Performance measurement scale for facilities management service in Lagos-Nigeria

Abstract

Purpose Literature established that applicable parameters must be used in determining facilities management (FM) performance in any market; otherwise, findings could be confusing and misleading. This is particularly relevant to Nigeria where FM application is in its infancy and seriously constrained by particular socio-economic conditions which make it prone to crises situations such as frequent power outages and surges, abundance of fake and adulterated construction materials and equipment, heavy presence of unqualified artisans, poor transparency and terribly chaotic and unpredictable traffic to mention a few. Hence, this research aims to identify contextual parameters for evaluating performance of FM service in office buildings in Lagos, reflecting these peculiarities. Design/methodology/approach The research adopts survey design, using self-administered questionnaires that were served on building occupants. Means and standard deviation were used in the analyses. Factor analysis was used in identifying the important factors or constructs and to confirm the practical significance of the measures. Findings The study developed a multi-item scale of 41 measures for evaluating performance of facilities managers in offices in Lagos, Nigeria. The scale comprises three major dimensions, i.e. “financial”, “quality of service” and “crises response and management”. Using factor analysis, the study identified five important factors, two of which (comprising ten new measures) have not been featured in previous studies. Practical implications The developed performance measurement scales (PMS) can be applied to FM performance evaluation, management and control in the Nigerian context. The PMS and identified factors would also aid FM policy formulation, resource allocation and facilities review. Originality/value The research is considered the first to develop a PMS for FM in office facilities in Lagos, Nigeria. The new factors and measures that were uncovered in the study makes it possible to evaluate the Nigerian facility manager’s ability to manage the near-crises challenges imposed by the peculiar socio-economic context. Furthermore, the scale adopts simplistic financial success criteria, which makes it relevant and easy to use for the poor financial record disclosing and research-averse Nigerian audience. It is also more relevant to the less strategic and more operational task-based Nigerian FM context and by extension, to the context of other developing countries with similar socio-economic features.

Modelling the performance of waste management services in Ghana’s public hospitals

“…Ikediashi (2014) measured hospitals' FM services performance with four service quality attributes of service reliability, professionalism, responsiveness and competence. Related research by Koleoso et al (2017) within the Nigerian context developed 41 indicators classified under FM service quality, finance and disaster response. A review of healthcare facilities maintenance by Yousefli et al (2017) identified information technology and automated decision support systems as key indicators for facilities maintenance function and performance.…”

A review of facilities management performance measurement

“…They define PM as “the process of quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of an action.” The term effectiveness refers to the extent to which a particular requirement or goal is achieved, whereas efficiency indicates the speed of performing an action that by standards has to be both quantifiable and verifiable (Striteska and Spickova, 2012). In FM, PM could be viewed as a measure of how adequate FM is at identifying the needs of the users and its ability to put in place proper provisions to satisfy such needs and enhance their productivity (Koleoso et al , 2017). Congruence to this, Amaratunga and Baldry (2003) described PM as a process of assessing progress toward achieving pre-determined goals, including information on the efficiency by which resources are transformed into goods and services, the quality of these outputs and outcomes and the effectiveness of organizational objectives.…”

“…According to Shohet (2003), such activities encompass the development of quantitative means to benchmark the performance and identify the strength and weakness for effective performance. The review shows that most of the maintenance performance indicators have been developed along the lines of functional, impact/physical, image, financial and quality measures (see Nik-Mat et al , 2011; Talib et al , 2013; Koleoso et al , 2017; Lavy et al , 2014a; Myeda et al , 2011). It is observed that most of the maintenance performance indicators by these authors are not quantified indicators and are largely generic.…”

Enhancing the role of facilities management in the fight against the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in developing countries’ public hospitals

“…Current FM practices are faced with numerous challenges. Prominent among them are reactive FM practices, lack of policy guidelines for FM, complete absence of building maintenance manuals, lack of funds, lack of strategic direction and socio-cultural issues (Koleoso et al, 2017). These challenges have created health-care healing environments which do not facilitate efficient health-care delivery thus allowing for the prevalence of hospitalacquired infections (Amankwah et al, 2019;Amos et al, 2020a).…”