In a surprise move, announced in May, several of the main bodies representing the facilities management industry revealed that they were planning to merge. Sharp intakes of breath were heard across the industry when the British Institute of Facilities Management, Asset Skills, Facilities Management Association and Cleaning and Support Services Association revealed, in a carefully worded statement, that they had ‘agreed to the concept of forming one single and united body to represent facilities management and support services.’
The proposed merger ‘recognises the growing demand for a stronger, unified and collective voice that represents and promotes what is a fundamental component of our economy and day-to- day businesses’. A steering group has been established to progress the proposed merger.
The shock announcement, which is believed to have been pushed for by supply-side organisations frustrated with paying several membership fees to similar organisations, has been broadly welcomed by the industry.
Nigel Dews, managing director of Harrow Green – a member of both the BIFM and FMA – said the merger ‘provides a fantastic opportunity to further strengthen our industry by providing one voice’. He saw the merger benefiting his organisation, as ‘having one recognised body will undoubtedly help us with our FM industry support and sponsorship strategy.’
SSS Management Services, also a member of both the FMA and the BIFM for some years, agreed. ‘We welcome the emergence of a single entity that promotes our industry with one voice and set of priorities for issues, from the development of qualifications to lobbying and input in to international standards,’ said managing director Iain Beadle.
Other organisations, which are also members of several of the organisations, said there are currently too many representative bodies in the industry and the value to members is not always clear. ‘Consolidation of the bodies could make the industry more influential,’ said Annie Gales, director of Service Works Group, also a member of both the FMA and BIFM. ‘Unified representation could take the sector to a new level with a much higher profile, particularly for school and university students, and when combined with the strength of the education programme could create a better defined career path for facilities management.’
Jeremy Waud, managing director of Incentive FM (with both FMA and BIFM membership), said he was ‘not convinced that a sector the size of ours needs or can afford all of them’. Waud described how 18 months ago he brokered a meeting between the FMA and the CSSA as he felt that there was a great deal of common ground being covered – they both support the concept of outsourcing and have an exclusively corporate membership. While he feels that the fit with BIFM is ‘slightly more complex’ because of its strong emphasis on individuals and their development and training, Waud feels that these issues could be overcome. ‘This should result in a leaner organisation with lower overheads and lower membership costs, which from a member’s point of view is good news,’ said Waud.
One company, which didn’t want to be named, said it was paying more than £100,000 to be a member of different sector bodies and didn’t always see the value. Consolidation would reduce the amount members would have to pay, reduce the duplication of work, and increase the value for members and the facilities management sector.
But several people questioned whether the merger would actually happen – with the phrase ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ being used more than once. ‘Let’s hope that individual self-interest, decisions about personnel and conflicting agendas don’t get in the way of it happening,’ says Waud, while SWG’s Annie Gales described the merger as ‘a feat of engineering’, arguing that the key to its success will be to agree a single agenda. ‘I don’t think the professional and trade aspects are necessarily incompatible,’ she said.
The challenge for those managing this single entity will be to create a balanced programme to support employers, who have historically been represented by the FMA, and the individual practitioners for whom the BIFM was founded, argued Gerry Askew, commercial director of SGP Property and Facilities Management, also a member of both the BIFM and FMA. ‘The responsibility that we have as members of both organisations is to engage with that effort, providing feedback and participating in the discussion that will drive the agenda for the new entity,’ he said.
While arguing that any rationalisation is welcome, Andrew Mawson, managing director of Advanced Workplace Associates, said the real question is who is going to professionalise the facilities management industry? ‘Other management disciplines, including HR, are waking up to the importance of providing the right support, both physical and virtual. This planned merger may be the right tactical move but FM needs to respond to the strategic shifts that are taking place,’ he said.
One industry expert warned that elephant in the room is the Business Services Association (BSA), which has declined to be involved in the talks. Many have suggested that the BSA could become the new entity’s lobbying arm if it decided to play ball, and could be a very powerful force for the new body. But that relies on the BSA’s Mark Fox giving up his chief executive title, and, worst still, the smart offices in Fleet Street.
