MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407003132 · doi:10.1108/jfm-04-2024-0046

Sustainable facilities management: a sociotechnical system perspective and a review of the literature

2025· review· en· W4407003132 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Facilities Management · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociotechnical systemFacility managementPerspective (graphical)Process managementBusinessComputer scienceKnowledge managementEngineering managementEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Sustainable facilities management (SFM) research necessitates a sociotechnical system perspective as core organizations and facilities management (FM) suppliers are subject to multiple pressures while participating in buildings’ use, operation, and maintenance. The purpose of this study is to examine the SFM literature and improve understanding of factors that influence SFM practices using a sociotechnical transitions approach. Design/methodology/approach This study, first, examines facility management and sociotechnical system approaches to develop a framework that conceptualizes pressures and management processes that may impact the transition of FM practices to more sustainable ones. In a second step, the framework is combined with a systematic literature review of studies published between 2000 and 2023 to examine pressures applied to FM firms, explore responses and management processes and the evolution of FM practices, and identify research gaps. Findings The review findings indicate that the factors proposed by a sociotechnical system framework are examined in the SFM literature and that FM regimes acknowledged the applied pressures and responded by adapting their strategies, updating technical knowledge and capabilities, establishing new governance mechanisms, and modifying the industry identity and mindset. Research limitations/implications The review is limited to SFM literature between 2000 and 2023. An evolutionary sociotechnical system perspective of SFM practices necessitates context-specific research. Originality/value The study responds to the call for a sociotechnical system view of SFM and adds a sociotechnical transitions perspective to the development and evolution of SFM research. It organizes the current SFM literature, points to the need for context-specific research, and allows for the identification of future SFM research directions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it