San Antonio, TX, United States
San Antonio, TX, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Lavy S.,Texas A&M University | Garcia J.A.,Alpha Facilities Solutions | Dixit M.K.,Texas A&M University
Facilities | Year: 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the previously established list of key performance indicators (KPIs), to identify and categorize the core performance indicators that are measurable and quantifiable. Design/methodology/approach: A literature-based qualitative approach is adopted for accumulating desired information on identifying and categorizing the core indicators. The list of KPIs established in an earlier paper is narrowed down considering the future research needs suggested by the literature. Findings: The quantifiable and measurable core indicators are identified and categorized in the form of a list. The core indicators are defined and the variables required to quantify them are described by citing peer-reviewed literature. Research limitations/implications: This paper represents the first step toward establishing a relevant list of quantifiable and measurable core KPIs. Future research papers could emphasize derivation of mathematical expressions for determining the identified core KPIs and validating these KPIs using simulation of real building data. Practical implications: The need to establish a concise and relevant list of quantifiable and measurable KPIs that could express more than one type of information about a facility's performance is identified in this paper. This paper presents and describes a narrowed down list of core KPIs, which could be utilized by facility management industry professionals while performing a holistic performance assessment. Originality/value: This paper provides a list of core KPIs that could express more than one aspect of a facility's performance and that is measurable and quantifiable. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Lavy S.,Texas A&M University | Garcia J.A.,Alpha Facilities Solutions | Scinto P.,Scinto Statistical Services | Dixit M.K.,Texas A&M University
Construction Management and Economics | Year: 2014

Assessing a facility’s performance is important for measuring its contribution towards organizational goals. Among many approaches to performance assessment is the holistic key performance indicator (KPI) approach. However, there are numerous KPIs available, and the chosen KPI needs to be relevant to facility goals and must be calculated, analysed and evaluated to allow for the future state of the facility to be acceptable at the lowest cost. The value of several key descriptive analytics in facility performance assessment may be enhanced through the use of simulation. Simulation transforms the descriptive analytics into predictive and prescriptive analytics by allowing for the robust assessment of plans and future outcomes through the creation of multiple scenarios, in this case, for an education facility. The simulation approach quantifies the interrelationship and interdependence of KPIs, and is potentially effective in analysing how maintenance expenditures can be optimized to maintain a desired level of Condition Index as demonstrated by several simulation scenarios. © 2014, © 2014 Taylor & Francis.


Lavy S.,Texas A&M University | Garcia J.A.,Alpha Facilities Solutions | Dixit M.K.,Texas A&M University
Facilities | Year: 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify key variables that affect the quantifiable key performance indicators (KPIs) and to derive equations to measure these indicators. Qualitative KPIs are also discussed in terms of the aspects that need to be covered while carrying out qualitative performance assessment. Design/methodology/approach: A combination of literature and an industry opinion-based qualitative approach is applied to develop equations to calculate the quantifiable KPIs. A facility asset management consulting firm is included in the process of deriving the equations. Key aspects of a facility's qualitative performance assessment are categorized and discussed by performing a literature review. Findings: Mathematical expressions for core performance indicators are presented and discussed along with key variables. In addition, the information needed to quantify these core indicators is also discussed. Research limitations/implications: This paper represents the second step towards establishment of a relevant list of quantifiable and measurable core KPIs, which were identified and categorized in Part I of this paper. In Part II, the authors derive equations to quantify the core KPIs. Future research is needed to use relevant information from industry for validating these equations. Practical implications: A need for a concise and relevant list of KPIs was identified in Part I of this paper. Part II provides an approach to quantify the core KPIs based on information that is available in the industry. This research will help facility management professionals in not only selecting the indicators of choice, but also quantifying them based on available information yielding enhanced facility management decisions with measurable facility performance outcomes. Originality/value: This paper provides equations and variables to measure a facility's physical, functional and financial performance using both quantitative and qualitative performance assessments. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Lavy S.,Texas A&M University | Garcia J.A.,ALPHA Facilities Solutions | Dixit M.K.,Texas A&M University
Facilities | Year: 2010

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) and categorize them based on specific aspects of facility performance measurement in order to facilitate a holistic performance assessment. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative approach, based on the literature, is adopted. This approach relies on an extensive literature search of extant research papers, assessment reports, surveys and presentations to identify KPIs. The KPIs are arranged in appropriate categories based on their purpose and content. Findings: The paper identifies indicators for performance measurement and classifies them into four major categories: financial, physical, functional, and survey-based. Indicators are arranged from general to the most specific indicators. The list presents indicators with their description, units of measurement, and literature sources. Research limitations/implications: Future research could focus on further analysis of the list of KPIs in order to generate a more concise list of easily measurable indicators that exhibit wide applicability and valid categorization. Practical implications: The lack of proper categorization hampers frequent and widespread use of performance metrics by the industry. This study proposes a list of KPIs and presents it in appropriate categories so it can be used more practically by facility management practitioners. Originality/value: The list of KPIs generated covers aspects of facility performance assessment and shows wider applicability; thus, it could be utilized by practitioners for a holistic assessment of a wide range of facilities. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Loading Alpha Facilities Solutions collaborators
Loading Alpha Facilities Solutions collaborators