Measurement of productivity of property services – an ... - RESER

XXI. International RESER Conference:
Measurement of productivity of property
services – an empiric analysis of the status
quo
Torben Bernhold, Nina Kaling, Vanessa Lellek
University of Applied Sciences Münster, Faculty of Ecotrophology - Facility Management
In scientific literature, the productivity of services and in particular its
measurement represent a yet little researched area of study. Currently
there exists neither a unified definition nor applicable measuring methods.
These issues are also reflected in practice. The importance of services
has been discovered; however, for the exploitation of hidden potential for
productivity, no generic solution has been found. This paper offers an
overview of the comprehension of productivity and methods of measurement
within the field of Facility Management (FM).
1. Introduction
In the course of the last three decades, the interest in services has increased significantly.
Enterprises are facing the challenge of adapting to the rising demands on services
in our society, in order to remain competitive and to be able to exist on the
market. This becomes particularly apparent due to the fact that the supply of services
is ever increasing, whether they are autonomic services or Value Added Services
(Kirchgeorg, 2009, 3147). Increasing growth of the supply of services is accompanied
by the service companies' intensification of competition and its connected pursuit for
profitability, which is characterized by a contested quest for quality, price/costs and
time (Lasshof, 2006, 1; Bruhn; Meffert, 2001, 3). In entrepreneurial objectives,
productivity increasing intentions have, therefore, foregrounded themselves, for instance
offered services with minimal resource expenditure to be produced or such
services to be utilized in such a manner that maximal performance results can be
achieved (Kern, 1992, 65; Lasshof, 2006, 1). Through these means, the strive for
optimized production processes wins, which is in pursuit of an increase in service
provision efficiency in terms of profitability and productivity, since unproductive actions
can lead to a suboptimal resource allocation and to disadvantages in competition
(Lasshof, 2006, 1). Insofar as improvement of productivity, output and input must
be taken into consideration; the constant improvement of productivity is therefore a
substantial performance parameter in the attainment of long-term service provider
advantages for enterprises (Grönroos; Ojasalo, 2004, 414; Lasshof, 2006, 1).
The measurement and control of service performance productivity presents practical
applications, such as also the scientific analysis of gained productivity, with various
challenges. While the classic productivity concept of material goods production
makes itself out to be relatively uncomplicated, the measurement of service performance
productivity according to scientific examinations requires the integration of
1

further parameters for the ascertainment of resource employment and of targeted
performance results. According to that, various scientific approaches, which consider
productivity factors in various manners and are integrated in measurement, exist for
the measurement of productivity in services (Lasshof, 2006, 108; Grönroos; Ojasalo,
2004, 416; Johnston; Jones, 2004, 203; Corsten, 1994, 60; Gummesson, 1998, 4).
Consequently, at this time neither a generally binding understanding of service performance
productivity nor a widely accepted term of productivity, with which service
performance productivity can be calculated exactly, exist (Baumgärtner; Bienzeisler,
2006, 8).
The difficulties in the transfer of classic productivity terms to service performances
are caused by the various properties of material goods and service performances
(Baumgärtner; Bienzeisler, 2006, 21; Lasshof, 2006, 2; Grönroos; Ojasalo, 2004,
416; Johnston; Jones, 2004, 203). The distinction of service performances presents a
further challenge for the development of productivity terms as well as the establishing
conception of a measurement model (Bernhold, 2010, 32; Lasshof, 2006, 47; Corsten;
Gössinger, 2007, 27). The manifestation of services performances exhibits a
high heterogeneity, so identification of significant productivity factors and their manifestation
become complicated (Lasshof, 2006, 63; Ojasalo, 1999, 60; Baumgärtner;
Bienzeisler, 2006, 32).
Against the background of the problems in distinction and the heterogeneity of service
performances, the presented research concentrates on property-orientated service
performances and examines these as a particular service performance type for
possible approaches for the measurement of productivity.
In the following, practical work will, therefore, be depicted through carried out interviews
with experts. The presented paper reflects the views of the experts from practice
and can be used as foundation for a model for measurement of productivity to
complement existing approaches found in literature.
2. Empirical study of productivity measurements of
property-orientated service performances
2.1. Research-leading study questions
The study of evaluative parameters and specific factors of productivity measurement
of property-orientated service performances is based upon the following researchleading
questions:
“Which measuring methods for the productivity of property-orientated service performances
during the operating stage have established themselves in practice, and
which parameters and specific factors form the basis of these?”
Up to now, predominantly theory-driven approaches, which most of these were not
determined in practice, exist for productivity measurement of service performances.
The presented research should contribute to the ascertainment of practical perspectives
of service-specified productivity terms and should also contribute to the evaluation
of how theory-driven productivity factors are utilized.
2

The presented research draws insofar primarily on the description of the understanding
of productivity currently dominating the property market and also of the basic
meaning of appropriate measurements within this type of services. The identification
of existing evaluative parameters for measuring productivity in property-orientated
service performances during the operation of properties and also the appraisal of
performance individualized productivity factors are components of this research. This
study also integrates within its process aspects and questions related to integrating
factors for the measurement of productivity, on the one hand, and on the other hand,
measurement of evaluating service-performance dimensions in general.
The primary questions and existing theory-based reflections of productivity in service
performances create four areas of study. These specify the central issues of the present
empiricism in terms of content and constitute the central questions of the present
research study:
Area of study Content-related question
Understanding
of productivity
Measurement of
productivity
Which understandings of productivity can be stated for the field of Facility Management?
Which methods are already being used to measure the productivity of property-orientated
service performances?
Measuring pa- Which measuring parameters call for the measurement of productivity?
rameters
Software use Which software support can determine the measurement of productivity of propertyorientated
service performances?
Table 1: Areas of study in the research project
2.2. Study design
The study-driving questions were constituted under the aim to inquire about the existing
understanding of productivity and the existing methods of measurement including
evaluative parameters and information technology systems in the field of facility
management (FM) and by which to depict the practical reality of property-orientated
services during the operational phase of properties. As a empirical-analytical study
(Laatz, 1993, 9), it focuses on the presentation of presently applied measuring systems
for productivity, and it is, secondly, seen as a process in an exploratory research
approach, which finds use in particular during new and partially unresearched
research issues (Diekmann, 2002, 30; Gläare; Laudel, 2006, 84). Especially against
the background of the complexity of facility management, the diversity of facility service
performances and as well as the basis of disciplinary innovations in FM, this research
study is to be carried out in the form of a qualitative study as exploration of
study objects (Kromrey, 2006, 72).
3

Literary examination of
the research question
Operationalisation
Overpass into a questionnaire
Ad Hoc Integration
Survey data
Problem-centered interview
of experts
Findings from the discourse
Data processing
Verbatim transcription
Data analysis
Qualitative content analysis
Presentation of results
Answering the research question
from a practical perspective
process running
Research question
Concretization of the
research question
knowledge flow
Fig. 1: Research process and methodology of study
In total, this empiric study comprises of 12 expert interviews, which can be segmented
into the areas: service provider, user and academics. Service providers are experts
from companies, whose core business is the provision of facility-management
services. In contrast, users are customers of facility service performances. Academics
is represented by a further area of teaching in FM. The integration of academics
offers the possibility to answer research-driven questions from a theoretical perspective
of facility-management disciplines and thereby to raise the validity of study results
from a theory-driven perspective.
4

Field of activity Number of
employees
Annual turnover
(in mi. €)
Number of interviewed
persons
1 Service provider FM 10.776 1.444,0 2
2 Service provider FM 10.300 730,0 2
3 Service provider FM 2.700 1.200,0 1
4 Service provider
REM/ FM
7.300 950,0 1
5 Service provider FM 9.139 387,9 1
6 Service provider FM 24.158 362,0 2
7 Service provider FM 1.400 55,9 1
8 Service provider IT-Services 300 40,0 1
9 User FM 1.500 2.234,0 2
10 User AM/ FM 2.000 1.334,4 1
11 User AM/ FM 60 27,0 1
12 Academics FM - - 1
Table 2: Interview partners in expert interviews
The raised interview material was given in a complete text form in normal written
German and was cleared of any syntax mistakes as well. Subsequently, a communicative
validation and feedback of raised data material was carried out with interview
participants (Gläser; Laudel, 2006, 188; Bortz; Döring, 2006, 311; Flick, 1987, 254).
The document released by the experts formed the basis of a detailed interpretative
evaluation of data material (Mayring, 2002, 91; Mayer, 2009, 47).
2.3. Qualitative content analysis of data material
The selected evaluation process of raised interview materials is a qualitative content
analysis according to MAYRING. The research material of the present research consists
of the complete transcripts from the carried out expert interviews. Each interview
was taken into analysis, as due to the exploratory nature of this research no selective
criteria could be defined without being able to exclude any distortion to reality
perception. The interview partners for the expert interviews were selected from the
research population according research-related features. These partners also represent
the results of a random selection.
Following the determination of research materials, the analysis orientation took place,
which specified particular analysing techniques and the model procedure for analysis
(Mayring, 2003, 52). Research object of the content analysis are the specifics of
productivity measurement from a practical perspective. Research material is to be
examined insofar for statements about the object of research, while excluding personal,
biographical or sociocultural backgrounds from analytical research.
For the evaluation of the present inquiries, a structured content analysis was selected.
Goal of the research was insofar to inquire about specific features of practical
5

measurement models of productivity and about underlying practical understandings
of productivity factors.
The analytical category system, which this research underlies, was derived from the
dimensional differentiation of research-driven questions. This system serves also as
a basis for the development of a guideline for the interviews. As the basis of ascertaining
variables of individual subject areas, categories and subcategories were developed
successively in four material processes, which contain the reference terms
of text passages. The multiple adaptation of the category system was dissected into
individual categories due to the quantity of present text references, and this required
a theory-driven differentiation of isolated dimensions, which can also modify encoding
rules and standard examples.
The final category system includes six main categories, which include in total 34 subcategories.
Fig. 2: Categories of the qualitative analysis
The subject area productivity measurement comprises the categories process standards
as well as starting points and modularization of measurement, because the research-leading
questions focuses primarily on the productivity measurement and because
the problem-oriented interviews were developed appropriately for the
examination of measuring methods.
The qualitative analysis was completely checked by one of the two authors and were
subsequently adjusted and verified with regard towards results or references and
classification within the category system.
The following presentation of results was carried out fittingly for the structured content
analysis according to MAYRING and with the help of the developed category
system initially on the basis of subcategories, which were summarized into the six
main categories (Mayring, 2003, 89). The implicit interpretation of found data resulted
against the background of scientific findings.
6

2.4. Presentation of results against the background of research
leading questions
The following presentations expatiate the content-analytically established results and
core statements parallel to the category system upon aggregated levels. For better
assessment and evaluation of occasionally differentiated statements and results, the
core statements have been presented according to their homogeneity. (high = clear
and predominant homogeneity in expert statements, medium = differentiated expert
statements and assessments, low = significantly diverging expert statements and
assessments). These additional assessments allow furthermore for good structure
and evaluation of currently still vacant aspects and questions with regard towards
practice as well as academics.
2.4.1. Category 1: Understandig of productivity
Within the subject area of understanding of productivity, various parameters were
examined, which represent the basic features of existing considerations of productivity
in property-orientated practice.
Subcategory
Perception of
productivity
Meaning of
productivity
Effects of
productivity
Goals of
productivity
Possibilities for
adaptation in
methods of
measuring material
goods
Factors of
productivity
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
Closely related dependence on the understanding of productivity
in material goods; conceived input-output relation essentially
based upon internal as well as external input factors and output
sizes, which comprise of quality and quantity of one service
Meaning of productivity measurement within the process of producing
a service essentially recognizable; meaning of productivity
measurement – as an analogue to material goods – suitably high
Better controllability of service products by the means of detailed
calculations and identification of optimizing potentials; target and
real value comparison of service processes increase transparency
and generation of information; economical completion of tasks,
profit maximization; quality improvements with positive effects on
customer satisfaction
Increase in efficiency of service provision as well as time savings
on the basis of cost and process optimizing service provisions,
which imply an optimized application of resources
Essential possibility of transfer with regard towards characteristic
service features possible
Differentiation in input and output sizes; input factors comprise of
costs and time as well as further external factors, for example the
location of service, also employee qualifications and satisfaction
can be taken into consideration; output factors can be divided
mainly into service quantity and quality, whereupon customer
satisfaction can be implied
Table 3: Understanding of productivity in practice within FM fields
Homogeneity
of statements
low
high
high
high
medium
medium
7

The expert statements reflect thereby the current theory-dominated heterogeneous
understanding with regard towards the measurement of service productivity. While a
basic consensus can be implied in meaning, effects and goals with regard towards
measurement, occasionally differentiated perceptions can be found especially within
terms of concepts and within terms of transfer from the area of material goods as well
as the transfer of factors needed for integration.
2.4.2. Category 2: Productivity measurement
Against the background of the research question guiding, this research focuses on
the topic of productivity measurement and thus presents the core of the collected results.
Table 4 lists the results within the given categories in the focus of productivity
measurement as well as the structuring of data evaluation with associated subcategories.
Subcategory
Measurement
methods
Possible
measurement
methods
Difficulties of
measurement
Specifics of
measurement
for FM-services
Prerequisites of
productivity
measurement
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
Integration of monetary ratios; prevailing consideration of costs at
different levels - from a generic productivity-analysis at the level of
return on sales, to contract- and performance-individual measurements;
no currently existing measurement integrates all relevant
factors in productivity measurement; measurements of output-quality
and customer satisfaction are separated mainly by the
productivity measurement using monetary values
Currently there are no uniform measurement methods available;
Few examples of possible methods: extension of the input dimensions
for the human factor of a performance, as mean value of
qualifying service staff; target costing with integrated activitybased
costing (systematic and consistent ascertainment of
productivity, digital mapping of measuring points, measurements
quantities within the process is important as well as benchmarking)
Complexity and intangibility of certain performance processes
complicate the creation of specific performance targets and the
creation of a comparable basis as well as evaluation of the performance
results; furthermore the measurement is complicated by
the influence of unpredictable factors; customer satisfaction is an
uncertain quantity that is not clearly defined; due to the subjectivity
of the quality assessment the analysis of quality constitutes to
be difficult
Productivity measurements of FM-services are basically identically,
as the basis for measuring is always the time of discharge by
performance; in comparison to infrastructural and technical services,
the measurement of commercial services due to the complexity
of its processes is assessed as more difficult
The processual view of the performance for the identification of
measurement points; clear definiton of the target state of performance
in quality and quantity, defining key performance indicators
and objective indicators for quality assessment
Table 4: Measurement of productivity in practice
Homogeneity
of statements
low
low
high
medium
high
8

The propositions from the experts in this category emphasize achieved results and
conclusions. Regarding existing and potential measurement methods, a wide range
of possible measurement methods in the field of FM can be detected, which is primarily
due to the diversity of the definition and assessments methods while appraising
elements that rely on the factors and indicators. Nevertheless, the experts note
that a generic method could be used to measure the productivity of FM services, but,
for this method, unique standards and indicators need to be developed along a system
of evaluation-surrogates.
2.4.3. Category 3: Process standards
The ascertainment and description of process standards for the provision of FM services
was used in particular to answer the question of whether and to what extent
process standards can be used as the basis of the measurement processes of service
productivity in FM fields. Table 5 summarizes the relevant statements on an abstracting
level:
Subcategory
Importance of
process
standards
Definition of
process
standards
Factors of the
process
individuality
Status quo of
process
standards
Process level
Process visualization
and
communication
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
The use of process standards is rated of the respondents as
appropriate and necessary foundation for productivity
measurement to uncover optimization opportunities to enhance
service quality and contribute to achieving the desired state
In the FM-practice process standards are recognized as an
execution of summarized and similar processes, which still allow
certain modifications without departing from the prescribed
standard. Basically, according to the respondents the possibility of
using standardization process in all FM areasist given, though the
ascertainment and implementation is rated more difficult in the
commercial sector than in technical or infrastructual
Basically, there are according to the experts in each standard
product-process individual issues available. This does not affect
the productivity measurement, as individual performance can be
measured with higher-level metrics. But it is still important to decide
the level of the process visualization and abstraction
Homogeneity
of statements
Very heterogeneous in terms of the degree of standardization low
In approximately 50% of surveyed companies meta-processes on
a generic level have been developed that describe how to perform
the different services are possible and operate customizable adaptations
to the environment performance
There are different process descriptions, partly fine-grained based
on process definitions and process environments (e.g. on the
basis of event-driven process chains), partly because of related
effort based on rosters and service plans; The communication of
process specifications is mainly on staff training, used checklists
or IT-portals that are unlocked for different employee requests
Table 5: Process standards in practice within FM fields
high
high
high
medium
low
9

Also in the category of process standards to yield comparable results. In this context,
the visualization and recording of processes or as a base to support the productivity
measurement of real estate services is of great importance is attached, on the other
hand, appropriate standards and shots are up to date is not continuous. Here, in the
opinion of experts to develop a generic process in the FM landscape seems possible,
which can be customized and adapted to individual company needs (different process
level in terms of standardization). Subsumablely it seems, according to the experts,
a the development of a generic process standards for the provision of FM services
is required and at this particular point of view of the comparability between
different companies.
2.4.4. Category 4: Starting points and modularization of measurement
Subcategory
Input/ output
measurement
Internal /
external
measurement of
productivity
Partial
productivities
Integration of
external factors
Quality
Service-based
quality
Employee competence
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
The input can be differentiated into two dimensions, in the strict
sense are the staff and the work material taken, in the broad
sense the investment and fixed assets, external services and
creation requirements are included as a percentage. The output
demonstrates the performance results, which is divided into
quantitative and qualitative dimension
The external measurement of productivity in practice not feasible,
due to not given customer willingness to become directly involved
in the measurement. So far, only internal measurements are
distributed
On the one hand partial productivity measurement is considered
to be useful because the measurement of an entire process is too
complex. On the other hand, this measurement method is
regarded as insubstantial, because the productivity of the entire
performance matters purely
The integration of the external factor in the productivity measurement
is useful if effects are predictable. The correspondents see
customer it selves as external factor of service delivery and no
object or the performance environment
Quality measurements are usually no absolute measurements,
but a proportionate number which reflects, in how far the existing
quality equals the specified quality. So a precise definition of the
performance and the performance goal is prerequisite for an objective
quality measurement
The control of performance-based quality is evaluated different in
the various FM services. The qualitative assessments of infrastructural
services are mainly based on subjective criteria, based
on the agreed Service Level Agreements. Technical support services
are usually monitored by the ability to function, availability
and the regulatory compliance through random sampling. The
quality audit in the commercial field usually is based on the foureye
principle
The quality of performance depends on the qualification of the
service-providing employees. Therefore a prior commencement of
the established qualifications of the staff is necessary. In practice,
Homogeneity
of statements
high
high
medium
high
high
medium
high
10

Customersatisfaction
there is no established method for evaluating employee skills, so
that service providers often rely on customer statements. However,
in most of the companies surveyed there is no requirement or
prohibition of a productivity measurement at the employee level
On the one hand, the customer satisfaction is seen as an indicator
for the service provided quality, on the other hand, it is understood
only as a general tool, customer satisfaction also integrates not
only the service provider directly and is also influenced by other
active factors. Mostly the survey of customer satisfaction is separated
from the measurement of productivity
Table 6: Starting points and modularization of measurement in practice within FM fields
The results in this category emphasize the predominant discussion in literature regarding
the concept of productivity on the one hand and the indicators used to measure
on the other hand. The results of the interviews indicate that the productivity
measurement in FM services currently relies on quantitative volume-and valueoriented
indicators. Aspects of quality or even the integration of customer satisfaction
at the present time seem to be integrated only to a lesser extent. Accordingly the
classic dilemma of the service sector is also given in measuring the productivity, to
choose objective indicators for measuring and evaluating the quality. Furthermore,
also the importance of customer satisfaction for the measurement and evaluation of
productivity is not yet fully formed. Against this background, the fundamental question
is regarding the integrated factors in the productivity measurement of services in
terms of quantity, quality and customer satisfaction.
2.4.5. Category 5: Key Performance Indicators
During the investigation of measurement parameters for measuring productivity of
facility services are so called key performance indicators (KPI) examined, which are
collected in form of key figures in the various services. The subject area includes the
category KPIs, whose analysis is divided into the subcategories use, enumeration,
quantity and development of inserted indicators and the identification of existing production
indicators as well as the identification of indicators composition is focused.
Subcategory
Use
Enumeration
Number
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
KPIs are used basically for corporate management, documentation
control and service-providing activities, charging different
KPIs in the context of productivity measurement, each of which is
to differentiate by the viewing focus
The usage of productivity indicators in practice hardly disseminated;
certain KPIs are used as indicators for productivity measurement,
although they do not clearly represent a productivity characteristic
digit. Generally monetary variables are used as
productivity indicators (eg development of actual costs in relation
to pre-budgeted assumptions, wage rate, the revenue productivity
used), so that the productivity ratio is sometimes equated with the
return on sales
At present there is no uniform number of KPIs available; while
some experts set 30-40 figures for the company's control and
low
Homogeneity
of statements
high
low
medium
11

Development
further 60 KPIs as relevant business-related metrics, other experts
consider more than two to three KPIs as too expensive regarding
and controlling all values regularly. The majority of experts assess
20 indicators as an appropriate set of indicators to the development
of productivity
The development of KPIs is based primarily on the own experience
of the interviewed companies, existing reference data and
other information (eg customer votes). Some of the KPIs are derived
from individual process steps, so that relations between
processes and metrics are available and defined in either the processes
or KPI descriptions. KPIs can be divided into different relevance
levels, so that the productivity indicators condense
stronger rise in the hierarchy level, pyramids of key figures do not
exist in the practice, but many complementary key figures
Table 7: Evaluation of parameters in practice within FM fields
medium
The results of Table 7 point, especially from a practical perspective, towards presently
existing problems. In this context mostly a variety of different metrics do exist in
companies, of which some would be able to make statements with respect to productivity.
Due to a current lack of holistic approach including operationalizing the control
of companies and also individual performances are mostly based on solitary indicators
(volume and value-oriented nature). Metric trees, partial productivity, factors and
indicators are currently captured under the companies’ individual background of understanding
and information needs.
2.4.6. Category 6: Software
The topic software includes the ascertainment of existing information technologies
and the determination of relevant parameters and functions for the measurement of
service productivity. The category is segmented in to five subcategories. The subcategory
ascertains the wide usage of software for productivity measurement, while relevant
parameters and information that must be deposited in the measuring system
are summarized in the subcategory application parameters and information. The subcategories
functionalities, software systematics and KPI deployment/ imaging provide
necessary software functions for the correct implementation of productivity measurements
and the targeted requirements at the systematic development and mapping
of productivity indices.
Subcategory
Current
software
Application
parameters and
information
Essential core statements in the context of the contentanalysis
evaluation
To date there is no knowledge of productivity software for the
measurement of facility services except self-developed in-house
products or spreadsheet applications to analyze the data from the
primary business systems
Necessity of mapping basic information and access options from
other systems as well as a historical data collection for comparison
in the course of the productivity ratios; unique representation,
which data are included in the productivity measurement and how
they relate to other dimensions, as well as the filtering of relevant
information according to access authorization is a prerequisite
Homogeneity
of statements
high
high
12

Functionalities
Software classification
KPI deployment/
imaging
Planning functions are required, eg forward planning and budgeting
of services as well as standards of performance targets. Corresponding
control functions, which enable the adjustment of
nominal and actual values and support flexible reporting functions
as well as comparability of productivity figures, are important, too
Currently manual entries and partially redundant data storage is
widespread since no higher-level systems are integrated and only
partially automated steps are available
Partially there exist management information systems with different
access permissions, in which the corresponding KPIs are partially
deposited. Experts believe that a desirable representation of
the KPIs would be in form of a warning system with traffic light
system, ad formats as a tank or dashboard display, showing the
forecast and the actual productivity results graphically
Table 8: Software in practice within FM fields
Although the results of the other categories within the content analysis showed a
sometimes indifferent picture in terms of productivity measurement, the requirements
on a potentially software to support the measurement are of more homogeneous nature.
Common systems to support - in analogy to the general comprehension of
productivity - are at this stage not in the practical use.
2.5. Summary of results
The results of the expert survey show a very different understanding of service
productivity in the practice of facility services exists. Almost half of all respondents
have no valid definition of productivity in the company, though attaching value to the
evaluation and measurement. This shows that business practice is located in the
same situation as scientific regarding the challenges in measuring service productivity.
There is a general awareness of the necessity of service productivity measurements,
but neither a uniform definition of productivity nor consistent implementation
of productivity measurement.
Existing productivity measurements are mainly based on monetary ratios that are not
exclusively used for the measurement of productivity and generally reflect the use of
resources compared to pre-budgeted services. Further measurements such as quality
measurement and customer satisfaction surveys relating to assessments of the
service outcome, are predominantly separated from productivity measurement in different
systems. For an encompassing ascertainment of productivity ratios, there are
no IT-Systems known except for proprietary software, so the productivity measurements
mostly rely on manual data entries and individual calculations of ratios.
3. Conclusion
The empirical survey indicates generally a very indifferent understanding of productivity
in the service sector as well as to the FM domain in particular. Along with this is
neither a generally accepted measurement model nor a recognized operationaliza-
high
high
high
13

tion in practice. The results have made a substantial contribution to the mapping of
the status quo of productivity measurements. Subsequently, the task of science is to
fulfil this void with content appropriate methods, procedures and instruments. In this
context, the already existing approaches to measuring service productivity are used
to operationalize and evaluate in practice.
4. Acknowledgements��
The authors would like to thank the Bundesinnenministerium für Bildung und Forschung
und dem Projektträger im Deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtzentrum e.V., which
made this project possible as a part of the research project ProMIse. (Förderkennzeichen
01FL10059).
References
Baumgärtner, M.; Bienzeisler, B. (2006): Dienstleistungsproduktivität. Konzeptionelle
Grundlagen am Beispiel interaktiver Dienstleistungen. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-
IRB-Verl.
Bernhold, T. (2010): Sourcing-Strategien für öffentliche Auftraggeber in der Beschaffung
facilitärer Dienstleistungen. Eine empirische Analyse unterschiedlicher
institutioneller Arrangements aus institutionsökonomischer Sicht. Marburg:
Tectum-Verl.
Bortz, J.; Döring, N. (2006): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation. New York: Springer
Medizin Verlag Heidelberg.
Bruhn, M.; Meffert, H. (2001): Dienstleistungsmanagement als unternehmerische
Herausforderung. Eine Einführung in das Handbuch. In: Bruhn, M.; Meffert,
H. (ed.): Handbuch Dienstleistungsmanagement. Von der strategischen Konzeption
zur praktischen Umsetzung. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 3–24.
Corsten, H. (1994): Produktivitätsmanagement bilateraler personenbezogener
Dienstleistungen. In: Corsten, H.; Hilke, W. (ed.): Dienstleistungsproduktion.
Wiesbaden: Th. Gabler, pp. 43–77.
Diekmann, A. (2002): Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen.
Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl.
Flick, U. (1987): Methodenangemessene Gütekriterien in der qualitativ-interpretativen
Forschung. In: Bergold, J. B.; Flick, U. (ed.): Ein-Sichten. Zugänge zur Sicht
des Subjekts mittels qualitativer Forschung. Tübingen: DGVT, pp. 247–262.
Gläser, J.; Laudel, G. (2006): Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als
Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. für
Sozialwiss.
Grönroos, C.; Ojasalo, K. (2004): Service productivity. Towards a conceptualization
of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services. Journal of
Business Research 57, pp. 414–423.
Gummesson, E. (1998): Productivity, quality and relationship marketing in service
operations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
10/1, pp. 4–15.
14

Johnston, R.; Jones, P. (2004): Service Productivity. Towards understanding the relationship
between operational und customer productivity. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 53/3, pp. 201–213.
Kern, W. (1992): Industrielle Produktionswirtschaft. Stuttgart: Poeschel.
Kirchgeorg, M. (2009): Keyword: Value Added Service. In: Winter, E.; Mosena, R.;
Roberts, L. (ed.): Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Die ganze Welt der Wirtschaft:
Betriebswirtschaft, Volkswirtschaft, Wirtschafsrecht und Steuern. Wiesbaden:
Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler, S. 3147.
Kromrey, H. (2006): Empirische Sozialforschung. Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten
Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Laatz, W. (1993): Empirische Methoden. E. Lehrbuch für Sozialwissenschaftler. Thun
[u.a.]: Deutsch.
Lasshof, B. (2006): Produktivität von Dienstleistungen. Mitwirkung und Einfluss des
Kunden. Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verl.
Mayer, H. O. (2009): Interview und schriftliche Befragung. Entwicklung, Durchführung
und Auswertung. München, Wien: Oldenbourg.
Mayring, P. (2002): Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu
qualitativem Denken. Weinheim: Beltz.
Mayring, P. (2003): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim:
Beltz.
Ojasalo, K. (1999): Conceptualizing productivity in services. Helsingfors: Swedish
School of Economics and Business Administration.
Author(s):
Torben Bernhold, Prof. Dr. rer. pol.
University of Applied Science Münster
FB 8 - Oecotrophologie - Facility Management
Johann-Krane-Weg 25, 48149 Münster, Germany
Email: bernhold@fh-muenster.de
Nina Kaling, M. Sc.
University of Applied Science Münster
Oecotrophologie - Facility Management
Johann-Krane-Weg 25, 48149 Münster, Germany
Email: nina.kaling@fh-muenster.de
Vanessa Lellek, M. Sc.
University of Applied Science Münster
FB 8 - Oecotrophologie - Facility Management
Johann-Krane-Weg 25, 48149 Münster, Germany
Email: vanessa.lellek@fh-muenster.de
15