Priority-rating of Public Building Maintenance Work

By

Mohammad AL-MajedAbdul-Mohsen AL-Hammad

Saleh Daffuaa

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

CONTENTS

• Introduction

• Objectives of the Study

• Review of Literature

• Methodology

• Results and Discussion

• Summary and Conclusions

Introduction

• In the absence of an established systematic approach, setting priorities for public maintenance projects occurs in a random way depending mainly on past experience

• In-house maintenance

• Contracting

• Combination of both

Introduction (Cont.)

• Limited financial resources

• Long queue of projects waiting to be maintained

• Lack of data among maintenance authorities

No systematic approach for setting priorities

Objectives To identify criteria affecting Priority-rating

To utilize a methodology for obtaining a priority index of maintenance projects

To conduct a case study application

Review of LiteratureHighway maintenance activities

- by optimization programming models

- by neural network models

Building maintenance (limited literature)

- A scarcity of data on the subject

General information

- experience and judgment of engineers

- written documents

- priority indices

Methodology

The first objective of identifying Priority-rating The first objective of identifying Priority-rating criteria is achieved by :criteria is achieved by :

- - literature reviewliterature review - - field interviewsfield interviews - - questionnairequestionnaire

The second objective of developing a The second objective of developing a methodology is achieved by :methodology is achieved by :

- - reviewing several methods on the subjectreviewing several methods on the subject

Methodology (Cont.)

The third objective of conducting a case study is achieved by :

- selecting six sampling projects.

- forming a committee of six members

- questionnaire

Results and Discussion

Criteria affecting Priority-rating of public building maintenance work (23 criteria)

- Building Performance Criteria (Group 1)

- Managerial Criteria (Group 2)

Method of Priority-rating- Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP

A case study consisting of six projects

Results and Discussion (Cont.)Building Performance Criteria (12 criteria)

Boundary framework Status of landscaping and

outdoor areas Interior finish & facades Building enclosure systems Horizontal circulation Vertical circulation Sanitation & hygiene level Thermal comfort Acoustic comfort Visual comfort Indoor air quality Life safety concerns

Results and Discussion (Cont.)managerial Criteria (11 criteria)

Functioning of the building Aesthetics Location Management desires Frequency of complaints Availability of in-house

maintenance Initial cost Effect of delaying maintenance

work Use of the building Life expectancy Health & safety risk

Results and Discussion (Cont.)

Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP

“was introduced by Thomas Saaty in the early 1970s. The process addresses how to determine the relative importance of a set of activities in a multi-criteria setting through the use of linear composite indices”.

Results and Discussion (Cont.)

AHP MethodRj = sum Ci * Pij

• Rj : The overall importance of project j

• Ci : The relative importance of criteria i

• Pij : The relative importance of project j

with respect to criteria i

Results and Discussion (Cont.)

Relative importance of criteria groups 1 & 2 (Ci)

Paired Comparsions matrix (Figure 1)

Criteria relative importance (Ci) (g.1)-(Table 3)

Key Group 1Building Performance Criteria

RawScore

ColumnScore

AssignedWeight

A Boundary Framework 4 0 4B Landscaping & Outdoor 2 0 2C Interior Finishing & Facades 0 2 2D Building Enclosure Systems 12 8 20E Horizontal Circulation 3 2 5F Vertical Circulation 1 4 5G Sanitation & Hygienic Level 6 3 9H Thermal Comfort 1 1 2I Acoustical Comfort 2 1 3J Visual Comfort 3 1 4K Indoor Air Quality 4 0 4L Life Safety Concerns 0 18 18

B C D E F G H I J K L

A A/B C1 D2 A/E F1 A/G A/H A2 A2 A/K L2

B C1 D3 B/E F1 B/G B/H I1 B2 K2 L2

C D3 C/E F1 G3 C/H C/I C/J K2 L2

D E2 D/F D/G D3 D3 D3 D3 D/L

NUMERICAL E F1 E/G H1 E/I E2 E1 L2

EVALUATION F F/G F/H F1 F/J F/K L1

Note : Evaluation Weight Factor G G/H G3 G1 G2 L1

1 = Minor Importance H H1 H/J H/K L1

2 = Medium Importance I J1 I2 L2

3 = Major Importance J J3 L2

K L3

Respondent : Ali H. AL-Bagshi Date

Figure 1. Paired Comparisons Matrix

Table 3. Criteria relative importance (Ci) (group 1)

Key Group 1 Managerial Criteria

AssignedWeight

RelativeImport. (Ci)

Order

C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11C12

Boundary FrameworkLandscaping & OutdoorInterior Finishing & FacadesBuilding Enclosure SystemsHorizontal CirculationVertical CirculationSanitation & Hygienic LevelThermal ComfortAcoustical ComfortVisual ComfortIndoor Air QualityLife Safety Concerns

812486311821192409150100147388

0.0470.0140.050.180.0480.070.140.050.030.060.080.23

101282953711641

Total 1719

Case Study

Sampling projects (Table 2) Scale of relative importance (Table 5) Evaluation of projects Vs building performance

criteria (Table 6) Relative importance of projects Vs building

performance criteria (Table 8) Priority index of the projects (Table 10)

Table 2. Sampling projects

Proj.Num.

Project Type Location Num. OfOccupants

Date ofConstra.

MaintenanceCost (SR)

1 Elementary School 1 Dammam 450 19842 Elementary School 2 Dammam 500 19833 Intermediate School 1 Khafji 420 19834 Intermediate School 2 Dammam 475 19815 Public Library Dammam 23 19806 Student House Dammam 19 1982

458825383625350455634855502280461475

Table 5. Scale of relative importance

Intensity ofImportance

Definition Explanation

1357

9

2,4,6,8

Equal importanceWeak importance of one over anotherEssential or strong importanceDemonstrated importance

Absolute importance

Intermediate values between the twoadjacent judgments

Two activities contribute equally to the objectiveExperience and judgment slightly favor one activityExperience and judgment strongly favor one activityAn activity is strongly favored and its dominancedemonstrated in practiceThe evidence favoring one activity over another is of thehighest orderWhen compromise is needed

Note: Reciprocals of the above values: If activity I has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it whencompared to activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i.

Table 6 : Evaluation of projects Vs bldg. performance criteria (Pij)Committee member # 4

Maintenance Project (Pj)P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

AssignedWeight

RelativeImportance (Pij)

Boundary Framework (C1)1515

10.515

2.852.85

P1P2P3P4P5P6

11

1/21

1/5 1/5

11

1/21

1/5 1/5

2212

1/4 1/4

11

1/21

1/5 1/5

554511

554511

Total = 61.20

0.250.250.170.250.050.05

Landscaping & Outdoor Areas (C2)14.33

41944

8.33

P1P2P3P4P5P6

1 1/43

1/4 1/41

414112

1/3 1/41

1/4 1/4 1/3

414112

414112

1 1/23

1/2 1/21

Tot. = 53.66

0.270.070.350.070.070.16

Interior Finishing & Facades (C3)5.83

5128.58

4.83

P1P2P3P4P5P6

11213

1/2

112211

1/2 1/21

1/2 1/2 1/3

1 1/221

1/2 1/2

1/31221

1/2

213221

Tot. = 44.2

0.130.110.270.190.180.11

Table 8. Relative importance of projectsVs criteria (Pij) (Group 1)

Building Performance CriteriaProjectNumber C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12

Rj

P1 0.26 0.24 0.16 0.24 0.15 0.21 0.04 0.14 0.22 0.23 0.2 0.1 0.161

P2 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.2 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.166

P3 0.13 0.37 0.22 0.17 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.2 0.18 0.145

P4 0.29 0.05 0.2 0.22 0.23 0.2 0.25 0.15 0.22 0.34 0.19 0.26 0.234

P5 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.23 0.3 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.175

P6 0.05 0.24 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.14 0.1 0.124

Criteria

Relative

Import. (Ci) 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.18 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.23

Table 10. Priority index of the projects

AHP RankProjectNumber Group 1 (Rj) Group 2 (Rj)

PriorityIndex

P1 0.161 0.11 0.14774

P2 0.166 0.134 0.15768

P3 0.145 0.134 0.14214

P4 0.234 0.317 0.25558

P5 0.175 0.241 0.19216

P6 0.124 0.071 0.11022

Group Relative Importance 0.74 0.26

Priority Order Of Projects Based On ( AHP ) : P4 , P5 , P2 , P1 , P3 , P6

Conclusions

23 criteria were identified and subjectively classified into BPG and MG

Relative importance of BPG = 0.74 & MG = 0.26 The criteria of life safety concern, status of building

enclosure systems, and Sanitation & hygiene level were the most important among BPG

The criteria of health & safety and Functioning of the building were the most important among MG

Conclusions (Cont.)

The study presented a methods of the Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP

A case study consisting of six projects was conducted and indicated the following results :– AHP Rank : P4, P5, P2, P1, P3, P6