Global_Corporate_Real_Estate_Trends_2015

to excellence
ELEVATE
Global Corporate Real Estate Trends 2015

LEADERSHIP
INTRODUCTION
JOHN FORREST
Chair, Global Corporate
Solutions Board, CEO,
Corporate Solutions Americas
VINCENT LOTTEFIER
Global Director
CEO, Corporate Solutions
Europe, Middle East and Africa
JORDI MARTIN
Global Director
CEO, Corporate Solutions
Asia Pacific
It is our great pleasure to introduce JLL’s third biennial
report on global corporate real estate trends.
CONTENTS
Leadership introduction
Opportunity and risk in corporate real estate
Executive summary
Theme 1: Centralization
Theme 2: Integration
Theme 3: Expectation
Theme 4: Outsourcing
Elevating the corporate real estate function to excellence
The “great traits” of corporate real estate teams
What’s next? Recognizing and adopting the
“great traits” of CRE organizations
About the survey
2
3
4
6
10
14
20
24
28
29
30

In this latest edition, 544 CRE executives from more
than 350 companies and 36 countries once again offer
their perspectives.
In our first edition of Global CRE Trends, published in
2011, we noted how increased scrutiny during the global
financial crisis presented an opportunity for CRE teams to
raise their profile, credibility and relevance.
When we published our second report two years later, this
opportunity was balanced against five risks that each had
the potential to reverse the progression of CRE. We saw
the greatest risk to under-resourced CRE teams as being
the heightened tactical and strategic demands coming
from senior business leaders.
Our 2015 report stresses an immediate need to elevate
the CRE function. We recognize that CRE teams have
strengthened across geographies and industry sectors,
yet our latest survey finds that much of this progress has
been confined to addressing the structural limitations and
inefficiencies of CRE teams.
It is time to reset expectations of what CRE teams
should do, and how and why they should do it. This is an
opportunity for CRE teams to elevate their position to
one of higher value within the organization and increase
engagement with the C-suite (senior company executives,
such as CEO, COO and CFO). However, if they continue
struggling to accommodate wide-ranging agendas, the risk
of underperformance remains.
The opportunity for CRE is clear. Achieving this requires
some tough decisions, a challenge to the status quo, and a
shift in the work-style and skills of CRE teams.
OPPORTUNITY AND RISK IN CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
Over the last six years, we have captured the voice of the corporate real estate
(CRE) community and provided powerful insights into the current status and future
direction of the industry through our biennial report on global CRE trends.
jll.com/GlobalCREtrends

4 Elevate to excellence Global Corporate Real Estate Trends 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
While this is driving improvements and efficiencies in
basic service delivery, most CRE teams are still striving for
excellence and, in some cases, relevance.
Now in its third edition, Global CRE Trends identifies four
fundamental themes that characterize the challenge for
CRE leaders and their teams: Interaction and integration with other
business functions and stakeholders is a
growing need, but is a feature of only a few
CRE teams.
2
As pressure grows, CRE teams are using
outsourced service providers across more
geographies and industry sectors; but,
many are still missing the opportunity to
drive strategic, long-term value through
outsourcing partnerships.
4
CRE teams are undergoing significant structural change. In response to increasing expectations and scrutiny, CRE
leaders are also drawing upon the resources of outsourced service providers with greater frequency.
Addressing these challenges relates primarily to
transforming the style and skills of CRE teams. In our
view value, relevance and impact will be achieved by
adopting a more scientific, data-enriched, forward-looking
and proactive style. This can only be achieved if the CRE
function is engaged and attuned to the specific needs of the
broader business.
Ultimately, value, relevance and success are relative
measures. CRE teams need to benchmark themselves
against the traits of other high-performing teams. We
provide this ability through the introduction of JLL’s
Great Traits of CRE diagnostic tool, influenced in part by
the responses to this survey.
CRE teams are becoming increasingly
centralized and global, being more formally
connected to the C-suite and better
empowered to drive change.
1
Demand to deliver across a range of tactical
and strategic activity continues to intensify,
challenging the composition and skills of
CRE teams and creating a “pressure cooker”
of expectations.
3

Elevate for excellence Global Corporate Real Estate Trends 2015 5

Sixty-one percent of the survey respondents predict
greater centralized control within the CRE team structure
over the next three years (Fig 1), indicating that companies
are beginning to view their portfolios more globally.
Ninety-two percent of our respondents have a dedicated
global head of CRE, up from 86 percent in 2013, while
more than half of those respondents themselves occupy
regional or globally focused roles (Fig 2). In theory, this
should enable CRE teams to act with greater consistency
across borders.
CRE is becoming highly organized at
a global level.
THEME 1 CRE teams are becoming increasingly centralized and global, being more formally
connected to the C-suite and better empowered to drive change.
Figure 1: What changes do you anticipate in the CRE team structure over the next three years?
Figure 2: What is the geographic scope of your current CRE responsibilities?
A
B
C
A
Greater
centralization
and control
61%
B
More
decentralized
and consultative
13%
C
No change
26%
A
B
C
A
Site speciﬁc
6%
B
City
4%
C
Country
35%
D
Regional
24%
E
Global
31%
D
E
Base: 491 respondents

Elevate to excellence Global Corporate Real Estate Trends 2015 7
10%
0%
20%
30%
40%
2013 2015
Dedicated CRE
department
39%
31%
Corporate oﬃce /
general management
15%
17%
Finance
10%
16%
Administration /
shared services
8%
12%
Human
resources
2%
3%
Procurement
2%
2%
Despite this progress, in reality, the ability of global and
centralized CRE teams to drive value may be open to
question. Less than one-third (fewer than in 2013) of global
CRE leaders sit within a dedicated CRE team
(Fig 3). This may negatively impact consistent
implementation of both strategic and tactical tasks, creating
a disconnect between structure and strategic intent. This
is compounded by the growing proportion of global CRE
leaders located within the finance department – 16 percent
today compared with 10 percent in 2013 – which may
promote a short-term focus on cost rather than value.
Figure 3: Within what department does the global head of CRE reside?
Base: 491 respondents (545 respondents in 2013)

The majority of global CRE leaders continue to report to
the C-suite at the levels recorded in 2013 (Fig 4). Almost
three in every five global CRE leaders are accountable
at this senior level. Structurally, this serves to align
and expose CRE strategy to that of the wider business.
However, 37 percent of respondents recognize a lack of
sustained or consistent C-suite commitment as one of the
top three constraints on enhancing the position of CRE as
a strategic value-add to larger organization (see Fig 21),
which may reflect the strong reporting line to the CFO.
The emergence of global and centralized CRE teams has
been supported by increased empowerment. Seventy-three
percent of respondents say the mandate given to their CRE
team is stronger than three years ago, while just 6 percent
view their mandate as being weaker (Fig 5). This suggests
that the C-suite is developing greater understanding of the
role of CRE teams, clarity on the future role it wants them
to play, and expectation for them to deliver.
The correlation between CRE maturity and a strengthening
mandate is most readily illustrated by regional variations
in how CRE teams are structured. U.S. corporates are
typically further advanced in their development and have
strongly centralized, well-established and organized CRE
teams. Reflecting this, 38 percent of respondents from
the United States (far more than CRE leaders from other
regions) report their mandate as being much stronger than
three years ago. This disparity suggests that with maturity
comes greater appreciation for what CRE can deliver.
C-suite Managerial level Executive level Operational level Others
10%
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2013 2015
FIGURE 4 USED IN REPORT
58%
57%
26%
23%
14%
16%
1%
3%
1%
1%
Figure 4: To what level of the organization does the head of CRE currently report?
Base: 453 respondents (2015); 470 respondents (2013) (those with a global head of CRE)

Figure 5: How would you assess the strength of the CRE team’s mandate, compared to three years ago?
A
Much stronger
28%
B
Stronger
45%
C
The same
22%
D
Weaker
5%
E
Much weaker
1%
A
B
C
D E
73%
TOP 2 BOX
(A + B)
Much stronger Stronger The same Weaker Much weaker
AMR 38% 47% 12% 3% 1%
EMEA 24%
APAC 26%
50%
40%
19%
28%
5%
5% 1%
1%
Base: 491 respondents (Americas 101, EMEA 177, APAC 213)

respondents in 2013 expected shared services integration
within the next three years. However, the pace of adoption
has not occurred as quickly as many predicted.
While the desire to evolve toward more formal
interdepartmental collaboration remains intact, the reality
of a shared-service model is yet to emerge. In our latest
findings, only 12 percent on average report having adopted
the shared services model. Similarly, the degree of ad-hoc
or project-based interaction with other functions has not
fallen as predicted; it remains the norm (Fig 6).
Looking ahead, more than a fifth of respondents predict
that shared services integration between the CRE, HR and
IT teams will become a reality over the next three years,
while formal integration with the finance team will be
the norm for more than a quarter. However, it is apparent
that the ambition for more formal interaction is often
overstated or constrained by the realities of trying to make
this broader structural shift.
Success relies on their ability to interact and integrate with a
range of internal groups across the organization – corporate
support functions (such as HR, IT and finance); internal
procurement and sourcing professionals; and business units
(the internal “customers”). Strong, effective relationships
with these groups are critical to the success of CRE teams.
Our 2013 report heralded the onset of a new level of
integration between CRE and other corporate support
functions, largely in response to growing pressure to
increase the productivity of the workplace. Half of the
While there is strong intent to transform the structure of CRE teams, these teams do not, and cannot,
operate in isolation.
Figure 6: How would you describe the collaboration of CRE with other business functions, currently and three years from now?
HR IT FINANCE PROCUREMENTHR IT FINANCE PROCUREMENT
Ad-hoc /
project basis
Current In 3 years’ time
Frequent interaction
but separate divisions
Shared services
integration
25%
36%
40%
34%
19%
6%
26%
35%
41%
39%
22%
9%
14%
19%
52%
57%
27%
16%
19%
25%
41%
43%
27%
17%
THEME 2 Interaction and integration with other business functions and stakeholders is a growing
need, but is a feature of only a few CRE teams.

One interaction that has evolved markedly is between
the CRE and procurement teams. Today, 70 percent of all
respondents have an internal procurement function that is
actively involved in CRE decision-making (Fig 7).
However, just 22 percent have procurement expertise
sitting within the CRE function (Fig 8). This places onus
on CRE teams, as well as CRE service providers, to
interact with and, to some extent, educate procurement
teams on the subtleties of real estate markets and services.
While our survey shows that involvement in the vendor
selection process is a reality, procurement has not necessarily
become more powerful. 44 percent of respondents cast
procurement specialists in the role of “advisor” while only 11
percent view procurement specialists as “decision-makers”
(Fig 9). The respondents are almost evenly split as to whether
procurement teams will have a more active role in CRE
over the next three years. Time will tell how this critical
relationship will evolve.
Figure 7: Do you have an internal procurement function that is
involved in CRE decisions?
Figure 8: Where does your internal procurement team who are
involved in CRE sit within the organization?
Figure 9: What role does procurement play in CRE decisions?
A
Yes
70%
B
No
30%
A
B
A
Sits in CRE
22%
B
Sits outside
of CRE
78%
A
B
A
Responsible;
makes decisions
11%
B
Advises
44%
C
Inﬂuences
24%
D
None
20%
B
A
C
D
Base: 424 respondents (only companies which outsource) Base: 338 respondents (only companies where procurement plays a role
in CRE decisions)
Base: 424 respondents (only companies
which outsource)

Figure 10: Has your CRE team set up a formal business relationship management program?
We have a long-held belief that excellence in CRE
requires teams to shift from reactive and operationally
focused “order-takers” to proactive, engaged and
strategic “order-makers”. For this to occur, CRE
teams need to interact regularly and intensively with
stakeholders from the core business.
In this respect, it is encouraging that 43 percent
of respondents have a formal business relationship
management program in place, while a further 29 percent
engage with business stakeholders on a formal but ad-hoc
basis (Fig 10). It is worth noting that those with dedicated
CRE teams are even more likely to have a formal
program in place.
CRE teams have not yet fully mastered the art of
integration with the business. It is telling that 45 percent
of global respondents regard lack of integration with
the wider business as one of the top three constraints to
enhancing the position of CRE as a strategic value-add to
the organization (see Fig 21).
While formal relationship management programs are
in place for many CRE teams, they are not necessarily
leading to a level of engagement that enables progressive
CRE strategies or even a raised profile for the CRE
team. Only 9 percent of respondents say their formal
relationship management function with internal business
units is “very strong”.
Formal program in place Formal, but on an ad hoc basis No, but have plans to set up No, and no plans to do so
AMR 56% 29% 10% 4%
EMEA 29%
APAC 45%
31%
27%
17%
15%
22%
14%
A
Formal program
in place
43%
B
Formal, but on
an ad hoc basis
29%
C
No, but have
plans to set up
14%
D
No, and no plans
to do so
14%
A
B
C
D

Two years on, this shows no signs of abating. We asked
our respondents to assess whether C-suite demands to
deliver against 19 separate tactical and strategic tasks were
increasing or decreasing. More than half of our respondents
say that pressure is increasing in 14 of these 19 tasks, and
these are only some of the activities for which the CRE
team is responsible, suggesting that the pressure is even
greater than reported.
The range of tactical demands being placed upon CRE
teams, shown in Figure 11, illustrates that senior business
leaders are still demanding change in both the structure and
cost profile of their real estate portfolios.
A central theme of our 2013 report was the sheer weight of demand on CRE teams to deliver against a broad range
of tactical and strategic tasks.
40%
24%
41%
44%
51%
58%
59%
66%
72%
77%
Raising capital through
the real estate portfolio
Increasing portfolio size
Analysing own vs. lease options
Capital works planning
Reducing portfolio size
Increasing portfolio density
Increasing portfolio ﬂexibility
Challenging the business
about presumed space needs
Reducing operating expenses
Delivering environmental eﬃciency
% reporting increased demands
Figure 11: How are the demands of senior leadership on the CRE team changing in terms of the tactical delivery of CRE?
THEME 3 Demand to deliver across a range of tactical and strategic activity continues to
intensify, challenging the composition and skills of CRE teams and creating a
“pressure cooker” of expectations.

The dominant pressure is around reducing the operating
expense of the portfolio – continuing the trend seen over
the past two surveys – with 77 percent of respondents
witnessing increasing demand. It is clear that this cost
pressure is not going away; the expectation that CRE
should deliver cost savings is now part of business as
usual. This is accompanied by significant pressure to
deliver increasing portfolio flexibility, environmental
efficiency, occupational density, and reduction in portfolio
size. This further qualifies that CRE leaders still perceive
cost drivers as being a central concern for most business
leaders. Not surprisingly, 69 percent of our respondents
maintain that reducing cost is a key factor in elevating the
CRE function (see Fig 20).
This continued cost focus is influenced by a number of
factors. The operating environment of the last five years
has created more transparency of real estate costs and
greater C-suite level understanding of how these costs
can be managed. This, in turn, has created expectation for
CRE teams to deliver more cost savings.
Encouragingly, the majority of our respondents
(72 percent) note that there is increasing demand for the
CRE team to actively challenge the business about its
presumed space needs. This reflects CRE’s strengthening
mandate. The ability to challenge will be constrained by
the depth and quality of interactions that the CRE team
has with the wider business.
The demand to align CRE to wider corporate strategic
priorities is also increasing (Fig 12). CRE teams are
involved in a broad range of strategic activities covering
productivity, cultural change, talent attraction and
retention, corporate sustainability and emerging market
growth. This is a wide scope of work for CRE teams
that have typically been short of investment and human
resources over the last six years.
Figure 12: How are the demands of senior leadership on the CRE team changing in terms of alignment with the firm’s strategic priorities?
Delivering a platform for growth
in select markets
Driving the corporate sustainability /
CSR agenda
Attracting and retaining talent
51%
Supporting cultural change 59%
56%
Enabling ﬂexible (remote, mobile) working 62%
Bringing more ﬂexibility to the leasehold
portfolio; creating on-demand space
64%
Presenting scenarios and solutions
to the business on demand 65%
Enhancing productivity of the
real estate portfolio 75%
Aligning CRE to business drivers
and functional areas (HR, IT, Finance) 57%
48%

In line with our 2013 findings, CRE teams are at the
coalface of corporate productivity initiatives. Seventy-five
percent of respondents say that senior leaders are increasing
their demands for CRE to enhance the productivity of the
real estate portfolio. This is not a straightforward task and
involves a range of components (Fig 13).
As in 2013, demand is strongest for CRE teams to enhance
productivity of the workplace, with 76 percent of respondents
observing high expectations from leadership. Notably, 61
percent (a significant increase over the 47 percent in 2013)
are now under pressure to improve the productivity of
physical real estate assets. This places real onus on delivering
effective and efficient facilities management.
The drive toward productivity improvement has led CRE
teams to focus more intently on workplace strategy in
the period since our last report. Strategically, this has
placed CRE teams at the forefront of corporate cultural
transformations. Sixty-two percent of respondents see
increasing demand from leadership to enable more flexible
forms of working, while 59 percent are challenged to
support wider cultural change within their organizations.
More than three in every five respondents report a growing
appetite to drive greater flexibility through the real estate
portfolio and provide larger volumes of on-demand space.
Figure 14: What workplace transformations have been implemented in the past three years, and what initiatives are planned in the next three years?
No expectation Moderate expectation High expectation
8%
8%
Improve WORKPLACE productivity
Improve ASSET productivity
Improve PEOPLE productivity
Improve BUSINESS productivity
8%
32%
32%
20%
31%
60%
60%
76%
61%
4%
Space / cost
reduction programs
Improving quality
of the workplace
Improving
workplace technology
Enhancing
workplace experience
Change management
initiatives
20%
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Past 3 years Next 3 years
88%
88%
82%
81%
73%
82%
71%
76%
65%
75%
Figure 13: What are your company’s expectations from CRE around productivity outcomes?

Over the next three years, initiatives that address the form,
function, effectiveness and experience of the workplace will
become commonplace for more CRE professionals (Fig 14).
Encouragingly, there is a notable rise in the pursuit of
change management initiatives. This equates to recognition
from CRE teams that property-led workplace initiatives
will not be effective unless they are accompanied by
programs that deliver wider cultural and behavioral change.
Once again, this challenges CRE teams to have stronger
interactions with both business units and other corporate
support functions.

Staﬀ awareness
Energy procurement
Environmental performance tracking
(e.g. energy and carbon data)
Green building certiﬁcations
(e.g. LEED, BREEAM etc.)
55%
62%
66%
70%
Resource recycling / reduction
(e.g. energy, waste)
Other
Community investment
Portfolio-wide risk assessment
(e.g. climate change resilience and adaptation)
Social performance tracking
(e.g. health and wellbeing data)
1%1%
10%
20%
21%
41%
ill-equipped to meet demands
can meet most demands
well equipped to meet all demands
2013
2015
28% 65% 7%
17% 68% 15%
ill-equipped to meet demands
2013
2015
28% 65% 7%
17% 68% 15%ill-equipped to meet demands
2013
2015
28% 65% 7%
17% 68% 15%
A notable area in which CRE teams are (re)aligning with
the wider corporate strategy is sustainability. Almost a
third of our respondents note that their businesses have a
transformational sustainability strategy – that is, one that
puts the generation of positive environmental and social
outcomes at the core of the business model. Against this
backdrop, CRE teams are once more becoming actively
engaged in sustainability initiatives, although they remain
most likely to focus on tasks that are directly related to
individual facilities (e.g., green building certifications),
environmental performance tracking (e.g., energy and
carbon data) and energy procurement (Fig 15).
By a wide margin and across all regions, CRE teams
face an unsustainable workload following years of
limited investment in their staff resources. Their agenda
has become increasingly broad in scope, without a
corresponding increase in resources. Only 48 percent of
CRE leaders rate their ability to place the right people in
the right roles as “strong” or “very strong”. More acutely,
15 percent (a proportion that has doubled since 2013) say
that they are “ill-equipped” to meet the increased demands
being placed upon them, while the percentage of those
self-rated as “well-equipped” has fallen significantly over
the same period (Fig 16).
Figure 15: Which sustainability tasks are handled by CRE?
Figure 16: How well-equipped do you feel to meet changing demands?
% of respondents handling
Base: 478 respondents (those who have a sustainability strategy)
Base: 491 respondents (2015); 545 respondents (2013)

Today, 86 percent of all respondents are actively
outsourcing elements of their CRE activities. However, the
evolution of outsourcing has been uneven across regions
and is only beginning to advance from the outsourcing of
tactical activities to the strategic level of partnership that
has become common in IT outsourcing.
Attitudes toward outsourcing can be seen when placed
on a continuum between highly tactical, cost-sensitive
outsourcing and highly strategic outsourcing that is focused
on delivering long-term value. Of the respondents who
outsource CRE activities today, those in the Americas
continue to lead the way toward strategic outsourcing.
Sixty-two percent of Americas CRE leaders view
outsourcing decisions as being strategic and focused
on long-term value. Globally, only 49 percent of CRE
teams see outsourcing as strategic and value-oriented,
representing a small reduction from 63 percent in the 2013
survey (Fig 17).
Given the intense pressure to deliver across a range of tactical and strategic tasks, it is little surprise that CRE teams
continue to enter into outsourcing arrangements with service providers.
Figure 17: How strategic is CRE outsourcing to your firm?
The reduction can be explained in part by the increased role
that procurement is playing in CRE decision-making. The
involvement of procurement professionals less educated
in the strategic potential of the CRE function has likely
influenced the emphasis on short-term solutions and cost
reduction over the strategic and long-term value that service
provider partnerships can deliver. In fact, this trend was
forecasted in the 2013 survey – and it can impede the
development of the CRE function. While cost reduction is
regarded as a top C-suite demand and warrants attention,
tactical outsourcing relationships are unlikely to deliver
innovation or process improvements that would elevate in-
house CRE teams within the organization.
Outsourcing decisions are
TACTICAL and focused on
short-term cost savings
Outsourcing decisions are
STRATEGIC and focused
on long-term value
12% 16% 22% 24% 25%
THEME 4 As pressure grows, CRE teams are using outsourced service providers across more
geographies and industry sectors; but, many are still missing the opportunity to drive
strategic, long-term value through outsourcing partnerships.

In this context of growing levels of tactical out-tasking,
it is illustrative to assess which real estate functions are
being retained in-house and which are being delivered via
the external market, now and in the future (Fig 18). Those
functions that require planning or strategy formulation are
more likely to be delivered fully in-house than functions
requiring process management, administration or seamless
execution. Project and construction management, facilities
and property management, and transaction management are
most readily delivered through a hybrid or fully outsourced
delivery model. Meanwhile, capital budget planning
and management, portfolio and workplace strategy, and
occupancy planning tend to be retained in-house.
These areas are critical for addressing the intensified
C-suite demands, yet also relate to the CRE teams’
concerns about being equipped to meet those demands.
While CRE has embraced outsourced models to assist
with the sheer volume of expectations and demands, and to
relieve the pressure of growing demands, service providers
are rarely fully leveraged to drive evolution and excellence
in the CRE function.
Figure 18: How would you best describe the current delivery of CRE services?FIGURE 18 USED IN REPORT
1 – Fully in-house 2 3 4 5 – Fully outsourced
Project and construction management
Facilities and property management
Transactions execution
Transaction management
Energy management
Technology
Lease administration
Project management oﬃce
Change management
Supply chain management
Workplace strategy
Occupancy planning
Portfolio strategy
Capital budget planning and management
21%
16%
40%
14%
23%
49%
31%
35%
40%
44%
46%
55%
65%
42%
15%
18%
9%
17%
18%
17%
17%
21%
19%
15%
22%
18%
12%
26%
21%
20%
16%
26%
25%
17%
27%
25%
23%
25%
18%
16%
12%
19%
16%
21%
13%
24%
19%
6%
16%
11%
11%
10%
8%
7%
7%
10%
28%
25%
22%
19%
15%
10%
10%
7%
7%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
Base: 424 respondents for workplace strategy, cccupancy planning, change management, lease administration,
portfolio strategy, transaction management, supply chain management, energy management, project management
office, project and construction management, facilities and property management (companies that practice
outsourcing); 240 respondents for transactions execution, capital budget planning and management & technology

A shared challenge for many CRE leaders is the juxtaposition
of the need to perform strategic functions in-house and the
lack of resources to either hire or outsource to engage the
professionals most capable of innovation and excellence.
While the most powerful and value-added outsourcing
relationships feature robust integration of in-house and
external teams, the survey shows that, in reality, few
respondents anticipate realizing this level of integration
over the next three years. Rather, CRE executives expect
that the future typical delivery model will retain in-house
delivery of strategy, complemented by outsourced delivery of
managerial, administrative and transactional tasks (Fig 19).
Figure 19: How would you best describe the delivery of CRE services in three years’ time?FIGURE 19 USED IN REPORT
Facilities and property management
Project and construction management
Transaction execution
Transaction management
Energy management
Technology
Lease administration
Project management oﬃce
Supply chain management
Change management
Occupancy planning
Workplace strategy
Portfolio strategy
Capital budget planning and management
13%
12%
27%
12%
20%
22%
36%
30%
24%
30%
36%
33%
46%
47%
11%
11%
8%
11%
12%
13%
15%
15%
17%
14%
20%
19%
16%
19%
19%
18%
14%
22%
23%
19%
20%
22%
31%
27%
19%
26%
20%
18%
20%
25%
17%
27%
20%
25%
15%
20%
17%
17%
15%
13%
11%
10%
38%
35%
33%
28%
25%
21%
15%
14%
11%
11%
10%
9%
8%
6%
1 – Fully in-house 2 3 4 5 – Fully outsourced
Base: 424 respondents for workplace strategy, occupancy planning, change management, lease administration,
portfolio strategy, transaction management, supply chain management, energy management, project management
office, project and construction management, facilities and property management (companies that practice
outsourcing); 240 respondents for transactions execution, capital budget planning and management & technology

The viewpoints of more than 500 CRE professionals paint a
challenging picture for the current and future state of the industry.
Although there is progress in transforming CRE teams
structurally and procedurally, CRE professionals report
worrying limitations in the ability of the CRE function to
create strong relationships with business stakeholders and
support functions.
Increasing demands for CRE to deliver against a
broadening agenda of tactical and strategic tasks is
creating a “pressure cooker” that threatens to damage the
evolution of CRE as a function. As part of our survey, we
asked respondents to outline those characteristics they
believed would elevate the contribution of the CRE team
to the organization (Fig 20).
ELEVATING THE CORPORATE REAL
ESTATE FUNCTION TO EXCELLENCE

In some respects, the number one elevator – delivery of cost
savings – is illustrative of the current condition of CRE. The
strong reporting line to the C-suite (and in many cases, the CFO);
the muscle memory of recent years whereby CRE teams have
delivered double-digit cost savings; and the continuing fragility
of the economic and operating environment have all created an
expectation that success is predicated on delivering more of the
same. But CRE teams cannot continually deliver cost savings
simply through tactical market or building-based activity. There
comes a point at which delivering more cost savings is counter-
productive, and a more integrated, value-focused approach with
new measures of success becomes imperative.
We believe this is a growing reality for many, and that CRE teams
must start to look more closely at broader behaviors and strategies
in order to support their business. Our respondents recognize
this too. Half of them regard building and sustaining strong
relationships as a key elevator. Nearly half of the respondents
emphasize an enhanced ability to analyze real estate options and
scenarios (48 percent) or the generation of insights to improve
business performance (37 percent) as positive step changes for the
CRE function. The CRE community is not short of suggestions as
to how it can elevate its contribution.
Figure 20: What are the top three behaviors/attributes that have the potential to elevate the CRE function within your organization?
% ranking in top three attributes
Delivering cost savings
Building and sustaining strong relationships
with the business (outside CRE)
Analysing real estate options and scenarios
Generating insights to improve
business performance
Forward thinking
Focusing on innovation,
new products and services
Improving CRE team
communication / relationship skills
Business acumen
69%
50%
48%
37%
34%
25%
19%
17%
Base: 491 respondents (rank 1); 488 respondents (rank 2); 481 respondents (rank 3)

So where’s the blockage? Figure 21 summarizes what CRE
leaders regard as the key constraints that hold them back. It is
significant that respondents do not see finance as the primary
constraint. Similarly, structural constraints derived from
a lack of C-suite commitment or a decentralized team are
acknowledged, but fall somewhat down the list. Instead, two
interesting primary constraints emerge.
The first of these constraints – a lack of data and analytics
to either measure value or create value-enhancing insights
– aligns with the sentiment expressed in our recent series
of white papers on data and analytics in CRE1
. In these
papers, we argue that CRE teams need to collect data and
apply predictive analytical techniques to guide their real
estate decision-making and generate insights that support
the broader business. For many, comprehensive CRE
data and the advanced technical capabilities to analyze it
are still in their infancy. We strongly believe that a new
science of real estate – in which strategies are formulated
and decisions are made on the basis of accurate data and
analysis – must emerge.
As one respondent noted, the ability to “determine and
predict market trends and insights” represents a key
requirement for CRE teams going forward, as is the ability
to “produce and present robust business cases that provide
a compelling case for a recommendation, as well as the
ability to do accurate financial analysis to support these
case studies”.
The second-ranked inhibitor (lack of integration with the
wider business) is consistent with many other findings –
excellence in CRE is as much about people as it is about
property. Internal CRE teams need to rebalance their
skill sets to prioritize interpersonal skills, which, in many
cases, are ahead of technical property skills. The lack of
integration of CRE teams into the wider business in many
cases is restricting effectiveness according to 45 percent of
global respondents, rising to three in every five respondents
from the United States. Without stronger integration and
interaction with business stakeholders, the value-add of
CRE teams will always be compromised.
Figure 21: What are the top three constraints hindering CRE from enhancing itself as a strategic value-add to your organization?
1
http://www.jll.com/data-analytics
% ranking in top three attributes
Lack of eﬀective data and analytics
to measure value/generate insights
Lack of integration with
the wider business
Financial constraints
Lack of sustained/ consistent
C-suite commitment
Fragmented or decentralized team
Internal skill sets/knowledge
Lack of technology
52%
45%
43%
37%
26%
25%
22%
Base: 491 respondents (rank 1); 474 respondents (rank 2); 451 respondents (rank 3)

THE “GREAT TRAITS” OF
CORPORATE REAL ESTATE TEAMS
It also means challenging and enabling those within the
CRE team to adopt a new style of operation that prioritizes
data science, insight generation, proactive leadership
and predictive analytics. It requires a shift in focus
from technical delivery and specialization – which can
continue to be outsourced – toward powerful and regular
conversations with those in the wider business that also
shape and ultimately benefit from real estate decisions.
The keys to moving CRE teams up the value curve for the
benefit of all are increasing opportunities for consultation
with business unit leaders; establishing agreed and shared
visions of CRE and business success; bringing data to the
heart of the CRE decision-making process; and creating and
responding to continuous stakeholder feedback.
1 Respond to a growing mandate by bringing
tangible, strategic value to the organization
2 Prioritize development of people skills ahead
of technical, property-focused skill sets
3 Create a strong data and analytics platform
to bring science to day-to-day delivery and
long-term strategy
4 Create a strategy for addressing the broad
sweep of activities that constitute “business
as usual” without undermining the evolution
to trusted advisor
5 Leverage vendors not only for tactical
execution, but also to extend strategic
capabilities such as business intelligence and
gain exposure to industry best practices
6 Reach clarity and agreement around what
excellence looks like for a modern CRE
function and chart progress and position
relative to peers using a benchmarking
tool such as JLL’s “Great Traits” of CRE
diagnostic tool
Elevating CRE teams to excellence will require further adjustments to the structure of CRE teams in order to deliver
the same tasks with a more efficient and business-aligned approach.
The challenge for CRE leaders and their teams is clear. To overcome it, CRE teams must learn to:

WHAT’S NEXT? RECOGNIZING AND ADOPTING THE “GREAT TRAITS” OF CRE ORGANIZATIONS
The peer group and comparison criteria vary from company to company depending
on growth rate, age and industry dynamics.
JLL first published thought leadership around the most compelling traits of a high-
performance CRE function 10 years ago. Since then, JLL has continuously evolved
this framework through extensive industry experience and research, as well as
discussions and polls of strategic clients. These include analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of organizational platforms, changing roles and industry dynamics. We
made further modifications and enhancements on the basis of the findings emerging
from this survey. As a result of this ongoing research and client service experience,
the following 11 key traits of high-performing organizations have emerged.
JLL continues to evolve this signature research around the top attributes of high-
performing CRE organizations, customizing benchmarking services for organizations
and evaluating results against goals for financial performance, employee engagement
and environmental sustainability. Further insights and strategies may be found in the
upcoming report, What are the “great traits” of a corporate real estate organization?,
to be published by JLL in the second half of 2015.
They are CENTRALIZED, EMPOWERED AND PROCESS-ORIENTED.
They leverage DATA ANALYTICS AND BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE.
They focus on SERVICE DELIVERY EXCELLENCE.
They invest in a formal INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT FUNCTION.
They provide STRATEGIC PLANNING.
They believe in active TALENT MANAGEMENT.
They establish coordinated INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT.
They foster a culture of INNOVATION.
They adopt a mix of PARTNER MANAGEMENT/LEVERAGE.
They are CHANGE AGENTS.
They formalize RISK MANAGEMENT.
1
3
5
7
9
2
4
6
8
10
11
CRE organizations routinely compare their performance against peers and against industry standards to assess
strengths and opportunities for improvement.

ABOUT THE SURVEY
The research collection phase was concluded in December
2014. Through a combination of online and telephone
fieldwork, we received 544 responses from CRE executives
spread across 36 countries. The respondent pool also
reflects a broad cross section of the corporate community.
Our base sample, as used within this report, represents 491
respondents and covers more than 350 companies, each
employing more than 1,000 people worldwide.
This report summarizes the aggregated global findings of JLL’s third Global Corporate Real Estate Survey.
AMERICAS
101
APAC
213
United States
Brazil
Japan
Mexico
United Kingdom
Australia
India
ChinaNetherlands
Germany
France
EMEA
177
Respondents by region

Healthcare 6%
Government 6%
Energy 9%
Technology, media and
telecommunications 24%
Professional services 11%
Consumer products 10%
Manufacturing and industrial 19%
Banking and ﬁnancial services 25%
Responses by industry sector Responses by organization size
A
Large sized companies
100,000 employees
26%
B
Medium sized companies
10,000 – 100,000 employees
50%
C
Small sized companies
1,000 – 10,000 employees
24%
A
B
C

IAIN MACKENZIE
Solutions Development,
Asia Pacific
+65 6494 3834
iain.mackenzie@ap.jll.com
BENJAMIN BRESLAU
International Director,
Americas Research
+1 617 531 4233
benjamin.breslau@am.jll.com
TOM CARROLL
Director, Corporate Research,
EMEA
+44 203 147 1207
tom.carroll@eu.jll.com
BRYAN JACOBS
Americas
+1213 915 4040
bryan.jacobs@am.jll.com
JEFF SCHUTH
Europe, Middle East and Africa
+49 (0) 1726 143 520
jeff.schuth@eu.jll.com
SUSAN SUTHERLAND
Head of Corporate Research,
Asia Pacific
+65 6494 3655
susan.sutherland@ap.jll.com
HOLLY YANG
Head of Strategic Sales Services, Asia Pacific
Global Marketing Lead Corporate Solutions
+65 6494 3844
holly.yang@ap.jll.com
CONTACTS CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABOUT JLL CORPORATE SOLUTIONS
ABOUT JLL
JLL (NYSE: JLL) is a professional services and investment management firm offering specialized
real estate services to clients seeking increased value by owning, occupying and investing in
real estate. With annual fee revenue of US$4.7 billion and gross revenue of US$5.4 billion, JLL
has more than 230 corporate offices, operates in 80 countries, and has a global workforce of
approximately 58,000. On behalf of its clients, the firm provides management and real estate
outsourcing services for a property portfolio of 3.4 billion square feet, or 316 million square
meters, and completed US$118 billion in sales, acquisitions and finance transactions in 2014. Its
investment management business, LaSalle Investment Management, has US$55.3 billion of real
estate assets under management.
JLL gratefully acknowledges the
assistance of the CRE professionals
who participated in this survey. We are
also grateful to Kadence International,
our research partner for this project.
We welcome any feedback on the
published results to continue to improve
future editions and make them as
meaningful as possible for our readers.
If you have any comments or would like
to participate in future surveys, please
email Global CRE Trends.
Visit jll.com/GlobalCREtrends to
explore the report findings in more
detail. Additional results for specific
countries and industry sectors will be
posted to this site as they are released
throughout the year.
A leader in the real estate outsourcing field, JLL’s Corporate Solutions business helps
corporations improve productivity in the cost, efficiency and performance of their national,
regional or global real estate portfolios by creating outsourcing partnerships to manage
and execute a range of corporate real estate services. This service delivery capability helps
corporations improve business performance, particularly as companies turn to the outsourcing
of their real estate activity as a way to manage expenses and enhance profitability.

Global_Corporate_Real_Estate_Trends_2015

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (17)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (14)

Ähnlich wie Global_Corporate_Real_Estate_Trends_2015

Ähnlich wie Global_Corporate_Real_Estate_Trends_2015 (20)

Global_Corporate_Real_Estate_Trends_2015