It’s up to management to figure out which of these models is the most effective and efficient for huge enterprises. The benefits and downsides of each model can be found by taking a closer look.
The Decentralized Facility Management Model
The most popular model is this one. Upon passing through the main valves and disconnects or, in some cases, when the utilities are disconnected, you have a self-standing facility management organization for each of your major business units: the central plant handles major heating and cooling, electrical and possibly the roads, grounds, and sidewalks; a central facility group handles classrooms and office buildings, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing, and structures.
Often, each of these organizations has its own capital budget, purchasing and supply system, fleet management team, and contractor network. As a result, they tend to have better customer satisfaction and a more positive team attitude and ownership.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it isolates each group inside a larger campus, which weakens the spirit of collaboration among students as a whole. Using the system, different approaches to the same work can be generated. Each group may have its own unique set of techniques, as well as parts and supply requirements.
The redundancy of management and support staff, as well as capital-support equipment, is one of the negative aspects that management is concerned about. Higher management is likewise decentralized, which is a significant consideration given the decentralized nature. As a result, even at the highest levels of a company, diverse cultures and visions for the team’s objective might exist, resulting in a wide range of management styles and performance outcomes.
The Centralized Facility Management Model
As all of the facilities management and maintenance units are consolidated into one entity, standards and procedures are maintained across the entire enterprise. The quality of repairs and installations is better, and the approach to asset and equipment reliability is more consistent with a centralized strategy, which is unquestionably more efficient.
Customer dissatisfaction is by far the most common negative. For this reason, the program and process’ management teams must be well-prepared and use industry-leading performance metrics to track even the smallest shifts in performance.
An engineering and maintenance director is the appropriate person to lead the centralized approach since he or she has overall responsibility for all parties involved. The director of facility operations, or the person in charge of overseeing the day-to-day operations of each sort of building service, such as residence halls, sports arenas, classrooms, and research facilities, would be this person’s counterpart or peer.