Development of a Campus Facility Management Operational Framework Using a Modified Delphi Method

Abstract

An effective facility management process is crucial to overall firm performance and is becoming a core competency for organizations seeking to gain a competitive advantage. The recent literature on facility management reveals that poor facility management is a major cause of management inefficiency, leading directly to budget overruns, maintenance delays, repetition of work, variations, noncompliance incidents, unnecessary risk, and dissatisfied customers. Therefore, facility management firms should pay close attention to the most critical success factors in order to effectively manage and measure performance. This paper presents a multidimensional campus facility management performance framework (CFMPF) that addresses both operational and systematic factors. Facility management companies, owners, contractors, and consultants can use this framework to identify systemic weaknesses using key indicators to specifically assess the effectiveness and success of facility management. The significance of 45 key facility management success factors across seven categories was determined via a literature review, expert interviews, and the Delphi method. The seven process groups are: Campus Facility Work Force Management, Campus Facility Communication Management, Campus Facility Systems Management, Campus Facility Organizational Management, Campus Facility Financial Management, Campus Sustainability & Environment Management, and Campus Facility Assets Management. To verify the overall agreement via the Delphi rounds, the score percentage and standard deviation to mean ratio were examined. Mean value and interrater agreement (IRA) analyses were conducted to evaluate the correlation between the factors and facility performance. This research adds to the body of knowledge by presenting a systematic operational framework for campus facility management that identifies the underlying factors influencing performance and fills the gaps left by previous studies.