CASE STUDY · FEC-C01 · REAL ESTATE GROUP · GULF REGION (GCC)
Growing a real estate group without growing its problems.
The planGrow the property business and its building-care side (facilities) with new investment money, without making the problems already inside the company bigger.
- Time to fix a maintenance requestAbout 2 months48 hoursDATED REQUESTS + EXCEL RECORDS, CONFIRMED BY MANAGEMENTMAINTENANCE SOFTWARE RECORDS
- Material cost, over 5 monthsEstimated starting level32% lowerESTIMATE · NOTHING WAS TRACKED BEFORESTOCK SOFTWARE + PURCHASE RECORDSLower supplier prices also helped.
- Revenue, 3 months before and after3 months before38% higherFINANCIAL STATEMENTSFINANCIAL STATEMENTSSeen before and after, not FEC's result alone: market rents rose and some properties came back into use in the same months.
- SECTOR
- Real estate and building care (facilities)
- REGION
- Gulf region (GCC)
- THE AGREED WORK
- OPERATING JUDGMENTAGREED CHANGESAGREED BUILDSCHECK AND KEEP WATCHING
WHY IT MADE SENSE, AND WHAT WAS IN THE WAY
The company had a solid place in its market and steady revenue. The direction was right.
But the company was not built to move in any direction without things breaking. Growing on top of that would have made every problem bigger.
8 of 9parts of the business we examined were not ready for what the plan would ask of them.
The company, before and after
Scroll to see how the company worked, what would have stopped the plan, what changed, and how it works now.
- 01Before
- 02The problems
- 03The changes
- 04After
What we found
The plan to grow made sense. The problem was inside the company: 8 of the 9 areas of the business we checked were not ready for what the plan would ask of them.
- DECISIONSThe founder was still the person most decisions had to go through.
- KEY PEOPLEThe founder, the maintenance supervisor and the storage manager were three critical single points of failure: so much depended on each of them that if one was missing, their part of the work could stall.
- MAINTENANCEMaintenance requests were taking around two months to fix.
- BOOKINGBookings were done by hand, and customers were dropping out before they came to view the property.
- STOREROOM AND BUYINGThe storeroom and buying were being run mostly from memory.
- PROCEDURESThere were no written step-by-step procedures for how the work should be done.
- HR AND LEGALAll HR (staff matters) and legal work was being handled by one overloaded role.
- MANAGERSManagers had not been told clearly what they could decide, what they were responsible for, or how their work would be measured.
What we changed and built
What FEC leaves behind: what was there before, how it works now, and who runs it.
01DECISIONS · MOVED CLOSER TO THE WORK
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREMost decisions went through the founder, and managers had not been told what they could decide.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe set up a clear chain of managers: Chief Executive → General Manager → Department Heads → Teams. Each level was told in writing what it could decide by itself and what it had to pass up to the level above.
WHO RUNS IT NOWEach level, from Chief Executive to the teams, decides within its written limits.
02MAINTENANCE SOFTWARE · BUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORERepair requests were not tracked anywhere, and took about two months to fix.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe built maintenance software made for this job and put it into use. Every request was recorded, given to someone, followed, finished and checked before it could be closed. Late jobs set off alerts, and the company could now measure how well each technician was doing.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe maintenance team: every job is given out through the software, and each technician's work is measured by it.
03STOCK-TRACKING SOFTWARE · BUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREThe storeroom and buying ran mostly from memory, and items were taken out with no record.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe built stock-tracking software that uses barcodes, and put it into use. Every item taken out of the storeroom was linked to the person who took it and the job it was for. Buying could now be based on what was really used instead of memory.
WHO RUNS IT NOWFinance & Operations runs buying, based on what the records show was used.
04BOOKING · MADE DIGITAL
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREBookings were done by hand, and many customers dropped out before the viewing.
HOW IT WORKS NOWBooking by hand was replaced with a digital booking process. Customers paid a reservation fee (a payment to hold their place) before the viewing, and every booking could be followed from that payment until the deal was done.
05HR & LEGAL · BUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREOne overloaded role handled all HR and legal work.
HOW IT WORKS NOWThe one overloaded role became three clear jobs: HR & Legal Manager, Contracts & Compliance Officer (compliance means making sure the company follows the rules and laws), and Junior HR & Legal Associate.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe three new roles, each with its own part of the work.
0635 PROCEDURES · WRITTEN
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORENothing was written down. Important work depended on whoever remembered how to do it.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe wrote 35 step-by-step procedures (15 core procedures and 20 management procedures). Each one sets out what the work is for, the steps, what done properly looks like at each step, where to pass a problem up, and why each step is there.
WHO RUNS IT NOWWhoever does the job, because the steps no longer live in one person's head.
07TARGETS FOR EVERY ROLE · SET
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREManagers had not been told how their work would be measured.
HOW IT WORKS NOWEvery role was given a clear minimum standard it can be measured against, with an automatic alert when it is missed. Daily reports show maintenance jobs, bookings, stock and buying. Weekly reports show how each role is doing.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe managers, from the daily and weekly reports.
Results
Time to fix a maintenance request
About 2 monthsDATED REQUESTS + EXCEL RECORDS, CONFIRMED BY MANAGEMENT
48 hoursMAINTENANCE SOFTWARE RECORDS
Before the changes, maintenance requests were sitting open for roughly two months. After the new software and way of working went live, the normal time from request to fix came down to 48 hours.
What changed:
Request → given to a technician → followed → finished → checked.
The people did not suddenly become better technicians. What changed was how the work was handed out, followed and checked.
Material cost
No reliable, up-to-date record of stock
32% lower over 5 monthsAbout $230K saved a year, at that rateSTOCK SOFTWARE RECORDS + PURCHASE RECORDS
Material costs fell 32% over the five months we measured. The company bought the same amount as before, so the saving did not come simply from buying less.
The saving came from three things together: tighter control of stock, stopping items being used without a record, and lower prices from suppliers. The evidence we have does not show that the software alone produced the full $230K saving.
Revenue, 3 months before and after
The 3 months beforeFINANCIAL STATEMENTS
38% higherFINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Revenue in the 3 months after the new booking process went live was 38% higher than in the 3 months before. This is a before and after observation, not FEC's result alone. The number of properties stayed the same, and there was no paid marketing.
Rents in the market also went up during those months, and some properties came back into use. The share that came from the new booking process cannot be separated out.
More results from our work with this company
- Stock theft
- Items taken with no record → Zero items taken without matching records
- BARCODE CHECK RECORDS
- Booking speed
- 37% faster
- MANAGEMENT'S MEMORY → SALES SOFTWARE RECORDS
- Customer satisfaction
- 48% higher
- TENANT SURVEYS, BEFORE AND AFTER
- Staff job satisfaction
- 73% higher over 6 months
- SURVEY OF ALL STAFF
- Founder micromanagement (stepping into small, everyday details)
- 58% less
- SEEN ON SITE BY FEC + STAFF INTERVIEWS
How we know
Every number on this page, where it comes from, and what it cannot prove.
| SOURCE | WHAT IT SHOWS | WHAT IT CANNOT PROVE |
|---|---|---|
| MAINTENANCE SOFTWARE RECORDS | The 48-hour time to fix a request. | – |
| DATED REQUESTS + EXCEL RECORDS, CONFIRMED BY MANAGEMENT | The starting point of about 2 months. | There was no tracking system before, so this rests on dated requests and spreadsheets. |
| STOCK SOFTWARE + PURCHASE RECORDS | Material cost 32% lower over 5 months, about $230K a year. | The starting level was estimated, because nothing was tracked before. Lower supplier prices also helped. |
| FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | Revenue 38% higher over 3 months. | Market rents and properties coming back into use also added to it. |
| TENANT SURVEYS | Customer satisfaction 48% higher, before and after. | – |
| SURVEY OF ALL STAFF | Staff job satisfaction 73% higher over 6 months. | – |
| SEEN ON SITE BY FEC + STAFF INTERVIEWS | Founder micromanagement 58% less, measured the same way at the start and the end. | – |
| SALES SOFTWARE RECORDS | Booking 37% faster. | The old booking speed comes from management's memory. |
Bring us the plan.
Tell us what the company is trying to do next.