IFM Service Models in Facilities Management

Global Market Outlook On IFM Service Models 

• Integrated services outsourcing (all hard and soft services) can be carried out in a particular geography so that client can induct itself with managing large contracts with a single supplier before implementing a global IFM model
• Less number of supplier contacts and less overhead in administration of service providers compared to bundled sourcing
• More mature IFM markets (like UK or USA) can be chosen to implement this model initially and then replicated across other regions with comparatively less maturity
• Separate contracts should be signed with different/same IFM service providers for each region
• In case a service provider is not located in a country of client's presence, the service provider would sub-contract services to a local player, whose credibility should be examined

Sub-contracted IFM 

• The IFM service provider outsources the operational service delivery to multiple service providers but is responsible for the integrated service delivery of these service providers
• IFM service provider fully focusses on the tactically/strategically management of the sub-contractors and empowers them to deliver these operational services
• The IFM service provider is independent of the FM service supply chain and as such consult and engage with the client organization to ensure the best in class service provider mix

Pros 

• IFM service provider is integrally responsible for the performance/delivery by individual service providers
• The client has some influence on choice of individual service providers
• Potential to contract a single IFM service provider globally, for all sites and for all services
• Independence in the supply chain for the IFM supplier, which helps the supplier to extract better performance on the operational side
• More strategic focus from IFM service provider is possible
• Only a  limited strategic FM capability required in-house (lower overhead cost) for the buyer

Cons

• Subcontractors charge a margin to the service provider, which is eventually passed onto the buyer
• Cross over on management and administration between IFM and sub-contractors
• Integration of service delivery at risk for the buyer, due to multiple single service providers being contracted individually
• Less operational focus of IFM service provider
• Specific arrangements to be considered in relation to transfer of staff between client, IFM and individual service providers

Self-delivery IFM

• Self-delivery IFM differentiates from the subcontracted IFM model by delivering the operational services themselves
• The IFM provider is thus less dependent from individual service providers and can directly manage operational processes and delivery
• Integration of service delivery should be easier and improved by the creation of multifunctional teams and empowering to manage multiple processes and service areas
• This model is similar to the IFM subcontracting model as far as the tactically/strategically management focus goes
• Main risk of this sourcing model is the so called “vendor lock in”: it's difficult to transfer the IFM service contractor as all operational services have to be transferred to another IFM contractor