in life anyway: Good all-rounders who know how to work smarter, rather than harder. The kind of young people who aren’t sure what they want to do, but who enjoy doing practical things and have the cionfidence to challenge their experts. Some of these young people, might well be the FMs of the future.

So........  Having given my story; my challenge to my FM colleagues out there, is to share theirs.  There’s a comment section below, please use it to tell me your story and let’s see if between us we can identify some of the FMs of tomorrow.

Women In FM - An Inspiration to us all

It was a day that will stay with me for a very long time.  The message I posted on twitter that afternoon was short and simple, but I think it managed to capture exactly what everyone in the room was thinking. It was re-tweeted a number of times within minutes. It read simply this;  “I have a lot of new heroes today. Feel very humble and very inspired”.

On Wednesday 14th November 2012, I attended the “Lets Inspire” conference hosted by the Women In FM (WIFM) special Interest Group.   It was a day which promised much and delivered more.  This blog is not a report about the conference as such – that is something which others have already done far better than I ever could (I’ve included some links at the end of the post), but the conference did inspire me and this blog post is my way of sharing some of that experience with those who were unable to get a place. I like to think of it as paying it forward.

At least I didn’t have to shave my legs to get in

So let me address the obvious question first - how did I, a man, get to be at the WIFM conference?

Understandably, it was something I got asked quite a lot on the day.  The somewhat casual anecdote “by the time the message came through that skirts were optional, I’d already finished shaving one leg.........”  did get a few laughs, but the truth is much simpler: Whilst the members of WIFM are predominantly women, the group is really about promoting the FM industry and supporting diversity and inclusion within it; the fact that I’m a white male is not actually held against me........ that said, there is something of a running joke about the early days of FM which seem to have been populated almost entirely by hairy engineers called Geoff......... but I digress.

A far more interesting question is why did I, a man, want to be at the WIFM conference?  Well I’ll admit that the fantastic line-up was part of the draw.  It was great opportunity to hear from some wonderful speakers and to learn some fantastic new skills, but actually, it’s those WIFMs themselves that really draw me in.

It’s a fact that the FM industry is predominantly male, but ask anyone who the most influential people in the industry are and they’ll probably reel off the names of more women than men.  Some people might say it’s because they stand out more, but I personally believe it’s because they do more to promote and support the industry than many of their male counterparts. In an industry where promoting your cause and championing what you do is an essential skill, they’ve had to be best in the face of adversity, discrimination and sometimes outright hostility.  Throughout the morning and early afternoon, speaker after speaker got up on stage and reminded me why, when I go looking for FM role models, I so often find women.

The speakers on the day provided plenty of the inspiration that was promised.  A whole host of personal stories as well ideas and discussions on motivation, engagement, communication, inclusivity, confidence, coaching, etc, etc, left me feeling like the owner of a brand new toolkit and a bunch of fresh ideas.  I was inspired, but the best was still to come.

  What makes a hero?

As the afternoon wore on, two particular women took to the stage and made a roomful of people re-evaluate their lives. 

The first of these women was Diana Man, who lost both legs and the fingers of her right hand to meningococcal septicaemia five years ago.  I won’t describe her story in detail as there is really no way I can do it justice.

The second woman was Ismena Clout, who having been treated for breast cancer in 2004 was diagnosed with secondary breast cancer in 2010.  Again, Ismena’s story is best told by her.

What I do want to share is that both of these women received a standing ovation.  It was partly for their courage, partly for their strength and partly for their amazing positivity in the face of adversity, but it wasn't just that. The thing that really inspired me was the amazing way both women took their experiences and made a conscious decision that it wasn’t going to stop them from following their dreams, aiming higher, and achieving more.  Their incredible success is testament to just how well they’ve done that, with Diana becoming a presenter at the Paralympics (and currently training for the Paralympics dressage in 2016) and Ismena becoming the Chairman of the BIFM .

The word hero can be used a little too freely sometimes, but for both these women it’s entirely appropriate. Their outright refusal to settle with simply staying positive, when they could be aiming higher had me looking in the metaphorical mirror and asking myself “so what’s your excuse?”

More about the conference

For more info about the Women In FM “Let’s Inspire” conference, I recommend you take a look at the Cathy Hayward's and Martin Read’s blog posts below.

Inspired thought at the WIFM conference Cathy Hayward - Magenta Associates

Inspiration Stations Martin Read - FM World