CHICAGO—Increasing pressures on credit union management for their time, much of that resulting from growing regulation, is prompting CUs to change how they invest in building and renovating facilities, one company asserts.
Clayco Financial Facilities says more credit unions are moving away from the traditional design-and-build process, where one firm is hired to provide all the critical design, engineering, real estate and marketing to construct effective financial facilities—yet still leaving many aspects of building a new location to be piecemealed out to other firms often too big to notice the needs of credit unions or too small to be effective.
“While the design/build approach has relieved some pressure from credit union executives, many crucial aspects of a new or renovated facility have been kept segregated from the design builder,” said Casey Delaney, director of business development for Clayco Financial Facilities.
All The Ingredients
“The premise is, if a credit union has selected a firm to create and construct a facility, shouldn’t that firm also be able to provide the additional ingredients as well?” said Delaney, who called the new approach “facility service aggregation,” or FSA.
With FSA, the credit union chooses only one firm to implement all the critical components of a facility project—not only the design and build and the marketing, but also the furniture, security equipment, branding/marketing, IT infrastructure, audiovisual systems, and landscaping, for example.
“These are the services that stretch well beyond the bricks and mortar of the buildings,” he explained. “They include the specific marketing and branding nuances that create each credit union’s individual identity and culture. They include incorporating the latest adaptive technology into the facility spaces to increase staff efficiency and create more meaningful experiences for members.”
Casey Delaney
In 2016, the time needed to manage these complex tasks simply isn’t there, said Delany.
“Add to this a constant stream of new policies, and a regulatory environment that requires a more robust qualification of third-party vendors, and the burdens on executives grow exponentially,” Delaney said. “Compliance, member service, staffing needs, and maintaining positive revenue levels are the primary concerns of credit union executives—leaving little or no room for facility project management. That said, having a solid facility strategy is more important than ever. An approach that channels project accountability to one highly effective provider becomes the preferred path.”
By selecting one firm to implement all the critical components of a facility project, executives only need to develop one trusted relationship, Delaney added.
Firm Needs Strength
Delaney contended that not all design-and-build firms have the necessary personnel and financial strength to deliver FSA.
“The right firms need to be able to take charge based on a desire to provide the greatest value to their clients,” he said. “These providers must also have a great deal of credit union industry knowledge in order to anticipate the desired results based on the owner’s point of view. Rarely can FSA work if the owner has to dictate every desired trait of the facility to the provider. An owner who uses FSA expects innovation, creativity, and efficiency to be integrated into every aspect of the project.”
What’s FSA’s bottom line?
“FSA requires providers to anticipate and schedule the entire project process,” said Delaney. “This leads to greater budget certainty, a more manageable delivery schedule and a greater level of overall customer satisfaction at completion. For credit union executives, FSA provides a measure of assurance that the facility will meet or exceed all their expectations.”