Peter Murphy asks why estates managers are so invisible. Estates management appears to be suffering from its own success. For some time there has been a misguided perception that the measure of excellence achievable by the estates function is found by the invisibility of its operation.

My recent research into estates management on campuses (Customer Service in Estates Management, commissioned by the Association of University Directors of Estates, 1994) suggests that those who adopt a discernible campus profile will enjoy the benefits which accrue to well-defined, recognisable and supportive service suppliers. Recognisable, that is, by their customers.

Customer awareness drives interest, tolerance and empathy. The role of estates management appears to suffer from being perceived as a "Cinderella activity". A research project I have just completed on behalf of Sunderland University has yielded many valuable insights into service management issues that are becoming increasingly relevant for all university estates managers.

The major capital assets of all universities and higher education colleges are overseen, managed and administered by the estates function. The largest service provider or supplier on all campuses is also the estates function. More planning and strategic evaluation, over far longer time horizons, is undertaken by the estates function than by any other campus management team. Why then are they so universally invisible?

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

There is evidence to suggest that this stems from cultural effects inherent in the role of estates management. The Sunderland University project, in particular, and the AUDE survey generally supported the feeling that estates management was a "backroom" task, and that closeness to the customer was not usual or expected. However, it was generally accepted that the estates function, more than ever before, was perceived as being the service infrastructure of the university. This perception however is felt far more by customers than by the service suppliers.

This may be explained by the apparent dual nature of the typical estates organisation. The range of tasks that feature an estates function comprise "front-line" services - maintenance, security, accommodation management and so on, together with "rear echelon" activities - capital projects, building refurbishments, space planning and more strategic tasks. Clearly the former will involve more visible and closer customer contact, while the latter will necessarily be more remote and less visible.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The AUDE membership survey pointed to the possibility that such structural circumstances may affect the potential for customer orientation.

Data from the Sunderland University project clarified this, interviews with the estates management team at the university resolved the existence of seven major within-group differences, and while these differences were not found to adversely affect optimal performance, they nonetheless suggest that this may be significant for customer orientation.

The purpose of the AUDE survey was to establish the existence and extent of customer orientation in university estates service management. One of the findings was that there was little consensus as to the identity of the customer, and less on how to meet their needs. Most sought to offer a median service level to all, within budgetary constraints. Most managed conflict resolution by best practice referral, the belief that striving for customer satisfaction was impractical and expensive and that the best way to cope with demand was to ration resources. Conflict was thus reduced by the application of fairness. Fairness and even-handedness in all customer dealings appear seductively compelling, sound and rational.

It is suggested however, that far from being effective, this approach to customer-service management actually reduces the potential and ability of service providers to be effective. This apparent irony arises from the lack of customer homogeneity. The campus customer is simply not a singular definable entity. A standard service level cannot apply since campus services are sought from relatively diverse groups of customers. Since customers are diverse, so too it is proposed, should be the service offering.

Some means of viewing campus customers needs to be devised. Once a clear picture of the customer base emerges, so too should their needs.

There are three discernibly different campus customer groups - students (80 per cent of the total), academics (typically 11 per cent), and administrators (9 per cent).

The Sunderland University project also involved a survey of its campus customers to seek their service perceptions relative to their own needs.

The findings suggested reasonable consistency between academics and administrative staff but marked differences between these and the student group.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

While the varying demand patterns are indicative of some of the reasons for differences, there were one or two surprises.

It might be expected that academics and administrative staff would place a higher value on car parking, but would students really value academic accommodation (lecture theatres, library etc) more than catering services? And is this value higher than that for academics? At Sunderland, the answer is clearly yes.

This suggests that campus service management should be given far more thought than mere fairness would appear to offer. It is necessary for service suppliers to define customers as sharply as is practicable, since their needs require equally exacting analysis.

Since university campuses feature highly disparate groups of customers, this task is exacerbated by the perceived potential for genuinely conflicting needs. Unless this can satisfactorily be undertaken, the exercise of providing an adequate service will at best be accidental, short term and ultimately flawed.

Finally there is also required a long-term commitment to continual periodic sampling of customers' changing and developing needs, together with provision in the strategic plan for flexibility sufficient to cater for resultant changes and demand shifts. For this to occur, customers should be at least as committed to having their needs met as the supplier is to satisfying the customer.

Service customers should be made aware of the strategy, purpose and role of the estates function, so they may see how they can contribute to the success of optimal service delivery for all.

This in turn requires that the estates function acquires a recognisable identity, one which unequivocally engenders a consistent and value-assuring image as part of the university's overall structure.

This image should be as positive as necessary to obtain and sustain the essential and corresponding commitment from the customer base. This research shows that traditional thinking on issues of service management are at best accidentally effective.

More disturbingly perhaps is that the natural tendency for self-effacement within the estates function may hinder its image as a professional service provider.

Peter Murphy lectures in marketing at the Dearne Valley Business School.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥