Priority-rating of Public Building Maintenance Work By Mohammad AL-Majed Abdul-Mohsen AL-Hammad Saleh Daffuaa King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

1
Priority-rating of Public Building
Maintenance WorkByMohammad
AL-MajedAbdul-Mohsen AL-HammadSaleh
DaffuaaKing Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals
2
CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Objectives of the Study
• Review of Literature
• Methodology
• Results and Discussion
• Summary and Conclusions

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
Review of Literature

• Highway 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

7
Methodology

• The first objective of identifying
  Priority-rating criteria is achieved by
• - literature review
• - field interviews
• - questionnaire
• The second objective of developing a methodology
  is achieved by
• - reviewing several methods on the subject

8
Methodology (Cont.)

• The third objective of conducting a case study is
  achieved by
• - selecting six sampling projects.
• - forming a committee of six members
• - questionnaire

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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.

13
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

14
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)

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
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)

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
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

24
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

25

Thank you