Does FM get the recognition it deserves?
There is a fascinating discussion going on at the i-FM.net Linked in forum about whether FM does get the recognition it deserves. I think it does. Basically, the problem is that as an industry and as a profession it does not sell itself well. This is partly due to reticence on the part of the people driving the sector, but probably more to do with the fact that people are focused on doing their day jobs – delivering services, making sure things work effectively and hopefully making some money into the bargain. Log onto the discussion if you can, but consider some of the reasons for the discussion in the first place.
Because facilities management has come into the built environment family relatively recently (or at least in its generally accepted definition) it is regarded as an ‘immature’ discipline. Consequently it is over looked, over shadowed by the other professions such as architecture, design, engineering and building. But I’m keen to know where FM needs to get better press and recognition.
As an industry construction complains it doesn’t get the recognition it deserves despite its contribution to the economy – whilst it has its own trade media online and in print, as a rule the broader media don’t see it as news worthy. The Stirling Prize is not widely covered; some landmark buildings get recognition and the Olympics will put the industry in the spotlight – but probably not in the way everyone wants. FM has similar problems with its image. As a PR and editor I know from bitter personal experience that essentially FM and other built environment disciplines are generally regarded as worthy, valuable but dull – not sexy in a media sense of the word. You just need to compare Channel 4 and BBC schedules to see that FM is not covered, whilst more consumer oriented professions such as interior design, gardening and architecture dominate.
I believe that as David Emmanuel tried a few years ago to do, the industry and professional bodies (and we have got enough thanks) need to demonstrate the link that FM has with architecture and other built environment disciplines. They need to put on a campaign to promote the industry – almost in the same way that 1010 has done for carbon reduction or Sport Relief does for charity – but make sure it is aimed at the right people. That means being totally sure who the customers are – who makes the decisions about FM and the way we work.
There is a consumer facing argument to educate people about FM, there is a central government angle and crucially an internal argument. Internal because to make sure that FM gets the recognition it deserves the big industry players as well as the smaller (perhaps sometimes more passionate) organisations need to think longer term.
For me that is the big problem to over come – even more so with the prospect of more cost cutting on the horizon no matter what the outcome of the political wrangling today(there are still some seats to declare as a write this). The industry will get its just desserts if it raises its sights to the bigger longer term targets.
Tags: David Emmanuel, facilites management, FM, recognition
During the mid-noughties, when PFI was at its peak, FM seemed to find a place on the same table as clients, architects and contractors briefly. The PFI consortia shareholders realised that involving FMers in the early stages of the design process could save on running costs over the life-cycle of the project. Does that still happen? I’m not sure.
I think a problem FM faces – as does construction to a degree – is that it is regarded as a commodity service, where the only price worth paying is the lowest one. That’s unlikely to change in a recession.