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. Executive Summary

2. Who Took Part

3. Software

4. Implementation

5. Functionality and Quality

6. Integration

7. Value for Money

8. Overall Results

9. Conclusion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Taking everything into account, how do you rate the software?

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

Taking everything into account, how

do you rate the 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

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:

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

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

Lifespan

Keystone

Integrator

Estate pro

Pimss4Communities

Innovation Apex

Promaster

Codeman

Overall Score

12% 10%

5%

21% 28%

18%

0% 6%

Which of these most closely matches your job title?

Administrator

Surveyor

Senior surveyor

Manager

Senior Manager

Director

CEO

Other

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:

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?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response 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

Table 1

How many housing units do you manage?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

1-50 2.6% 2 51-500 1.3% 1 501-2,000 6.5% 5 2,001-5,000 6.5% 5 5,001-10,000 18.2% 14 10,001-20,000 32.5% 25 20,001+ 32.5% 25

3% 1% 7% 7%

18%

32%

32%

How many housing units do you manage?

1-50

51-500

501-2,000

2,001-5,000

5,001-10,000

10,001-20,000

20,001+

3. Software

Of the respondents the following asset management software is used. This is summarised in the

graph below:

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?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response 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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Number of Responses by Software

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?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Yes 55.8% 43 No 44.2% 34

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.

56.8%

44.2%

Does this system link to your housing management system?

Yes

No

4. Implementation

Software Provider

How would you rate the service provided by the

software company BEFORE implementation of the

software? Lifespan 8.4 Pimss4Communities 8.0 Keystone 7.3 Estate pro 7.0 Innovation Apex 6.8 Promaster 6.7 Integrator 6.3 Codeman 5.5

Software Provider

How would you rate the service provided by the

software company DURING implementation of the

software? Pimss4Communities 8.5 Lifespan 8.4 Integrator 7.7 Keystone 7.3 Estate pro 7.0 Innovation Apex 6.8 Promaster 6.3 Codeman 6.1

Software Provider

How would you rate the service provided by the

software company AFTER implementation of the

software? Lifespan 9.5 Estate pro 8.5 Integrator 7.3 Keystone 7.2 Pimss4Communities 7.0 Innovation Apex 6.8 Promaster 5.7 Codeman 5.4

GRAPH: How would you rate the service provided by the software company

BEFORE/DURING/ AFTER implementation of the software?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lifespan Estate pro Integrator Keystone Pimss4Communities

Innovation Apex

Promaster Codeman

Before 8.4 7 6.3 7.3 8 6.8 6.7 5.5

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

Software Provider

How would you rate the responsiveness of the

software provider to your instructions?

Lifespan 8.1 Estate pro 7.5 Keystone 7.0 Integrator 6.7 Pimss4Communities 6.5 Innovation Apex 6.2 Promaster 5.8 Codeman 5.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

How would you rate the responsiveness of the software provider to your instructions?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

How would you rate the product in terms of stability and reliability?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

How would you rate the functionality in terms of what the software provider said it would do, and

what it actually does?

5. Functionality and Quality

Software Provider

How would you rate the product in terms of

stability and reliability?

Estate pro 8.0 Lifespan 8.0 Innovation Apex 7.6 Keystone 7.5 Pimss4Communities 7.0 Promaster 7.0 Integrator 6.5 Codeman 6.1

Software Provider

How would you rate the functionality in terms of what the software

provider said it would do, and what it

actually does? Lifespan 8.2 Keystone 7.3 Integrator 7.2 Innovation Apex 7.0 Estate pro 6.5 Promaster 6.4 Pimss4Communities 6.0 Codeman 5.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

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

Software Provider

How easy do staff find this

software package to use

on a day-to-day basis?

Integrator 7.0 Pimss4Communities 7.0 Keystone 6.8 Lifespan 6.7 Promaster 6.1 Estate pro 6.0 Innovation Apex 6.0 Codeman 5.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

How easy was it to integrate the software with your existing systems (such as finance and housing

management systems)?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

How receptive were staff to any training offered on the new software?

6. Integration

Software Provider

How easy was it to integrate the software

with your existing

systems (such as finance and

housing management

systems)? Keystone 6.2 Lifespan 6.2 Innovation Apex 5.8 Estate pro 5.5 Integrator 5.5 Promaster 5.5 Pimss4Communities 4.0 Codeman 2.9

Software Provider

How receptive were staff to any training

offered on the new software?

Lifespan 7.2 Keystone 7.1 Integrator 6.0 Promaster 5.9 Innovation Apex 5.8 Codeman 5.7 Estate pro 5.5 Pimss4Communities 5.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How easy was it to transfer your existing data into the new software?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

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)?

Software Provider

How easy was it to transfer your existing data into the

new software? Pimss4Communities 8.5 Integrator 7.7 Estate pro 7.5 Keystone 7.2 Lifespan 7.0 Codeman 6.6 Innovation Apex 6.5 Promaster 5.5

Software Provider

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)? 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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

How did the price quoted at the start of the project compare to the final bill?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Overall, how satisfied were you that the software provided value for money?

7. Value for Money

Software Provider

How did the price quoted at the start

of the project compare to the

final bill? Keystone 5.2 Estate pro 5.0 Integrator 5.0 Lifespan 5.0 Pimss4Communities 4.5 Innovation Apex 4.3 Promaster 4.3 Codeman 4.0

Software Provider

Overall, how satisfied were you that the software provided value for

money? Lifespan 9.2 Estate pro 8.0 Integrator 7.3 Pimss4Communities 7.0 Keystone 6.8 Promaster 6.3 Innovation Apex 6.0 Codeman 5.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Taking everything into account, how do you rate the software?

8. Overall Results

Software Provider

Taking everything into account, how do

you rate the 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

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

Software Provider Overall Score Lifespan 108.9 Keystone 96.9 Integrator 96.9 Estate pro 96.5 Pimss4Communities 94.0 Innovation Apex 89.5 Promaster 83.7 Codeman 75.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Overall Score

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 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

Asset management strategy and policy writing Asset Investment Model (A.I.M) Geographic Information System asset mapping Bespoke stock condition surveying Stock option appraisals and whole estate reviews Software advice Land appraisals Stock programming Retrofit advice Maintenance VFM Grounds / Cleaning

A clear strategic direction An opportunity to maximise income Value for money assessment A clear understanding of assets Tackle poor performing assets Utilise opportunities Achieve a clear reinvestment programme Raise resident satisfaction Improve communities and property standards

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.