Issue link: http://digital.corporatepress.com/i/284031
Facilities Manager | march/april 2014 | 47 especially for state institutions. The central FM department is part of the general fund and is typically fixed. Changes to this budget are incremental and not typically based on the actual level of service delivered, or even workload. They are a product of years of percent- age increases and decreases that occur independent of the service load demand of the campus. This dynamic does not serve auxiliaries well. Notwithstanding the other analytics of this analysis, auxiliaries are better served by hiring staff internally. This staff is more easily increased or decreased in direct relation to the change of the physical plant size (number of beds for example), and associated work load. Furthermore, the auxiliaries are able to redirect internal funds from budget to budget as the mission and priorities change. This is much more difficult to manage for a central FM department. Economies of Scale Many administrators hold the belief that larger central facility departments offer the economies of scale. However, examples of such benefits of scale are hard to find. With respect to both classified and exempt staff, the size of the service centers does not reduce per unit cost of service delivery. This is largely due to the strict work rules and benefits associated with university employment. The man- agement ratios are relatively fixed. The cost of training may be reduced slightly with size, but this is not a signifi- cant cost savings. In fact, time has shown that when a central facilities department grows beyond the basic organizational structure that includes a director, super- visors, and the trades and other classified staff, the overhead and back-office, hu- man relations, IT, and other cost increase per delivered service unit. Unlike some modern industries, the most efficient facilities management organization is not necessarily the largest. Priorities and Schedules Finally are the dynamics of priorities and schedules. Anyone that has seen the FM operations of a conference center, hotel complex, or hospital knows that the priorities and schedules are dramati- cally different than that of general fund facilities. The auxiliaries on campus also have priorities and operating schedules that are unique and demanding. The fundamental design of a service center is greatly impacted by these factors. For example, a plumbing shop that must react within 30 minutes to service calls from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. is organized much differently that one that can respond within 24 hours from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Auxiliaries often require fast response to requests in order to meet the priorities of high customer service. It is difficult if not impossible for centrally dispatched trades to meet this need, especially in the later hours when problems are likely to occur. JUST RIGHT OR LEFT OF MIDDLE Politics aside, each campus should review the organizational structures of their own central and auxiliary FM func- tions. In most campuses, the line in the sand is somewhere just right or left of the middle, or in a hybrid arrangement. Peer best practices have proven the success of this design. Either extreme is typi- cally dysfunctional for most institutions, except the very large and the very small. There is no reason why there should be conflict between the two peer inter- nal departments. Reorganization based on logical best practices will serve ev- eryone and make the customers happier in the end. Matt Adams is president of Adams FM 2 , Atlanta, GA. He can be reached at ŵĂƩΛ adamsfm2.com.