Does benchmarking save money? For most participants, the savings are achieved when they benchmark and implement best practices. Below are a few examples from the critical benchmark metrics offered by FM BENCHMARKING. Your results will vary, of course, but the majority of our benchmarking participants report that benchmarking saves money by showing where to make changes and what changes to make.

All metrics below come from the FM BENCHMARKING database and from clients of Facility Issues, one of the developers of FM BENCHMARKING. The examples illustrate the cost effectiveness of the FM BENCHMARKING system. The numbers reported are based on buildings that represent over three-quarters of a million square feet.

On average, our benchmarking participants reduced their space requirements by 6% the first year, and by 11% cumulative by the end of the third year:

Real Example #1. A financial services organization evaluated its benchmarked metrics and reduced its headquarters space requirements from 385,000 square feet to 312,000 square feet. It was in an owned facility with total operating and fixed costs of $14.80 per square foot. It was able to consolidate space and sublease the 73,000 square feet that was vacated, which provided an annual savings of more than $1 million.

Real Example #2. A utility employed the benchmarking data to consolidate its space in an operating center. It implemented standardized workstations and reduced its space requirements from 730,000 square feet to 626,000 square feet. The leased space was near the end of the term so it was able to negotiate the return of the 104,000 square feet at an annual lease rate of $17 per square resulting in a savings of $1,768,000.

Your results will vary but one of the most significant cost savings measures you can implement from benchmarking is to reduce total space requirements and eliminate the full cost from your budgets. When considering cost justification, if one is renting space at the very conservative number of $15 per square foot per year, it doesn't take a lot of savings to make up what one pays for FM BENCHMARKING.

Utilities usually represent the largest component of annual operating costs. On average, our benchmarking participants reduced their utilities costs by 4% the first year, and by 13% cumulative by the end of the third year:

Real Example #3. A 684,000 square foot research facility utilized its benchmarked costs and realized that significant improvements were possible. It focused on building management controls, fume hood operations, lighting, and reheat options. In the first year, it reduced its costs from $3.21 per square foot to $2.46 per square foot with no impact on the quality of the research programs. This yielded a savings in the first year of $513,000.

Real Example #4. A travel services organization benchmarked one of its larger call centers. After reviewing the report, it implemented a new building management system. The facility was in a cold climate with significant energy needed to warm the outside air makeup, so it also installed CO2 monitoring to control outside air makeup. Total energy cost savings was $1.22 per square foot, resulting in an annual savings of more than $1 million.

Maintenance costs usually represent the next largest component of operating costs after utilities. On average, our benchmarking participants reduced their maintenance costs by 4% the first year, and by 10% cumulative by the end of the third year:

Real Example #5. An aerospace corporation benchmarked its maintenance costs and developed a multiyear plan to reduce costs and improve service. It installed a new computerized maintenance management system, reviewed their preventive maintenance program, and implemented handhelds for all of their maintenance technicians. Total maintenance costs dropped from $1.77 per square foot to $1.51 per square foot in the first year. The facility size was 920,000 square feet so the total savings attributed to these benchmarked activities was $239,000.

Real Example #6. The same organization then implemented the benchmarked improvements at all 11 facilities in the corporation. Total space affected was 14.2 million square feet so the total benchmarked savings from this action was about $3.6 million.

Janitorial costs usually represent the next largest component of operating costs after maintenance. On average, our benchmarking participants reduced their janitorial costs by 2% the first year, and by 5% cumulative by the end of the third year:

Real Example #7. A consumer products corporation benchmarked its janitorial costs and developed a plan to reduce costs and continue providing an acceptably clean facility. It implemented daytime skip cleaning and a maintenance program for janitorial equipment. Total janitorial costs dropped from $1.12 per square foot to $.97 per square foot in the first year. The facility size was 311,000 square feet so the total savings attributed to these benchmarked activities was $46,000.

Real Example #8. A financial services organization reviewed its benchmarked janitorial costs and realized its current services provider was not competitive with the marketplace. It re-bid the janitorial contract and achieved a savings of $.33 per square foot or an annual cost savings of $160,000.

Security costs usually represent the next largest component of operating costs. On average, our benchmarking participants reduced their securities costs by 3% the first year, and by 6% cumulative by the end of the third year:

Real Example #9. An insurance corporate headquarters benchmarked its security services costs and developed a plan to reduce costs and continue providing an acceptably secure workplace. It installed additional cameras, closed some access points during certain times of the day, and consolidated its visitor reception services with security. Total security costs were reduced from $1.66 per square foot to $1.29 per square foot resulting in a savings of $204,000 the first year.

Real Example #10. A consumer products organization reviewed its benchmarked costs and realized it needed to re-bid its security contract. Total savings from this action was about $375,000 with no change in service levels.

There are several factors that go into a cost justification for benchmarking:

1. Cost for the benchmarking. There is a wide range of pricing for this, up to several thousand dollars per building, depending on whether you are using software, consulting firms, or some combination. FM BENCHMARKING's top price is $375 for one building for a whole year—the more buildings you input, the less the cost is: for example, for ten buildings, the cost is $300 each, and it continues to go down from there. See the pricing page.
   
   
2. Time to collect and input data. Again, this cost can vary, depending on how much data you want to put it. FM BENCHMARKING enables you to get up and running in less than an hour (with its Super Quick Start), and you will be able to put in a sufficient amount for most people in just another 60 to 90 minutes (Quick Start). If you wanted to input all possible data (not necessary for most), it would take just a few days. And if you already have data in a database somewhere, FM BENCHMARKING allows you to upload it.
   
   
3. Cost for implementing the recommendations. The costs will vary depending on the best practice being implemented. The least expensive would be internal procedural changes, while replacing a building system will be among the most expensive.
   
   

The costs must be evaluated against the potential benefits (savings) from benchmarking, as well as consideration of two very important considerations:

1. Improved productivity. Many organizations who benchmark exclaim that their workers are getting more work done in less time, but there is no scientific evidence of this.
   
   
2. Value of employee satisfaction. Employees in companies that benchmark assert that their employees are happier. It is unclear if that has a bearing on how long employees will stay with the company, or other such advantages.
   
   

Needless to say, the potential benefits from benchmarking, expressed as through the examples on this page, as well as those in the section Typical Savings from Benchmarking or as calculated from FM BENCHMARKING's special Benchmarking Savings Calculator.

Benefits of Benchmarking

The leading benefits of benchmarking are presented. See which are most applicable to your organization.

Typical Savings from Benchmarking

See how much savings per unit area has been saved over time by those who have benchmarked their facility metrics. Also see a detailed example of the impact of benchmarking on a facility's preventive maintenance ratio.

Benchmarking Savings Calculator

Plug in the gross square feet or meters for your building and see what the savings would be from the median company doing benchmarking over any period from one-to-five years.