Measuring your performance is one step in the benchmarking process. Many CREs and FMs have implemented benchmarking and measured their performance. The next step in the process is the implementation of changes that cause the organization to begin improving that performance. Unfortunately, many organizations never implement any changes, other than cost cutting, to improve their ranking.
The press of daily issues and problems often keep the benchmarking initiatives that would lead to superior performance at a lower cost from beginning. Also, without good comparisons from other peers CREs and FMs don’t really know which changes would have the greatest impact to improve their performance. There is a better way.
Here is a suggested approach to help you to get started. We have used examples from FM BENCHMARKING to illustrate how easy the process should be and this approach will allow you identify the key process improvements in the minimum amount of time.
First of all, focus on what is important. Energy and utilities are usually the largest expense items. Occasionally maintenance expenses may represent a greater share than utility expenses, but for most organizations utilities represent the greatest share with maintenance expenses running a close second. Most CREs and FMs have been working to reduce their utility costs for some time and some organizations have established goals to reduce costs or consumption by 5%, 8%, or even 10% a year for an extended period. At some point, when it gets too uncomfortable, or too dark, the organization will react with a response like, “we can’t cut it any further without making our employees unproductive.” The reality is there are smart ways to cut while using your energy more effectively and without making your employees unproductive. We will show you that direct comparisons with a valid peer group would be invaluable and appropriate in making the correct decisions.
The key is to integrate best practices into the direct comparisons, showing how you compare with your peer group. Then you can decide which best practices your organization should implement to keep employee comfort and productivity high (while, of course, keeping costs down).
Let’s start with the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for energy and utilities (we could do a similar analysis for maintenance costs. The usual KPIs for energy and utilities are:
- KWH per Unit Area
- Electric Cost per Unit Area
- Total Utility Cost per Unit Area
These KPIs shows how your energy and utilities compares with others. We will use filters to develop a good peer group. In this example we will filter for:
- Size: 600,000 gross square feet and greater
- Primary use: Office
Filters: Size: 600,000 and Greater GSF and Primary Use: Office
Figure 1 shows you at a glance how efficiently your facility is performing its electrical consumption. There are 171 buildings in this peer group with a median electrical utilization of 23.50 kwh per GSF (gross square foot). Our building’s performance is 18.94 kwh per GSF and the performance needed to reach the first quartile 15.97 kwh per GSF.
To reach first quartile you could start turning off more lights, reducing the operating hours or raising the temperature set points in the summer and lowering the set points in the winter, and more. These types of approaches make the building less comfortable and have some negative impact on employee comfort and productivity.
Another approach would be to consider what best practices others have implemented to reach the 1st Quartile. Figure 2 below shows some of the best practices you have implemented in our subject building (3rd to last column), what has been implemented by the peer group in your quartile (2nd to last column) and the next better-performing quartile (last column). Figure 2 is showing just some of the best practices that were identified for this client.
Filters: Size: 600,000 and Greater GSF and Primary Use: Office
Several items stand out and deserve consideration:
- LU1 — Motion Sensors in Conference Rooms — has already been implemented. No one is likely to question that this is a good idea since 84% of your peer group has already implemented the practice and 86% of the 1st quartile peer group has also implemented it.
- LU2 — Motion Sensors in General Office Space — has not been implemented and there is a significant increase in the implementation rate from the 2nd quartile (68%) to the 1st quartile (82%). Your facility could probably achieve some significant energy reductions by implementing this item. Many CREs and FMs know from personal observation that offices are vacant for a large portion of the workday. Turning the lights off when there is no one in them just makes good sense and it is highly unlikely that anyone will have a negative productivity or comfort issue with this item.
- LU3 — Motion Sensors in Rest Rooms — has not been implemented and has about the same peer group implementation rate for both 2nd and 1st quartiles (86% – 82%). Another good opportunity to reduce consumption without impacting the level of service. After all, who will complain about a dark restroom when no one is in it!
The FM BENCHMARKING tool allows you to see which best practices would have the greatest potential to reduce your energy consumption. You then would have to select which are feasible to implement in your facility, as well as price them out to see whether it will be worth it. But a benchmarking tool will set you well on your way.