1 / 25

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

Priority-rating of Public Building Maintenance Work By Mohammad AL-Majed Abdul-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.

marcell
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 maintenanceactivities - 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 ProcessAHP “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. 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)

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. Thank you

More Related