Is Your Facilities Management Model Fit for the Workplace You Have Today?

October 28, 2026

Your workplace has changed. People use buildings differently, occupancy patterns have shifted, and expectations of the working environment continue to evolve.

But has your facilities management model kept pace?

A contract can meet every agreed target and still fail to deliver what a workplace needs today. Cleaning schedules may no longer reflect when spaces are busiest. Specifications can restrict opportunities to improve service delivery. Technology investments may generate data without changing the decisions that matter.

The issue isn’t necessarily whether your FM provider is delivering the contract. It’s whether the contract still delivers the right outcomes.

For facilities managers, workplace leaders and procurement teams, that means looking beyond compliance and asking a more fundamental question: is your current FM model helping your building perform at its best?

To find out, it’s worth examining five areas: how you use workplace data, whether your specification allows services to evolve, how well services perform throughout the day, whether you’re measuring value beyond price, and how effectively your FM arrangements work together.

1. Is technology helping you make better decisions?

Occupancy data, sensors, digital platforms and AI-enabled tools can help organisations understand how buildings are used. But collecting more information doesn’t automatically lead to better decisions.

The real value comes from using that information to identify where services need to change and where resources could be used more effectively.

Luke Morris, Head of Service Strategy, commented:

“Understanding which areas are busiest at different times of the day can help facilities teams allocate resources more effectively. Identifying changing occupancy patterns can also highlight where service arrangements need to adapt.”

For example, occupancy data could help facilities teams understand how different spaces are used throughout the day and where demand for support is greatest. This information could inform cleaning schedules, maintenance planning, security provision and resource allocation, helping ensure services are aligned with the needs of the building and its occupants.

Before investing in another platform or solution, organisations should be clear about the problem they want to solve and how they’ll measure success.

Technology should support better decisions, not simply add another layer of information to manage. A connected workplace isn’t one with more technology; it’s one where useful data helps people understand what their buildings need and respond accordingly.

2. Does your FM specification allow the service to evolve?

A clear FM specification sets expectations, establishes accountability and provides a basis for measuring performance. But there’s a difference between defining the standards a service must achieve and prescribing exactly how every task should be delivered.

When specifications fix every task, resource and working hour, they can limit a provider’s ability to respond to changing occupancy, new ways of working or opportunities to improve service delivery.

Rebecca van Niekerk, Head of Mobilisation, explained:

“We recently worked on a service model that focused more on the outcomes required than on prescribing specific roles, tasks and hours. This created an opportunity to consider how responsibilities could work together and design a resource model with the flexibility to respond to what the building needed.”

An outcomes-led approach gives suppliers greater scope to apply their expertise while maintaining clear standards and accountability. Rather than focusing solely on whether specified tasks have been completed, organisations can assess whether the service is delivering the results their workplace requires.

That doesn’t mean removing controls or compromising standards. It means combining measurable expectations with enough flexibility to respond when circumstances change.

Regular reviews and open conversations between clients and their FM provider can help ensure the specification remains relevant, reflects how the building is used and allows opportunities for improvement to be considered.

3. Are you measuring cleaning performance throughout the day?

A workplace can look spotless first thing in the morning and still have the wrong cleaning model behind it.

Getting the model right means understanding when and where cleaning is needed, taking account of occupancy, working patterns and the demands placed on different spaces. A fixed routine may look efficient on paper but fail to reflect how people actually use the building.

Jean-Patrick Judson, Account Manager, said:

“A building looking perfect at 8am doesn’t necessarily tell you whether you have the right cleaning model. What matters is whether the service continues to meet people’s needs throughout the working day.”

The answer isn’t necessarily to clean more often. It’s to understand where cleaning makes the greatest difference and when it’s needed most.

Depending on the workplace, this could mean adjusting priorities as demand changes, improving communication between cleaning teams and facilities managers, or using inspections and feedback to identify recurring issues.

It’s also worth looking beyond scheduled inspections. If people repeatedly report the same issues in particular areas, that may indicate a problem with the service model rather than an isolated cleaning failure.

The focus should be on how well the service performs throughout the day, not simply on how the building looks at a particular moment.

4. Are you measuring value, or just price?

Cost will always matter in FM procurement, but the cheapest proposal isn’t necessarily the one that delivers the best value over the life of a contract.

Pressure to reduce costs can lead to less management support, fewer resources or reduced resilience. The important question is what each proposal will deliver and whether it meets the needs of the building.

Roya Babadi, Sales and Marketing Director, commented:

“A lower-cost proposal may be entirely appropriate if it meets the required service levels, but if savings come at the expense of the support and resources needed to maintain quality, the decision deserves closer examination.”

When comparing proposals, procurement teams should look beyond the headline price. They need to understand how each supplier plans to deliver the service, monitor quality, maintain continuity and respond to changing requirements.

They should also consider whether the proposed service model can sustain the required standards over the life of the contract, rather than simply meeting expectations at the outset.

Good value isn’t about spending more. It’s about understanding what the organisation needs, what the supplier will deliver and whether the proposed cost represents a sensible investment in the workplace.

5. Are your FM arrangements working together?

Technology, specifications, cleaning and procurement are often considered separately, but each influences how effectively the wider FM service performs.

Workplace data can help teams allocate resources. Flexible specifications allow services to respond to changing demand. Cleaning strategies can reflect how people use different spaces. Procurement decisions determine whether the chosen service model has the right resources and capabilities to deliver.

When these elements are assessed in isolation, opportunities to improve can be missed.

For example, occupancy data may reveal that a particular area needs more attention during the working day. But if the specification doesn’t allow resources to be adjusted, that information may never translate into a better service.

Making the different elements work together requires shared priorities, regular reviews and constructive collaboration between clients and their FM provider.

It also means looking beyond whether a contract is being delivered as originally written and asking whether the arrangements still support the building, its occupants and the organisation’s wider objectives.

Five questions to ask about your FM model

A review doesn’t necessarily mean changing providers or rewriting an entire contract. It starts with understanding whether your existing arrangements still meet the needs of the workplace.

These five questions provide a useful starting point:

• Technology and data: Are we using information to make better decisions about our workplace and services?
• Flexibility: Can our FM specification adapt as workplace needs change?
• Service quality: Are we measuring service quality when it matters most?
• Value: Are we assessing value beyond the initial price?
• Continuous improvement: When did we last challenge whether our current model remains fit for purpose?

You may find that your existing arrangements are working well. Equally, the answers may reveal gaps between what the contract specifies and what the workplace needs, highlighting opportunities to improve how services are delivered, managed or evaluated.

Ultimately, the FM model should reflect the workplace, rather than expecting the workplace to adapt to a model that no longer fits.

Looking beyond the contract

Effective facilities management is about more than completing tasks or meeting contractual targets. It’s about bringing services together to help buildings operate effectively and create a positive workplace experience.

At Anabas, we believe FM works best when services reflect the needs of the workplace and can adapt as those needs change. A joined-up approach helps organisations look beyond individual contracts and consider how their FM arrangements contribute to the overall workplace experience.

A contract can meet its targets and still leave room for improvement. Recognising that distinction is the first step towards making sure your facilities management model continues to deliver the right outcomes.

When did you last review whether your FM model was still fit for purpose?