Manpower skilling in the facilities management industry is one of the most glaring challenges we face today. Among the many internal issues confronting the sector, I consider this the foremost lacuna. Every day, I continue to witness simmering crises, ranging from client escalations to rising costs, driven by low productivity, compliance shortcomings, and best-practice pitfalls.
As facilities management becomes more sophisticated, technology-enabled, and performance-driven, the industry continues to face a widening contradiction: assets and client expectations are advancing faster than workforce competency and productivity.
This is not merely a manpower shortage or specific skill deficit, but a capability deficit fundamentally rooted in three interconnected failures.
The first begins with an education ecosystem very much in the technical and vocational-based domain. Across many developing economies, young people complete years of schooling without acquiring adequate foundational, technical, or problem-solving skills. The World Bank and most other estimates point to a skill-based learning footprint deficit, and the fact that it stems from competency issues is much more alarming. These figures reflect deeper weaknesses in teacher quality, outdated curricula, inadequate learning infrastructure, and limited vocational orientation, with significant transformation in the built environment, where the role of competencies is becoming much more evident.
In the GCC facilities management context itself, we inherit this challenge from both ends. Much of the frontline workforce comes from education and training systems in South Asia and other labor-supplying markets, while local vocational pipelines are still evolving. Consequently, many candidates arrive with certificates but without sufficient trade mastery, digital fluency, communication ability, safety awareness, or service orientation.
The second failure lies in the FM industry’s sourcing and recruitment of these resources. Many FM companies recruit based on urgency and price rather than verified competence. CVs, trade certificates, and years of experience are treated as proof of capability, although not all of these demonstrate it. For instance, the key skills a technician must have include diagnosing a fault, following a method statement, using a CAFM system, communicating with a customer, and working safely, but how often do I see these missing?
The skills mismatch weakens productivity, competitiveness, and companies’ ability to adopt new services and technologies; more so, this is needed amid the significant transformation in the FM space. Herein, critical skills and competencies are the sole differentiators. Yet many employers continue to use informal interviews, superficial trade tests, and limited induction training. Low-cost hiring may fill a vacancy, but it shifts the real cost to rework, equipment failures, excessive supervision, safety incidents, poor customer experience, and reduced asset life.
The third failure is poor supervision and weak service infrastructure. Even an adequately skilled employee becomes unproductive when deployed without clear SOPs, tools, materials, planning, data, technology, and competent frontline leadership. I have consistently argued that the supervisor is the most critical layer of leadership in FM. Supervisors translate the contract into daily performance. When they lack technical depth, planning capability, and people-management skills, the entire service chain deteriorates.
I agree that a macro solution to the concurrent challenge of the skill ecosystem is beyond the control of the FM industry. However, the FM industry requires its own systemic approach to address its needs. Instead of waiting for external issues beyond its control, it needs to rise above them with solutions.
First, FM employers should shift from credential-based recruitment to competency-based selection. Every role should have a defined competency matrix covering technical, safety, digital, behavioral, and customer-service capabilities. Candidates should undergo practical demonstrations, scenario-based tests, and structured scoring before deployment.
Second, companies must establish role-based academies and certified learning pathways. Training should evolve beyond a one-time induction event. It must include assessment, supervised practice, certification, refresher learning, and measurable progression from helper to technician, supervisor, and manager.
Third, supervision must be professionalized. Supervisors need training in planning, productivity measurement, coaching, quality control, safety, CAFM usage, and client communication. Their performance should be measured not only by attendance and task closure but also by first-time fix rates, rework, downtime, customer satisfaction, and team development.
Finally, organizations need an enabling operating system. Latest ISO systems rightly position FM as a management system designed to deliver services effectively and efficiently in support of organizational objectives. I have always advocated that competence will not translate into productivity without standardized processes, proper tools, digital work orders, clear service levels, and reliable performance data.
In conclusion, the industry does not simply need more workers. It needs skilled resources focused on job centricity, smarter hiring, stronger supervision, and relevant systems to ensure desired performance. My mantra is that productivity is not achieved by pushing people harder. It is achieved by making them more capable, better led, and properly enabled.