Slide1 l.jpg
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 25

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


  • 233 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

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

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Priority-rating of Public Building Maintenance WorkByMohammad AL-MajedAbdul-Mohsen AL-HammadSaleh DaffuaaKing 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 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


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


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 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”.


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)


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)


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


Thank you


  • Login