Facilities Teams Don’t Need More Tech - They Need More Control

• Content
• Opinion
• Facilities Teams Don’t Need More Tech - They Need More Control

31 March 2026

Bruce Donald, UK and Ireland Country Manager at SimonsVoss, looks at access control from an estates perspective – how facilities teams can reduce administrative friction, improve oversight and make access management support day-to-day operations rather than complicate them.

There’s a reason access control projects often sit on the “next year” list.

Estates teams are busy. Sites are operational. Tenants are moving. Contractors are coming and going. Budgets are tight. And the idea of ripping out doors or launching a major security overhaul feels like operational self-sabotage.

But for estates teams managing multiple sites and buildings, the biggest risk isn’t outdated hardware. It’s unmanaged complexity.

Teams typically operating multiple sites, managing mixed building types, and working without large in-house security departments sit in a pressure zone. These sites are too complex for manual key control, yet teams are often hesitant to deploy enterprise-heavy systems.

They don’t need more technology. They need more control - delivered simply.

The Illusion of “We’re Covered”

In a recent UK survey SimonsVoss conducted, 77% of respondents said staff-only areas are secured. 92% said they can prevent unauthorised access to sensitive areas.

On the surface, that sounds reassuring.

But when we asked about how that control is structured, a different picture emerged:

• Only 62% can restrict access by role
• Only 60% can vary permissions by time or day
• Only 54% can customise access by zone

This is where everyday friction begins.

Because in multi-building, multi-site estates, access rarely stays static. Roles change. Contractors rotate. Sites expand. Departments relocate. Temporary access becomes permanent - and exceptions multiply.

If permissions aren’t structured - role-based, time-bound and zone-specific - access control turns into an administrative burden which is where human error thrives. Keys get duplicated, fobs get shared because it’s ‘just easier’, access lists sit in spreadsheets, and estates teams spend their time chasing people instead of improving or safeguarding their buildings.

This isn’t scalable security.

The Hidden Operational Cost of Manual Access

One of the biggest misconceptions I hear is that “keys are simple.”

They are simple - until:

• A contractor leaves without returning one
• A master key goes missing
• A tenant disputes access
• A safeguarding issue requires immediate action
• A leaver still has building access weeks later

Keys don’t tell you who used them. They don’t expire, they don’t align automatically to job roles, and they don’t scale across sites.

Of respondents in our survey:

• 38% cannot see a full audit trail of who accessed specific doors
• 45.5% cannot retain or search audit data meaningfully
• 61.5% cannot link access data to incident reporting systems

When something goes wrong, “we think” is not the same as “we know”.

And in a climate where estates teams are under pressure to demonstrate governance and accountability, that distinction matters.

RICS’ UK Facilities Management Survey¹ reflects the increasing emphasis on measurable performance and structured oversight within the FM profession, showing facilities management is becoming more data-driven – and its access control must follow.

Response Capability: The Silent Weakness

The most striking finding in our survey was response capability.

• 91% cannot remotely lock down doors or zones
• 85% have no predefined lockdown zones
• 91% cannot initiate lockdown remotely

Incidents happen in commercial buildings every year. Unauthorised entry, aggressive behaviour, theft, safeguarding concerns, health and safety incidents are all examples – and in those moments, speed matters.

If your response relies on physical keys, manual intervention or “finding the right person”, control is delayed.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025² reinforces the principle of preparedness and reasonably practicable protective measures and is outlined in extensive government guidance.

While primarily focused on publicly accessible premises, preparedness and demonstrable control are increasingly expected across all aspects of the built environment.

The Disruption Drama Myth

The major barrier to modernisation is fear of disruption.

Estates teams worry about:

• Replacing doors
• Long downtime
• IT complexity
• Budget overruns
• Multi-site coordination headaches

But modern digital locking systems are increasingly retrofit-friendly. Phased rollouts allow organisations to upgrade high-risk zones first, then expand across sites.

That means:

• Faster time-to-value
• Reduced operational interruption
• Budget control
• Minimal building disruption

And in a market where operational efficiency and business continuity are constant priorities - as highlighted in CBRE’s UK FM analysis³ - this fear of disruption may be holding many teams back.

What Facilities Teams Really Need 

In my experience, the most successful access strategies for multi-site or building estates focus on four outcomes:

1. Accountability
    Clear audit trails. Searchable history. Incident-ready visibility.
2. Scalable security
    Control that grows with the organisation - across sites, departments and acquisitions - without increasing headcount.
3. Operational simplicity
    Centrally managed permissions. Role-based rules. Reduced admin. No key cupboard chaos.
4. Minimal disruption
    Retrofit-friendly upgrades. Phased deployment. Faster implementation cycles.

Access control should reduce risk, reduce admin and reduce friction – but it shouldn’t be a daily burden.

The question for estates leaders isn’t whether or not to modernise, it’s whether their current system can scale, evidence and respond - without creating more work.

In modern estate management, control isn’t about locking doors, it’s about being able to prove - and adjust - that control at any moment.

Picture: A headshot of Bruce Donald, UK and Ireland Country Manager at SimonsVoss.

1. RICS’ UK Facilities Management Survey – see here.
2. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – see here.
3. CBRE’s UK FM analysis – see here.

Article written by Dave Mapps | Published 31 March 2026

Share

---

---

Related Articles

---