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

3. CONTENTS Introduction Objectives of the Study Review of Literature Methodology Results and Discussion Summary and Conclusions

4. 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

5. Introduction (Cont.) Limited financial resources Long queue of projects waiting to be maintained Lack of data among maintenance authorities 4No systematic approach for setting priorities

6. Objectives 4To identify criteria affecting Priority-rating 4To utilize a methodology for obtaining a priority index of maintenance projects 4To conduct a case study application

7. 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

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

9. Methodology (Cont.) *The third objective of conducting a case study is achieved by : - selecting six sampling projects. - forming a committee of six members - questionnaire

10. 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

11. Results and Discussion (Cont.) Building Performance Criteria (12 criteria) oBoundary framework oStatus of landscaping and outdoor areas oInterior finish & facades oBuilding enclosure systems oHorizontal circulation oVertical circulation oSanitation & hygiene level oThermal comfort oAcoustic comfort oVisual comfort oIndoor air quality oLife safety concerns

12. Results and Discussion (Cont.) managerial Criteria (11 criteria) oFunctioning of the building oAesthetics oLocation oManagement desires oFrequency of complaints oAvailability of in-house maintenance oInitial cost oEffect of delaying maintenance work oUse of the building oLife expectancy oHealth & safety risk

13. 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”.

14. Results and Discussion (Cont.) AHP Method Rj = 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

15. 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)

18. Case Study 3Sampling projects (Table 2) 3Scale of relative importance (Table 5) 3Evaluation of projects Vs building performance criteria (Table 6) 3Relative importance of projects Vs building performance criteria (Table 8) 3Priority index of the projects (Table 10)

24. Conclusions 323 criteria were identified and subjectively classified into BPG and MG 3Relative importance of BPG = 0.74 & MG = 0.26 3The criteria of life safety concern, status of building enclosure systems, and Sanitation & hygiene level were the most important among BPG 3The criteria of health & safety and Functioning of the building were the most important among MG

25. Conclusions (Cont.) 3The study presented a methods of the Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP 3A case study consisting of six projects was conducted and indicated the following results : –AHP Rank : P4, P5, P2, P1, P3, P6