Bidvest Noonan

A leading provider of Facilities Management Servicess

key-content

Why smart buildings fail and how to fix them: Peter Smyth, our director of innovation & technology, takes a deep dive into smart buildings.

by

Smart buildings promise a great deal: automated systems, real-time data, lower energy costs and environments that respond to the needs of the people occupying them. For facilities managers, from those running university campuses to large commercial estates, the technology is firmly on the agenda. According to Bidvest Noonan’s FM Technology Investment Survey 2026, almost three in five FM leaders (59%) rank smart building sensors and IoT as a top technology priority, the highest of any technology.

So, the question arises: with investment accelerating, why do so many smart building projects fall short of delivering on the vision? Time and again, the answer comes down to how systems are planned and connected from the outset.

When systems don’t talk to each other
A building that is fitted with sensors, a digital facilities management (FM) platform and an access control system sounds capable. But if those systems cannot share data, the benefits stay locked away in their separate silos. Facilities managers end up switching between screens, manually reconciling information that should flow automatically.

The Bidvest Noonan survey found that nearly two-thirds (65%) of FM decision-makers cited insufficient planning and needs assessment as a primary reason for technology underperformance. More than half (57%) identified integration complexity with legacy systems as one of their biggest current challenges. It’s a consistent pattern: when integration is overlooked during planning, even good technology underdelivers.

That’s because inadequate training compounds the challenge. The same research uncovered an intriguing training paradox. Almost two-thirds (64%) of FM leaders link poor training to technology underperformance, yet fewer than one-in-ten identified training as a critical factor when reflecting on technologies that had succeeded. To optimise smart building systems, as with any facilities management innovations or digital applications, organisations must continuously invest in the people who will be operating the technology. This will give staff the confidence to use it effectively, maximising the financial and environmental benefits.

Start with integration, not after it
A common mistake is treating integration as something to sort out once core systems are in place. By then, choices have been made, contracts signed and retrofitting connectivity between incompatible systems becomes expensive and disruptive.

The way forward is to define integration requirements before a single product is specified. What data does the building need to capture? Who needs access to it and in what format? How will the systems communicate? Questions like these belong at the start of the project, not the end. AI-powered software tools need to be part of that planning too.

Facilities managers bring a perspective no one else can
Smart building projects draw on a range of expertise. IT teams understand the architecture. Procurement understands commercial terms. Engineering understands the physical infrastructure. Facilities managers bring something distinct: the long view. They live with the decisions made during specification, often for years after the project team has moved on, and they see which features deliver and which create more work than they save.

FMs are usually involved in these projects. The question is when. Input once a system has been chosen comes too late to shape the decisions that matter most: what data to capture, how systems should integrate, what good performance looks like. When every relevant perspective is in the room at the right stage, the building that emerges is one its operators can actually run.

A Bidvest Noonan team member using a mobile device to view live performance data through Task, the company’s digital operations platform, with charts and analytics visualised in the background.

Legacy systems aren’t always the barrier
Many building owners assume older infrastructure must be replaced before they can move forward. Often, that’s not the case. Modern APIs can connect legacy systems with newer platforms, allowing data to flow without wholesale replacement. With 97% of UK and Ireland FM decision-makers expecting technology investment to increase over the next 12 to 24 months, knowing what to replace and what to connect is becoming ever more important. Smart building sensors and IoT are leading that investment push, which makes connectivity decisions all the more pressing.

Ask the right questions from day one (now and in the future)
Building owners and operators should make interoperability a firm requirement from the start of any project. Ask vendors how their systems integrate with existing infrastructure. Request evidence, not assurances. And make sure the answers satisfy the people who will operate the building every day.

As smart buildings continue to grow in importance, future infrastructure is expected to evolve even further. FM leaders predict widespread integration of cleaning cobots and other autonomous machines, which are being increasingly adopted across the industry, with automatic deployment as required through the use of AI.

Regardless of how smart buildings look, now or in the future, success depends on systems that work together. Get integration right from the beginning and the technology will deliver on its full promise.

Global conflicts, domestic risks

by

When international tensions escalate, whether it’s the current situation in Iran, the Russia-Ukraine war, or conflicts elsewhere, the ripple effects don’t always stop at borders, says Ian Martin, Director of Risk and Intelligence at the security and facilities management contractor Bidvest Noonan.

In the UK, private security teams must respond with heightened vigilance, stronger collaboration with police, and a proactive approach to risk intelligence. Reacting is no longer enough; security now demands staying one step ahead.

The best equipped private security providers employ specialist analysts to watch both global and local events and build a picture of what that means for their clients. Analysts and other intelligence specialists come from a range of backgrounds, drawing on expertise across the spectrum of high-impact threats. They use tools and strategies to conduct threat analyses. Intelligence gathered then enables threat-notification capabilities to ensure organisations stay ahead of potential risks.

The reality is straightforward: geopolitical instability, like the current situation in the Middle East, often changes the threat environment at home. It can lead to protest activity at public venues, hostile reconnaissance and can also increase the likelihood of domestic terror attacks including lone-actor violence. Of course, the impact of global conflicts is hard to predict, and is in constant flux. So having a team working proactively to conduct risk assessments and make sure clients are prepared for potential activities, leveraging years of security experience and local knowledge, is key.

Understanding the domestic impact

In this complex threat landscape, it’s crucial to be clear about what we’re actually responding to. In this instance, the risks we monitor arise from international events that result in extremist behaviour, activism-linked disruption, and state-linked activity on UK soil.

The UK’s national terrorism threat level is [as of May 7] at ‘severe’, meaning an attack is considered highly likely. During periods of escalating international tension, we don’t see sudden shifts in overall posture. What changes is emphasis. Security teams need to sharpen focus on early indicators of planned action: unusual reconnaissance activity around sites, changes in protest patterns and any behaviour that suggests hostile intent. The speed at which risk profiles can evolve is itself a factor that teams also need to manage.

For organisations with visible international associations, government buildings, defence-related sites, and institutions with symbolic significance, the background risk elevates. This is where private security’s role is vital. We’re often the first line of observation, the eyes and ears on the ground that can spot something out of place before it develops into a genuine threat.

The protest environment

The UK’s protest environment is becoming increasingly volatile. International conflicts, by their very nature, spark passionate responses, with multiple groups mobilising simultaneously, raising the risk of disruption and confrontation. Tensions between opposing movements are likely, and direct action against government policies or organisations linked to the conflict should be anticipated. In this scenario, clear escalation plans and close coordination with local authorities are essential.

For security teams, this means robust perimeter measures, effective access control, comprehensive CCTV coverage and staff who are briefed on early warning signs. It also means open-source monitoring: understanding what’s being planned, where activity might concentrate and what the likely scale and tone will be.

The key is proportionate response. Heavy handed approaches escalate tension. Professional security management means facilitating legitimate protest while protecting people, property and operations. It’s a balance that requires experience, judgement and constant communication with public authorities.

Flexibility matters too. In the current geopolitical climate, experienced analysts are aware of how quickly assumptions can become outdated. What seems stable one week can shift dramatically the next, especially when global events intersect with domestic activism, logistics, and infrastructure pressures.

Collaboration with police

None of this works in isolation. Private security’s effectiveness depends on strong collaboration with police and intelligence services. We share information, coordinate responses and ensure there’s no gap between what we observe and what law enforcement needs to know.

Regular briefings, collaborative management of risk and shared intelligence allow both parties to anticipate threats, manage crowd dynamics, and respond quickly to incidents. By working hand-in-hand, private security and law enforcement can close gaps, reduce duplication, and ensure public safety is maintained even when global events spark local tensions.

What organisations should expect from private security teams

For clients and partners, the question often asked is what good security looks like during these periods. Expect your security provider to have reviewed threat assessments for your sites that have relevant exposure, including (but not limited to) those linked to government activity and international supply chains. Communication plans should be tested to ensure information can be shared quickly if incidents develop.

Awareness of protest activity should be maintained, drawing on open‑source monitoring and experienced interpretation rather than headline reporting alone. And teams should routinely be trained in recognising and responding to hostile behaviour.

Most importantly, understand that effective security during volatile periods comes from proactive risk intelligence, informed vigilance, professional judgement and operational frameworks that allow for calm, proportionate responses.

AGS Airports Appoints Bidvest Noonan for Cleaning Services Contract

by

Building on its strong momentum in the transport sector, Bidvest Noonan has secured a new contract to deliver comprehensive cleaning services across AGS Airports Limited’s three UK locations: Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports.

The contract will see a dedicated on-site team of cleaning professionals deployed across the three airports, which together serve more than 10 million passengers annually. These vital transport hubs connect passengers to destinations across the UK, Europe and beyond, playing a crucial role in supporting business and leisure travel.

Under the agreement, Bidvest Noonan will deliver a modern and efficient service solution, providing comprehensive cleaning services to maintain high standards of cleanliness and presentation across all three locations.

This contract win reflects Bidvest Noonan’s proven expertise in managing complex, high-footfall environments and further strengthens its position within the aviation sector. The company has built significant strengths in the transport sector, with a strong track record of supporting major transport hubs across the UK and Ireland, where operational excellence, consistency and service quality are critical to maintaining seamless passenger experiences.

Working in close partnership with AGS, Bidvest Noonan will deliver services that support the day-to-day operational needs of airport teams whilst enhancing the overall airport environment and passenger experience. Central to the partnership is a shared commitment to sustainability and employee welfare.

David Barker, Chief Growth Officer at Bidvest Noonan, said:

“We are delighted to have been selected by AGS to support three airports that serve as key gateways for millions of passengers travelling across the UK, Europe and beyond. Our experience managing complex, high-footfall transport environments means we understand the unique demands of the aviation sector, where consistency and quality must be maintained around the clock. We will be bringing a tailored approach to AGS, combining well-trained, dedicated teams with smart service delivery to ensure passengers and staff experience the highest standards every day.”

Keith Middleton, Managing Director at Bidvest Noonan, added:

“We are looking forward to working closely with AGS and all our new colleagues to support these airports in delivering excellent passenger experiences. Our team is committed to maintaining the high standards that passengers and airport staff expect, and we are excited to play our part in the smooth operation of these vital transport hubs.”

Ronald Leitch, Chief Operating Officer at AGS Airports, said:  “We are pleased to welcome Bidvest Noonan as our new cleaning services partner across Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports.

Throughout the tender process, Bidvest Noonan demonstrated a strong and genuine commitment to raising the quality of service across our airports. Their investment in enhanced training, innovative cleaning approaches and robust service quality measures gives us confidence that they will deliver the standards our customers and teams expect every day.

Ensuring our airports are clean, safe and welcoming is essential to the passenger experience and Bidvest Noonan’s dedication to high standards makes them an excellent fit for our business.

We look forward to working together to support our teams and maintain the environment our passengers and airline partners expect.”

What the FM industry must do now ahead of Martyn’s Law coming into force

by

An Expert View from Russell Dean, Director of Operations, Bidvest Noonan

As the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – commonly known as Martyn’s Law moves closer to implementation, facilities management and security companies are preparing for its impact.

The legislation represents a fundamental shift in how we approach public safety and facilities management companies must be at the forefront of that change.

At Bidvest Noonan, we aim to support clients in strengthening existing security arrangements and preparing for future requirements in a proportionate way.

Current status of implementation

The actual date is not yet known, but Martyn’s Law is expected to come into force in 2027. The Home Office is developing detailed statutory guidance, expected in Summer 2026. The legislation introduces a tiered approach: the Standard Tier applies to premises with a capacity of 200 – 799 people, while the Enhanced Tier covers venues accommodating 800 or more. Those responsible for qualifying premises – including retail spaces, educational institutions, and healthcare facilities – are expected to implement proportionate preparedness measures. Specific requirements will be confirmed once Home Office guidance is published.

Essential preparations

Organisations may wish to review existing risk assessments and preparedness processes while awaiting formal statutory guidance. This means identifying vulnerabilities across a range of plausible attack methods in line with proportionate, risk-based planning – from known threats such as Vehicle as a Weapon (VAW) attacks to new methods that may emerge in the future.

Equally important is building a culture where staff feel confident recognising concerns, escalating early, and understanding their role in wider preparedness. Culture and behaviour are repeatedly highlighted as more critical than equipment in major incident reviews.

Training is therefore paramount. The “Platinum 10 Minutes” is existing emergency response best practice (rather than specific to Home Office Martyn’s Law documentation) but it’s pertinent in this context. It’s that critical window immediately following an incident, and it can mean the difference between life and death. Security and operational teams benefit from practical, scenario-based training that reinforces clear communication and swift escalation. Terror incidents unfold in seconds, not minutes, demanding immediate, decisive action.

Standard Tier premises are anticipated to focus on core preparedness measures, such as staff awareness and emergency procedures, pending final guidance. Enhanced Tier venues are likely to have additional responsibilities, expected to include more formal planning and record keeping, subject to Home Office guidance.

Available resources

ProtectUK offers sector-specific advice, while organisations can access specialist training programmes designed to align with the new legislative framework.

At Bidvest Noonan, we’ve developed a Protective Security Training Programme in-house, incorporating live simulations in real environments, ensuring our teams can deliver the rapid, coordinated responses that Martyn’s Law may demand. Future training modules will expand to cover bladed-weapon attacks, hostile intruder events, and suspicious-package protocols, providing a comprehensive approach to threat readiness.

AI Governance Is Changing Fast: What Organisations Need to Know

by

Olga Mitropoulou, Bidvest Noonan’s Director of Risk & Compliance, shares her expert insight

AI regulation is maturing rapidly across both Ireland and the United Kingdom. Each jurisdiction is taking an ambitious but distinct approach to governance, oversight and digital transformation. Whether your organisation operates in one market or both, these developments matter, because they are changing compliance expectations.

My team and I are tracking how these evolving frameworks will shape both our own operations and the services we deliver. Here is what is happening, and what it means in practice.

Ireland: Building a Trusted Digital Regulatory Hub

Ireland’s updated National Digital and AI Strategy sets out 90 cross-government actions focused on digitalisation, AI governance and national capability building. Central to this is the full digitalisation of key public services by 2030, with 90% delivered online, alongside the creation of a national AI Office responsible for coordinating implementation of the EU AI Act and establishing an AI Regulatory Sandbox.

The strategy also introduces the Observatory for Business AI Readiness (OBAIR) and nationwide AI literacy and SME upskilling campaigns, as well as a new Cyber Security Research Centre of Excellence and enhanced resourcing of digital regulators. Ireland has seen surging AI adoption across industry, with 91% of organisations adopting AI by 2025 and major government investment in sectoral innovation and enterprise support.

For organisations operating in Ireland, this signals a clear move towards stronger compliance and greater transparency. With the new AI Office assuming central oversight, AI-enabled tools used in service delivery will face increased scrutiny and more detailed reporting obligations. The EU AI Act will require robust risk assessments, clear transparency and demonstrable human oversight for higher-risk applications. In regulated sectors in particular, there will be growing expectations around governance, accountability and data protection, with greater emphasis on strong supplier assurance and well-documented AI processes.

At the same time, these changes create real opportunities. National AI literacy initiatives and insights from OBAIR will help organisations and their partners adopt AI responsibly. Participation in regulatory sandboxes and government-supported pilots opens the door to exploring innovative technologies across security, facilities management, automation and workforce management.

The United Kingdom: Strengthening Oversight of Advanced AI

The UK continues to deliver on its long-term National AI Strategy, but recent policy shifts signal a significant move towards stronger regulation, particularly for high-risk and frontier AI systems. The AI Opportunities Action Plan is accelerating AI adoption, increasing compute capacity and targeting the upskilling of 10 million workers by 2030.

A proposed Frontier AI Bill would give the AI Safety Institute (now the AI Security Institute) statutory powers to require testing, technical documentation and pre-market oversight of advanced AI systems. Sector-specific regulation is being reinforced, aligned to a principles-based framework but increasingly backed by binding duties. There is also a renewed focus on AI-enabled cyber threats, advanced model evaluation and national security considerations. The direction of travel is visible in specific sectors. The UK Government’s recent policing White Paper commits £115 million over three years to the responsible adoption of AI across all 43 police forces in England and Wales, including the creation of a National Centre for AI in Policing (Police.AI) and a public register of AI tools in use. This is a clear example of AI governance moving from principles into operational reality, with structured testing, oversight and transparency requirements built in from the outset.

For organisations in the UK, this evolving landscape means preparing for enhanced due diligence of AI suppliers, more stringent technical assurance and ongoing model monitoring obligations. The expanded focus on AI safety and cyber-risk research highlights the importance of strengthening cybersecurity posture, especially where AI tools support physical security, monitoring or decision-support services. AI procurement will need to align increasingly with strict threat-modelling standards as the emphasis on preventing AI-enabled cyberattacks and misuse grows.

What This Means for Organisations

Regardless of jurisdiction, the direction of travel is consistent: expectations around AI governance, supply chain transparency and demonstrable compliance are rising. Organisations that rely on outsourced services are increasingly being asked to show that their partners meet robust standards for responsible AI use, data protection and cyber resilience.

Contractual requirements are becoming more demanding. Regulatory reporting is intensifying. And the question of whether your service providers can evidence their AI governance arrangements is moving from a nice-to-have to a fundamental part of supplier assurance.

How Bidvest Noonan Is Responding

We are integrating EU AI Act obligations and UK oversight expectations into our internal governance, ensuring our organisation and our customers benefit from services that are compliant by design. This includes structured AI impact assessments, supplier assurance, human-oversight measures and clear documentation to support client audits and regulatory reporting.

Both Ireland and the UK emphasise cybersecurity in their strategies, and our teams are prioritising enhanced cyber resilience, data governance practices, and robust incident response readiness. As national strategies invest heavily in AI upskilling and digital capability building, we are also working with clients to identify safe and high-value use cases in automation, analytics, workforce management and service optimisation.

Looking Ahead

Ireland and the UK are both setting ambitious, forward-looking agendas for digitalisation and AI governance. For organisations in every sector, this translates to rising expectations around trust, transparency, security and compliance.

At Bidvest Noonan, we are committed to ensuring that every solution we deliver aligns with these evolving standards. We are strengthening our AI governance framework, embedding rigorous compliance controls and proactively supporting our customers through regulatory change, reinforcing our role as a trusted, innovative and resilient service partner in an increasingly digital world.

New research reveals training paradox undermining FM modernisation efforts

by

  • 64% of FM leaders cite inadequate training and change management among the primary causes of technology failure, yet only 9% identified it as a critical factor when reflecting on past success
  • 97% of FM decision-makers anticipate increased technology investment in 2026, with smart sensors, digital platforms and AI-powered software emerging as top priorities
  • The underlying issue appears to be capability, not resistance: almost half (46%) identify skills gaps as a current challenge, while only 15% cite staff opposition to change

Bidvest Noonan has published new research highlighting a significant gap between technology ambition and successful adoption in the FM sector.

Bidvest Noonan surveyed 110 senior FM decision-makers with authority over technology investment, managing estates ranging from 20,000 to over 500,000 square feet across the UK and Ireland. The findings reveal that human factors, not technology itself, are key limitations to success.

While 64% of FM leaders cite inadequate training and change management as a primary cause of technology underperformance, only 9% identified it as a critical factor when reflecting on technologies that had succeeded. Bidvest Noonan describes this gap as the ‘training paradox’.

The training paradox

Phil Darcy, Head of Data & Emerging Technologies at Bidvest Noonan, said: “Our research reveals a troubling contradiction. When technologies underperform, inadequate training is among the top causes cited, yet it ranks lowest among the factors that organisations prioritise for success. Closing that gap should be a priority for any organisation investing in technology.

“The data shows something important here, almost half of FM leaders identify skills and capability gaps as a major barrier, while only one in seven cite staff resistance to change. This tells us that what looks like resistance is actually a capability issue. People lack confidence in their ability to use new technology effectively, which can result in hesitation or pushback.”

What the full report covers

The full report explores investment priorities across estate sizes, the adoption status of autonomous service robots and digital FM platforms, AI productivity expectations, what distinguishes successful implementations from those that fall short, and the challenges FM leaders currently face in turning technology ambition into operational impact.

Click Here To Read The Full Report