3.8 Review

Establishment of KPIs for facility performance measurement: review of literature

Journal

FACILITIES
Volume 28, Issue 9-10, Pages 440-464

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/02632771011057189

Keywords

Performance measurement (quality); Quality indicators; Critical success factors; Facilities

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available