TRANSFORMING FACILITY MANAGEMENT VALUE UNDER WARTIME RISKS: A B2B MARKETING PERSPECTIVE

Vadym Livshyts

doi:10.32782/2415-3583/42.14

Vadym Livshyts Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman; National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8393-7281

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2415-3583/42.14

Keywords: Facility Management, services marketing, B2B marketing, value proposition, perceived value, organizational resilience, business continuity, wartime risks

Abstract

The article examines how prolonged wartime risks transform the marketing value of Facility Management (FM) in the corporate B2B segment of the office property market. It shows that customer value increasingly extends beyond routine service delivery, price and SLA compliance toward business continuity, responsiveness, risk reduction, transparency and organizational resilience. The study combines services marketing, perceived value, relationship marketing, business continuity and resilience approaches with qualitative analysis of recurring FM practices in Ukraine. A four-level model of FM value evolution is proposed: Operational FM, Integrated FM, Risk-oriented FM and Resilience-oriented FM. The findings support a shift from service-list and price-based positioning toward differentiation based on measurable business outcomes, adaptability and continuity support.

References

1. Grönroos C. (2015). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Service Profit Logic. 4th ed. Wiley.
2. Eggert A. & Ulaga W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 17, no. 2/3, pp. 107–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419754
3. Morgan R. M. & Hunt S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 20–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
4. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO 41011:2017 Facility management – Vocabulary.
5. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 41001:2018 Facility management – Management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.
6. Hillmann J. & Guenther E. (2021). Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management research? International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 7–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239
7. International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 22301:2019 Security and resilience – Business continuity management systems – Requirements.
8. World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Commission & United Nations. (2025). Ukraine Fourth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4): February 2022–December 2024. World Bank. Available at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099022025114040022/pdf/P1801741ca39ec0d81b5371ff73a675a0a8.pdf
9. OECD. (2025). OECD Economic Surveys: Ukraine 2025. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-ukraine-2025_940cee85-en.html
10. European Commission. (2024). Ukraine Report 2024. Available at: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/ukraine-report-2024_en
11. Teece D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 40–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
12. Wenzel M., Stanske S. & Lieberman M. B. (2021). Strategic responses to crisis. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. O16–O27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3161