/executive-fm-consulting/images/Maple_Leaf_White_Text.png)
PDF: Introduction to Executive FM
Facilities Management operations do not break under pressure. Pressure reveals whether the system was in control in the first place.
When control is absent costs shift, risks surface, staff burn-out, stakeholders complain, and attention gets consumed.
Executive FM identifies what is driving instability, firefighting, dissatisfaction, and leadership risk, and defines the critical first moves to restore control.
Send a Text Message
Situation: Post-secondary institutions are under financial pressure, and facilities management is one of the first functions placed under scrutiny because of its scale and cost. Expectations do not decline with funding. They remain fixed, or increase.
Challenge: Inside FM, this creates a specific operating condition. Demand does not reduce, but capacity does. Nothing structural changes, but there are fewer resources to absorb it.
Reaction: Most institutions respond by asking FM to do more with less, or by looking for incremental efficiencies. That does not resolve the condition. It intensifies it.
Resolution: The real problem is not effort, capability, or intent. It is that the operating model remains unchanged while the constraints around it tighten. [Clients and Case Studies]
Executive FM Consulting: We apply a specialized skill set drawing on education-sector experience and functional FM expertise to help senior leaders in the post-secondary sector streamline FM operations, solve problems, and improve their operations in a planned, pragmatic, orderly, and sustainable manner.
When budgets tighten, most post secondary institutions cut facilities management's capacity but leave the FM operating model untouched. The same unclear decision rights, unmanaged intake, and broken workflows remain. The result is predictable: fewer people doing the same unstructured work, more firefighting, more complaints, and rising risk at exactly the moment tolerance is lowest.
Austerity does not reduce demands on FM. It reduces FM's capacity while demand stays structurally intact. If the operating model is unchanged, FM shifts from controlled delivery to reactive absorption. That has consequences leaders cannot afford to ignore.
♦️ Service instability becomes visible. Complaints increase. Small issues escalate because there is no slack left in the system. What used to be manageable noise becomes executive-level signal.
♦️ Cost does not go down in a meaningful way. It moves. Deferred work compounds. Emergency spend rises. Vendor dependence increases. The institution starts paying a premium for lack of control.
♦️ Risk exposure increases. Compliance gaps widen. Asset condition deteriorates faster. The probability of a visible failure goes up, and when it happens, it is attributed to leadership, not to structural conditions.
♦️ Management attention gets consumed. Instead of leading, FM leaders spend their time explaining, defending, and reacting. That erodes credibility at the exact moment they need it most.
This is the core point. Leaving the system untouched during cuts does not preserve stability. It accelerates instability. In tight conditions, austerity measures leave FM with two options. Cut and absorb the consequences of reduced capacity, or fix the conditions that are creating the pressure in the first place.
If FM chooses neither, the system will make the decision for them.
Strong internal leaders within FM are often overwhelmed by their relentless day-to-day responsibilities. Time is consumed by incidents, escalations, and explanations. The work that would actually change performance, clarifying decision rights, redesigning workflows, resetting priorities, is continually deferred.
Executive FM works with post-secondary institutions to control costs and elevate service delivery at the system level. The focus is not on adding activity, but on changing the conditions that drive it. Working alongside internal teams, we identify what is structurally creating instability, cost pressure, and service failure, and define the right first move to restore control.
Contact Executive FM
Executive FM does not provide general advice or incremental improvement. It identifies where FM systems are struggling in post-secondary institutions and restructures how they operate. This work focuses on:
♦️ Clarifying FM's mandate, strategy, and positioning within the institution
♦️ Defining decision rights and ensuring role clarity
♦️ Establishing intake and workload control and redesigning work processes for optimal efficiency
♦️ Aligning roles with actual work in an organizational structure that reflects actual operations
♦️ Fixing coordination and handoffs across teams and functions
♦️ Translating performance into executive terms and elevating FM's ability to communicate across the institution
The objective is not activity. It is stable, predictable outcomes.
Our strength is seeing structural misalignment faster than most people, turning ambiguity into an intelligible operating picture, and giving leaders a practical sequence for restoring coherence.
The result is not a report but an executive decision package that includes a current-state diagnosis, target state, gap analysis, roadmap, risks, sponsor decisions required, and first-90-day priorities.
Root Cause
At Executive FM we've walked in your shoes and we understand the pace. We've refined a system that consistently delivers results and is fine-tuned to meet each client's specific situation. Our model, the Structural Control System is:
♦️ Delivered on a fixed cost-basis for budget certainty
♦️Guided by a clear scope with defined outcomes and timelines
♦️ Aligned with our clients own workload and availability
The Structural Control System can be deployed as a end-to-end full project, customized to tackle specific initiatives, or split into phases including a quick win option for clients who want to proceed on a step-by-step basis.
Discovery: It begins with focused discussions to establish institutional context, surface visible pressures, and determine whether a structured diagnostic is warranted. Early signals of instability and constraint are identified.
/executive-fm-consulting/images/SCS.png)
The Structural Scan is a quick win designed to answer one question: Where is the system breaking, and where should you start?
This is a bounded entry point that creates clarity without requiring a full engagement. This produces a decision, not a report. It requires 6 to 10 participants and the results can be delivered in two to three weeks.
Quick Win Scan
End-to-End Project
The current state diagnosis includes interviews, organizational design, budgets, planning processes, service performance, and governance arrangements are assessed together to isolate the patterns driving rework, loss of control, reactive workload, and stalled improvement.
Targeted surveys or focus groups are used where additional validation is required.
The target state definition addresses governance conditions, decision rights, role clarity, service model structure, and management disciplines are defined as an integrated system designed to restore control and stabilize performance.
The gap analysis and priority decision making is a critical strategic and operational planning phase that leads to the roadmap which is the gateway to actual change. It is a sequenced, decision-ready action plan that enables leadership to stabilize operations, redesign critical elements, and move forward with clarity, control, and measurable progress.
Executive FM Consulting draws on senior leadership and consulting experience across universities, colleges, polytechnics, healthcare, and municipal government. That experience provides a practical understanding of how governance, decision-making, and operating conditions shape Facilities Management performance inside complex institutions.
/executive-fm-consulting/images/AUArts.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/BC-2.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/C.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/LC.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/MRU.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/NWP.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/SHR.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/UFV-2.png "Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/VIU.png "Logo")
Experience includes senior leadership, advisory, and transformation work in institutions where Facilities Management performance is shaped by competing priorities, constrained resources, and complex governance.
Understanding Deliverables
Case Studies
Role clarity collapse masked as performance issues
A facilities team was under sustained pressure, with missed expectations attributed to individual performance and capacity gaps. The underlying issue was unclear mandates, overlapping roles, and decisions being made in the wrong places.
Clarifying role purpose, decision rights, and interfaces restored accountability, reduced rework, and stabilized delivery without adding headcount.
Firefighting driven by unmanaged intake and priorities
Work was arriving from multiple channels with no control over intake, sequencing, or trade-offs, creating constant urgency and visible instability. Leadership believed the issue was workload volume, but the system had no mechanism to define what mattered most.
Introducing a structured intake and prioritization model shifted the operation from reactive absorption to controlled delivery.
Cost pressure without operating model change
The institution reduced budget while expecting the same service levels, resulting in rising complaints, deferred work, and increased risk exposure. The operating model remained unchanged, so the system simply redistributed pressure rather than reducing it.
Redesigning workflows, decision gates, and service expectations aligned capacity with priorities and restored credibility under constraint.
FM positioned downstream with no influence on outcomes
Facilities was consistently engaged after scope, budget, and timelines were set, leaving the team to absorb consequences it could not control. Performance issues were visible, but the root cause was structural positioning, not execution capability.
Worked with senior leadership to reposition FM into upstream planning conversations which reduced downstream instability and improved cost and schedule reliability.
Activity mistaken for control
Leadership had extensive reporting and oversight mechanisms, yet outcomes remained unpredictable and issues continued to escalate. The system produced high activity but lacked clear ownership of decisions and end-to-end workflows.
Simplifying governance and aligning decision rights to accountability converted activity into control and improved predictability.
Cross-functional breakdown at the white space
Projects and operations were breaking down at the interfaces between departments, with no clear ownership of coordination. Each team was performing within its mandate, but the gaps between them were unmanaged and generating failure demand.
Defining shared processes and interface accountability reduced friction and improved end-to-end delivery.
Burnout driven by structural overload, not effort
A high-performing team was experiencing sustained burnout despite strong individual capability and commitment. The issue was not effort or competence, but a system that continuously generated unstructured work and unresolved priorities.
Restructuring intake, clarifying roles, and removing duplication reduced load and improved sustainability without reducing standards.
Leadership risk without decision-grade visibility
Senior leaders lacked a clear view of facilities performance, risk exposure, and trade-offs, making decisions reactive and difficult to defend. The information existed but was not translated into a form that supported executive judgement.
Implementing a shared scorecard and structured reporting created visibility, improved decision quality, and strengthened institutional confidence.
Grant Sommerfeld
Founder and President
Grant Sommerfeld brings 17 years of Chief Facilities Officer experience, including nine years as a university Associate Vice-President, leading complex facilities operations across post-secondary, healthcare, and municipal environments.
His work focuses on a specific problem: why Facilities Management functions become trapped in reactive service delivery despite capable people and significant investment.
Across institutions, the pattern is consistent. Facilities teams are positioned downstream of the decisions that drive workload, cost, and risk. They are then held accountable for outcomes they did not create and cannot fully control.
Grant’s approach is to diagnose and correct those structural conditions. This includes clarifying decision rights, redesigning operating models, and aligning roles and workflows to how work actually moves through the institution.
His work is practical, phased, and grounded in lived executive experience. It is designed to restore control, reduce failure demand, and stabilize service performance without defaulting to additional staffing, systems, or capital.
Credentials
Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. President of the IFMA Facilities Management Consultants Council.
/executive-fm-consulting/images/RICS-2.png "RICS Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/IFMA-2.png "IFMA Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/CMC_Credential.png "CAMC Logo")
/executive-fm-consulting/images/APPA.png "APPA Logo")
Start the Conversation
Institutions typically begin by discussing the context they are facing and exploring whether a structured diagnostic would be useful.
If the discussion suggests that a deeper examination would be helpful, Executive FM Consulting can outline how a structured diagnostic would proceed and what the institution could expect from that process.
What Happens Next
If you reach out:
There is no obligation to proceed beyond that conversation.
Email: contact@executivefm.ca
Mobile: 1-587-226-1205
Call
Send a Text
Book a Meeting
/executive-fm-consulting/images/Portrait.png "toa heftiba ZxD6fLc91LE unsplash")