Date post: | 21-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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