A council member recently asked a question about the role of IT in building/facilities management and the general trends we're seeing. Without having a global view or doing any detailed research in this area, I did pull together a few notes on what I've seen in the Australian and New Zealand markets over the past few years:
- New building developments are increasingly being designed with IT in mind - e.g., technology is being designed into the buildings architecture right from the start.
- For the most part, no major change is occurring in the IT organisational structure as a result - usually an additional role (akin to the network manager type role) is assigned to address all facilities management related issues (either directly, or as an interface to an external service provider).
- IT is often driving change in facilities management due to integration requirements between building systems and IT systems.
- Facilities management (from an operations perspective) is often still kept very separate from IT - more from a "separation of duties" perspective than anything.
- ITs role in facilities management is usually at the data integration and service management layers only.
- Leading organisations are integrating facilities management more deeply with technology to introduce new capabilities (smarter/contextually aware security systems, scheduling and resource management integration, automation and control - for example, meeting room scheduling with opaquable glass for private meetings etc)
- Security is the most effective and valuable integration point for most organisations (e.g., tracking and validating physical movements and access requests with role based digital security systems).
- "Lightweight" integration of building systems is the main mantra - largely because of issues with constricting growth/reduction of headcount, inflexibility of location change as a result of changing economic conditions, or the general fear of "building lock-in" when work-tasks are integrated tightly with workplaces.
- "Workplace-as-a-service" is often talked about but rarely implemented, often due to political and contractual reasons or the inflexibility of customisation. Though there are several good examples of workplace-as-a-service styled contracts, they usually relate to large campus deployments where there is at least some commonality across multiple tenants.
A local example of a "workplace of the future" with a heavy emphasis on tech integration that I've seen here in Australia is Aurecon. Aurecon provides engineering, management and specialist technical services for public and private sector clients globally. Their (relatively) new facility in Docklands Melbourne provides integration with lighting controls, video and audio conferencing, window furnishings, on-wall display technologies and opaquable glass meeting room walls that can be controlled (switched from transparent to opaque) electronically. On my tour of the building early last year though, it was noted that "not all of the technology operated as expected". This project was driven largely as an IT project with design and integration provided by major technology vendors.
New Zealand also has many companies that use automated visitor management systems, integrated building automation and security systems (including video), and integration of scheduling and resource management systems to provide things like automated room booking facilities with on-wall displays, emergency notification systems that alert employees to dangerous workplace environments (e.g. damage or risks as a result of fire, flood, earthquakes, power loss or other disaster scenarios). It should be noted that these organisations have a range of different provider models. Some completely in-source and tightly integrate their systems while others prefer the external service provider model and keep it all at "arms length" as it were.
Organisational culture seems to be the most consistent determinant of which model is preferred. From Forresters perspective though, a lightweight integration approach appears to provide the most flexibility at the lowest cost and risk.
Hope this helps. If anyone has other views on this topic that they would like to share, please do contribute!
