BRE 341 Property Management I

Performance of Property Management Companies in Hong Kong

Choi Sandy Cheng Man Wa Li Zixiong Mui Ka Fai Chan Ka Ho

10276554d 10325680d 10306593d 10074712d 10007604d

Flow
Introduction Meaning of Benchmarking Benchmarking criteria Report review Comparison
Quality Certifications
Service Pledges Corporate Social Responsibility

Limitation

Introduction
Compare and benchmark the performance of

property management companies (for residential properties) in Hong Kong. Select appropriate criteria for benchmarking and explain why you choose them.

From the view of residents, which are the most

important criteria and which property management company should we choose?

Benchmarking
The search for the best practices among

competitors or non-competitors that lead to their superior performance

Management service

Financial management

Security service

Emergency service

Good Property Management Practices

Cleaning service

Maintenance and repair works

Corporate Social Responsibility

Selected criteria for this project

Management Services
Handle complaints Customer Service Survey

Property managers have direct interaction with

residents Gives good impressions Show attitude and sincerity of company

Financial Management
Expenditure report Auditing report

Monetary terms are significant Keep openness and clearness

Give confidence to residents

Emergency Services
Elevators Electricity Supply

Water Supply

Water/electricity are important sources of life Supply has to be stable Elevator accidents are vital

Maintenance & Repair Works

Elevators Fire Services Installations

Electricity System
Water Pump System Water Tank

Again, elevators accidents are vital Fire services are vital in case of fire Electricity System , water pump system, water

tank for stable supply of electricity and water

Corporate Social Responsibility

Devotion to environment Activities that help the needy

Charity shows

Residents do not only care about services But all Co. can do to help the public Give faith and confidence to residents

Background of the 4 selected companies

Hong Yip Service Co. Ltd Hang Yick Properties Sino Estates Well Born Real Estate Management Limited Management Limited Management Limited

Parent company Founding year

Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd 1967 44 years 195 6700 460 86,832,704 sq. ft

Henderson Land Development Company Limited 1971 40 years 110 1540 163 11,471,251 sq. ft

Sino Group 1979 35 years 200 1700 180 15,359,503 sq. ft

Henderson Land Development Company Limited 1996 14 years 40 1163 18 3,439,404 sq.ft

Management experience
No. of office staff No. of site staff No. of properties managed

Gross Residential GFA managed

Comparison of service pledge

Criteria
Customer Service Enquiry/ Complaints (Urgent)

Hong Yip
Within 10 mins

Hang Yick
Immediate

Sino
Immediate

Wellborn
Immediate

Enquiry/ Complaints Customer Service Survey Expenditure Report

Auditing Report Elevators

Within 10 days

Within 3 days

Within 3 days

Within 1 days

Once every year Once every year Once every year Once every year Every Month
Every Year Within 15 mins

Financial

Every Month
Every Year Immediate

Every Month
Every Year With 30 mins

Every Month
Every Year Immediate

Emergency Service

Water Supply

Office Hour: Within 1 hour Within 15 mins Non-office hour: Within 2 hours Office Hour: Within 1 hour Within 15 mins Non-office hour: Within 2 hours

Office Hour: Within 15 mins Within 15 mins Non-office hour: Within 1 hour Office Hour: Within 15 mins Within 15 mins Non-office hour: Within 1 hour

Electricity Supply

Criteria
Elevators

Hong Yip
Twice every month Emergency Generator: Once every month Main switch room: Once every year Once every 3 months

Hang Yick
/

Sino
Once every 2 months Emergency Generator: Once every month Main switch room: Once every 2 months

Wellborn
/

Electricity System Repair and Maintenance

Emergency Generator: Once every month Main switch room: Once every month Once every 3 months

Emergency Generator: Once every month Main switch room: Once every month Once every 3 months Once every month Drinking water tank: Once every 3 months Flushing water tank: Once every 6 months At least once every year

Fire Services Installations Water Pump System

Water Tank

Fire Drill

Once every 3 months Once every 2 Once every month Once every month months Drinking water Drinking water Drinking water tank: tank: tank: Once every 3 Once every 3 Once every 3 months months months Flushing water Flushing water Flushing water tank: tank: tank: Once every 6 Once every 6 Once every 6 months months months At least once Once every year Once every year every year

Comparison of Quality Certifications

Why do we compare Quality Certifications? Performance of PMCs

No common standards or assessments within the industry Assessment from an external proxy by the same standard Indirectly assessing performance of PMCs by the same standard of the external proxy

Quality Certifications
Comparison of QC

PMC-related Quality Certification

Quality Management Systems

Customer satisfaction (Complaint handling)

Environmental Management Systems

Information technology (Security techniques)

Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series

Comparison chart
Hong Yip Hang Yick Sino Well Born

ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems

ISO 10002 Complaints handling ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems

ISO 27001 Information Technology

OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series

Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Aspects of CSR
Community How to reduce the impact on the ecosystems and natural resources
Art Support Charity Work Community Services

Environment How to support and engage with the communities

Energy Conservation Green Development Waste Reduction

Workplace How to become a good employer

Staff Development Safety in Working Sites

Comparison of CSR awards in 2010

Hong Yip*
Community - Art Support

Hang Yick

Sino 1

Well Born

Community - Charity Work Community - Community Services Environment - Energy Conservation Environment - Green Development Environment - Waste Reduction Workplace - Staff Development Workplace - Safety in Working Sites 1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 3 1 2

1 1 1 1

*Companies do not disclose all of CSR records

Limitation of our comparisons

Service pledge Quality Certification
Nature of promise from PMCs but not definitely reality Limited information disclosed from the industry Some pledges not stated on the same basis

A relative fairer analysis But secondary source already

Corporate Social Responsibility

Overall

A mere description only Difficult to assess significance of each CSR achievement

Difficulty to assess residential properties for first-hand data No organizations governing the whole industry Limited scope and implication as only 4 PMCs are selected

Limitation of Benchmarking
Data collection difficulties
Commercial confidentiality Collecting numbers but not processes to the

achievements

Factors not comparable, e.g.

Organizational culture Staff morale and sense of belonging

Ignoring specific circumstances, e.g.

Culture difference

Government policies and regulations

Applicability to the local PMCs

Pros
Simple and easy-to-adopt approach High similarity in service nature Some scopes, say security and hygiene, are comparable Help survival in keen industry-wide competition

Cons
Lack of wide-accepted standards and governing authority Some scopes, say interpersonal relationship, managers' attitude , politeness are difficult to measure Subsidiary PMCs of large developers face less pressure for continuous improvement