ENHANCING PEOPLE CAPABILITIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABILITY IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Norliana Sarpin 1,2, Jay Yang 3 1 PhD Candidate, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. 2 Faculty of Technology Management and Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia 3 Professor, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. norliana.sarpin@student.qut.edu.au; j.yang@qut.edu.au ABSTRACT Sustainability has become an important principle to be pursued throughout the life-cycles of project development. Facility managers are in a commanding position to maximise the potential of sustainability. Sustainability endeavours in facility management (FM) practices will not only contribute to reducing energy consumption and waste, but will also help increase organisational productivity, financial returns and standing in the community. At the forefront of sustainable practices, FM professionals can exercise a great deal of influence through operational and strategic management and they should be empowered with the necessary knowledge and capabilities. However, literature studies suggest that there is a gap between the level of awareness and knowledge and the necessary skills required to promote sustainability endeavours in the FM profession. Therefore, it is worthwhile to reflect on people capability issues since it is considered as the key enabler in managing the sustainability agenda as well as being central to the improvement of competency and innovation in an organization. This paper aims to identify the critical factors for enhancing people capabilities in promoting the sustainability agenda in the FM sector. To achieve this objective, a total of 60 factors were identified through a comprehensive literature review and then a questionnaire survey with 52 respondents was conducted to collect the perceived importance of these factors. The survey analysis revealed 23 critical factors as significantly important. These critical factors will serve as the basis for the establishment of a mechanism to equip facility managers with the right knowledge, to continue education and training and to develop new mind-sets to enhance the implementation of sustainability measures in FM practices. Keywords: capabilities, facility management, knowledge, sustainability.
INTRODUCTION The benefits of sustainability in the construction industry are well known to facilities managers. Past research indicates that the implementation of sustainability measures in facilities management (FM) activity can reduce energy consumption and waste, while increasing organisational productivity, financial returns and standing in the community (Nielsen et al. 2009; Hodges 2005; Lai and Yik 2006). Sustainable development agencies at the global, national and local levels also apply pressure to FM practitioners through continued demands for the industry to develop and apply sustainability policies in their day-to-day activities. The FM sector has positively responded to this demand due as seen in the emergent interest among facilities managers and building owners to integrate sustainability measures into the management of building assets (Nielsen et al. 2009). Despite the high level of interest in sustainability principles, identifying the most appropriate approach is a significant challenge for most FM organisations seeking to implement the sustainability agenda. This challenge can be coupled with other barriers such as limited capabilities and knowledge as well as organisational culture issues that inhibit sustainability implementation. According to Hodges (2005) and Shah (2007), proper capabilities and skills among FM practitioners can contribute enormously to the success of the sustainability agenda in the FM sector. Yet, FM practitioners still suffer from the lack of capabilities and inconsistency of skills to implement sustainability in their routines. Additionally, issues such as the lack of sustainability knowledge, knowledge chasm and knowledge transfer issues add to the problem (Elmualim et al. 2009; Elmualim et al. 2010; Shah 2007; Jensen 2009). Therefore, it is worthwhile to reflect on people capability issues since it is considered as the key enabler in managing the sustainability agenda as well as being central to the improvement of competency and innovation in an organization (van Kleef and Roome 2007; Gloet 2006). This paper aims to identify the critical factors for enhancing people capabilities in promoting the sustainability agenda in the FM sector. To achieve this objective, a total of 60 factors were identified through a comprehensive literature review then a questionnaire survey of 52 respondents was conducted to identify the perceived importance of those factors. CAPABILITIES TO IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT The issue of limited capabilities to achieving sustainability goals in the FM sector has been highlighted as a barrier that needs solutions (Shah 2007; Hodges 2005; Yang et al. 2005). This situation has led to more concerted efforts towards sustainable development since the involvement of FM
functions is required especially in activities with an environmental and economic focus. For this reason, facility managers need to understand how the growing importance of sustainability is affecting the way they execute their roles and responsibilities. FM personnel must become professionally competent and knowledgeable about the sustainability issues that will impact on their business environment both operationally and strategically (Elmualim 2013). A background review was conducted to understand the people capability (PCap) factors that would impact on the consideration of sustainability measures in facility management practice. This understanding contributed to the establishment of a mechanism to allow FM professionals develop new mind-sets in order to uplift their performance in delivering sustainability. This will also help them identify knowledge deficiencies and skill gaps for continuing education and training. Sixty (60) people capability factors were identified from the existing literature of related studies to obtain a holistic view of people capability factors in the promotion of sustainability agenda. These factors cover a wide range, such a understand Life-cycle Cost Analysis concept, develop good relationship with the organization s top management and a vision for a better future. Based on these factors, a theoretical knowledge base can be developed to guide the data collection and analysis for in-depth research. These sixty factors were sorted into five micro-categories based on the Wiek et al. (2011) classification for a similar application, namely: 1) interpersonal capability; 2) system thinking capability; 3) anticipatory capability; 4) normative capability; and 5) strategic capability. Interpersonal capability refers to the ability to facilitate and enable FM personnel to solve the issues and challenges related to the sustainability application. System thinking capability is the ability to analyse complex systems across different pillars of sustainability (the environment, society and economy) and over different scales. Anticipatory capability is the ability to analyse and evaluate related sustainability issues that may happen as a consequence of a present action. Normative thinking capability is the ability to map, apply and reconcile sustainability values, principles and goals that a person should know in terms of practices that should be discarded and those which must be maintained to sustain the balance of nature. Finally, strategic capability is the ability to design and implement specific strategies towards the implementation of sustainability in an organisation. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY METHODS This research aims to promote the uptake and implementation of sustainability measures in FM practices through identifying the critical people capability factors that will serve as the basis for the establishment
of a mechanism to equip facility managers with the right knowledge, to continue education and training and to develop new mind-sets. A questionnaire survey was conducted using an online questionnaire tool to collect respondents views regarding the 60 factors identified through a comprehensive literature review. These identified factors were validated through a pilot survey before distribution to the respondents. The survey population chosen for this research includes the consultants, contractors, government agency officials, developers, building owners, real estate agents and academia who involves directly in facilities management sector. The respondents were selected among members in Facilities Management Association of Australia (FMA), Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) and Malaysian Association of Facilities Management (MAFM). These are leading professional institutions for FM practice. It is expected that consensus among their members will represent the general views of the profession. Out of the 160 surveys sent, 52 valid responses were received with a response rate of 33%. The respondents roles in the FM sector were classified in five categories, namely facility managers (33%), asset and facilities management consultants (25%), directors (21%), building engineers (15%) and academics (6%). Almost 50% of respondents had over 21 years experience in the construction industry. Additionally, 74% of the respondents had been involved in the FM sector for more than 5 years as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Respondents profiles Characteristic Categorization Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Less than 5 years 8 15 5 to 10 years 5 10 Years of experience in 11 to 15 years 5 10 construction industry 16 to 20 years 9 17 More than 21 years 25 48 Less than 5 years 14 26 5 to 10 years 8 15 Years of experience in FM 11 to 15 years 10 19 sector 16 to 20 years 8 16 More than 21 years 12 24 Certificate/Diploma 10 19 Graduate Diploma 6 12 Academic background Bachelor Degree 20 38 Master Degree 12 23 Doctoral Degree 4 8 The Cronbach s alpha was calculated to test the internal consistency of the scale in providing appropriate ratings for the listed factors. In this research, the Cronbach s alpha value was 0.963, which shows strong internal consistency of the scale used and suggests that reliable data was obtained.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Ranking of critical people capability factors The ranking of the people capability factors was identified based on their mean values. In selecting the critical capabilities, the cut-off mean value was 4.00 which represented significant. Out of 60 factors identified from the literature review, only 23 were rated by the respondents as significant or very significant with mean values 4. Standard deviations show the average amount of deviation from the mean. The level of significance of the 23 critical people capability factors based on the questionnaire survey findings is shown in Table 2. The modest values of standard deviation (0.54 to 0.79) show an insignificant diversity in the respondents ratings. The research findings indicated that the strategic capability factors have the most effect on the enhancement of sustainability implementation in FM practices, with the overall mean value of 4.14 among the four microcategories of key factors. S2 Understand the LCC and TCO technique (mean value=4.38) and S10 Understand whole-life value concept (mean value of 4.31) (ranks 1 and 2) were the most significant factors identified among all the factors. This indicates that facility managers need to recognise the importance of the LCC and TCO concepts, especially because of the large proportion of operation and maintenance costs in the overall cost of building assets (Fuller 2010; Hodges 2005). This result echoes the findings by Hodges (2005) and Shah (2007) which highlighted the importance of facility managers understanding of LCC and TCO as a driving force of sustainable practice in FM. The knowledge regarding LCC and TCO should be quantified and presented to the top management in order to promote the idea of sustainable practice and its positive effect on the bottom line. This requires the facility manager to think strategically and emphasizes the impact of embracing sustainability in their daily roles such as introducing the consideration of long-lasting, durable and environmental friendly materials to top management s analyses of the LCC and TCO of a built asset. S5 Develop good relationship with the organisation s top management (mean rank=4.21) was ranked fourth and thus was also regarded as an important capability since the sustainability policy can only be decided by the organisation s top management (Elmualim 2013; Hodges 2005). In the overall second and third rank, the anticipatory capability and interpersonal capability categories were classified almost the same, with an overall mean rank of 4.10 and 4.09 respectively. In terms of individual factors, P6 Ability to work across discipline in the interpersonal capability dimension (mean rank=4.25) was ranked as the third most significant factors and A3 Take a long term perspective in the anticipatory capability dimension was ranked fifth (mean rank=4.21). It is also noted that the other factors related to interpersonal capability
dimension also received a higher ranking. Other factors within this dimension were ranked as significant or very significant in the survey, such as P5 Ability to motivate other stakeholders and P4 Self motivated with a high mean value of 4.19 and 4.17 respectively. Table 2: Ranking of the 23 people capability factors for enhancing sustainability measures in FM practices People capability (PCap) factors Mean Std. Dev. Strategic capability 4.14 S2 Understand the Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) and Total Cost of 4.38.661 1 Ownership (TCO) technique S10 Understand whole-life value concept 4.31.643 2 S5 Develop good relationship with the organisation's top 4.21.776 4 management S1 Understand the organisation s financial strategy 4.19.742 6 S8 Ability to optimise the building and equipment operations 4.12.704 11 S3 Understand the design and construction issues related to 4.08.682 12 FM practice S6 Familiar with the building systems manual 4.06.752 13 S4 Develop organisation's sustainability strategies 4.04.656 15 S7 Ability to monitor and maintain equipment efficiency 4.02.779 20 S9 Rank Ability to specify the energy and environmental goals to 4.00.594 21 associated suppliers and contractors Anticipatory capability 4.10 A3 Take a long-term perspectives 4.21.667 5 A1 Identify short-term and long-term consequences of any 4.12.583 10 decision/plan A4 Vision for a better future 4.06.752 14 A2 Identify direct and indirect consequences to people and 4.02.610 19 ecosystems Interpersonal capability 4.09 P6 Ability to work across disciplines 4.25.711 3 P5 Ability to motivate other stakeholders 4.19.687 7 P4 Self-motivated 4.17.678 8 P1 Communication skills 4.02.754 16 P2 Collaboration skills 4.02.577 17 P7 Ability to plan and implement sustainability efforts 4.02.542 18 P3 Courage to make changes 4.00.792 23 ST2 ST1 System thinking capability 4.06 Understand the meaning, goal and issues of sustainable development Understand the bigger picture of significant aspect of sustainable development 4.12.615 9 4.00.741 22 The survey revealed that system thinking capability factors were less viable and were ranked as the least significant factors among all. This may reflect that FM practitioners have realised their roles in supporting the sustainable development agenda (Nielsen et al. 2007). However, the
bigger challenge is how to identify the most appropriate approach to sustainability and how FM practitioners can equip themselves with new knowledge, tools and competencies to overcome the barriers. In order to examine whether all of the respondents ranked the 23 critical people capability factors in a similar order, Kendall s Coefficient of Concordance was calculated. According to the analysis, the coefficient value for the critical factors was 0.043, which shows statistically that the respondents had different preferences in ranking the most important factors. Agreement on critical people capability factors Finding agreement across the 5 types of respondents roles was very important for developing the framework for people capabilities since the particular capabilities they would need in order to implement sustainability efforts would depend on their roles in the FM sector. It is important to note that the Kendall s Coefficient of Concordance test can identify the agreement levels but it cannot investigate whether there were major differences in the respondents rankings of the significance level. Therefore, to address this issue, the Kruskall-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used. This test revealed that there were no significant differences between the various respondents for 21 of the people capability factors (refer Table 3), which indicates that there was generally a consensus in perceptions and expectations regarding the sustainability agenda among all the stakeholders in the FM sector regardless of their role or position. However, two factors did have slight differences across the respondents rankings. There were: (1) S1 Understand organisation s financial strategy and (2) S3 Understand the design and construction issues related to FM practices. The opinion of the directors was different from the opinion of the other groups regarding the significance of these factors. A possible reason for this may be that the directors had responsibilities for managing the whole organization both at the operational and strategic management levels. Thus, they were able to relate to the importance of these factors, unlike the respondents in other groups who were mainly involved at either the operational level or consulting only. Results of the above tests suggest that all 23 people capability factors can be statistically considered as most relevant and significant. The roles and responsibilities of all respondents represent different backgrounds and experiences which can affect the sustainability effort in FM sectors. Their views and opinion were very important in motivating sustainability measures implementation. Therefore, factors identified and ranked as critical will provide a sound foundation for the development of mechanism to promote sustainability in FM practices.
Table 3: Kruskal-Wallis statistics for 23 critical people capability factors People capability factors Scale detail Rank Mean Rank Kruskal -Wallis statisti cs (χ 2 ) Mean SD G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 1. Understand the LCC and TCO techniques 4.38.661 1 24.91 32.69 28.74 32.33 19.77 6.112 0.191 a 2. Understand whole-life value concept 4.31.643 2 26.91 28.31 26.18 34.33 23.65 1.806 0.771 a 3. Ability to work across disciplines 4.25.711 3 29.95 25.81 25.79 27.17 24.77 0.979 0.913 a 4. Develop good relationship with the organisation's top p- value 4.21.776 4 25.00 20.25 27.71 34.83 28.12 3.077 0.545 a management 5. Take a long-term perspectives 4.21.667 5 25.36 19.19 25.26 36.17 31.35 5.936 0.204 a 6. Understand the organisation s financial strategy 4.19.742 6 33.00 13.00 24.41 28.33 31.62 12.196 0.016 b 7. Ability to motivate other stakeholders 4.19.687 7 31.50 20.00 26.26 15.83 29.04 5.450 0.244 a 8. Self-motivated 4.17.678 8 24.82 28.06 25.38 36.67 26.08 2.036 0.729 a 9. Understand the meaning, goal and issues of sustainable 4.12.615 9 29.64 29.50 24.03 38.50 22.46 5.393 0.249 a development 10. Identify short-term and long-term consequences of any decision/plan 4.12.583 10 27.36 26.50 26.18 16.33 28.54 2.584 0.630 a 11. Ability to optimise the building and equipment operations 4.12.704 11 21.36 31.75 29.94 23.00 23.92 4.543 0.337 a 12. Understand the design and construction issues related to FM practice 4.08.682 12 36.00 27.13 24.29 31.33 19.85 9.746 0.045 b 13. Familiar with the building systems manual 4.06.752 13 24.00 29.81 30.62 31.17 20.12 5.627 0.229 a 14. Vision for a better future 4.06.752 14 23.32 27.13 25.62 38.33 27.23 3.001 0.558 a 15. Develop organisation's sustainability strategies 4.04.656 15 29.00 28.00 20.18 39.67 28.69 8.016 0.091 a 16. Communication skills 4.02.754 16 26.50 22.19 26.15 31.83 28.38 1.631 0.803 a 17. Collaboration skills 4.02.577 17 25.50 23.00 26.85 33.17 27.50 1.852 0.763 a 18. Ability to plan and implement sustainability efforts 4.02.542 18 29.77 22.63 25.68 33.33 25.62 3.210 0.523 a 19. Identify direct and indirect consequences for people and ecosystems 4.02.610 19 23.59 25.88 28.21 25.50 27.35 1.040 0.904 a 20. Ability to monitor and maintain equipment efficiency 4.02.779 20 25.77 30.56 24.50 32.00 25.96 1.511 0.825 a 21. Ability to specify the energy and environmental goals to associated suppliers and contractors 4.00.594 21 28.14 28.94 27.24 26.00 22.77 1.837 0.766 a 22. Understand the bigger picture of significant aspect of sustainable development 4.00.741 22 31.45 26.13 21.82 39.33 25.69 5.972 0.201 a 23. Courage to make changes 4.00.792 23 31.27 26.25 22.71 32.33 26.23 2.983 0.561 a *df for Kruskal-Wallis test =4 G.1-director; G.2-building engineer;g.3-facility manager;g.4-academics;g.5-asset and facilities management consultant a p-value >.05 = there are no differences between the mean ranks of the PCap factors between respondents roles/positions in the FM sector. b p-value <.05 = there are differences between the mean ranks of the PCap factors between respondents roles/positions in the FM sector.
Once the critical people capability factors were identified, it was then more important to know how to deal with each of these factors appropriately and effectively. Therefore, it was crucial to establish the logic and structure in processing the critical factors. A people capability conceptual framework was developed as a basis for coordinating the systematic enhancement of sustainability measures in FM practices (Figure 1). Four categories were used to classify the critical factors, namely: interpersonal capability, system thinking capability, anticipatory capability and strategic capability. Figure 1: A people capability conceptual framework The next phase of this on-going research will identify ways to process and respond to the identified critical factors. The Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) technique will be used to analyse the relationships between people capability factors and to understand the dependency and driving power of each factor. ISM analysis will lead to the development of a model that shows the relationships between the studied variables. A case study approach will then be employed to reinforce the findings and to understand the real-world implementation issues in the industry. CONCLUSIONS The paper presents the preliminary findings of research aimed at identifying the important people capability factors that support the enhancement of sustainability measures in FM practices. A total of 60 factors were identified through a literature review and a questionnaire survey was then conducted to gather the data related to the significance of these factors. The analysis results show that 23 factors were identified
as significantly important for the success of sustainable practices in FM. The most important micro-category of capabilities identified from this survey was the strategic capability followed by the anticipatory capability, then the interpersonal capability and lastly the system thinking capability. A pair-wise comparison survey is being conducted to identify the FM practitioners opinions on the relationship between these critical factors, and thus to understand the interdependency and hierarchical significance of the studied factors. REFERENCES Elmualim, A.A. 2013. "Sustainability in FM: Trends in policy and FM competence consequences." Paper presented at the World Building Congress 2013, Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, Queensland. Elmualim, Abbas, A Czwakiel, Roberto Valle, Gordon Ludlow and Sunil Shah. 2009. "The Practice of Sustainable Facilities Management: Design Sentiments and the Knowledge Chasm." Architectural Engineering and Design Management 5: 91-102. Elmualim, Abbas, Daniel Shockley, Roberto Valle, Gordon Ludlow and Sunil Shah. 2010. "Barriers and commitment of facilities management profession to the sustainability agenda." Building and Environment 45 (Compendex): 58-64. Fuller, Sieglinde. 2010. "Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)", (available online http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php [accessed on 1/2/2012]) Gloet, Marianne. 2006. "Knowledge management and the links to HRM: Developing leadership and management capabilities to support sustainability." Management Research News 29 (7): 402-413. Hodges, P. 2005. "A facility manager's approach to sustainability." Journal of Facilities Management Vol. 3 (Iss; 4): pp.312-324. Jensen, P. 2009. "Design Integration of Facilities Management: A Challenge of Knowledge Transfer." Architectural Engineering and Design Management 5 (3): 124. Lai, J.H.K. and F.W.H. Yik. 2006. "Knowledge and perception of operation and maintenance practitioners in Hong Kong about sustainable buildings." Facilities 24 (3/4): 90-105. Nielsen, Susanne Balslev, Jesper Ole Jensen and Per Anker Jensen. 2009. "Delivering Sustainable Facilities Management in Danish Housing Estates." In 2nd ICSMM, Barcelona. Shah, Sunil. 2007. Sustainable Practice for the facilities manager: Oxford ; Malden, MA : Blackwell Publushing, 2007. van Kleef, J. A. G. and N. J. Roome. 2007. "Developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation: a research agenda." Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (1): 38-51. Wiek, A., L. Withycombe and C.L. Redman. 2011. "Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development." Sustainability Science: 1-16. Yang, J., P.S. Brandon and A.C. Sidwell. 2005. Smart & sustainable built environments: Wiley-Blackwell.