Operating Models

Where responsibility comes to rest

An operating model describes how responsibility is divided between demand organisation, FM organisation and providers. It answers one question: who translates need, who specifies, who delivers, who judges, and who carries the risk when it fails.

The split (Dutch: de knip)

The split — in Dutch practice, de knip — is the point where authority passes from in-house management to the provider: everything above the split is decided internally, everything below it is the provider's to design. It is not a contract boundary and not a line on an org chart; it is the decision boundary. The higher the split sits, the more the provider determines for itself. At a regieorganisatie the split sits higher than at a demandorganisatie: regie leaves much of the service's design to the market while retaining specification, performance judgement and supplier integration, whereas a demand organisation sets the split lower and keeps more of the how in its own hands. Most conflict in FM contracts is an argument about where exactly the split lies, conducted without anyone ever having made that question explicit.

What the market actually does

33%: beheer/uitvoering (in-house delivery) organisation
15%: demand organisation
52%: regieorganisatie

In research among Dutch FM organisations, carried out by FMN together with Twijnstra Gudde, 33% typed themselves as a beheer/uitvoering (in-house delivery) organisation, 15% as a demand organisation and 52% as a regieorganisatie. The reported trend is that the share of in-house delivery organisations is declining while the share of demand organisations is growing.

Read this as the outcome of one self-reported survey in one country at one moment, not as evidence that regie is the right model. Self-typing is notoriously unreliable: many organisations call themselves a regieorganisatie while daily practice is delivery. The distribution tells you how the Dutch market talks about itself, and nothing about what fits your situation.

Source: FMN / Twijnstra Gudde, market research among Dutch FM organisations.

01
In-house (retained) delivery organisation
Self-delivery
02
Regieorganisatie — managing organisation / intelligent client function
Directed external delivery
03
Demand organisation
Full external integration

Archetypes

Responsibility structure per archetype

Each archetype divides the strategic, tactical and operational level differently between the own organisation and the market.

In-house (retained) delivery organisation

Dark = in-house. Even delivery stays largely inside — outsourcing is the exception, not the structure.

Regieorganisatie — managing organisation / intelligent client function

Direction inside, delivery outside — spread across several suppliers. The split sits between the tactical and operational level.

Demand organisation

Only demand translation stays inside. One integrated partner takes over the rest — which is why the outsourced area is undivided here.

Core artefact

Responsibility Architecture Matrix

Where each function sits, per archetype. This is the core artefact of the section: the matrix shows that the archetypes differ in distribution, not in quality.

Responsibility Architecture Matrix
Function	In-house (retained) delivery organisation Self-delivery	Regieorganisatie — managing organisation / intelligent client function Directed external delivery	Demand organisation Full external integration
Demand management	Internal, often informal: FM and core business align through the line.	Internal and formalised; the core function of this archetype.	Internal; the only function that remains fully inside.
Supply management	Internal: capacity is own staff, not market supply.	Internally directed, externally delivered: the organisation selects and integrates providers.	External: the partner selects, contracts and directs subcontractors.
Contract management	Limited and supplementary; specialist and peak work only.	Internal; contract management is a dedicated, staffed role.	Externally administered; internally limited to one head agreement.
Performance management	Internal; self-measurement, with the known risk of lenient judgement.	Internally defined and verified; externally reported by providers.	Externally measured and reported; internally judged at outcome level only.
Information ownership	Fully internal; knowledge often sits in people rather than systems.	Internally owned; providers supply data in a prescribed form.	Externally held in practice; internally owned contractually. That gap is the model's core risk.
Technology ownership	Internally owned and internally managed CAFM and technical systems.	CAFM/IWMS internally held; providers work in or interface with the client's system.	Typically the partner's platform, with exit arrangements over data and configuration.
Risk ownership	Entirely with the organisation itself; no contractual transfer of risk.	Deliberately split: delivery risk contractually with the provider, system and compliance risk internal.	Delivery and management risk external; legal liability and organisational consequence remain internal.

In-house (retained) delivery organisation

Self-delivery

Demand management: Internal, often informal: FM and core business align through the line.
Supply management: Internal: capacity is own staff, not market supply.
Contract management: Limited and supplementary; specialist and peak work only.
Performance management: Internal; self-measurement, with the known risk of lenient judgement.
Information ownership: Fully internal; knowledge often sits in people rather than systems.
Technology ownership: Internally owned and internally managed CAFM and technical systems.
Risk ownership: Entirely with the organisation itself; no contractual transfer of risk.

Regieorganisatie — managing organisation / intelligent client function

Directed external delivery

Demand management: Internal and formalised; the core function of this archetype.
Supply management: Internally directed, externally delivered: the organisation selects and integrates providers.
Contract management: Internal; contract management is a dedicated, staffed role.
Performance management: Internally defined and verified; externally reported by providers.
Information ownership: Internally owned; providers supply data in a prescribed form.
Technology ownership: CAFM/IWMS internally held; providers work in or interface with the client's system.
Risk ownership: Deliberately split: delivery risk contractually with the provider, system and compliance risk internal.

Demand organisation

Full external integration

Demand management: Internal; the only function that remains fully inside.
Supply management: External: the partner selects, contracts and directs subcontractors.
Contract management: Externally administered; internally limited to one head agreement.
Performance management: Externally measured and reported; internally judged at outcome level only.
Information ownership: Externally held in practice; internally owned contractually. That gap is the model's core risk.
Technology ownership: Typically the partner's platform, with exit arrangements over data and configuration.
Risk ownership: Delivery and management risk external; legal liability and organisational consequence remain internal.

Archetypes

All archetypes

Self-delivery

Go to the sourcing models