4.48 Efficient management is dependent on the availability of good information and the ability to interpret it meaningfully and use it effectively. In the case of property management, good data would inform senior management, and help ensure that property is given due consideration at a strategic level, as acknowledged by the NAO.33
4.49 For example, property running costs are often not clearly identifiable in published accounts, and are recorded differently between organisations, with variations in how costs are defined and analysed. The reliability of existing data can also vary, suggesting that data collection requires careful oversight and guidance.
4.50 Several databases containing property information, and a number of initiatives aimed at improving measurement and driving performance,34 are already in existence across the public sector. There are, however, no common standards or definitions for these datasets, which therefore limit their usefulness. This workstrand advocates a more considered approach to datasets and key performance indicators (KPIs) including benchmarks (by type of property e.g. administrative offices, courts, acute health sector) in order to facilitate the efficient use of property.
4.51 It is important that property data requirements and standards include consideration of sustainability. The workstrand found that there was some inconsistency between the assessment of more efficient use of property and government sustainability targets.35 These targets are currently under review. It is important that any new energy efficiency target is aligned with more efficient use of the government estate, for example by changing the target so that it is measured with reference to FTE employees rather than square metres of space.
4.52 The reporting of performance against property benchmarks, such as the use of office space per FTE employee, is mandatory for the central civil administrative estate.36 Elsewhere, organisations with operational estates have also developed benchmarks to improve their performance. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has shown how benchmarking can be used for educational institutions (see Box 4.D). This workstrand has also been very encouraged by the steps the Department of Health is taking to develop benchmarking for the NHS acute sector's estate, and supports these developments (see Box 4.E).
| Box 4.D: Use of comparative data to improve performance for Higher Education estates The Higher Education Funding Council for England, along with the other UK higher education funding bodies, is supporting the use estates data to enable Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to measure and compare the efficiency and effectiveness of their estate. Within this the HEIs can select groups of similar HEIs for comparison. IPD Occupiers, specialists in property performance measurement, helped to develop and runs the Estate Management Statistics (EMS), collecting data from institutions, verifying it and distributing it to all participants. All the UK's institutions currently participate even though the use of the system is voluntary. The 2007 EMS annual report has concluded that in terms of space management a significant improvement has been achieved between 2001-02 and 2005-06, with the amount of non-residential space per full-time equivalent student in English HEIs falling by about 12 per cent to 7.9 square metres.37 |
| Box 4.E: The development of benchmarks for the NHS acute sector The Public Value Programme (PVP)38 and the new NHS Premises Assurance Code (a new framework for managing property) are focused on improving utilisation of the NHS estate in order to increase efficiency and release savings. The most important developments are: • new property benchmarks for the acute sector, using existing data, to measure the performance of trusts providing acute hospital services; and • incentives for NHS organisations to review property performance and take action if performance is poor. Benchmarking data would allow trusts to compare their property utilisation costs with those of other providers, and also enable commissioners of health services to understand which providers are relatively more efficient. Providers who are less efficient will be under pressure to reduce costs in order to remain competitive. These developments would be enhanced if they were linked with the outputs from the study in London (see Box 4.A). The approach should be extended beyond the acute sector to primary care, mental health and ambulance trusts. |
4.53 The five audit agencies and CIPFA have already done much work to develop benchmarks.39 These cover the whole public sector, including local government and activities undertaken by local authorities in partnership with other local delivery bodies.
________________________________________________________________________________________
33 Improving the efficiency of central government's office property, NAO, November 2007.
34 The Electronic Property Mapping Information Service (e-PIMS) database, established by the OGC, is used to record property information for over 145 organisations.
35 See footnote 15 in this chapter.
36 OGC has responsibility for the central civil estate. This comprises the property required by The Executive to discharge its functions. The definition of the civil estate is derived from the 1996 Efficiency Scrutiny of the Civil Estate.
37 HEFCE and IPD occupiers. See www.hefce.ac.uk
38 The Public Value Programme was launched at Budget 2008 to investigate the potential for reforms that will achieve savings and better value for money in key areas of public spending.
39 Value for Money in public sector corporate services, Audit Commission, National Audit Office, Northern Ireland Audit Office, Wales Audit Office and Audit Scotland, May 2007.