The strategic objectives of FM
Four competing futures
for facility
management
Bev Nutt
The author
Bev Nutt is Professor of Facility and Environment
Management at University College London.
Keywords
Resource management, Facilities, Management
Abstract
Four generic FM ``trails'' to the future are explored. These
trails follow the four types of resource that are basic to
the FM function; the financial resource trail (business), the
human resource trail (people), the physical resource trail
(property) and the knowledge resource trail (information).
These trail are considered in turn with speculations on the
opportunities and risks that each competing future might
hold. The paper concludes with nine strategic positions
from which a rich, robust and diverse variety of viable
futures for FM can be developed.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/jpif.asp
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . pp. 124±132
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0263-2772
124
At a national level, the strategic objective of
facility management is to provide better
infrastructure and logistic support to business
and public endeavours of all kinds and across
all sectors. At a local level, its objective is the
effective management of facility resources and
services in providing shells of support to us
all; support to the operations of organisations,
their working groups, project teams and
individuals. So the primary function of FM is
resource management, at strategic and
operational levels of support.
This paper sets out to explore four basic
``trails'' to the future. These trails correspond
to the generic types of resource that are
central to the FM function; the management
of financial resources, human resources,
physical resources, and the management of
the resources of information and knowledge.
Each of these four trails, as shown in Figure 1,
will be considered in turn, with speculations
on the directions that they promise for the
future. But before setting out along these
trails, the strategic purposes of the trip need
to be made clear.
The essence of a strategic approach is
making decisions in changing, uncertain,
unpredictable and competitive circumstances.
In ``defence mode'' it is about preserving
existing options, maintaining flexibility,
generating new options, preparing
contingencies and the means of response,
with intelligence systems to monitor changing
conditions. In ``attack mode'' it is reliant on
flexible response, active awareness of the
capabilities and limitation of all sides, rapid
option assessment and choice of action, all
directed to achieving operational success and
increasing the room for manoeuvre against
the ``enemy''.
We all know that the further we look into
the future the more uncertain we become. We
move from a predictable ``short-term'' to an
unpredictable ``long-term'' position. The level
of uncertainty increases with time. Figure 2
shows this basic position. Short-term futures
(one to two years) can be predicted. Over the
medium term (two to five years) we rely on
trends and forecasts. In the longer term (five
to ten years and more) the level of uncertainty
increases and the future becomes highly
unpredictable.
The strategic approach focuses on the
management of this uncertainty. It has two
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
Figure 1 Generic trails to the future
Figure 2 Risk and opportunity
aims, one negative, the other positive. On the
one hand, property and facilities can inhibit
the goals and work of organisations, their
teams and individuals. On the other hand,
they can contribute to productivity, human
effectiveness and wellbeing, acting as a
catalyst for change and facilitating business
success. So in looking to the future, negative
objectives (close down risk: avoid failure) and
positive objectives (open up opportunities:
achieve success) need to be combined. Figure
2 illustrates these two positions. The first
focuses on measures to contain, reduce,
transfer and avoid risks and constraints, both
known and unpredictable, that property and
facilities can impose. The second seeks to
maintain and generate opportunities and
advantage, both planned and fortuitous, that
property and facilities might provide.
Risks can be assessed in terms of:
. the types and significance of potential
risks of all kinds;
. the contingency measures that are in
place to respond to unpredictable risks
should they occur.
125
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
Similarly, opportunities can be assessed in
relation to:
. the areas and significance of
opportunities that are available;
. the intelligence arrangements that are in
place to identify unpredictable
opportunities as they arise.
So along each of the four trails shown in
Figure 1, a strategic evaluation of future risks
and opportunities needs to be undertaken.
The finance trail will be explored first.
Direction 1: the financial resource trail
(BUSINESS)
This is the pioneering trail, the direction of
which has been fundamentally changed with
the introduction of the Private Finance
Initiative (PFI). Traditionally, the financial
resource trail has had three pathways; the first
directed to property investment decisions, the
second to the management of property assets,
the third to the management of facility
operating costs, all within the context of the
property market, which tends to be the most
illiquid vehicle for investment. Over the last
decade the FR trail has been dominated by a
simple business imperative across most
sectors. As a consequence, the financial trail
has led to property consolidation, downsizing,
cost-cutting, disinvestment and disposal, all
for the short-term advantage of businesses
and shareholders. Reductionist measures of
this kind certainly produce ``balance sheet''
improvements. They cannot be continued
indefinitely without damaging the operations
that they pretend to support.
The PFI is changing these priorities
fundamentally. It places the operational value
of facilities and infrastructure at the centre of
concern, targeting the output needs of
organisations, their staff and customers over a
25 to 30-year life-cycle. Under the PFI
scheme the brief is defined through an
``output specification'' that clarifies support
requirements, operational performance and
property strategy. This PFI provision alone
could have a profound impact on the future of
facility management. It could reverse the
priorities of the past by:
. promoting the 25-30 year operational FM
phase as of primary importance,
demoting the two to three year design and
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
construction phase to the means to an
end;
. replacing the traditional design project
brief with the operational FM brief as the
main driver for development;
. developing a comprehensive ``effective-
life'' framework for facility finance to
replace the simple life-cycle costing
approach;
. prioritising ``use value'' rather than ``asset
value'' generally.
These innovatory steps along the financial
resource trail promise a break with the past
and could have a profound impact on the
profile and importance of facility
management. But many questions remain
unanswered. How should the target ``life-
expectancy'' be determined for a given type of
facility and location within a particular sector?
To what extent should we budget for life cycle
costs to increase over time as a direct result of
accelerating rates of organisational change?
The identification, allocation and
management of financial risk are a central
concern in PFI projects. To date, a legalistic
and risk adverse ``accountancy'' approach
tends to have been adopted, concentrating on
the ``hard'' and ``knowable'' short-term risks.
This is itself risky. In the longer term, it is the
less predictable and ``softer'' risks that are
often the more threatening. For example, it is
inevitable over the life of a PFI contract that
new operational procedures will be put in
place, functions and uses will change,
technological innovation will continue,
different business demands will arise, and
new market opportunities will evolve. All can
induce early functional and locational
obsolescence, reducing or eliminating the
``use value'' of the facility. The origins of
functional obsolescence pose a greater risk to
financial viability than the physical causes of
facility obsolescence (Nutt and Sears, 1972)
and cannot be ignored.
But the consideration of risk is only half of
the story. Life-cycle opportunities, as
indicated in Figure 2, have hardly begun to be
considered from a financial perspective within
the PFI scheme. So a more comprehensive
and rigorous approach to the identification
and management of risks and opportunities
needs to be put in place. Developments here
would help to consolidate the new directions
for FM along the FR trail, with convergence
between the concerns and priorities of
126
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
operational management and property
management to create a balanced and expert
``real-life'' approach to facility finance for the
future.
Direction 2: the human resource trail
(PEOPLE)
The human resource trail promises to be the
most radical route to the future. The
consensus of the late 1990s is that
fundamental changes to the nature and
organisation of work are under way, pushed
by wave after wave of IT innovation. Today
we are witnessing ever shorter business time
horizons, the diversification of work practices,
more responsive working arrangements, the
global dispersal of work, multi-venue and
multi-location ways of working, with
increased reliance on subcontracting and
partnering. These developments are part of
the fashionable notion of ``flexible working'';
work that is ``time flexible'', ``place flexible''
and ``location variable''.
These changes are altering the support
facilities that we require fundamentally. The
main FM objective on the HR trail will be to
support the effective deployment of human
resources. While FM can enhance the
performance, productivity and wellbeing of
individuals and teams, it has no remit to
manage human resources directly. So the
contribution of FM to HR management will
be indirect.
Flexible working demands an agile and
strategic approach, both to the acquisition,
deployment and release of human resources,
and to the provision and management of the
support facilities that they require. The
beginning of the end of the dedicated
workplace seems to be at hand, whether it be
the executive office or the individual
computer workstation, to be superseded by a
diverse range of working venues.
Flexible working poses major risks for both
organisations and individuals. Organisations
will have to build their corporate cultures of
enterprise, motivation and loyalty across the
barriers of multi-location, multi-venue and
multi-time working arrangements. For the
individual the problem will be to maintain
commitment, confidence and work
performance in diverse and often isolated
work environments. The development of
completely different attitudes to
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
organisational culture and leadership will be
required to support the new ways of working.
These will need to be ``output'' driven but
humanistic, with emphasis on self-motivation
and self-management.
But what do these directions imply for the
future of FM? At its most mechanistic, the
human resource capacity of an organisation
simply consists of the total people-hours per
annum that are available to its business. The
total human resource can be broken down by
type of skill, knowledge, and experience,
producing HR time budgets at organisational,
section, team and individual levels, for
deployment in place, space and time. The
strategic allocation of this range of ``people-
hours'' resource generates the profile of
demand for FM support, again distributed in
place, space and time. The increasingly varied
and volatile nature of these demands is
already making some ``best practice''
redundant, particularly in relation to space
planning and management. The explicit
management of ``uncertainty'', ``availability'',
``time'' and ``utilisation'' is likely to be the
major problem for FM from the HR
perspective.
The human resource trail will involve the
management of ``place-flexible'' and ``time
flexible'' facilities, probably moving towards a
form of logistics management (Tripp et al.,
1991), to provide flexible ``bottom-up'' and
``real-time'' support to individuals and their
tasks, sectional operations and their project
teams, divisions and their missions,
organisations and their business objectives.
For success, logistics systems of this kind will
rely on secure procedures to support the
management of operations at all levels. An
objective and quantitative approach will be
essential, requiring new FM measurement
concepts concerning:
. Operational capability: determining the
capacity (size), availability (time) and
flexibility (change) of the types and
locations (variety) of facility supports that
are required.;
. Contingency provision: making ``what-
if?'' arrangements for response to
unexpected events;
. Operational performance: monitoring
facility impacts, both positive and
negative, on people and their operations;
. Operational effectiveness: evaluating the
affect of facilities and services on work
127
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
output, personnel satisfaction and
organisational success.
FM on the HR trail will need to move closer
to core business strategy with people, facilities
and support services being seen as a key
business resource to be dynamically deployed
for long-term advantage, rather than as a cost
to be cut for short-term gain. With this
perspective FM strategy could become an
integral and essential part of HR strategy
itself. It seems likely that the scope of FM will
need to widen considerably, with delegation
of some FM functions to individuals and
working teams. The ``help desk'' of the past
will evolve to a ``help-interface'' of the future.
FM responsibilities could include transport
and communication support arrangements,
information management, and perhaps
extend to help with wider community, social,
leisure and family support arrangements.
So the realities of the HR trail argue for a
``people-based'' rather than ``property-based''
focus for FM, as summarised in Figure 3,
with a ``mobile'' rather than ``place-fixed''
approach. The trail will need a combination
of ``hard'' and ``soft'' management
approaches. It will have to provide logistic
support at individual, team and organisational
levels, requiring ``task-force'' support
management, both on war-time ``alert'' and
peace-time ``steady-state'' footings.
Direction 3: the physical resource trail
(PROPERTY)
This is a most predictable trail. The physical
inertia of the built environment makes it so.
Each year some 1.5 per cent of the building
stock is demolished, mainly to be replaced by
new buildings. A further 2.5 per cent is
subject to major refurbishment and
Figure 3 The human resource trail
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
renovation. Therefore, in any year only about
4 per cent of national building stock will be
changed. So on the first part of the property
trail, business and public initiatives of all
kinds will be reliant on the support of
buildings and infrastructure inherited from
the past. It will only be towards the second
part of the trail beyond 2010 that new types of
facility support and innovative design could
begin to have significant impact overall. The
key question here is what new forms of facility
management and design will be required to
support the business and social needs of the
new century?
The first stage of the trail has two linked
paths, one directed to the better management
of the existing property resource, the other to
its physical modification. Management
measures will include:
. Utilisation strategies: greater emphasis on
the intensive use of property and facilities,
both in space and time, requiring expert
procedures for utilisation management.
. Rationalisation and disposal strategies:
further efficiency gains from workplace
rationalisation and innovation, the
introduction of tougher building
performance regimes, more effective FM
arrangements and the strategic disposal of
property and parts of buildings that are
no longer required.
. Flexible tenure strategies: responding to
the needs of business for highly flexible
and shorter tenural arrangements,
providing choice and opportunity
through mixed tenure combinations.
Over the last ten years there has been an
excess supply of built space in many sectors
and locations. Further reductions in the
aggregate demand for space per employee or
per unit of production should be anticipated,
with priorities directed to:
. Physical modification strategies: today's
patterns of demand are testing the ability
of buildings to accommodate radical
change as never before. The frequency of
modification and re-fitting will need to
increase significantly.
. Adaptation and reconfiguration
strategies: the selective demolition of
parts of the existing stock to permit
fundamental reconfiguration and
renewal, providing new opportunities for
re-use and mixed use, will increase (Nutt,
1997).
128
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
. Change of use strategies: the excess
supply of built space will increase the rate
at which redundant space needs to be
converted to support new classes of use.
All of these tendencies are likely to intensify
on the second part of the property trail. A re-
appraisal of the purpose, form and life cycle
characteristics of buildings will need to be
undertaken in order to move away from the
introverted culture of the construction
industry. For example, the seven
improvement targets of the Egan Report
(DETR, 1998) are all for the short-term
benefit of the construction industry and its
clients. None is directed to product
innovation for use, or to the operational
requirements of the property consumer, or to
the national need for better property and
infrastructure support for its public and
business endeavours. A wider review beyond
the self-interests of the construction industry
is required to anticipate the likely impact,
both of changes in technology and changes in
demand, on the future of property towards
2020, including:
. Versatility: today's ``use classes'' and
traditional building types will provide an
inadequate basis for re-use, mixed use
and changes of use in the future. The
validity of designing for a particular
building type within a single class of use
in a fast changing world will need to be
re-examined.
. Re-differentiation: the ability to
fundamentally redistribute built space
and to reconfigure building structure and
sub-systems, will improve the adaptability
potential of buildings and their capacity
to accommodate radical change.
. Diversification: greater variety of building
stock types will be needed to support the
diverse and widening range of business
and social demands.
. Robustness: buildings with robust
structure, spaces, fabric and services,
reliant on high quality but low technology
solutions, will be intrinsically more
adaptable than those with highly
sophisticated technology. Complex
embedded technology increases the risk
of early obsolescence.
. Innovation: new generic types of building
stock, financial systems and tenural
arrangements will need to be created to
support changing multiple uses and
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
different mixed use combinations, over
time.
The management and design implications of
issues such as these will be considered next,
along the last of the four resource trails.
Direction 4: the knowledge resource
trail (INFORMATION)
The FM knowledge trail is at a primitive stage
of development, its terrain largely unexplored.
It starts from a position that can be
characterised as ``information saturated'',
``data rich'', but ``knowledge poor''. While the
relevance of FM is becoming recognised by
business, industry and government, it remains
reliant on management and technical
knowledge that has been plundered from
other fields. FM is challenged to build its own
distinctive knowledge-base to underpin best
practice, to advance the field, and to bridge
the gap between its promise and performance.
New ``smart'' knowledge links will need to be
forged between property and business, HR
management and facility logistics, business
operations and services support, management
and design (Nutt, 1999).
The FM knowledge trail has three origins;
knowledge of property, general management
knowledge, and knowledge of facility design
and facility management. The first two of
these are relatively secure, the third is
undeveloped. It is the interface between
facility management knowledge and facility
design knowledge, at the strategic level, that
needs to be addressed urgently, to understand
the impact of:
. Management on design: what
management considerations should
inform the design process? What
management opportunities are required,
what constraints to management should
be avoided?
. Design on management: how will any
given facility design affect its
management when in use? What
opportunities will it offer, what
limitations might it impose?
Knowledge here will help to ensure that
facility objectives support organisational
objectives, that facility provisions are aligned
with end-user needs, and that design concepts
are compatible with property strategy overall.
We need to build a knowledge base at the
129
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
interface areas where the concerns of
management and design always overlap,
during life cycle briefing, life cycle design and
life-cycle management.
Life cycle briefing
The briefing process rests on the assumption
that the needs of the client, and the function
of a facility, are the appropriate starting point
for design. Today, organisational needs can
no longer be forecast more than three to five
years ahead. So the demand-led briefing
process, targeted on the client's corporate
objectives, the requirements of the first
generation of users, contemporary working
practices and current market conditions, is
becoming obsolete.
The case for a full life-cycle framework for
briefing that covers both management and
design decisions has been made before (Nutt,
1993). Its three parts are shown in Figure 4.
The first and major part of the cycle relates to
the operational briefing process for the
management of facility resources and services
to support the changing operational needs of
an organisation, on a continuous basis. The
second part of the cycle concerns strategic
briefing for business infrastructure support
within the corporate property strategy overall.
Finally, the third part of the cycle relates to
project briefing, if and when new buildings
are required.
The development of the life-cycle brief is a
challenging area for facility management. It
will need to build a secure knowledge base
concerning the generic operational needs of
organisations. For practical implementation,
it must develop management procedures for
anticipating, monitoring and responding to
changing operational requirements over time.
Figure 4 Life cycle briefing
 Four competing futures for facility management Facilities
Bev Nutt Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132

It will need to feed forward this knowledge, to meet corporate objectives, clear goals
first to inform property and infrastructure and the precise brief, within a single
decisions within the strategic briefing process, property strategy, should be avoided
second, to inform the early stages of any (Weeks, 1963). Design ingenuity is
design and construction brief. Finally, this life needed to maintain a degree of ambiguity
cycle briefing approach will begin to provide to facilitate future change, re-organisation
the data structure that is so essential to the and management choice.
linkage of management to design.
Client organisations should expect measures
of this kind, as summarised in Figure 5, to be
Life cycle design
examined routinely so that the robustness of
A strategic approach to life cycle design has
any design proposal is assured. Design
two objectives. The first is to make the
concepts are not commonly assessed in
process of design more strategic, providing a
relation to the risks and opportunities that
more intelligent, reliable and accountable
they may hold for the client. The introduction
design service. The second objective is to
of the PFI has highlighted the lack of formal
make the product of design more strategic,
risk assessments here. Practical techniques for
improving the viability of facilities in relation
``design concept risk evaluation'' will need to
to their use over time (Nutt, 1988). Both are
be developed so that the decisions of design
reliant on the life cycle brief, as sketched out
can be scrutinised for reduced risk, increased
above, to ensure that operational issues are a
opportunity and for improved robustness and
paramount concern of design, informed by
sustainability overall.
the FM team acting as the ``intelligent client''.
Design and management policies will
Life cycle management
probably include:
In the past, the issue of manageability has not
. Time design. The consideration of time
been a major concern of designers. Today we
underpins the strategic approach to life
cycle design. The time frames for facility need creative design solutions that generate
use and the life expectancies of its new options and choice for management.
constituent parts need to be explicitly New forms of design knowledge are needed to
addressed. Wherever possible ``short life ± help improve the fundamental responsiveness
high change ± low cost'' elements and of facilities to the pressures of unremitting
``long life ± low change ± high cost'' change. Design for improved flexibility and
elements will be separated both in design manageability is perhaps the most important
and management systems. issue that will help to converge management
. Contingency design. In addition to meeting and design priorities, promising to transform
known short-term requirements, the ways in which property and facility
contingency measures need to be management is currently conducted:
``designed-in'' to face longer-term
. Use flexibility: increasing the capacity of
uncertainties and to reduce the risks of space to support changing patterns of use,
functional obsolescence. Contingencies design for combinational use, and design
commonly include the over-provision of to permit progressive shutdown,
servicing capacity, some structural seasonally, daily, hourly.
redundancy, the oversizing of spatial
. Operational flexibility: increasing the
provisions and strategic measures to capability of a facility to respond to
permit change of use and change of changing operational requirements
function. without physical change. This is perhaps
. Incremental commitment. The design
Figure 5 Life cycle design
decisions of today should not limit the
future. In areas where there is high
uncertainty about long-term
requirements, positions need to be
adopted that preserve the freedoms of
future users and managers to take action
at the appropriate time.
. Indeterminate design. An idea from the
1960s arguing that the tendency to design
130
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
the most valuable type of flexibility for
FM.
. Physical flexibility: design for physical
modification, re-fitting and the
replacement of plant, services,
components and IT systems.
. Property flexibility: design for adaptation
to increase the ways in which property
can be subdivided into a number of
separate buildings, design for selective
demolition and core reconfiguration,
through which radical adaptation can be
achieved, permitting new uses and mixed
uses to be introduced in the future.
. Market flexibility: design for improved
marketability, increasing the capacity of
the design to accommodate different
types of organisation and uses, improving
subletting possibilities and the ease of
property disposal.
These issues are summarised in Figure 6. In
the past, facilities have been designed for a
given client and given class of use, but flexibly
with the probabilities of future change in
mind. The logic of this process needs to be
reversed. In the main, facilities need to be
designed for multiple categories of use, but
flexibly so that they can be customised to
meet the needs of the ``first hand'' user.
Nine strategic positions
The four resource trails, which basically are
about people, business, property, and
knowledge, have been briefly explored. All
seem likely to be subject to radical change
towards 2020, with a wide range of possible
futures. Parts of the four trails might merge or
diverge, splinter or spawn new pathways.
While the trails share a common objective ± to
provide strategic and operational support to
all of our endeavours ± they work to different
Figure 6 Life cycle management
131
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
agendas, serve different interest groups, with
conflicting priorities and ambitions. The four
trails are competitive. So the diversity, variety
and ambiguity of alternative FM futures need
to be accepted, building positively on the
creative tensions between the four trails.
Figure 7 shows nine strategic positions that
any of the four trails into the future might
adopt. They range from the ``exposed''
position (increased risk ± reduced
opportunity) which is logically foolish unless
forced, to the ``robust'' position (reduced risk
± increased opportunity) which is logically
ideal. We might expect that the aim on all
trails will be to move to the ``robust'' position.
But in some circumstances it is wiser to adopt
exposed positions in the short term, to gain
longer-term advantage. For example,
innovation is risky but can be hugely
rewarding. However, in general over the
longer term, the logical position is to reduce
risks wherever possible, while opening up new
opportunities of all kinds. So from any given
initial position on Figure 7, we look for ways
to move from ``bottom left'' towards ``top
right''.
Let us consider four final examples. In the
case of the financial resource trail, its PFI
branch starts from the ``neutral'' position
shown in Figure 7. It contains known risks
but has yet to set out, in the main, to prepare
for unforeseeable risks and to generate new
opportunities for the future.
The human resource trail as profiled in this
paper sets out from the ``brave'' position. New
ways of working promise vast opportunities,
they also involve new types of risk for
businesses and individuals alike. So strategies
on the early part of the HR trail will attempt
to move from the ``brave'' position of
increased opportunity and increased risk,
towards the ``secure'' position where
Figure 7 Nine strategic positions
 Four competing futures for facility management
Bev Nutt
opportunities are preserved while the new
forms of risk are contained and reduced.
The third example concerns FM practice.
To date, facilities management has also
tended to adopt a conservative approach,
working out of the ``neutral'' box, that relies
on benchmarking best practice. Its priorities
have been risk adverse, rather than the
creation of new distinctive management
opportunities for the future support of
organisations and their staff.
The last example concerns architectural
design, which over the last 20 years has
tended to operate out of the lower left hand
side of Figure 7. At best the creative attitudes
of design have had a neutral effect on
operational risks and opportunities. At worst
creative design has generated its own breed of
risks, pushing some corporate clients into the
``exposed'', ``insecure'' or ``vulnerable'' boxes,
imposed an ``art albatross'' that increases risk
and diminishes opportunity.
So the current approaches to both facility
management and facility design may be
characterised by positions on the bottom left
hand side of Figure 7. Hopefully, with
appropriate knowledge support, future facility
design and management strategies will target
the top right hand side of Figure 7, aiming for
``safe'', ``secure'' and ``robust'' positions for
132
Facilities
Volume 18 . Number 3/4 . 2000 . 124±132
FM. The future paradigms for management
and design must be dynamic. They must
focus on the fourth dimension, the dimension
of ``time'', ``change'' and ``uncertainty'', so
that facilities are planned strategically,
designed strategically and may be managed in
a more strategic fashion.
References
DETR (1998), ``Rethinking construction'', The Egan Report,
July.
Nutt, B. (1988), ``The strategic design of buildings'', Long
Range Planning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 130-40.
Nutt, B. (1993), ``The strategic brief'', Facilities, Vol. 11
No. 9, pp 28-32.
Nutt, B. (1997), ``Adapting and re-using buildings'',
International Journal of Facilities Management, Vol.
1 No. 3, pp. 113-21.
Nutt, B. (1999), ``Smart knowledge'', Premises and
Facilities Management, September, p. 22.
Nutt, B. and Sears, S. (1972), "Functional obsolescence in
the planned environment'', Environment and
Planning, Vol. 4, pp. 13-29.
Tripp, R.S. et al. (1991), ``A decision support system for
assessing and controlling the effectiveness of multi-
echelon logistics actions'', Interfaces 21,
July-August, pp.11-25.
Weeks, J. (1963), ``Indeterminate architecture'',
Transactions of the Bartlett Society, Vol. 2,
pp. 85-106.