SFG20’s Davy Clark highlights how inconsistent updates, fragmented systems and vague asset data continue to undermine FM performance, even as organisations prioritise stronger asset management
Fewer than two in five facilities management professionals can say with confidence that their asset registers are fully accurate. According to a recent survey, 38 per cent of facility maintenance professionals do not update their asset registers or do not know how frequently they are updated. While the proportion of FM professionals reporting 100 per cent accurate registers has risen to 15 per cent, a six per cent uptick on last year, nearly one in ten organisations still have no asset register at all.
The finding carries particular weight given where the industry says it wants to invest. As part of its State of Facilities Management 2026 Report, SFG20, the industry standard for building maintenance, surveyed nearly 200 professionals from a range of roles across the built environment sector to assess the challenges and priorities shaping facility management. Against a backdrop of high cost and compliance pressures, asset management and maintenance emerged as the leading three-year investment priority, selected by 72 per cent of respondents. The data suggests an industry that recognises the value of getting asset information right, but is still some distance from doing so consistently.
Why accuracy matters so much for built asset registers
A built asset register is the foundational record of what exists within a building and what must be maintained. When that record lacks a uniform, logical structure, or contains outdated information, it becomes difficult to work with and creates problems that ripple through the entire life of the building, particularly at the post-handover stage.
The principle is a simple one: you can only maintain what you can see and understand. Every downstream activity in facilities management, from planning maintenance to pricing a contract and demonstrating compliance, depends on the register being an accurate reflection of the building. The financial stakes are easy to underestimate, too. An inaccurate register can mean paying to maintain assets that no longer exist, while critical equipment goes unserviced because it was never recorded, and over the lifecycle of a building, these inefficiencies, and subsequently costs, can add up.
Compliance raises the stakes even further. Much of the maintenance carried out in a building is required to comply with relevant legislation. An accurate, well-structured register is the foundation on which compliant and efficient maintenance strategies are built. Without it, organisations are exposed not only to operational risk but to legal and reputational consequences should something go wrong. In a sector facing mounting compliance pressure, a fully fleshed-out asset register is fast becoming a must-have rather than a nice-to-have.
The biggest obstacles to effective asset management
1. Half of FM organisations still store part of their registers in spreadsheets.
The report reveals that 50 per cent of respondents still store at least part of their
asset register in spreadsheet format, with only 58 per cent using dedicated software solutions such as CAFM systems. A further 4 per cent of FM organisations rely on paper-based records to manage their registers.
The accuracy gap between these approaches is telling. Organisations using software solutions reported higher asset register accuracy, around 70 per cent on average, compared with around 60 per cent for those relying on spreadsheets or paper.
The continued reliance on spreadsheets, often alongside other systems, highlights the fragmentation in how asset information is managed. Spreadsheets can be effective for smaller estates, but they introduce well-known challenges around version control, governance, and consistent updates across teams and suppliers. The fact that respondents using software solutions report higher accuracy reflects how systematisation and control can support better data quality when implemented well.
2. Over a third still do not update their registers, or do not know how often they are updated.
Perhaps the most concerning finding relates not to how asset data is stored, but to how reliably it is kept current. The 2026 survey shows that the proportion of FM organisations updating their asset registers on a monthly basis has dropped from 22 per cent to 13 per cent, while yearly updates have seen a slight uptick from 28 per cent to 32 per cent. Most striking of all, 38 per cent of FM organisations do not update their registers or do not know how often they are reviewed and refreshed, up from 34 per cent in 2025.
This is a mixed picture. While reported accuracy may be improving for some organisations, the regularity and knowledge surrounding asset register updates appear to be declining for others. An accurate register is not a one-off achievement. It is the product of a robust, ongoing maintenance strategy. Without a clear frequency for register reviews, even a register that is accurate today can quickly find new inconsistencies, and the organisation may not even realise it has happened.
3. Vague and inconsistent asset descriptions undermine the data itself.
Even where a register is stored well and updated regularly, the quality of the data within it can let an organisation down. One of the most common issues we encounter in asset register projects is the lack of consistency and specificity in asset descriptions. Too often, assets are recorded with vague descriptions like “boiler” or “pump”, making it incredibly difficult to map them to the correct maintenance tasks. This leads to inefficiencies, increased risk, and compliance challenges. Ensuring asset data is consistently structured, complete, and digitally maintained in a single source of truth is essential — not only for effective planned maintenance, but also for long-term cost savings and compliance.
The post-handover ripple effect
The consequences of poor asset data are felt most acutely after a building changes hands, and they fall on three groups in particular: facility managers, contractors, and consultants.
For facility managers, inconsistent or inaccurate data causes a lack of clarity over what assets actually exist, making it difficult and time-consuming to prepare tender specifications and bespoke maintenance plans. Benchmarking a proposed specification against unreliable information adds further cost and delay. There is a compliance dimension too: where poor asset data meets limited knowledge of current legislation, the risk of agreeing to non-compliant contracts rises sharply.
For contractors, poorly organised registers mean difficulty locating and identifying assets, inadequate maintenance due to missing or incorrect information, and challenges in creating accurate Planned Preventive Maintenance (PPM) programmes. Both compliance and safety are at stake, because contractors cannot maintain what they cannot locate or do not know exists. Speed worsens the problem, where manually cross-referencing fragmented data slows competitive bids and raises the risk of inaccurate tender responses.
For consultants, illogical naming or numbering systems make assets hard to locate, wasting time and reducing productivity. Maintenance planning becomes even harder when crucial details such as IDs, serial numbers, and warranty information are missing altogether.
The route forward has a clear direction. Our State of Facilities Management 2026 survey points consistently in one direction: organisations that move away from fragmented spreadsheets toward systematised software solutions, that record assets with consistent and specific descriptions, and that maintain a disciplined frequency of updates, are the ones reporting the strongest data quality. Accuracy is not simply a matter of good housekeeping.
It underpins effective planned maintenance, protects against compliance and safety failures, and delivers long-term cost savings.
