See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242349726

Benefits management in office fit-out projects

Article  in  Facilities · May 2008

DOI: 10.1108/02632770810877958

CITATIONS READS
13 592

2 authors, including:

David Baccarini
Curtin University
31 PUBLICATIONS   2,023 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project Uncertainty Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Baccarini on 04 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Facilities

Benefits Management in Office Fitout Projects

Journal: Facilities
Fo

Manuscript ID: f-11-2007-0010

Manuscript Type: Original Article

r

Keywords: Benefits, Office, Workplace

Pe
er
Re
vi
ew
Page 1 of 9 Facilities

1
2
3 Benefits Management in Office Fitout Projects
4
5
6
7 Abstract
8
9 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how benefits management is applied to office
10 fitout projects , in terms of benefits identification, benefits planning, benefits control and benefits
11 realisation.
12 Design/methodology/approach – Three case studies, based in Perth (Western Australia) are
13 investigated based on structured interviews with the project sponsor; and analysis of secondary
14 documentation, such as business cases, briefs, and post occupancy evaluations
15 Findings – There is no coherent, holistic application of benefits management models in office fitout
16 projects. There are fragments of benefits management evident from the research, such as benefits
17
identification and planning within business cases and briefs, and benefits realisation through post
18
19
occupancy evaluations
20 Research limitations/implications - The research is based on three case studies, so it is not possible
to draw any strong generalisations. Future studies are needed to corroborate or contradict the findings
Fo

21
22 in this research.
23 Practical implications – The results highlight some aspects of benefits management in office fitout
24 projects that could be improved, particularly the setting of key performance indicators for benefits, and
rP

25 more formal benefits control and realisation processes.

26 Originality/value – This research is the first to take the construct of benefits management, which is
27 primarily applied to information systems projects, and investigate its application in building projects
28 Keywords – benefits management, office design, office fitout, workplace
29
ee

30
31
32
1. Introduction
rR

33
34 Buildings play an important role in economic and social activities and absorb a significant amount of
35 resources. So it is essential that buildings meet the needs of their clients. Projects commence by
36 determining the client’s needs but, unfortunately, construction projects have traditionally failed to meet
37 the needs of modern business (Latham, 1994). Egan (1998:10) noted that “in construction the need to
ev

38 improve is clear. Clients need better value from their projects”. Therefore any new processes that can
39 be applied to construction projects so that clients’ needs are met are worthy of consideration.
40
41 Projects are created to deliver beneficial change for the client (Turner, 1999). Therefore a building client
iew

42 needs are met by delivering the required project benefits. Importantly, the realisation of project benefits
43
is a core component of project success (Baccarini, 1999). A benefit is an outcome of change that is
44
favourable, advantageous and positive and is attained by an individual, group or business (OGC
45
46 2006a).
47
48 Over the past decade a process has evolved to facilitate the delivery of benefits to project clients –
49 benefits management. Benefits management originated in information system (IS) projects (OGC,
50 2006a). The catalyst for its emergence has been the poor performance of IS projects to deliver intended
51 benefits and a recognition that there was significant scope for improvement in the management of IT
52 project benefits (Ward et al., 1995). The advantages of benefits management has meant that its
53 application has spread to different industries including human resources and change programmes
54 (OGC, 2006a). Interestingly, a review of the literature on benefits management provides no evidence of
55 its application to construction projects.
56
57
This paper reports research on office fitout projects to identify what benefits management processes, if
58
59
any, are being applied. This research is the first to take the process of benefits management, which is
60 prevalent in the IS project industry, and apply it to construction projects. So it is of value to research
how benefits management in being applied to construction projects. This should lead to insights that will
help the construction industry to mitigate the shortfall in delivering client value, as Egan (1998:19)

1
 Facilities Page 2 of 9

1
2
3 noted: “construction can learn from other sectors of the economy by focusing the construction process
4
on delivering the needs of the end-user or consumer”. The research reported in this paper supports this
5
6
idea by taking a process from the IS industry – benefits management - as a construct for investigating
7 how existing processes within office fitout projects attempt to meet the needs of their clients by
8 delivering the intended benefits.
9
10 2. Benefits Management
11
12 Benefits management is “the process of organising and managing business activities such that potential
13 benefits can be identified and the necessary changes made to deliver those benefits’ (Ward & Griffiths,
14 1996:416). An analysis of the project benefits management models reveals the following common
15 themes:
16
• It requires active stakeholder management and stakeholder involvement;
17
18 • Benefits management processes are iterative
19 • Project benefits require effective management
20 • Benefits require key performance indicators to enable control
Fo

21 • Benefits management covers the project lifecycle and post project completion
22
23 The past ten years has seen the development of a range of benefit management models, from which
24 four common stages can be discerned (e.g. Ward & Griffiths, 1996; Remenyi et al., 1997; Thorp (1998),
rP

25 Department of Defense (1999); OGC, 2006a):

26
27 • Benefits Identification - Benefits identification documents benefits that a project is to achieve.
28 Typically this step is triggered by a business need for change (Ward & Griffiths, 1996). Identified
29 benefits form a baseline used for subsequent control and benefit realisation (Ward et al., 1996).
ee

30
31 • Benefits Planning – This is the process for developing the benefits realisation plan. Benefits
32 planning explicitly stipulating the means by which benefits are to be achieved (Ashurst & Doherty,
rR

33 2003). The plan is essential to effectively realise business benefits (Ward et al., 1996). Key
34 performance indicators are defined for each targeted benefit so that the organisation can
35 continually monitor achievement of the benefits. The benefits realisation plan should also list
36 responsibilities for delivering benefits.
37
ev

38 • Benefits Control – Benefits control is a set of actions to realise planned benefits through ongoing
39 monitoring to ensure that they are being achieved (Ashurst & Doherty, 2003). Project benefits
40 monitoring requires comparing project results with the benefits realisation plan and assessing if
41 changes have occurred that will affect the delivery of planned benefits (Ward & Griffiths, 1996).
iew

42 Benefits monitoring is required because it is almost impossible to identify all of the benefits of a
43 project in advance and if there were no monitoring process, any change or new benefits would
44 never be identified (Ward & Griffiths, 1996; Remenyi et al., 2000
45
46 • Benefits Realisation – Benefits realisation is comparing actual benefits to predicted benefits Thorp,
47 1998). Benefits realisation reviews the benefits to see if planned benefit have been realised
48 (Ashurst & Doherty, 2003; Reminyi & Sherwood, 2001). The review identifies any new benefits that
49 may have arisen from the project (Ward & Griffiths, 1996).
50
51
52 3. Office Fitout Projects
53
54 The main purpose of most building facilities is to provide suitable workspace (Muir, 2003). Workspaces
55 have a profound impact on organisational performance and their specification and design are growing in
56 importance (Steiner, 2005). Over the years a comprehensive range of office space planning designs
57 have been developed to meet diverse individual and organisational needs (Steiner, 2005). There are
58
four levels in designing office space (Worthington, 1994):
59
60 • Building Shell –structure and skin of the building
• Building Services – heating, lighting, ventilation and communications
• Scenery – Interior elements such as ceilings, partitions and finishes

2
Page 3 of 9 Facilities

1
2
3
• Settings – furniture and equipment
4
5
6 An office fitout project deals with the scenery and settings of office accommodation. It is a design and
7 construction process that adapts the building shell for office accommodation. Office fitout involves
8 individual workplace areas, support spaces (eg. meeting rooms, conference rooms, waiting areas,
9 storage, etc) and circulation space (GOAC, 2000). Typical elements within an office fitout projects
10 include the design and construction of partitions, workstations, furniture, and specialised joinery.
11
12
13 4. Research Methodology
14
15 This research investigates the application of benefits management to office fitout projects. A review of
16
the literature was conducted for two main bodies of knowledge: benefits management and facilities
17
18
management (in particular, office design and workplace). The research adopts a case study approach,
19 which is useful for studying a social phenomenon through a thorough analysis of a case (Yin, 1994). It
20 provides an opportunity for the intensive analysis of specific details (Kumar, 1996, Yin, 1994). A sample
of three case studies situated in Perth, Western Australia, was selected based on purposive sampling,
Fo

21
22 which uses the judgement of the researcher as to who can provide the best information to achieve the
23 objectives of the study (Kumar, 1996). The research design is a cross-sectional study as all information
24 was collected at one point in time. The investigation is non-experimental as the research is exploring a
rP

25 current situation of how benefits management is used within construction fitout projects (Kumar, 1996).
26
27 All three case studies had similar scope, consisting of the design and construction of various functional
28 spaces such as offices, meeting rooms, storage areas, refreshment preparation facilities and specialty
29
ee

rooms e.g. first aid areas. The office fitouts consisted of the standard elements including partitions,
30
cabinetwork, workstations, and furniture. Brief details of the case studies are:
31
32 • Case study X - X is an international organisation within the primary resources industry. Staff
was dispersed around the city and a decision was made to locate the organisation in a CBD
rR

33
34 location in one office building covering numerous floors to accommodate approximately 1,500
35 staff. The new office fitout has been in operation for two years.
36 • Case study Y - Y is an international accounting organisation with offices throughout Australia.
37 A need was identified for future space so the organisation initiated a plan for an Australian
ev

38 rollout of new offices. This case study reviews their Perth office fitout project. This office is
39 located in the CBD and covers an area of approximately 3,500m2 (two and half floors) and
40 accommodates approximately 240 people. The new office has been in operation for two years.
41
iew

• Case study Z - Z is an international organisation within the primary resources industry. Their
42
43 requirement for space was initiated by their existing lease coming to an end. A decision was
44 made to remain in their existing premises and create a new office fitout. The office is located in
45 the CBD and covers several floors of a building and accommodates a workforce of
46 approximately 160 people. The new offices have been in operation for three months
47
48 Data was collected from two sources. Structured interviews were conducted with the client sponsor in
49 each case study. A structured interview was selected as the most appropriate instrument to collect
50 qualitative data (Kumar, 1996). The interview instrument was piloted and minor amendments made. All
51 interviews were recorded and transcribed and varied in duration from 50 to 90 minutes. The other
52 method of data collection was a review of secondary documentary evidence that might contain
53 information related to benefits management processes. This included business cases, briefing
54
documents, minutes of meetings, and post-occupancy evaluations. A systematic review of these
55
56 documents was undertaken and data gathered for subsequent analysis.
57
58 5. Results
59
60 None of the case study projects conducted a comprehensive and holistic benefits management process
as set out in the models. This is not surprising as benefits management is a relatively new process that

3
 Facilities Page 4 of 9

1
2
3 has emerged over the past decade within IS projects. However, through the interviews and a review of
4
documents, three benefits management processes could be discerned – See Table 1:
5
6
7 Office Fitout Process Benefits Management Process
8 Business Cases & Briefing Benefits Identification & Planning
9 Reports and Meetings Benefits Control
10 Post Occupancy Evaluation Benefits Realisation
11 Table 1: Benefits Management Processes in Office Fitout Projects
12
13 Benefits Identification and Planning - Business Case and Briefing
14
15
All three case studies produced business cases and briefs. Business cases support the process of
16
17 benefits identification and planning (OGC, 2006b). A business case must identify business benefits that
18 are expected to be achieved by embarking on a project (KPMG, 2003). Briefing follows once the
19 business case has been approved and is the formal process which allows clients to communicate and
20 document their needs for a project (Othman et al. 2004).
Fo

21
22 Both X and Z produced business cases that reviewed accommodation options, considering benefits and
23 risks of each option. Benefits were identified but not in a coherent, structured manner. In contrast, Y’s
24 business case set out a list of thirty benefits to be achieved by the fitout project. All three organisations
rP

25 then developed briefs that contained, inter alia, information related to desired benefits for the project. Y
26 emphasised the dominance of the business case over the brief, so if the brief deviated from benefits set
27 out in the business case, it was put back on track: ‘the vision highlighted that the executive wanted to
28
see it and that is what we had to follow’.
29
ee

30
31 No case study had a distinct benefits identification and planning process. Benefits identification and
32 planning was intermingled with other processes, such as analysis of options, during the development of
the business case and brief. Construction clients’ needs are driven by their business objectives (Barrett
rR

33
34 1995). All three organisations’ requirements within the office fitout projects were driven primarily by
35 increasing space requirements because of business growth. Only Y had a clearly articulated list of
36 benefits, whilst all three took the benefits from their business case and extended them into further detail
37 through the briefing process. The case studies confirm that the some benefits identification and planning
ev

38 process occur in office fitout projects through the use of business cases and briefing processes.
39 However, there was an absence of a benefits management mindset and focus.
40
41
iew

Benefits Identification & Planning– Benefits

42
43
44 All case studies articulated project benefits within their business cases and briefs. Benefits identified are
45 now discussed.
46
47 Efficiency benefits - Clients need a building efficient for its intended use (Chinyio et al., 1998). All three
48 projects’ primary efficiency benefit was to increase occupancy density in terms of floor space per
49 person. X’s project also provided the opportunity to change business processes: ‘If we had not of
50 moved, these business processes would have not happened and been approved … it was not a case of
51 "we are just moving", it was "what can we do differently?"’. Another of X’s efficiency benefits was
52 achieved by bringing separate physically located business units into one location: ‘things would be more
53 efficient because of the proximity of all the people to each other and from this the productivity would
54
increase’. All case studies confirmed that efficiency could be attained through better use of physical
55
56
resources, saving space, and the ability to increase occupant productivity (Van der Voordt, 2004;
57 GBCA, 2006; Way, 2005).
58
59 Communication benefits - Business units should be physically aligned for effective communications
60 (Langston & Lauge-Kristensen, 2002). All three projects designed the office fitout so that linked
business units were collocated, thereby facilitating better communication: ‘Fitout has provided ways that
these collocated services can exist quite well’ (Y). Z’s previous accommodation had poor acoustic

4
Page 5 of 9 Facilities

1
2
3 qualities such that existing rooms were impacted by the noise of people external to the rooms, while the
4
new office provided rooms with the appropriate acoustic treatments. X selected a building with larger
5
6
floor areas compared to the previous location, leading to greater opportunities for staff interaction. So
7 communication benefits were addressed in all three case studies and believed that office design can
8 facilitate effective communications (CIB, 1997; McGregor & Then, 1999).
9
10 Flexibility benefits - Organisations are constantly required to deal with change, so office facilities need to
11 be designed to be flexible to adapt to future changes. Flexibility benefits include flexibility of zoning of
12 areas or workstations, and dealing with office churn i.e. rearranging office space to meet changes in
13 staff personnel (Van der Voordt, 2004; Atkin and Brooks, 2000; Langston & Lauge-Kristensen, 2002). X
14 selected an open plan design to allow for future expansion and contraction: ‘We wanted a system that
15 moved and changed very simply’. Y required a design that could cope with future business growth so
16 the fitout was designed in a modular format to facilitate office re-design for changing staff without having
17
to change office infrastructure: ‘Existing fitouts previously involved changing the environment which
18
19
meant spending a lot of money to modify or customising to meet individual and specific needs”. Z’s
20 facilities were designed to be flexible since the business case identified that staff numbers would
increase by 20-30% in the medium term. Z’s flexibility was provided by the ability to change offices from
Fo

21
22 one person to two persons if required and having the same design for all workstations. In summary, all
23 three organisations considered flexibility to be a critical benefit requirement primarily to cope with future
24 growth and the inevitable high rate of churn expected.
rP

25
26 Image benefits - Office fitouts can transmit a desired corporate image to clients (Langston and Lauge-
27 Kristensen, 2002; Van der Voordt, 2004; Mbachu & Nkada, 2006). All respondents confirmed that image
28 was an important benefit of office fitout projects, particularly in projecting an image to external
29
ee

stakeholders. X’s office areas for visiting client and executive management were designed to be
30
attractive as these areas are in constant use by external clients and other stakeholders related to the
31
32
business. Y wanted to transmit an image of high quality to promote the organisation: ‘The client offices
have been widely photographed in many newspapers and magazines. It’s a really good marketing ploy
rR

33
34 to use“. Z’s office fitout needed to represent the organisation’s corporate identity in particular the
35 reception area ‘required a good look’.
36
37 Sustainability benefits - Office fitouts can be designed so that the materials and processes minimise the
ev

38 impact on the environment (GBCA, 2006; Harrison et al. 2004). All three case studies selected
39 workstations designed for reuse thereby mitigating the need for purchasing additional or different
40 workstations when change is required. Y’s business case stated the project must ‘embrace ecologically
41 sustainable design’, so products were selected based on their impact upon the environment: ‘a lot of the
iew

42 fitout is environmentally friendly; it has been chosen to be so’. So, a common approach for attaining
43
sustainability benefits was to select furniture and workstations that were adaptable and reusable for
44
future needs.
45
46
47 Organisational behaviour benefits - Office fitouts have the opportunity to influence organisational
48 behaviour through layout design (Atkin & Brooks, 2000: Harrison et al., 2004). The three organisations
49 adopted different approaches to achieve organisational behaviour benefits. X introduced a café style
50 collaboration area to develop a relaxed atmosphere and allowed teams to meet in an informal
51 environment. Z office fitout took account of cultural work styles, where possible: ‘The finance team
52 opted for large open plan, the legal team wanted to maintain single offices. Engineering teams wanted
53 shared offices with 3 or 4 people’. Y’s staff area was designed to allow collaboration at lunch and
54 informal meetings to occur.
55
56 Staff retention benefits - An organisation’s ability to attract and retain staff will be influenced by its
57
facilities (Cotts and Lee, 1999). All three organisations acknowledged that staff retention benefits from
58
59
office fitout projects were limited. X noted that staff retention is ‘like a hygiene factor; if the fitout is poor
60 quality that is the reason they go, if it is not poor quality it is other reasons’. Y observed that office
design ‘is not a driver for the staff to leave’: and the aim was for a fitout that “is professional and looks
and feels as somewhere that they want to work”. Z acknowledged that staff retention was an important

5
 Facilities Page 6 of 9

1
2
3 issue since the resource industry was seeing many people move around organisations: ‘The fitout may
4
be perceived that the space is more generous for the employees, especially since staff retention was
5
6
important’. These responses highlights that office fitouts have limited effectiveness in retaining staff,
7 although some consideration is given to this benefit due to the present high demand for staff and the
8 need to try a range of strategies, including office fitout design, to retain staff.
9
10 Benefits Planning - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
11
12 In order to measure the achievement of benefits, KPIs must be set (OGC, 2006a). In all three case
13 studies, KPIs were not set except for efficiency benefits, which were measured in terms of allowed
14 space per person. X gathered industry norms for space efficiency and a target of 18m2 per person was
15 chosen. Y set a KPI for space efficiency of 14m2 per person, while the achievement of other benefits
16 was measured as a subjective ‘yes or no’ response. Z had a KPI for space efficiency at 16m2 per
17
person, otherwise all other benefits to be achieved were reviewed in an ad-hoc manner. X highlighted
18
19
the difficulties of setting KPIs for some benefits, such as productivity, ‘if you don’t have data to start with,
20 how do you know it has improved? There are also other factors that come into it, different management
changes over time, the impact of productivity up or down, and so how do you know if its just the
Fo

21
22 environment’. All case studies confirmed that the majority of benefits did not have KPIs except for space
23 efficiency. The reason all case studies had KPIs for space efficiency could be because it is a tangible
24 benefit and has traditionally been measured in terms of floor area per person. However, there was an
rP

25 absence of KPIs for other less tangible benefits, such as flexibility or image, which indicates a lack of
26 maturity of benefits planning within office fitout projects and an opportunity for future improvements in
27 the benefits management processes in such projects.
28
29
ee

Benefits control
30
31
32
Benefits control requires comparing project results with the benefits plan (Ward & Griffiths, 1996).
Meetings and progress reports can be used to control benefits realisation (Gould & Joyce, 2003). X and
rR

33
34 Z held weekly projects meetings where monitoring of benefits was informal. Only Y had a formal
35 benefits control process approach to monitoring and controlling benefits though weekly project
36 meetings: ‘Throughout each process of the project, we ensured that the overall concept was being
37 achieved’. None of the organisations identified new benefits during the fitout project, although Z’s
ev

38 benefits were affected during the project by a significant increase in planned staff numbers that resulted
39 in flexibility and efficiency benefits being compromised: ‘Even though you build in flexibility this has been
40 overridden by the numbers of people’. The absence of a formal benefits control process within the
41 existing arrangement of meetings and reports reinforces the lack of awareness of benefits management
iew

42 within the construction industry. This indicates an opportunity for future improvements in benefits control
43
in such projects.
44
45
46 Benefits Realisation - Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
47
48 Once a project has been completed the realised benefits need to be evaluated. POEs can be used for
49 data collection in which building occupants give feedback on their experiences of the built environment
50 (Horgen & Sheridan, 1996; McDougall, et al., 2002). X’s benefits realisation was applied only to
51 efficiency and flexibility benefits through an informal POE process 6 months after the delivery of the
52 project through random interviews of staff and informal feedback from management. X’s flexibility
53 benefits were achieved as in one year 3,600 people had been efficiently churned: ‘This is a huge
54 amount of people a day moving and it is continuing (and the workstation design) was capable of being
55 changed immediately”. Y did not undertake a formal benefits realisation process: ‘Key stakeholders
56 make particular mention normally six months after the fitout, it is not initiated in an interview and it’s just
57
provided without request. Y’s space efficiency was realised since the fitout achieved 14m2 and churn
58
59
benefits were realised: ‘We recently moved 200 through a churn and did not have to change any of the
60 office fitout’. Z’s benefits are planned to be reviewed 6 months after project completion, through a post
project appraisal and ‘we would tie this in with the benefits realisation’. The case studies highlight that
no formal realisation process occurs, but key benefits that were reviewed were efficiency and flexibility.

6
Page 7 of 9 Facilities

1
2
3 The results suggest there is significant room for improvement in the formal evaluation of realised
4
benefits within office fitout projects
5
6
7 6. Discussion
8
9 Construction projects have traditionally failed to meet the needs of modern business (Latham, 1994;
10 Egan, 1998). Benefits management offers a process for office fitout projects to meet client’s needs. The
11 results of this research into the application of benefits management in office fitout projects led to the
12 following key findings:
13 • There is no structured benefits management processes within office fitout projects. This which is
14 perhaps not surprising because it originated in IS projects but is only recently beginning to spread
15 to different industries. The literature and these research results indicate that benefits management
16
is being applied in an unstructured and fragmented manner within office fitout projects. The novelty
17
18
of benefits management within construction projects means there is an understandable lack of a
19 benefits management mindset and focus.
20 • The case studies confirm that benefits identification does occur, albeit in an unintegrated manner.
Fo

21 Benefits identification takes place in business case and briefing processes. Two benefits dominate
22 office fitout projects – efficiency and flexibility. Efficiency benefits focused on the efficient use of
23 space through occupational density. Flexibility benefits are required to allow an organisation to
24 cope change and growth, particularly office churn. Other benefits considered are communication,
rP

25 organisational behavioural, image and staff retention.

26 • KPIs are generally not applied to benefits in office fitout projects, except for space efficiency. The
27 reason could be that space efficiency is a tangible benefit that can be easily measured in terms of
28
floor area per person, whereas the lack of KPIs for other benefits indicates a lack of rigour of the
29
ee

30
needs for KPIs for all benefits, including intangible benefits such as image and communication.
31 • Generally, formal benefits control is not applied to office fitout projects. Regular project meetings
32 are held where, inter alia, a review of benefits is informally conducted. This means that there is
limited control on the attainment of project benefits.
rR

33
34 • No formal realisation process occurs in office fitout projects although limited informal benefits
35 realisation reviews do occur on construction fitout projects through post occupancy evaluations.
36 The case studies highlight that key benefits reviewed related to efficiency and flexibility benefits.
37 Flexibility benefits in relation to churn appear to be critical to all the organisations, as all the case
ev

38 studies have demonstrated that their organisations are having to deal with increased numbers of
39 people and business units restructuring themselves. The flexibility of the fitout has facilitated
40
making easy changes to the organisation.
41
iew

42
43
44 The main aim of this research was to investigate the application of the benefits management process in
45 office fitout construction projects in Western Australia. This research occurred through the analysis of
46 three different case studies. The case studies collected data through semi-structured interviews and
47 secondary data provided by the organisations.
48
49 The case studies indicate that benefits management processes are not applied in a coherent and
50 holistic manner within office fitout projects. A key reason could be benefits management is a relatively
51 new process and mainly championed in industries other than building. Construction processes that
52 aligned with the benefits management process are business cases and briefing, project meetings and
53
reports, and post project evaluations. So, if benefits management process is to be more formally and
54
55
rigorously applied to construction projects, there exist several existing processes that could provide a
56 foundation for its introduction and use. Furthermore, there is considerable opportunity for improving
57 existing benefits management processes within office fitout projects, particularly in setting KPIs for all
58 planned benefits; formally monitoring the achievement of all benefits during the project; and rigorously
59 evaluating the achievement of benefits after project completion.
60

7
 Facilities Page 8 of 9

1
2
3 Research on the benefits management processes and its application to the construction industry has
4
not occurred previously and therefore this research provides a valuable contribution to knowledge in this
5
6
area. Furthermore, the research has investigated how a process applied in IS projects is being used in
7 the construction projects, which supports the Egan’s(1998:19) recommendation that “construction can
8 learn from other sectors of the economy”.
9
10 References
11
12 Atkin, B. & Brooks, A. (2000), Total Facilities Management, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
13 Ashurst, C. and Doherty, N.F. (2003),“Towards the formulation of a ‘best practice’ framework for
14 benefits realisation in IT Projects”, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 6,
15 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
16 Baccarini, D. (1999), “The logical framework method for defining project success”, Project Management
17
Journal, Vol 3, No 4, pp. 25-32
18
19
Barrett, P. (1995), Facilities Management – Towards Best Practice, Blackwell Science, Oxford
20 CIB (Construction Industry Board). (1997), Briefing the Team – A Guide to Better Briefing for Clients,
Thomas Telford, England.
Fo

21
22 Chinyio, E.A., Olomolaiye, P.O .and Corbett, P. (1998), “An evaluation of the project needs of UK
23 building clients”, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 385-391.
24 Cotts, D. and Lee, M.(1999), The Facility Management Handbook, AMACOM, New York
rP

25 Department of Defense. (1999), Military Health System IM/IT Benefits Management Program:
26 Guidebook, Department of Defense.
27 Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force in the Scope of
28 Improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction, Department of the Environment,
29
ee

Transport and the Regions, London.

30
GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia). (2006), The Dollars and Sense Of Green Buildings:
31
32
Building the Business Case for Green Commercial Buildings in Australia, Green Building Council
of Australia.
rR

33
34 GOAC (Government Office Accommodation Committee). (2004), Office Fitout Guidelines, Queensland
35 Government
36 Gould, F.E. and Joyce, N.E. (2003), Construction Project Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
37 Harrison, A., Wheeler, P. and Whitehead, C. (2004), The Distributed Workplace, DEGW, Spon Press,
ev

38 NewYork
39 Horgen, T. and Sheridan, S. (1996), Post-occupancy evaluation of facilities: a participatory approach to
40 programming the design, Facilities, Vol. 14, No. 7/8, pp. 16-25.
41 KPMG. (2005), Global IT Project Management Survey, How committed are you? Information Risk
iew

42 Management, KPMG, Australia.

43
KPMG. (2003), Programme Management Survey, Why keep punishing your bottom line? Information
44
Risk Management, KPMG, Australia.
45
46 Kumar, R. (1996), Research Methodology, Longman, Melbourne.
47 Langston, C.A. and Lauge-Kristensen R. (2002), Strategic Management Of Built Facilities, Butterworth-
48 Heinemann, Oxford.
49 Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London
50 Mbachu, J. and Nkado, R. (2006), “Conceptual framework for assessment of client needs and
51 satisfaction in the building development process”, Construction Management and Economics,
52 Vol. 24, pp. 31-44.
53 McGregor W and Then, D.S.S.S. (1999), Facilities Management and the Business of Space, Arnold,
54 London
55 McDougall, G., Kelly, J.R., Hinks, J. and Bititci, U.S. (2002), A review of the leading performance
56 measurement tools for assessing buildings, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
57
142-153.
58
59
Muir, A. (2003), “Space management” in Best, R., Langston, C., & De Valence, G., (Eds), Workplace
60 Strategies and Facilities Management, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp.81-103
OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2006a), Managing Business Benefits: Key Principles, Office
of Government Commerce retrieved March 14, from http://www.ogc.gov.uk

8
Page 9 of 9 Facilities

1
2
3 OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2006b), Business Case Managements, Office of Government
4
Commerce retrieved March 14, 2006b, from http://www.ogc.gov.uk
5
6
Othman, A.A.E., Hassan, T.M., Pasquire , C.L. (2004), Drivers for dynamic brief development in
7 construction, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11. No.4, pp.248-
8 258.
9 Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M. and White, T. (1997), Achieving Maximum Value from Information
10 Systems: A Process Approach, John Wiley & Sons, London.
11 Remenyi, D., Money, A. and Sherwood-Smith, M. (2000), The Effective Measurement and Management
12 of IT Costs and Benefits, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
13 Steiner, J. (2005), “The art of space management”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 4. No. 1, pp.
14 6-22.
15 Thorp, J. (1998), The Information Paradox: Realizing the Business Benefits of Information Technology,
16 McGraw-Hill, Canada.
17
Turner, J.R. (1999), The Handbook of Project Based Management – Improving the Processes for
18
19
Achieving Strategic Objectives, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, London.
20 Van der Voordt, T.J.M. (2004), “Costs and benefits of flexible workspaces: work in progress in The
Netherlands”, Facilities, vol. 22, no. 9/10, pp. 240-246.
Fo

21
22 Ward, J. and Griffiths, P. (1996), Strategic Planning for Information Systems, John Wiley & Sons,
23 England.
24 Ward, J., Taylor, P. and Bond, P. (1996), “Evaluation and realization of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study
rP

25 of current practice”, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 214-215.
26 Way, M. (2005), “Soft landings: A fresh scope of services that ensures users and clients get the best out
27 of a new building”, Journal of Facilities Management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 23-39
28 Yin, R. K. (1994), Case study research: design and methods, Sage Publications, California.
29
ee

Worthington, J. (1994), “Design in practice – planning and managing space” in Spedding, A., (Ed),
30
CIOB Handbook of Facilities Management, Chartered Institute of Building, Longman, Singapore.
31
32
rR

33
34
35
36
37
ev

38
39
40
41
iew

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

View publication stats