Rethinking Requester Communications

Facility users are the customers of the facilities management function, which has become increasingly service-centric in recent years. Effective communication is a key ingredient of great customer service, and the foundation of a constructive relationship with facility users.

Communications between facilities teams and facility users usually centre around the work request process, as this is the primary point of interaction. If communications are ineffective, they can be a point of frustration for both parties.

When using email as the primary channel for submission of work requests, there is little consistency in the experience for the requester. Whether or not the request is acknowledged, and how expectations of the requester are managed, is entirely dependent on who, if anyone, receives the request.

By rethinking these communications, you can transform the work request process into a positive experience for both parties.

What can go wrong? 

Work requests missing key information

Work requests need to have specific information so the work can be actioned by the facilities team. However, if facility users don’t know what to include in a request, it’s likely that essential information will be missing, necessitating follow up questions by the facilities team.

This problem is common when email is the primary channel for raising work requests. When submitting a work request, the facility user is faced with a blank email, and it is up to them to pre-empt what information the facilities team needs.

As a channel for submitting requests, email cannot offer any meaningful information to the requester about the details required by the facilities team.

Non-compliance with work request process

If the process to raise a request are unclear or cumbersome, there’s a chance that facility users will fail to log requests at all. This can mean the facilities team may not be aware of these issues, or stakeholder needs, for a significant time, during which the issue will be left unresolved.  

Requests can also be left unactioned when lost to individual inboxes. Work requests sent to individual emails are not accessible to the whole facilities team. This makes it easy for requests to be lost, leaving the work undone and the requester frustrated.

It is difficult to effectively allocate resources when work requests can come from anywhere, to anyone in the team. One person may be picking up the majority of requests, or multiple people might be picking up the same requests, resulting in the work being done twice.

Follow up and duplicate requests

Ineffective communications can result in added administration work for the facilities team, due to follow up and duplicate requests. Facilities users expect to have their request acknowledged and to get status updates on requests quickly and easily.

Duplicate requests referencing the same issue create unnecessary administrative work for the team. One facility user won’t necessarily know what requests another has submitted, and so you may receive several requests for the same issue, even if the work is in process.

The same thing can happen when undertaking planned maintenance works. If users don’t know that works are planned, they may perceive in-progress works as a hazard and submit requests to rectify it.

Improving communications with facility users

Simplify the work request process

Ensuring facility users follow the work request processes is a matter of making it as easy as possible for facility users.

Creating templates for work requests is an easy way to support facility users to include all relevant information for the facilities team. Templates take the guesswork out of the equation for facility users and ensure the facilities team has the information needed to action the request.

Improve visibility for facility users

When visibility over works is limited, it can be a long, cumbersome process to provide status updates to enquiring users. When requests are handled through a single channel, visibility of work is improved, making real-time updates available to facilities users.

Providing visibility to requesters about works in progress through a self-service portal offers them information on demand. This can lead to fewer follow up requests or requests for updates and may help to reduce duplicate requests.

Providing self-service information on open jobs is especially important in facilities with shift workers. Being able to source information themselves is helpful for facility users whose schedule doesn’t align with that of the facilities team.  

Proactively automate communications

Request acknowledgements are an easy communication to automate through FMI Works. A notification email, sent shortly after a request is received helps to instil confidence and set the engagement off on the right foot.  

Follow up requests can be reduced by simple automations, such as sending an email when a job moves to a new status. By proactively notifying requesters of updates to their job, and offering self-service updates, the need for follow up requests can largely be eliminated.

Reduce the number of duplicate requests received by proactively informing facility users of upcoming works. If facility users expect that work, they already know what’s going on, and won’t feel the need to submit a request.