What are the most frequent concerns raised by facilities managers about the Landscape Round Table?

While the Landscape Round Table is promoted as a collaborative hub for improving outdoor space management, facilities managers frequently voice a distinct set of practical concerns that can hinder its effectiveness. A primary and recurring issue is budget justification and allocation. FMs often struggle to secure adequate funding for the ambitious projects discussed, facing scrutiny over the return on investment for aesthetic or sustainability-focused initiatives. This is closely tied to the challenge of measuring tangible outcomes; without clear metrics demonstrating operational cost savings or enhanced property value, it is difficult to defend the expenditure.

Another significant concern is the perceived gap between high-level strategic discussions and on-the-ground operational reality. Facilities managers report that ideas generated in the Round Table can be impractical to implement, failing to account for daily maintenance schedules, staffing limitations, or seasonal weather pressures. This leads to a frustration with theoretical planning that lacks a clear, actionable execution pathway.

Communication breakdowns also rank highly among FM grievances. There is often a disconnect between the vision of other stakeholders at the table—such as executives or design consultants—and the practical knowledge of the facilities team who understand the landscape's daily needs. This can result in approved plans that are difficult or inefficient to maintain long-term. Finally, many facilities managers express concern over the time commitment required for these meetings. Balancing the hours spent in discussion with the pressing demands of hands-on facility management creates a strain, leading to questions about the Round Table's overall efficiency and priority within their workload.