Editorial

Building Operating Management, Nov 1998 by Sullivan, Edward

From where I sit, and no doubt where you sit too, it seems clear that organizations would be better off if top management had a better understanding of facilities. Costs would be lower, productivity would be higher, customers would be more satisfied, etc., etc.

That's all true. The problem is that the purchasing department may well be making a similar case about its unrecognized importance to organizational health. Ditto for market research. And quality. Etc., etc.

Very possibly, they're all right. But a CEO can't possibly take the time to understand in detail all the functions in the company that have a significant impact on the organization. And not every department head can be on par with the CFO as an advisor to the CEO.

In a growing number of companies, facilities is in fact one of the areas that is making it onto the CEO's agenda. But there are plenty of other companies where that hasn't happened, at least not yet.

In those cases, the question is, how do you get there from here?

One possibility is that you go as part of a group - the team responsible for workplace productivity. Certainly human resources would have to be part of that group. So would information systems. Facilities would be the third leg of the stool, not only because of the intrinsic importance of the physical environment, but also because it is the bridge between people and technology.

A team like that wouldn't be pulled together just to handle a spa .. cial project - a new building, for example - but would be essentially a permanent assignment.

Defining the roles on that team would be no small task. But that's no reason not to do it. Figuring out how different kinds of teams work is an important challenge facing corporations, writes management consultant Peter Drucker in a recent issue of Forbes.

Maybe someday CFO will stand for Chief Facility Officer. Until then, the productivity team doesn't seem like a bad place to be.

Edward Sullivan

Editor