Corporate Excellence in Facilities: Why the Workplace is Important

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer


The relationship between an organization and the physical environment it occupies—its building, or space in a building—is a key dimension of that organization’s strength, growth, and success. Companies, government departments, institutions, even families, make emotional, financial, personal, and corporate investments in the O-A relationship, often without being aware of its importance. Increasing awareness of the dynamics of the interaction between building users and their accommodation is a key to improving the quality of this relationship, to the mutual benefit of both sides. How does this relationship work?


Real Estate Business Strategy Office Building Facility Management Digital Equipment Corporation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    The Boston Globe, 4 February 1993, p. 45. Kindelberger, R. “Law Firm Blames Building For Ills”.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A recent publication lists the following: “facility consultants, space planners, architects, real estate brokers, engineers, interior designers, contractors, building owners, environmental specialists, city inspectors, movers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, painters, etc.” Molloy, Laurence B., “Pre-Occupancy Evaluation In Facilities Management” in Building Evaluation ed. W.F.E.Preiser, New York: Plenum Press, 1989 P. 59.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grandiose architectural feats that have turned out to be downright troublesome to both occupants and operators include the Great Arch outside Paris, the INTELSAT headquarters in Washington D.C., and the Bateson Building in Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ranko Bon, Building As An Economic Process Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Figures for the 1980s showed average churn in the US to be between 27 percent and 32 percent. (Tim Springer, personal communication).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A growing number of companies engage in “benchmarking” their building operating costs, that is to say, exchanging detailed cost information and comparing among themselves.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Planning for capital spending is a process which begins with the operating managers of a business. They are the ones who define the needs of their part of the corporation, who make the sales forecasts which justify new capacity, who review new technology to determine what the appropriate design should be, who evaluate the economics of a strategy and draft requests for capital funds and, finally, who supervise the design and construction or purchase of a new plant facility and its equipment, Joseph L. Bower, Managing the Resource Allocation Process ( Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1986 ), p. 11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964 ), p. 66.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnard, Functions,p. 66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnard, Functions,p. 67.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bower, Managing the Resource,p. 11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    David K. Carr et al., Break Point—Business Process Redesign ( Arlington, VA: Coopers and Lybrand, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holly Sraeel, “Bank of Boston’s JIT Gives Eileen Harvard the FM Edge,” Facilities Design and Management, October 1992, p. 46.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frank, Duffy, DEGW News, 2 June 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W.M.Jansen “The Office Building as an Instrument,” paper presented at International Symposium on Corporate Space and Architecture,Paris: 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Jacqueline C. Vischer and W.C. Mees,“Organic Design in The Netherlands: Case Study of an Innovative Office Building,” in Design Intervention: Toward A More Humane Architecture, eds. W.Preiser, J.C.Vischer, E.T.White, ( New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991 ) p. 285.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frances Busse Fowler, personal communication.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank Becker, The Total Workplace: Facilities Management and the Elastic Organization New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peter Lawrence, “The Design Asset,” The Corporate Board,July-August, 1988, p. 17.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Vancouver Sun,2 November 1992, p. A8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline C. Vischer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations