Companies related to the content on this page
Benchmarking Your Space Utilization
Changing space utilization is usually a complex issue but can have big payoffs for the FM organization and the company. For FMs it should be the first area for improvement initiatives. Here is an example, using a one million square foot facility, showing why you should consider looking at space as an initiative.
Option 1 — Initiatives to reduce operating costs:
Option 2 — Initiatives to utilize space more effectively:
An added benefit to Option 2 is that you can choose which space to eliminate and probably would select your oldest, least effective, highest cost to maintain, facility. The cost savings most likely would be greater than the amount shown.
So how do you determine if your space utilization is in the right range or can be improved? Our first graph shows our space utilization performance compared with our peer group of other large facilities with a size greater than 600,000 gross square feet. This allows you to see at a glance how our facility compares with other large buildings. There are 498 buildings in this peer group with a median space utilization of 506 gross square feet per person. Our building is near the middle of second quartile (in yellow) with a space utilization of 435 gsf per person. Not a bad performance but possibly there is also room for improvement (see Figure 1)?
We may want to add another filter for just office facilities to see how we compare. Figure 2 shows how our building compares with filters for office and large facilities with a size greater than 600,000. Our relative performance declines (moves to the right of the chart) a little bit. That makes sense since the Figure 1 chart had facilities of all types including manufacturing and warehousing.
Since our building is fairly new (5 years old), what happens to our ranking if we now add an age filter, comparing our space utilization only to only larger (>600,000 GSF) buildings, office buildings, and also newer buildings, those with an age of 4-10 years (see Figure 3)?
There is not much change here between Figure 3 and Figure 2. We can conclude that the age of a facility does not have a significant effect on the space utilization.
Now, let's consider what we would save in operating costs if could reduce our space utilization to first quartile performance. In figure 3 above we can see that our space utilization is 435 GSF per person. First Quartile performance, the point on the graph between the purple and blue sectors is 387 GSF per person. That is about an 11% reduction in space and a modest decrease in the overall facility size of about 110,000 GSF. But the annual savings, using median cost values would be about $12.50 per GSF X 110,000 GSF or nearly $1.4 M. That is certainly something worth considering.
Some things we've learned from applying various filters in our example that may affect management focus:
Articles written starting January 2009 are based on data from FM BENCHMARKING, the online benchmarking tool for facilities managers and CREs. Data tracked by FM BENCHMARKING includes cost data (utilities, maintenance, custodial, security), sustainability data, and best practices. FM BENCHMARKING is available on a subscription basis for $275 or less per year (with discounts for multiple buildings); included with each subscription is the ability to compare one's building to any others in the database, through a comprehensive set of filters. For more information, go to www.fmbenchmarking.com.
Articles written prior to January 2009 were written by Facility Issues. FM BENCHMARKING is a collaboration between Facility Issues and FMLink.