Benchmarking of workplace performance

In order to add value to the organisation, the work environment has to provide value for money by a positive trade-off between the benefits – support of the organisational objectives, facilitating the primary processes, and contributing to organisational performance – and the costs, time and risks connected with achieving these benefits. Performance of workplaces is usually measured by cost related metrics such as investment costs, running costs, maintenance costs or the Total Cost of Occupancy, per workplace, per square meter or per f.t.e. These metrics are mainly connected to efficiency i.e. how to optimally use scarce and expensive resources. However, these metrics do not represent two other important aspects of usability: effectiveness and experience. This paper explores how the benefits and costs of workplace change and new workplace concepts can be taken into account in value adding corporate and public real estate management and facilities management. Based on literature review, interviews with practitioners and international collaboration with experts from various countries, the paper discusses 12 value parameters, including four people oriented values (satisfaction, image, culture, and health and safety), four business processes related values (productivity, adaptability, innovation and creativity, and risk), two economic parameters (costs, and value of assets), and two social indicators (sustainability, and Corporate Social Responsibility). A key issue is how to measure these values, which is not easy at all. Measuring goes beyond collecting ‘dollar metrics’ because not all indicators can be easily expressed in monetary units. The paper will present how other ways of measuring can help to monitor workplace performance as well. Furthermore it discusses how to benchmark workplace performance. The paper ends with a plea for a more integrated business case approach that goes beyond spreadsheet-based decision-making. It concludes that applying both quantitative and qualitative performance indicators and including both hard and soft factors is needed to find an appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of real estate interventions and to adequately cope with the interests and needs of different stakeholders and society.