Face time with key business executives tends to be gained because they think you have something worthwhile to contribute – something that makes their job that little bit easier or more successful. That in turn means that they think you have something to contribute to the overall success of the organisation. The ability of CRE&FM practitioners to meet this ‘relevance’ threshold depends in my view on at least three things:
1) an ability to translate CRE&FM issues/benefits into business issues/benefits (using the language of business to do it, not the language of real estate and property)
2) an understanding not only of the total CRE&FM ‘system’, but also the business ‘system’ that it operates within
3) something worthwhile to contribute.
The second criteria is often overlooked, and is not helped by the sources CRE&FM taps for it’s talent. In my experience the industry gains it people for the most part from 2 generic sources – real estate/property/construction professionals (and allied industries, such as engineering and food services), and those who have ‘drifted’ unexpectedly in, often as part of corporate rotation. The problem with this is that the first source tends to have a very limited understanding of the overall real estate system, at least to start with, and even less understanding of the business system, whereas the second group usually grasps the business dimension but not the real estate and facilities one.
Education can offer a way out of this predicament. Perhaps the easiest to deal with are the business nomads. Intensive ‘sheep-dip’ courses over a few weeks should solve this. But dealing with the first source – industry professionals – is more challenging. Most professions teach the overall system to start with, and then allow practitioners to either continue as generalists or specialise, as their desire and expertise dictates. Think about doctors, for instance. It is inconceivable that a heart surgeon wouldn’t have a thorough understanding of the human body and all of it’s sub-systems, strengths and weaknesses as a foundation. Real estate and facilities does the reverse though. It relies on others to educate specialists to start with (architects, engineers, surveyors, brokers etc) who then have to generalise through practical experience, or via a masters degree, if they want to progress successfully within real estate. I have never understood why there can’t be undergraduate degree courses in corporate real estate so that we start building an early talent pipeline that at least understands and can manage the overall real estate system competently, and hopefully has a good starting understanding of the business system too. In time we should then have more and more leaders who can meet the three ‘relevance’ criteria business leadership rightly requires for it’s attention.
Real Estate RESONANCE 