Page 1

Asset Management Software Survey 2013


Foreword Welcome to the 2013 Asset Management Software Survey. Firstly I would like to convey my thanks to all those who took the time to complete the survey. I hope you will find the resulting information contained within this report to be genuinely beneficial to you and your organisation. The aim of this survey is to assist social housing landlords to understand the experiences of others in the sector around the key areas of; selection, implementation and use in practice. In time it is hoped this will become a definitive resource that asset managers will refer to when considering the needs of their organisations. On the flip side it may prove useful to software developers to benchmark their performance against their competitors.

Ken Morgan, Partner (Member), FRICS


Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Executive Summary Who Took Part Software Implementation Functionality and Quality Integration Value for Money Overall Results Conclusion


1. Executive Summary Asset management software has evolved significantly over the last 10 years. Strategic asset management has a higher organisational priority in these austere times. Asset management staff expect even more from asset management software as part of their “strategic tool kit”. Software solutions help to keep your finger on the pulse with regards to managing your assets. The survey was sent out to over 200 people who work for Registered Providers, ALMOs and Local Authorities. We received 77 responses. The survey covered a number of areas such as; service provided by the software provider, quality of the product, ease of implementation, value for money and overall satisfaction with the product. The key highlights of the survey concluded: 

Overall satisfaction results from those surveyed revealed that 62% of responses when taking everything into account rated their software from 7 to 10 (10 is excellent, 1 is very poor). However 38% rated their software from 1-6 being less satisfied with their product or solution On average the highest rated software when asked the question “taking everything into account, how do you rate the software” was PT’s Lifespan. Please see table below for all of the results:

Software Provider Lifespan Innovation Apex Keystone Estate pro Integrator Promaster Codeman Pimss4Communities

Taking everything into account, how do you rate the software? 9.4 7.3 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.0 6.0

Taking everything into account, how do you rate the software? 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


The overall “customer experience” when taking all aspect of the survey into account tells a slightly different story which is illustrated as follows by software provider:

Overall Score Codeman Promaster Innovation Apex Pimss4Communities Estate pro Integrator Keystone Lifespan 0.0

  

 

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

When asked whether you would recommend your current software, the result was split between 75% who would recommend their software and 25% would not 83% of responses said they are not looking to replace the system in the next 18 months compare with 17% who are looking to actively replace In contrast, when asked does the product fully meet your needs, the answer was less positive. 58% of people said that the software does not meet their needs, compared to 42% who said yes, the software does 44% of responses felt that the software lived up to the initial sales pitch and promises, where as 9% felt it didn’t and 47% felt it only partially did In terms of programme implementation, 42% said it overran where as 58% said it ran to time. 15% felt it was due to the software provider, 30% said it was not the software providers fault and 55% said the programme did not over run Ease of implementation, 54% felt the implementation was handled well by the software provider (rating 7-10) where as 46% felt this was not handled as well as it could have been (rating 1-6) Value for money, 61% agreed that the final bill matched the original quote, 31% said it was much larger and 8% experienced a much lower than anticipated bill. Overall 54% felt the software was excellent value for money (7-10) where as 46% felt less satisfied (1-6) With regards to improvements, there was a general theme around the need to create custom reports as apposed to the standard suite of reports which are included at implementation


2. Who Took Part This year we received 77 anonymous responses from a range of Registered Providers, ALMOs and Local Authorities. This was broken down by the size of the organisation. It should be noted these are predominately London and South East based organisations. The spread is illustrated below in table 1:

Table 1

How many housing units do you manage?

How many housing units do you manage? 3% 1% 7%

Answer Options 1-50 51-500 501-2,000 2,001-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-20,000 20,001+

Response Percent 2.6% 1.3% 6.5% 6.5% 18.2% 32.5% 32.5%

Response Count 2 1 5 5 14 25 25

1-50

7%

51-500

32% 18%

501-2,000 2,001-5,000 5,001-10,000

32%

10,001-20,000 20,001+

We asked people which best described their position within their respective organisations. This is outlined in table 2 below:

Table 2 Which of these most closely matches your job title? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Administrator 13.0% 10 Surveyor 10.4% 8 Senior surveyor 5.2% 4 Manager 22.1% 17 Senior Manager 29.9% 23 Director 19.5% 15 CEO 0.0% 0 Other 6.49% 5

Which of these most closely matches your job title?

Administrator

0% 6% 18%

12%

10% 5%

28%

21%

Surveyor Senior surveyor Manager Senior Manager Director

CEO Other


3. Software Of the respondents the following asset management software is used. This is summarised in the graph below:

Number of Responses by Software 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

In terms of the modules used, the most commonly used module was stock condition followed by planned maintenance. It is interesting to note that reactive maintenance is the lowest used module. Table 3 outlines the various modules and the frequency of their use within the sector:

Table 3 Which aspects of the assets do you manage through the software? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Reactive maintenance 14.3% 11 Planned maintenance 84.4% 65 Stock condition 88.3% 68 Compliancy 46.8% 36 Plant asset 33.8% 26 Financial planning 58.4% 45 Document management 26.0% 20 With regards to systems integration and effective data transfers between the various systems as consultants we have experienced a common complaint around this aspect when talking to clients. The result of this question highlights this as the majority of those who responded answered that their housing system does not link to their asset management system.


It could be argued that the asset management system should be the organisations core system and everything else should be built around it. The assets are the one aspect which are fixed. Generally organisations build systems around housing management systems which holds variable and changing data, as they work on the general basis of tenant information. What is clear is that they need to be integrated to be affective and efficient. Please see table 4:

Table 4 Does this system link to your housing management system? Response Answer Options Percent Yes 55.8% No 44.2%

Response Count 43 34

Does this system link to your housing management system?

44.2% 56.8%

Yes

No

The following series of questions were asked about the experience with the software providers. This has been summarised by using an average of all responses received specifically to the software providers. These are been broken down into; implementation, functionality and quality, integration, value for money and overall satisfaction. We have removed any packages which received only one response or which is not a specific piece of asset management software. The higher the score the higher the satisfaction, all responses were rated 1-10.


4. Implementation

Software Provider Lifespan Pimss4Communities Keystone Estate pro Innovation Apex Promaster Integrator Codeman

How would you rate the service provided by the software company BEFORE implementation of the software? 8.4 8.0 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.3 5.5

Software Provider Pimss4Communities Lifespan Integrator Keystone Estate pro Innovation Apex Promaster Codeman

How would you rate the service provided by the software company DURING implementation of the software? 8.5 8.4 7.7 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.3 6.1

Software Provider Lifespan Estate pro Integrator Keystone Pimss4Communities Innovation Apex Promaster Codeman

How would you rate the service provided by the software company AFTER implementation of the software? 9.5 8.5 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.8 5.7 5.4


GRAPH: How would you rate the service provided by the software company BEFORE/DURING/ AFTER implementation of the software?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1 0

Lifespan

Estate pro

Integrator

Keystone

Pimss4Co Innovation Promaster mmunities Apex 8 6.8 6.7

Codeman

Before

8.4

7

6.3

7.3

During

8.4

7

7.7

7.3

8.5

6.8

6.3

6.1

After

9.5

8.5

7.3

7.2

7

6.8

5.7

5.4

5.5


Software Provider Lifespan Estate pro Keystone Integrator Pimss4Communities Innovation Apex Promaster Codeman

How would you rate the responsiveness of the software provider to your instructions? 8.1 7.5 7.0 6.7 6.5 6.2 5.8 5.5

How would you rate the responsiveness of the software provider to your instructions? 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


5. Functionality and Quality

Software Provider Estate pro Lifespan Innovation Apex Keystone Pimss4Communities Promaster Integrator Codeman

How would you rate the product in terms of stability and reliability? 8.0 8.0 7.6 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.1

Software Provider Lifespan Keystone Integrator Innovation Apex Estate pro Promaster Pimss4Communities Codeman

How would you rate the functionality in terms of what the software provider said it would do, and what it actually does? 8.2 7.3 7.2 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.0 5.9

How would you rate the product in terms of stability and reliability? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

How would you rate the functionality in terms of what the software provider said it would do, and what it actually does? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


Software Provider Integrator Pimss4Communities Keystone Lifespan Promaster Estate pro Innovation Apex Codeman

How easy do staff find this software package to use on a day-today basis? 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.5

How easy do staff find this software package to use on a day-to-day basis? 7 6 5 4

3 2 1 0


6. Integration

Software Provider Keystone Lifespan Innovation Apex Estate pro Integrator Promaster Pimss4Communities Codeman

Software Provider Lifespan Keystone Integrator Promaster Innovation Apex Codeman Estate pro Pimss4Communities

How easy was it to integrate the software with your existing systems (such as finance and housing management systems)? 6.2 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 2.9

How receptive were staff to any training offered on the new software? 7.2 7.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.5

How easy was it to integrate the software with your existing systems (such as finance and housing management systems)? 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

How receptive were staff to any training offered on the new software? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


Software Provider Pimss4Communities Integrator Estate pro Keystone Lifespan Codeman Innovation Apex Promaster

How easy was it to transfer your existing data into the new software? 8.5 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.6 6.5 5.5

Overall, how satisfied were you with the ease of implementation, based purely on the product and support provided by the software house (i.e. disregard problems Software Provider with your staff)? Integrator 10.0 Pimss4Communities 8.5 Lifespan 7.6 Estate pro 7.5 Keystone 6.9 Innovation Apex 6.8 Promaster 5.9 Codeman 5.4

How easy was it to transfer your existing data into the new software? 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Overall, how satisfied were you with the ease of implementation, based purely on the product and support provided by the software house (i.e. disregard problems with your staff)? 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


7. Value for Money

Software Provider Keystone Estate pro Integrator Lifespan Pimss4Communities Innovation Apex Promaster Codeman

Software Provider Lifespan Estate pro Integrator Pimss4Communities Keystone Promaster Innovation Apex Codeman

How did the price quoted at the start of the project compare to the final bill? 5.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.0

Overall, how satisfied were you that the software provided value for money? 9.2 8.0 7.3 7.0 6.8 6.3 6.0 5.2

How did the price quoted at the start of the project compare to the final bill? 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Overall, how satisfied were you that the software provided value for money? 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0


8. Overall Results Taking everything into account, how do you rate the software? Taking everything into account, how do you rate the Software Provider software? Lifespan 9.4 Innovation Apex 7.3 Keystone 7.3 Estate pro 7.0 Integrator 6.8 Promaster 6.5 Codeman 6.0 Pimss4Communities 6.0

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

The results show below take all aspect into account to provide the overall score:

Overall Score 120 100

Software Provider Lifespan Keystone Integrator Estate pro Pimss4Communities Innovation Apex Promaster Codeman

Overall Score 108.9 96.9 96.9 96.5 94.0 89.5 83.7 75.8

80 60 40 20 0


9. Conclusion In conclusion customers felt most satisfied overall with PT’s Lifespan software. This was demonstrated in the overall customer experience score and general rating of the product. Northgate’s Codeman was rated lowest by its customers. There was a general dissatisfaction across all providers around integration of software with other systems and around budget certainty with regards to the anticipated final bill. This is an area that all providers need to explore further with their customers and consider what their needs are. There is clear opportunity to expand the amount of modules which are used within each piece of software. It is unclear from the survey whether this is due to a lack of availability or that the modules do not fully meet the user’s needs. What is clear is that the solutions are not fully meeting the expectations of customers which was demonstrated by 58% of people who felt the software did not meet their needs. There was a common theme around reporting outputs. In my experience many organisations use 3rd party plug in order to extract the information they require as the standard reports are not sufficient. The ability to create customised reports which can extract any field is a must for users. I hope you have found this survey enlightening and helpful. I look forward to receiving your responses next year to further build on this useful resource.

If you would like further information regarding this survey or if you wish to input into the 2014 survey please contact Surekha Owens: sowens@jrp.co.uk or 020 8567 6995.


Our Asset Management Services The challenges…

Our scope of services…

The benefits to you…

A greater focus needed on asset management

Asset management strategy and policy writing

A clear strategic direction

Housing Revenue Account Increased regulatory requirements to drive value from existing assets Reduced revenue due to the Welfare Reforms Act Lack of understanding of the performance of assets Lack of clear practical strategy and policy Poor quality asset data No clear strategy for reinvestment

An opportunity to maximise income Value for money assessment

Asset Investment Model (A.I.M)

A clear understanding of assets

Geographic Information System asset mapping

Tackle poor performing assets Utilise opportunities

Bespoke stock condition surveying

Achieve a clear reinvestment programme

Stock option appraisals and whole estate reviews

Raise resident satisfaction Improve communities and property standards

Software advice Land appraisals Stock programming Retrofit advice Maintenance VFM Grounds / Cleaning

Disclaimer The reported survey response data in this survey does not reflect or constitute the opinions, endorsement, or position of John Rowan and Partners or any of its staff. The opinions and responses presented are solely those of the survey respondents. Because the data constitutes opinions, different interpretations are possible. John Rowan and Partners does not assume responsibility for interpretation or reaction to this data.


Report-AssettManagementSoftwareSurvey-290413  

http://www.jrp.co.uk/sites/default/files/Report-AssettManagementSoftwareSurvey-290413.pdf

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you