Business Insights

Articles, news and upcoming events

The Worlds of Facility Management and Workplace are, by definition, highly mobile and evolutive.

On these pages, you will find technical articles, news, reports on congresses and conferences in which Spaceonmove took part as well as positions or “mood tickets” which should give you a particular insight into these two fields. Nice readings.

The budget: a management tool or an annual headache?

Posted on by Christian Hadorn | Article

Now that the first accounting quarter is over for most companies, it seems like a good time to address an unavoidable topic: the budget.

As is the case every year, planning for the current financial year - carried out at the end of 2024 - has certainly been a strategic step involving significant resources, particularly in large organizations.

A few avenues for reflection could perhaps help to lighten this burden - both financial and mental - when the time comes to tackle it again, even if the deadline still seems a long way off.

What has always struck me is the pressure that builds up during this period. Everyone brings their own ambitions and directives to the table. Managers formulate their expectations, while the financial department remains on constant alert. It must be said that this is a crucial time: it commits the company for the next 12 to 18 months. However, the budget exercise sometimes takes on excessive proportions. A budget, after all, should remain… a budget.

A tool for planning. A lever that allows you to start the coming year with clarity, by taking the first concrete actions now. A good budget prepares, structures and guides, but it should never become a burden. It must be simple, reasonable and bearable for all those involved.

In other words, the budget is not an end. It must remain a guide, a decision-making aid. And yet, it sometimes happens that it is brandished as an alibi: “It is not provided for in the budget” then becomes a means of rejecting certain initiatives or avoiding delicate discussions.

Experience shows that, at the end of the year, few people still consult the initial budget. And that’s a good thing. What counts are tangible results, concrete progress on the ground - much more than hypotheses set in stone several months earlier.

Apart from legal and accounting constraints, there is often room for manoeuvre. The principle of “communicating vessels” makes it possible, for example, to adjust resources according to real needs, favouring agile and reactive management.

Despite this, the budgetary exercise is still too often complex, time-consuming and a source of tension, even with the experience and support of experts.

This is why the responsibility of decision-makers is central. Faced with the contradictions inherent in any budget, leadership is revealed: do we know how to overcome blockages? To take a step back? To act in the overall interest of the company, beyond Excel spreadsheets?

Fortunately, in practice, many managers know how to navigate beyond budget lines. One essential question remains: why do we persist, too often, in a form of “budget micro-management” when a more global approach would be sufficient?

There is no magic formula for drawing up a budget in a multi-component organization. On the other hand, certain practices deserve to be generalized: setting minimum thresholds per item, grouping projects under the same overall budget, or working by ratios based on the previous year’s results.

In short: a budget, yes. A budget that is too detailed? Definitely not.

Enjoy reading and see you soon.

Recent posts

  • The loss of pragmatism in favour of law

    The law has become very convenient: it makes it possible to hide certain incompetence and to exclude any pragmatism in favour of a dogmatism that is sometimes delusional in certain companies.

    But what exactly are we talking about when we say “law” in this demonstration? It refers to all the directives, standards, articles of law, elements of conformity - or compliance - as well as the numerous certifications that guide the decisions and actions of companies and, therefore, of every professional.

    Of course, it is not a question of questioning the existence of these standards, which have become indispensable in a hyper-connected world. Rather, it is to recognize that instead of fostering creativity or pragmatism, they often become filters against efficiency, cushions of laziness, or markers of irrelevance.

  • Blue-collar workers among white-collar workers

    It’s common for senior executives of major corporations to boast that they encourage entrepreneurship among their managers and employees. This phenomenon is an abuse of language, even a regrettable naivety, as it suggests - both internally and externally - that employees act as autonomous “bosses”, attentive to the company’s challenges.

    A myth or an illusion? Promoting a sense of priorities, opportunities and challenges within the company is understandable and defensible, but its effects should not be overestimated for several reasons: . Transparency (…) . Decision-making skills (…) . Size as a constraint (…) . Detachment from the product (…). (…).

  • Workspace design: rethinking openspace to boost productivity

    In a world where collaborative working has become a pillar of professional life, “open-plan offices” have established themselves as the dominant layout model. They promise flexibility, increased interaction and space optimization. Yet these environments are facing growing criticism, particularly for their impact on employee productivity and well-being. The challenges of open-plan offices: noise, distractions and loss of concentration Despite their advantages, open-plan offices have several major drawbacks. Ambient noise, frequent interruptions and lack of privacy are often cited as impediments to concentration.

    According to a study conducted by Harvard University, these spaces reduce face-to-face exchanges by 70%, in favour of an increase in digital communications - the last straw for a layout that’s supposed to encourage collaboration. In addition, sensory overload can lead to stress and a feeling of tiredness, thus undermining productivity.

  • Outsourcing Facility Management: Why and how to ensure a win-win partnership?

    .

  • The Workspaces of Generations Y and Z: Management Aspiration and Resistance

    Generations Y (born between 1980 and 1995) and Z (born after 1995) are redefining expectations of workspaces. Having grown up in a connected world, these cohorts aspire to environments that reflect their values and lifestyles. However, these aspirations are often met with reluctance on the part of managers, anchored in traditional models. This tension reveals the profound challenges of organizational transformation. These generations prefer spaces that promote a balance between work and well-being. For them, an ideal work environment combines flexibility, collaboration and comfort. Four focus points: Flexibility, Collaborative Spaces, Well-being, Meaning & Ethics. Faced with these expectations, traditional management can show resistance, often linked to fears or lack of knowledge: Loss of control, financial costs, Attachment to tradition, Lack of Data of benefits. To overcome this resistance, a constructive dialogue between generations and managers is needed. There are several ways in which this convergence can be fostered.

  • Ethical or social management?

    Management is a key lever for guiding behaviour, structuring relationships within organizations and guaranteeing performance. In this context, the concepts of ethical management and social management occupy a central place. Although they share the same idea of humanist and responsible management, they have different objectives and principles. Ethical management is based on the integration of moral values and ethical principles into decision-making and business conduct. It is not simply a matter of complying with the law, but of promoting practices aligned with principles such as fairness, transparency, responsibility and respect for stakeholders. Ethical management requires constant reflection on the impact of decisions, not only on economic results, but also on employees, customers, suppliers and society at large

  • Large companies: identifying with a project…

    Large companies are often faced with a major challenge when it comes to projects: how to ensure that members identify with them, personify them, live them and carry them emotionally. The most direct answer would be to say that the project must be sufficiently interesting and self-sufficient for the people involved to support it. Naturally, this is a bit short-sighted and, above all, inaccurate. To put it simply, first, a member of the company’s senior management must be the real ambassador for the project, talking about it enthusiastically, encouraging the teams and the beneficiaries of the project and acting as an advocate for the cause with the board of directors, even when clouds gather, or challenges arise. In many cases, projects go well, even very well, thanks to the technical skills and the various internal and external networks, but they often lack the real ‘soul’ to make them unique, unforgettable and convey a message. How many projects have I seen or taken part in that were successful, but left me with no real satisfaction or sense of belonging? Without getting into a philosophical debate: do company managers really want this ‘attachment’ to a project? Having observed some of the reactions and heard some of the comments made by senior managers, my answer is clearly ‘no’, even if it is distressing.

Archives

Contact us

Contact from
☛ Don't forget to include an email address or a phone number if you wish to be contacted.