Adoption of Smart Facilities Management in Ghana: Barriers, Opportunities, and the Shift From Traditional Practices
Williams Miller Appau et al.
Abstract
Traditional facilities management (FM) systems remain dominant in Africa, despite the increasing demand for more efficient and responsive approaches driven by urbanization and sustainability concerns. This study examines the opportunities and challenges of adopting Smart Facilities Management (SFM) in Ghana, employing a mixed‐methods approach. Quantitative data were collected from 240 valid survey responses, while qualitative insights were gathered through semi‐structured interviews with seven senior facility managers. The findings reveal that while 97.7% of respondents indicated the inclusion of FM in their organizational budgets, adoption of smart technologies remains generally low. Only 36% of respondents reported using digital tools, such as maintenance tracking systems, with other technologies, including blockchain (2.3%) and digital twins (3.5%) being relatively rare. Limited infrastructure, high implementation costs, and internal resistance emerged as major barriers. The qualitative data further supported these findings, highlighting bureaucratic delays, lack of technical expertise, and a weak policy framework. However, participants highlighted significant benefits of SFM, including improved maintenance efficiency, enhanced user satisfaction, and alignment with sustainability goals. The study recommends targeted investments in digital infrastructure and technical training for professionals in the FM space. As one of the first empirical studies on SFM adoption in Ghana, this research contributes to the limited literature on smart infrastructure in developing economies and provides practical guidance for policymakers, educators, and FM professionals who are interested in digital transformation.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.