Local or global FM?: Consider service delivery

Whether they’re headquartered at home or abroad, is your facilities management partner really at your service?

As a long-time procurement professional, I have firsthand experience of how both local and global FM solutions impact service delivery.

For the third instalment in a five-part series on local vs global FM, I’ve highlighted considerations you should bear in mind to be sure of optimum delivery for your organisation.

Shaun Carroll, Mitie Chief Procurement Officer

Understanding how your facilities management contract will work in practice is critical when choosing an FM partner. Both local and global solutions impact delivery in different ways. It pays to know how your services will be delivered.

Going local

Whether working with local or global partners, there is a big advantage to partnering with suppliers that prioritise self-delivery. In a self-delivered model, there is less reliance on outsourcing to third parties. Instead the FM provider uses their own teams to manage and maintain your assets. Mitie takes great pride in collaborating with our partners and recently received prestigious ISO 44001 certification for Collaborative Business Relationships. You are more likely to encounter self-delivered FM with a local provider than you are with a global provider or managing agent. Let’s explore some of the benefits further.

Local self-delivery offers more direct control, customisation and flexibility, with services tailored to specific needs. Services can be adapted based on your changing needs and expectations. If there was third party involvement, you would undoubtedly have to contend with various levels of control across the different service providers.

Use of data and analytics in FM has exploded, offering huge benefits to you as a customer and to FM service providers. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are being applied to building management systems (BMS) and other operational platforms.

Locally-procured FM from self-delivered service providers offers full ownership and control of data throughout your estate. As data is collected and managed by one service provider, you can be sure of consistency and less risk of data breaches, leaks or other vulnerabilities.

Having a local FM provider that self-delivers means your senior management partners are in-country and can be accessed more easily than senior colleagues on global contracts, who are often based abroad. This enhanced communication, collaboration and responsiveness from the highest levels of command is a considerable benefit. Having senior decision makers close to hand to address issues makes for a more agile and responsive contract; the ability to implement changes quickly will secure the quality of delivery.

The hands-on decision-making process in local FM means decisions about contracts, suppliers and service standards are made with the best possible solution in mind. This contrasts with global FM, where uniformity is the priority and often decision makers operate at a distance from day-to-day delivery. With self-delivered local FM, teams remain informed and empowered to influence services in their regions and to respond appropriately to any challenges.

Going global

Global FM contracts can be negatively impacted by the layers of management that run them. From the global headquarters down, there is typically a rigid hierarchy that means key stakeholders in local services may only be contactable when issues are escalated several times. This creates delays in decision making, additional bureaucracy and even additional costs. The layer of senior global FM management also comes with a cost implication. Let’s explore some of the challenges of global solutions further.

As global FM providers typically rely on multiple partners for services, they have less control over contract delivery. Due to the range of partner organisations involved, flexing the approach to suit changing needs and expectations is time-consuming and cumbersome.

The patchwork of suppliers involved in global FM contracts impacts the quality of the data your organisation receives. With multiple, fragmented data sources – rather than the robust, all-encompassing solution you would expect from a self-delivered contract – there is more inconsistency. Stitching together insights from disparate sources also makes it more difficult to produce a true reflection of performance. This means it is even more challenging to make informed and meaningful decisions.

Global FM solutions may hinder open lines of communication and a culture of collaboration. With the most senior management roles likely based out of country, there may be delays as important issues are escalated to the appropriate individual. Cultural differences across borders may influence the understanding of unique situations. There is also a risk that colleagues working at a distance lack insight into a particular region’s ways of working, leading to misunderstandings and frustration among colleagues on the ground.

Collaboration is similarly impacted. The multiple partners involved in global contracts have their own organisational structures and hierarchies. This means collaboration is often hampered by bureaucracy, with slow decision making and a lack of agility.

When making your choice between local and global FM, consider the following:

• Is the contract likely to prove challenging with potential complexities slowing my organisation’s progress?
• Does my organisation move at pace, with an expectation partners do the same?
• Is access to senior management at my FM partner a priority?

To read my full analysis of local and global FM, check out my mini-guide: Locally sourced FM to secure your success.