Journal ofArchitectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)

162

SETTING A PRIORITY BENCHMARK FOR BUILDING

MAINTENANCE IN TAIWAN'S NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES

Chih-Yuan Chang
Shyh-Meng Huang
Sy-Jye Guo

Managersof government-owned buildings, specifically in Taiwan, commonly face an urgent and difficult
problem: how to create a building maintenance priority benchmark and, by doing so, distribute
maintenance resources in the most beneficial way. This research investigatedall 60 national universities
in Taiwan. Through the use of expert interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, and AHP (Analytic
Hierarchy Process), this study analyzed 14 evaluation criteria (related to a building's attributes and
components on a daily and annual basis) influencing the creation of a building maintenance priority
benchmark: (1) use necessity; (2) maintenance urgency; (3) impact on individuals; (4) impact on public;
(5) current age relative to age/design limit; (6) exterior condition; (7) deteriorationof components; (8)
functional impairment of main structure; (9) functional impairment of walls andfinish, (10) functional
impairment of electrical, air conditioning, communication, and monitoring/control; (11) functional
impairment of plumbing, sanitationfacilities, and fire protection; (12) value improvement rate; (13)
maintenance management efficiency; and (14) use efficiency. The result of this research is theformulation
of a "MaintenancePriorityBenchmark (MPB) for School Buildings in Taiwan's National Universities,"
which can provide government-buildingmanagers a valuable referencefor maintenancedecision making.

Copyright 2008, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Chicago, IL, USA
All Rights Reserved

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

163
25:2 (Summer, 2008)

30
25 -y = 0.7581x + 1.0695
22= S20"*
R 0.8491
1E=
15
CQ
10

INTRODUCTION
se

, .:owned

value

tion (MOE) was ranked number one in the

rankings of national assets in 2003.

20

The total value was US$4,788,000,000,

which accounted for 25.96% of the assets
of all national buildings. In addition, there
were
11,991 MOE-owned buildings in
2003, ranking second in the total number

oz
5

10

25

30

years of establishment

FIGURE 1. The correlation between a school's year of

establishment and the average age of its buildings.

60
I
.30

....

*:::::::::-::school

0........
.a

a)

The value
of the
buildings
in official
use
by the
Taiwan
Ministry
of Educa-

t.

: a:i
I
.renovation

30
60
90
years of establishment

120

of public sector buildings - ranking behind only the buildings of the Ministry of
Defense (MOD). The main category of
public buildings in Taiwan is school buildings, which is also the largest category of
infrastructure in school development
plans. Therefore, whether one is talking
about educational development or the
management of national assets, school
building maintenance plays an important
role in the administration of the public sector. Moreover, the life cycles of many
buildings in Taiwan at every school
level have entered the stage of large-scale
or life extension. According to
survey conducted in Japan on the life expectancy of buildings, buildings become
dilapidated at the average age of 30
(Tatsumi, et al., 2002).

This research began by investigating 138

elementary schools in Taipei and analyzing how many years the campus had been
in operation (establishment years) and the average building age. It was found that if a school was established less than 30 years ago, then its average building age has a highly positive correlation with its
establishment years (R2 = 0.849) (see Figure 1). However, due to renovations or new construction, there is
no correlation between these two factors if a school has been in operation between 30 and 111 years (see
Figure 2). Analysis shows that the 30th year of establishment is the key time-point when large-scale
renovations of school buildings take place.
FIGURE 2. There is no correlation when a school's years of
establishment exceed 30 years.

In 2003, 81.3% of the elementary schools and high schools in Taiwan were more than 30 years old. There
were more than 150 colleges and universities in Taiwan, 63.3% of them being over 30 years old. As
government budget is limited while most school buildings are gradually stepping into the phase when
large-scale renovations are required, it is vital to conduct research on a maintenance benchmark.
This research investigated all 60 national universities in Taiwan during 2004 (see Figure 3). Fifty-three of
them are administered by the MOE, and the remaining seven, being military universities, are administered by the MOD. The main scope of this research was the maintenance stage in the lifecycles of campus
buildings. Through literature reviews, field investigation, and interviews with authorities on construction
and maintenance, the criteria influencing building maintenance priorities were determined. Next, focus
group research was conducted to set a primary framework of Maintenance Priority Benchmark (MPB) for
School Buildings in Taiwan's National Universities. Finally, the directors of Construction and Maintenance Divisions (CMD) in all of the 60 national universities filled out questionnaires to confirm the MPB
criteria, and the results were analyzed by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The questionnaire was also

Journal
Architectuual
25:2of(Summer,
2003)and Planning Remearach
1641
pretested. To raise the return rate, a
questionnaire mail and return plan
was made before distribution. The
response rate of the formal questionnaire approached 96.6%.

PROBLEM STATEMENTS

General
:7% 'xTechnological and
occupational education

Military and police

academies

A widely criticized problem in Taiwan is that government departments

focus on new construction projects
while neglecting maintenance operations. Compounding this problem,
the weakening of government finance, insufficient maintenance budgets, and the lack of maintenance
management strategies all contribute
to the maintenance difficulties of
government-owned buildings. This
problem of building maintenance
needs to be addressed. Research of
this type to establish a MPB is a good
place to start.
Shortage of Maintenance Budgets
and Ranking Benchmark
In 1996, Taiwan's national universities began a program of independent
funding for operating costs. Since
then, individual campus finances
have become increasingly independent. As an example, the proportion
of government subsidies granted to
National Taiwan University (NTU,
established in 1928, is the oldest university in Taiwan and has a student
population of approximately 30,000)
has decreased from 71.L% to 42.4%
since 1996 (see Figure 4). The MOE
did not only cut the subsidies of older
universities. Even the National University of Kaohsiung, established
only five years ago, had its proportion
of subsidies decreased from 92.3% to
48.9%. Using 1996 as a base year,
newly constructed buildings on the
NTU campus had grown 16.1% by
2003. In contrast, the proportion of
annual maintenance budget making
up the total budget has decreased
from 1.5% to 1.1% (the rate of decrease is 26%) (see Figure 5).

5%Physical education colleges

Open universities

FIGURE 3. The types of 60 national universities in Taiwan.

100
80 -71.1
S60

65.2 61.9
54.1 51.3 43 42.6 42.4

L 40
20
0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

FIGURE 4. The proportions of the annual NTU budgets that MOE
subsidies accounted for.

18
15
12
93
6
3
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 year

FIGURE 5. The growth rates of maintenance expenses and floor area.

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
165

FiPest
Phase2003.08-12

SecondPhase2004.01-05

LastPhase
2004.06-07

FIGURE 6. The research process for the maintenance priority benchmark.

As can be seen from these statistics, a trend has emerged. Maintenance needs are increasing while budgets
are decreasing. Under these circumstances, setting a maintenance priority benchmark would promote a
more appropriate use of limited resources. Furthermore, CMD staff often have to assign the priorities of
maintenance applications based on their subjective judgments due to the lack of a maintenance priority
ranking benchmark. As a result, they are frequently criticized by those who do not obtain adequate maintenance resources. Also, inappropriate distribution of the resources may indirectly cause public safety
concerns, facility malfunction, an increasing rate of degradation, and even lessen the public and faculty
confidence in government decision making and executive ability.
Demandsfor PriorityBenchmark in Government Departments

A questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate the maintenance needs in Taiwan. The questionnaire,
which used a Likert scale, was distributed to 60 national universities. The results show that Question 1-6
("If a Maintenance Priority Benchmark for University Buildings ... is provided for you to consult, do you
agree it is very helpful for school building maintenance evaluation?") received an average score of 3.9
(strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, somewhat agree = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1). Semantically
speaking, the score of 3.9 is equivalent to "agree," which suggests that the design of a priority benchmark
is desirable, regardless of whether or not the maintenance budget is deemed sufficient. Generally, when
the budget is insufficient and limited resources are not distributed appropriately, public safety problems
are more likely to occur. For example, electrical sparks in old wiring is a common cause of fires. According to a government statistical report in 2003, fires initiated by electrical equipment were the most frequent. Fires of this type occurred 1,745 times, representing 20% of the fire incidences in 2003 (Ministry of
the Interior, 2003). Even if maintenance budgets are sufficient, evaluating the priority rankings of maintenance application is still necessary. Only with effective distribution can budget resources be conserved,
thus allowing other indispensable expenses to be included in a building maintenance budget.
Over the last 10-15 years, facilities management in both the private and public sectors has been evolving
from a discipline historically focused on individual buildings to one focused on the total performance of an
inventory of buildings (or portfolio) in support of an organization's overall mission (see also Toker, 2006).
For example, in 2004, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 13327, Federal Real
Property Asset Management, which is intended "to promote the efficient and economical use ofAmerica's
real property assets and to assure management accountability for implementing Federal real property
management reforms" (Cable and Davis, 2005:17-18). Furthermore, the recently developed Facilities
Condition and Quality Index (FCQI) (Committee on Business Strategies for Public Capital Investment, 2004),
Facilities Condition Index (FCI) (Committee on the Renewal of Department of Energy Infrastructure, 2004),
and the REMR Management Systems (Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, 1996) adopted by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are the index and systems related to asset management. While asset management is stressed more and more internationally, from the perspective of asset management, the MPB priority
benchmark has practical value for providing building managers a basis on which to determine a building's
maintenance priority under the constraints of limited budgets.

Journal ofArchitectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
166

TABLE 1. The literature on priority criteria of buildings with different purposes.

Type of Building

Description of Priority Criteria

Public

1. Physical parameters, functional parameters, facility location, and peripheral infrastructure

(Reddy, et al., 1993).
2. Indispensability of the building, physical condition, importance of the facility's use, effect on the
users, effects on fabrics, and effect on service provision (Shen, et al., 1998; Shen and Spedding,
1998).
3. CARE Program by the Housing Department of Hong Kong: (1) work necessary to maintain the
safety of persons; (2) work necessary to keep property habitable; (3) work necessary to keep buildings
operational; and (4) work necessary for the appearance of the property, the provision or upkeep of
nonessential services or facilities (Shen, et al., 1998).
4. The building's physical state, the importance of the building's function, and the influence exerted by
its users (Shen and Lo, 1999).

Municipal

Gravity of physical injuries, rhythm of building decay, utilization discomfort, historical and cultural
values, city image, adequacy to municipal policy, tenant motivation, age of the process, and number of
persons benefited (Bana e Costa and Oliveira, 2002).

Hospital

Physical state, performance, fitness for use, and preventive maintenance (Shohet, 2003).

School

Department of Education and Science in the U.K. (DES, 1985):

1ItPriority: work needed immediately or in the near future to meet legislative or contractual
requirements and to ensure the health and safety of building occupants and users; work
required to prevent the imminent closure ofaccommodation or serious dislocation of
activities.
2nd Priority: work necessary within one year to prevent serious deterioration of the fabric or
services, such as those which are likely to lead to higher future costs of repair or renewal.
3rd Priority: work as above that may be deferred beyond one year; work desirable to
maintain the environmental quality of buildings and grounds, such as internal decorations,
fencing, etc.

INVESTIGATION INTO A PRIORITY BENCHMARK

The investigation process of setting a priority benchmark is divided into three phases: (1) criteria and
framework research, (2) questionnaire design, and (3) questionnaire analysis. During phase one, the relative factors in the evaluation of maintenance priorities were determined. Next, six schools were chosen for
field investigation, and interviews were conducted with the CMD directors of these schools. After that,
school building experts, such as architects and construction workers, were interviewed. Finally, the staff in
charge of the priorities of building maintenance in the NTU's CMD were chosen to participate in our focus
group. During the second phase, a questionnaire related to a priority benchmark was designed that focused
on the confirmation of criteria and criteria weights. To verify the feasibility of the questionnaire, a pretest
was conducted before distribution. In addition, a distribution plan was formulated to promote a high
return rate. During phase three, the returned questionnaires were analyzed, again with a focus on confirmation of questionnaire criteria, and an analysis of the weight of each criterion and question item related
to maintenance operations. Figure 6 outlines the research process.
Priority CriteriaSurvey
Characteristics of priority benchmark evaluations vary according to building types. Although there can be
similarities between maintenance evaluations of the different building types, discrepancies often exist in
the criteria they use. As a result, it is of primary necessity to determine the evaluation criteria of a particular school's building operation, use, and management. Generally, the criteria used in public building
priority evaluations include categories such as function, service, user, exterior, and structural factors (see
Table 1). Municipal buildings are government assets. Therefore, some of the criteria involved in their
maintenance, such as number of people who would benefit from it, are also applicable to the priority
evaluation of public school buildings. If one considers hospital buildings, since one of the characteristics
of a medical facility is the continuance of operations, then "preventive maintenance" should be added as
an evaluation criterion (Shohet, 2003). The seven key performance indicators of priority evaluation for
hospitals set by Pullen, et aL. (2000) are mainly business oriented. Nevertheless, as schools are educational
facilities, the emphasis should be put on their education functions, which makes the business-oriented

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
167

thinking inappropriate to follow. As shown in Table 1, the U.K. Department of Education and Science
divides the priority criteria into three levels (DES, 1985), but this schema is more suitable for the evaluation of annual plans than it is for the priority evaluation of common daily maintenance operations. Moreover, its sensitivity is somewhat insufficient. Sanna Lappalainen, et al. (2001) investigated priorities for
repairing moisture-damaged spots in the 10 buildings of nine schools in Finland, but this research is only
applicable to the maintenance plan for special damages.
Combining the literature and the discussions led to the proposal of 15 priority benchmark criteria at the
end of phase one of this research:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)

use-necessity
maintenance urgency
impact on individuals
impact on public
current age relative to age/design limit
exterior condition
deterioration of components
functional impairment of main structure
functional impairment of walls and finish
functional impairment of electrical, air conditioning, communication, and
monitoring/control
functional impairment of plumbing, sanitation facilities, and fire protection
value improvement rate
improvement frequency
maintenance management efficiency
use-efficiency

With these 15 criteria established, the research shifted to the design of the questionnaire in phase two.
Although there are similar fundamental criteria for maintenance of different building types, the school
buildings' evaluation scale and characteristics of usage, operation, and management differ from public
buildings, municipal buildings, and hospitals. Hence, the essential criteria and importance of these criteria for school buildings must diverge, to a certain degree, from the other types of buildings. After comparing the summary of Table 1 and the 15 criteria proposed by this research, the similarities, differences, and
additional viewpoints are described below.
Similarities
Physical condition (akin to number 7 of the 15 initially proposed criteria in this research); functional
parameters (numbers 8-11), importance of the facility's use (number 1), effects on fabrics (number 8),
work necessary to maintain the safety of persons (number 3), work necessary to keep property habitable
(number 3), work necessary to keep buildings operational (numbers 8-11), work necessary for the appearance of the property (number 6), the provision or upkeep of nonessential services or facilities (number 1),
physical state (number 7), the importance of the building's function (number 1), physical injuries (number
7), rhythm of building decay (number 13), age of the process (number 5), number of persons benefited
(number 15), physical state (number 7), and performance (numbers 8-11).
Differences
In consideration of the characteristics of usage - "Effect on the users" and "Influence exerted by its users"
- it is suggested that how school building maintenance affects users (applicants) should be distinguished
into personal and public aspects, such as "(3) Impact on individuals" and "(4) Impact on public" proposed
by this research. The three levels of priority, suggested by the Department of Education and Science (1985)
in the U.K., take time factors of maintenance needs as evaluation benchmarks, similar to "(2) Maintenance urgency" in this research. However, in the three levels of priority developed by the DES, the unit of

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
168

time for maintenance evaluation is a year. As a result, the sensitivity of this measurement unit is unsatisfactory. Thus, it is inapplicable to the regular evaluation of maintenance priority of school buildings. From the
economical perspective, when (price of maintenance and repair/price of new replacement) * 100% is too
high, managers should consider replacing the impaired parts, and therefore, it is not recommended to give
priority to maintenance. Hence, the criterion "(12) Value improvement rate" is included. In view of management, the maintenance results of each building's manager should be taken into account. Therefore, the
priority criterion "(14) Maintenance management efficiency" is established in order to motivate managers.
Additional Viewpoints
As to the evaluation scale, the factor "Facility location and peripheral infrastructure" is only applicable to
large-scale city buildings and not feasible to small-scale campus buildings. "Indispensability of the building" is used on a single building, and it is inappropriate to be applied to the priority evaluation for
maintenance application of classrooms, offices, or individual elements on campus. "Effect on service provision" belongs to the area of laws and regulations. As laws and regulations are mandatory, this criterion
should not be included in a priority evaluation in avoidance of the low grade of priority evaluation delaying maintenance actions and resulting in a violation of the law. "Utilization discomfort and cultural values, city image, adequacy to municipal policy, and tenant motivation" is a criterion specific to municipal
buildings and unsuitable to be adopted for school buildings. "Fitness for use" is an appropriate concept,
which can be considered to be incorporated into maintenance evaluation for public buildings. The criterion of "preventive maintenance" does not fit into the framework of unexpected maintenance events as
designed by this research.
QuestionnairePlanning
The questionnaire survey was conducted during April and May 2004, and the deadline was one month
after the questionnaires were distributed. The return rate was extremely good, achieving 96%. The subjects, research method, and data collection method of the questionnaire survey are described below.
Subjects
The subjects of this research are all 60 national universities in Taiwan. The respondents of the questionnaires were mainly CMD directors since they have decision-making power. Furthermore, unlike their
subordinates, they would not be influenced by the role divisions implicit in CMD organization. As a result,
their views tend to be more objective and comprehensive. The total number of questionnaires was 60. This
is a general survey as sampling was not conducted due to the small sample size.
Research Method
Moreover, upon completion of the first draft of the questionnaire, professionals and even laymen were
asked to do pretests in order to ensure the questionnaire could be fully comprehended. The length of the
questionnaire was reasonable, its questions reflected the points the researcher wished to investigate, and
the result could be analyzed. Furthermore, 10 distribution strategies were made to raise the return rate:
pretests, greeting letters, gifts for filling out the questionnaire, confirmation calls to respondents, return
envelopes, received questionnaire records, completion deadlines, reminder calls to respondents, and asking respondents if they were willing to receive the survey results and gratification letters.
Data Collection
Data collection is categorized into three parts: A. Background Survey, B. Maintenance Priority Benchmark Factor Survey, and C. Maintenance Priority Benchmark Factor Weight Survey (see Figure 7). In the
Background Survey section, professional backgrounds of the respondents are inquired. In Maintenance
Priority Benchmark Factor Survey, the respondents are asked to confirm if they approve the initially
proposed 15 priority criteria. In Maintenance Priority Benchmark Factor Weight Survey, the Analytic
Hierarchy Process is adopted to test the weight of each criterion. In addition, in the criteria surveys of Parts

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
169

Questionnaire Content

AQuestionnaire

Basic Question (Background Surey)

B. Maintenance Priority Benchmark Factor Survey

C. P

yBenchmark Factor Weight SAHP

Analysis Tool
SPSS

Descriptive Statistics

SPSS Descriptive Statistics

Weight Analysis

FIGURE 7. Questionnaire structure and analysis tool.

Hierarchy Process is adopted to test the weight of each criterion. In addition, in the criteria surveys of Parts
B and C, a tree diagram of the three levels of the MPB is illustrated at the beginning of the questionnaire
to remind respondents that each compared criterion is independent. The respondents are also reminded to
avoid associating unconsciously with other uncompared criteria when they are contrasting two criteria in
the same group.
QuestionnaireAnalysis
The analysis focused on the background of the respondents, the confirmation of priority benchmark criteria, a weight analysis, and an examination of the AHP. The following are the details of the analysis.
Experts'Backgrounds
Fifty-eight of the 60 CMD directors replied to the questionnaires. Most of the respondents hold degrees in
two disciplines: 82.8% have both civil engineering and architecture degrees; 13.8% of the respondents
have backgrounds in plumbing, electrical, fire control engineering, or telecommunications; and other
backgrounds make up the remaining 13.8%. On average, the respondents have more than 16 years of work
experience, their average age is 45, and they are typically undergraduate degree holders. As can be seen
from the background analysis, the respondents' expertise, working experience, education, and age qualified all of them to be professional consultants, and their responses are professionally credible.
Analysis of Priority Criteria
The MPB criteria developed in this study utilize the Likert scale to rate the responses to the questions. The responses are rated as follows: strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, somewhat agree = 3, disagree
= 2, strongly disagree = 1. Thus, when the average grade of a criterion is > 3, which is "acceptable,"
the criterion is retained. On the contrary, if the average grade of a criterion is < 3, which is "unacceptable," then the criterion is rejected and not included in the evaluation table. Ell 2, "improvement
frequency," attained an average grade of only 2.84, and was therefore deleted. The grades of other
criteria are all between 3.16 - 4.81, falling into acceptable range. As a result, the number of evaluation criteria was reduced to 14.
Criteria Weight Setting Through Analytic HierarchyProcess (AHP)
Recently, the AHP has been frequently used in decision-making research. This research did not intend to
seek a new research method, but to use a reliable method to find a benchmark for decision-making needs,
which is why the AHP was adopted to analyze the questionnaire's criteria weights. The method uses an
eigenvector to determine the weight of each criterion, allowing for insufficient transitivity. However, the
Consistency Index (CI < 0.1) and Consistency Ratio (CR < 0.1) should be tested (Saaty, 1990). See Figure
8 for the analysis process. The highest CI value of priority criteria in this research is 0.04 and overall CI =
0.01 < 0.1, satisfying the requirement of consistency index. Also the highest CR value is 0.06 < 0.1 and

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
170

overall CR = 0.01 < 0.1, meeting the requirement

of consistency ratio. The dominance of each criterion is calculated by weighting principle, the
weight of which is listed in Table 3.

Establishing Pair-wise Comparison Matrix

MAINTENANCE PRIORITY BENCH-

Calculating eigenvector and cigen Value

E
P
Establishing Priority criteria Hierarchy

MARK (MPB) FRAMEWORK

MPB is suitable for the evaluation ofpassive maintenance (that is, the maintenance requested by users) but cannot be used in the evaluation of legally
enforced maintenance, routine scheduled maintenance inspections and repairs, and special or
emergency maintenance. The weights and frameworks of MPB criteria, the occasions to use these
criteria, and the grading methods are explained
below.

No

alculating Weights with Geometric

Average

No
Yes
Confirmation of Criteria Weights

Structure of PriorityBenchmark
FIGURE 8. Process of weight analysis.
Although MPB is divided into three levels by each
criterion's characteristic, the main criteria of MPB
execution are the 14 criteria in level three: (1) use-necessity; (2) maintenance urgency; (3) impact on
individuals; (4) impact on public; (5) current age relative to age/design limit; (6) exterior condition; (7)
deterioration of components; (8) functional impairment of main structure; (9) functional impairment of
walls and finish; (10) functional impairment of electrical, air conditioning, communication, and monitoring/control; (11) functional impairment of plumbing, sanitation facilities, and fire protection; (12) value
improvement rate; (13) maintenance management efficiency; and (14) use-efficiency. For the convenience
of measurement, it is suggested that the weighing should be conducted with a 100-point scale (see Table
2). From the viewpoints of the decision makers regarding school building maintenance priorities, the
maintenance urgency of every function is what they are most concerned with since a maintenance item in
poor condition does not mean it needs repair urgently. Therefore, "Is the repair urgent?" is a more important question than "What is the condition of the item?" However, the induced condition index is also
divided into the ageing condition and functional condition, indicating that decision makers agree that
buildings are possibly "old but still in good condition" or "new but already in poor condition." Just because
a building is older does not mean its functions are not satisfactory.
Priority Grading
Building maintenance can be categorized into daily maintenance and planned annual maintenance. Daily
maintenance covers regular or irregular maintenance and small-scale repairs, while planned annual maintenance includes planned repair and renew operations, for example, an extensive renovation of a building.
Only when a building maintenance evaluation takes both small-scale daily maintenance and large-scale
planned annual maintenance into account can the evaluation needs of an actual operation be satisfied.
Therefore, this research divides the MPB of maintenance priority evaluation into MPBdaily and MPBannual.
MPBdaily evaluates irregular maintenance or repair that takes place in daily maintenance. Because regular
maintenance belongs to routine management activities, it is not suggested to include it in a priority evaluation model in case mandatory works are excluded or laws and regulations are violated. MPBannual is used
to evaluate annual maintenance plans. For instance, at the end of every year, building managers propose
renovation items and budget applications for the next year. Reasons for making an annual plan of extensive renovation are usually that buildings are aged or the functional needs for the buildings have changed
greatly.

Journal ofArchitectural and Planning Research

171
25:2 (Summer, 2008)

TABLE 2. The (relative) weights of each MPB index.

Criteria
(Third Level)

Index
(First Level)

Sub-index
(Second Level)

Urgent
Index
(68.6)

Necessity UT 1 (44.4)

U1 11 Use necessity (29.8)

U 112 Maintenance urgency (14.6)

Impact UT2 (24.2)

U12 1 Impact on individuals (15.0)

U122 Impact on public (15.0)

Condition
Index
(21.2)

C111 Current age relative to age/design limit (2.0)

C112 Exterior condition (2.6)
C11 3 Deterioration of components (5.6)

Aging Condition C1 1 (10.2)

C12 1 Functional impairment of main structure (5.9)

C122 Functional impairment of walls and finish (1.0)
CI23 Functional impairment of electrical, air conditioning,
communication, and monitoring/control (2.1)
CI 24 Functional impairment of plumbing, sanitation facilities,
and fire protection (2.0)

Function CI 2 (11.0)

Ell Value improvement rate (4.4)

Value El 1 (4.4)

Economical
Index
(10.2)

El 2 1 Maintenance management efficiency (2.8)

E1 22 Use efficiency (3.0)

Efficiency El 2 (5.8)

The design of school building maintenance priorities should also take into account the evaluation plans of
daily and annual maintenance priorities. For example, Al-Majed (1998) divided 23 evaluation criteria into
"management side" and "executive side." Igal M. Shohet (2003) divided hospital building maintenance
priorities into two measurement scales: Pn (individual component) and BPI (Building Performance Indicator, a building's performance). Nevertheless, BPI only adopts 10 performance indicators. The effects of
emergent and economical levels are not included. If the grades of evaluated items are close, misjudgment
of an item's priority is very likely to happen. MPBdaily is mainly used in the priority evaluation of individual
daily maintenance applications (see Formula 1). MPBannual is mainly used in the annual maintenance plan
of a building group to evaluate the priority for an extensive renovation of a building. The unit of MPBannual
is a single building (see Formula 2).
Formula 1

= ",U'
MPBdaily

[CI,
L*R[+11*

*R

l* +C_ 11

C12j

R2jcJ

*R

+ EI,

RiE1

+ *R

Formula2
MPBannual =E

(Ulu!1.

R.J +CP
"-

ij*

R.

+EP'
"-

Rij)

Where:
MPB = Maintenance Priority Benchmark (0 - 100)
UIj Weight for each criterion under Urgent Index (i I1 - 2, j 1 - 2)
CI 1 = Weight for each criterion under Condition Index (i 1 - 2, j = 1 - 4)

(CI 1i for Formula 2 use only)

CI Ij Weight for each criterion under Condition Index ( 1 - 3)
(Cllj for Formula 1 use only)
CI2k = Weight for each criterion under Condition Index (k = 1, 2, 3, or 4)
(CI 2 k for Formula 1 use only)
Elij = Weight for each criterion under Economical Index (i = I - 2, j = 1 - 2)
The maximum grade of MPB is 100 and the minimum zero. The priority is higher when the total grade is
higher. Using the evaluation method, the CMD staff or maintenance professionals determine the class
intervals of the 14 criteria and then multiply the ratio grade of each criterion by weight, the sum of which

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
172

TABLE 3. The class intervals of priority criteria's grades.

Priority Criteria

Weight

Ratio Grade (Performance Level)

66%
50%
33%

100%

83%

Absolute
Need

Strongly
Need

Very
Need

Need

Slightly
Need

Probably
Need

No
Need

In one
day

In one
week

In one
month

In one
season

In six
months

Exceeding
six months

Ulll Usenecessity

29.8

U11 2 Maintenance urgency

14.6 Immediately

16%

0%

U12 1 Impact on individuals

9.2

Extremely
Large

Very
Large

Large

Fair

Small

Very
Small

Extremely
Small

Impact on public

15.0

Extremely
Large

Very
Large

Large

Fair

Small

Very
Small

Extremely
Small

Cl11 Current age relative to

age/design limit

2.0

More
than 100%

16 -32%

Less
than 16%

C1 12 Exterior condition

2.6

Failed

CI 13 Deterioration of
components

5.6

CI 2 1 Functional impairment of
main structure

U12 2

66 -82%

50 -65%

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

Failed

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

5.9

Failed

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

C122 Functional impairment

of walls and finish

1.0

Failed

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

C123 Functional impairment of

electrical, air conditioning,
communication, and
monitoring/control

2.1

Failed

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

C124 Functional impairment of

2.0
plumbing, sanitation
facilities, and fire protection

Failed

Very
Poor

Poor

Marginal

Fair

Good

Excellent

Less
than 16%

16 -32%

33 -49%

50 -65%

Ell, Value improvement rate

4.4

83 -100%

33 -49%

66 -82%

83-

100%

More
than 100%

E121 Maintenance management

efficiency

2.8

Excellent

Good

E1 22 Use efficiency

3.0

Entire
University

Colleges

Fair

Marginal

Common Department
Classrooms

Poor

Very
Poor

Failed

Graduate
Institute

Laboratory

Personal
Area

Note. Ell, Value improvement rate= (maintenance cost / new construction cost) * 100%.

is the criterion's evaluation grade. For example, when evaluating an application's U112 (maintenance
urgency), if the evaluator suggests the problem should be handled "in a week," the grade of this criterion
is: 14.6 * 66% = 9.636 (see Table 3).
The criteria in Table 3 are mainly measurements of psychological feelings. Due to the limits of cost and
manpower, it is difficult to conduct another study to analyze the exact distinction among each grade's
measurement. In view of simplifying the presentation of observed facts, and for the convenience of numerical calculation, this research adopts Interval Level methods commonly used in social science. Also, in
order to avoid a big gap in psychological distance and cause the definitions of adjacent interval levels to be
too similar (Mangione, 1995), seven categorization levels were selected from three to seven common
response interval levels to compose a rating scale for determining the grades of criteria. Taking the Facility Condition Index (FCI) (Hirai, et aL, 2004) commonly used in asset management of industry and public
sector as an example, NASA's FCI uses a five-point scale where five means no or few repair requirements,
and one means the facility should be or is condemned (Cable and Davis, 2005). Evaluation by using a

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
173

rating scale should indicate what happened, but it should not endeavor to predict what will follow. It
should simply answer the question (McKay, et al., 1999). Hence, following the condition index developed
by McKay, et al. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works, the criteria in the Condition Index (CI) of
MPB, which are difficult to be quantified, are graded by seven levels: Excellent, Good, Fair, Marginal,
Poor, Very Poor, and Failed. As to the measurement of other criteria, it is preferable to determine the
differences of each level by quantifiable values or qualitative descriptions with discernible distinction.
In order to improve evaluation efficiency, this research proposes to computerize the table of priority
evaluation, use software to set a relative computing data or a program, and employ an updated computer database to compute every application's U122, C 111, El ll, E12 1, and El 22 priority grade with
traditional or wireless technology. Furthermore, a priority evaluation is not always a unidirectional
activity. The evaluation results can be more objective by an interactive communication. Therefore, to
limit the subjective opinions of CMD staff, the opinions of applicants or building supervisors should
be taken into account. As Ul1
1 , Ul 12 ' and U121 are more related to use experiences, it is appropriate to
include applicant or supervisor's opinions when evaluating them. The calculation formula for this is
UIij = ](A * B), where A represents the grade given by CMD staff or maintenance professionals, and
B represents the grade given by applicants or supervisors.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The design of a priority benchmark should consider the type of each building. The decision-making
evaluation criteria vary with the different characteristics of operation, use, or management. This study can
be summarized as follows:
(1) From the decision-making viewpoint of school building managers in Taiwan's national universities, urgency is the most important factor in determining maintenance priority, followed by the
building's condition and economical factors.
(2) MPB is mainly designed for school building maintenance priority. There are 14 evaluation criteria (see Table 2), which can be divided into the daily maintenance priority evaluation of individual application (MPBdaily) and the annual maintenance priority evaluation of a single building
(MPBannual). These criteria can help the CMDs of national universities make a more effective,
reasonable, and objective distribution of limited resources in daily or annual maintenance decisions.
(3) MPB can be used in daily or annual maintenance evaluations, but it cannot be applied to special
circumstances, such as immediate danger to personnel safety (e.g., buildings collapsing after an
earthquake), discontinuance of key functions (e.g., the blackout of an entire school), or legally
enforced maintenance.
(4) Priority evaluation is not always a unidirectional activity. A more objective result can be reached
by interactive communications. Therefore, in order to restrict the subjective judgments of CMD
staff, MPB should take the opinions of applicants and supervisors into account as well.
Owing to constraints of time, research manpower, and budget, this research can only study and establish a
priority benchmark for building maintenance for CMDs of colleges and universities to consult. An investigation into practical benefits of our MPB criteria is the goal of future research. If a school building
management model is implemented on a larger scale, the process and method of this research can serve as
a reference for government decision making in urban building management or public building renovations. In addition, through field research this study found that the computerization of school building
maintenance operations in Taiwan is still in an early stage. Thus, schools' CMDs need to computerize
evaluation and maintenance management in areas such as investigation and recording of school buildings' basic information and conditions, digital access to data (e.g., constructing a School Building Maintenance System [SBMS]), and incorporating MPB criteria into the design of Building Medical Records
(BMR).

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
174

NOTE
1. In this article, the asterisk found in written equations denotes multiplication.

REFERENCES
Al-Majed MH (1998) Priority-rating of public building maintenance works in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished
Master's thesis, King Fahd University, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Bana e Costa CA, Oliveira RC (2002) Assigning priorities for maintenance, repair and refurbishment in
managing a municipal housing stock. European Journalof OperationalResearch 138:380391.
Cable JH, Davis JS (2005) Key performance indicatorsforfederalfacilitiesportfolio (Federal Facilities
Council Technical Report 147). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Committee on Business Strategies for Public Capital Investment (2004) Investments infederalfacilities.:
Asset management strategiesfor the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 42.
Committee on the Renewal of Department of Energy Infrastructure (2004) Intelligent sustainment and
renewal of Department of Energyfacilities and infrastructure.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (1996) Repair; evaluation, maintenance,and rehabilitation researchprogram - REMR management systems for civil works structures (REMR
Technical Note OM-MS-l .1). Champaign, IL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Department of Education and Science (1985) Maintenance and renewal in educational buildings Needs and priorities (Design Note 40). London: Architects and Building Group, Department of Education and Science.
Hirai S, Krause D, Munson G (2004) Industry use of the facility condition index. Paper presented at the
Department of the Interior Facilities and Asset Management Conference. Orlando, Florida.
Lappalainen S, Kdhk6nena E, Loikkanen P, Palomdki E, Lindroos 0, Reijula K (2001) Evaluation of priorities
for repairing in moisture-damaged school buildings in Finland. Building and Environment
36:981-986.
Mangione TW (1995) Mail surveys: Improving the quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McKay D, Rens K, Greimann L, Stecker J (1999) Condition index assessment for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers civil works. Journalof InfrastructureSystems 5(2):52-60.
Ministry of the Interior (2003) Statisticalyearbook of Interior,Republic of China.Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior.
Pullen S, Attkinson D, Tucker S (2000) Determining economical maintenance intervals. Proceedings of
the internationalsymposium on facilities management and maintenance.Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology, pp. 265-271.
Reddy PV, Socur M, Ariaratnam ST (1993) Building renovation decision support model. In L Cohn (Ed.),
Computing in civil and building engineering (Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computing in civil and building engineering). Anaheim, CA: ASCE, pp. 15471554.

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

25:2 (Summer, 2008)
175

Saaty TL (1990) The analytic hierarchyprocess burgh: RWS Publications.

Planning,priority setting, resource allocation. Pitts-

Shen QP, Lo KK (1999) Prioritysetting maintenance management -An

Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

analytic approach.Hong Kong:

Shen QP, Lo KK, Wang Q (1998) Priority setting in maintenance management of public buildings -- A
modified multi-attribute approach using analytic hierarchy process. Construction Management and Economics 16:693-702.

Shen QP, Spedding A (1998) Priority setting in planned maintenance - Practical issues in using the
multi-attribute approach. Building Research and Information 26(3):169-180.

Shohet 1 (2003) Building evaluation methodology for setting maintenance priorities in hospital buildings.
Construction Management and Economics 21:681-692.

Tatsumi K, Kashihara S, Furusaka S (2002) Building maintenance from LCC to FM. Japan: Gakugei
Shuppan Sha Co. Ltd.
Toker U (2006) Workspaces for knowledge generation: Facilitating innovation in university research
centers. Journalof Architectural and Planning Research 23(3): 181-199.

Additional information may be obtained by writing directly to Dr. Chang at No. 100 Wenhwa Rd.,
Seatwen, Taichung, Taiwan 40724, R.O.C.; email: rchang@fcu.edu.tw.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was primarily funded by a grant from The National Science Council (NSC) of the Executive Yuan ofthe Republic of China
(Grant No. NSC-92-22 I1-E-002-092). Support from both NSC and SINO Foundation for Research & Development of Engineering
Sciences & Technologies is gratefully acknowledged. Forhis valuable opinions, the authors would also like to express thanks to Mr. Chen
Te-Cheng, who is chief of the construction and maintenance section ofNational Taiwan University.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Chin-Yuan Chang is presently an assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Feng Chia University. His
dissertation investigates a maintenance mechanism which combines the fields of medicine and architecture. Between 1994 and
2000, he worked for a publicly traded company and served several posts, such as construction site engineer, director, auditor and
special assistant to the general manager. His main interests in research are in the areas ofbuilding medicine, property management,
construction management, construction safety and health, and project management.
Dr. Shyh-Meng Huang received his doctorate in the field of architectural planning from the University of Tokyo, Japan, in 1982.
He is presently a professor in the Graduate Institute of Urban Development and Architecture, National University of Kaohsiung.
Between 1993 and 2000, he served as president of the Urban Planning Institute of R.O.C. and theArchitectural Institute of R.O.C.
His main interests in research are in the areas of construction management, architecture planning and design, facility management,
urban planning, ecological engineering, green buildings, library buildings, and school buildings.
Dr. Sy-Jye Guo received his doctorate in the field ofconstruction and engineering management from the University ofTexas at Austin in
1993. Presently, he is a professor in the Department ofCivil Engineering, National Taiwan University, and also serves as a commissioner
on the Construction Management Association ofR.O.C., the Review Commission for Construction Planning ofthe Ministry ofEducation,
and the Complaint Review Board for Government Procurement of the Public Construction Commission, the Executive Yuan. His main
interests in research are in the areas of construction management, risk management, architectural planning, facility management,
construction productivity, and construction insurance.
Manuscript revisions completed 10 July 2007.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Setting a Priority Benchmark for Building Maintenance

in Taiwans National Universities
SOURCE: J Archit Plann Res 25 no2 Summ 2008
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://taz.tamu.edu/Press/japr2.html