Coor Service Management is a leading provider of IFM and FM services in the Nordics, offering all the facility management services necessary for a company or public body to work smoothly and efficiently.
Coor Service Management grew mainly by acquisitions of other companies which meant new cultures, new systems and new ways of working. To make the company as a whole more efficient a GAP analysis was needed when Addici was acquired. We needed to understand what needed to change and what had to remain and how could that fit in the existing way of working.
During 2 months we conducted interviews and made site visits to get to know the different offices around Stockholm and what support systems were needed to support their core business.
As a business architect I was responsible to plan and execute the interviews together with my colleague Peter. The output from the interviews formed a recommendation on how to merge these to companies’s processes and systems in the most efficient way. The recommendation was handed over to the steering committee to decide upon.
Conducted user interviews with 10 site managers and financial managers to be able to understand their core business and the agreements with the end customer.
Went on 5 site visits to emphasize and understand how they used the systems in their context.
Based on the user interviews and site visits, constructed a blue print to map the way of working and which systems was affected and map that to the existing set up. A report with the findings and a recommendation was also created.
Before heading out to do the interviews we prepared a transcript with questions related to the way of working, customer agreements, systems etc.
We realized a clear trend: The majority of the services provided by this new company didn’t require the same detailed follow up as the existing systems had. To merge them to the existing systems wasn’t going to work.
We also identified new services that needed systems that didn’t exist. The systems used would later become the core systems for these services and standard in Addici’s system landscape.
The new company did only require a fraction of the existing KPI’s.
Voice of the end user
We brainstormed ways to merge the companies based on our insights.
3 concept solutions were sketched out (small, medium, large), showing different service delivery packages. What was needed and what we could support with the existing system landscape.
We also went through all the KPIs to see which ones were still relevant and being used. We didn’t want to have technical solutions based on KPIs that weren’t relevant anymore.
We listed the different scenarios and the different areas that got affected to be able to compare them to each other.
Our proposed concept solutions, that supported different service delivery packages was received by the steering committee after being verified by the site and financial managers. The reactions were positive and a lot of constructive discussions were held.
I was a bit nervous when taking this assignment since it affected so many people (5000 + 1000). I learned the importance of being transparent about the progress. We had a big whiteboard where we showed the progress, what went well and what we needed help with. This was very appreciated by everyone involved.I also learned that it is really important to challenge “old decisions”. For example, KPIs created 2 years ago might not be relevant now.
Our findings and recommendations were later approved by the steering committee and a new project was set up to implement a small, medium and large solution based on the services provided.