There is a curious obsession in facilities management with saving money on things that don't actually cost very much. A chemical here, a mop there, a slightly cheaper uniform supplier, a different paper towel, a new soap dispenser. Individually, these decisions look insignificant. Collectively, they can quietly undermine an operation. 

The reason is simple. Many procurement decisions are made by looking at the purchase price rather than the operational outcome. It is a bit like buying a racehorse based on how little hay it eats. Technically, you may save money, but you have completely missed the point. 

Over the years I have sat through countless procurement meetings where someone proudly announces they have negotiated a lower price from a supplier. The spreadsheet turns green, the finance team is pleased, and everyone leaves the room believing a great victory has been achieved. Yet six months later the operations team is desperately trying to explain why the floors have lost their shine, why equipment is failing more frequently, or why consumption rates have doubled. The saving has vanished, but the operational problem remains. 

When Savings Create Bigger Problems 

One of the most common examples is chemical selection. Many facilities continue to purchase domestic grade chemicals because they appear cheaper on paper. The logic seems sound until you remember that commercial buildings are not domestic environments. Nobody is cleaning a kitchen worktop twice a day. They are maintaining marble floors, natural stone, stainless steel finishes, timber panelling and luxury surfaces worth millions. Using the wrong chemical may not create a problem immediately, but over time it can permanently damage the asset. In many cases the client is left footing the cost to replace or restore those assets years later, long after the facilities management company has exited the contract, with little opportunity to recover those losses. What originally looked like a saving eventually becomes a very expensive lesson. 

Looking Beyond the Purchase Price 

The same principle applies to cleaning equipment. People often focus on what a machine costs, while paying far less attention to what a machine saves. A modern scrubber dryer may require a higher initial investment, but if it cleans faster, dries floors more quickly, reduces complaints and allows the workforce to focus on detailed cleaning rather than repetitive manual tasks, it soon becomes the cheaper option. Not because it cost less to buy, but because it delivered more value throughout its life. 

Buying Outcomes, Not Products 

The best procurement professionals understand this instinctively. They know they are not buying chemicals, they are buying floor appearance and asset protection. They are not buying uniforms, they are buying professionalism and brand image. They are not buying paper products, they are buying user experience. And they are not buying machines, they are buying productivity, consistency and operational efficiency. 

The Hidden Driver of Operational Performance 

This is perhaps the biggest misconception surrounding procurement in facilities management. Procurement is often viewed as a support function sitting quietly in the background, focused solely on negotiating lower prices. In reality, it is one of the most influential operational functions within the organisation. Every purchasing decision eventually appears somewhere on site, whether in the appearance of a building, the productivity of a cleaner, the life expectancy of an asset, the experience of a customer, or the complaint sitting in someone's inbox. 

As facilities management continues to mature, the organisations that outperform the market will not necessarily be those that spend the least. They will be the ones that buy the smartest. The irony is that the cheapest product rarely determines the true cost. The operational consequences do, and they usually arrive months after the saving was celebrated. 

So what's the fix? 

In my experience, the answer is surprisingly simple. Every significant procurement decision should require three votes. 

The first vote comes from operations. They are the people who have to use the product every day. They understand whether a chemical cleans effectively, whether a machine improves productivity, and whether a consumable genuinely enhances the customer experience or simply creates more work. 

The second vote comes from the training and technical team. Their role is often overlooked, but it is critical. Every product introduced into a large facilities management business eventually has to be deployed across hundreds, sometimes thousands, of employees. The training team evaluates how easy the product is to understand, how safely it can be used, what support materials are available, whether spare parts can be sourced easily, and whether the supplier can support long term implementation. They also consider practical issues that are often missed, including packaging waste, storage requirements, safety systems and standardisation across the workforce. 

Only after those two stages comes the third vote from procurement. This is where the commercial assessment takes place. Procurement ensures that pricing is competitive, contractual terms are appropriate, supply chains are reliable and the organisation is receiving the best possible value. 

When all three groups agree, the business can move forward with confidence. 

This approach also removes many of the biases that can creep into purchasing decisions. Most experienced FM professionals have seen suppliers attempt to influence operational teams by leaving demonstration products on site. Equally, procurement teams are often approached directly with attractive pricing proposals that may not fully consider operational consequences. By requiring agreement from operations, training and procurement, no single stakeholder can dominate the process. 

The objective is not simply to find the cheapest product. It is to identify the solution that delivers the best operational performance, can be deployed consistently across the workforce, and provides sustainable commercial value over the long term. 

Most importantly, it creates consistency. Once a product is selected, the organisation can invest in training, standard operating procedures, supplier relationships and workforce familiarity. Constantly changing products to chase short term savings may look good on a spreadsheet, but it creates confusion, retraining costs and operational instability. In facilities management, consistency is often worth far more than a small saving on purchase price.