A new performance‐based process model for built asset maintenance

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to draw attention to the weakness inherent in the current theoretical model underpinning built asset maintenance and to propose a new performance based model that aligns maintenance/refurbishment expenditure to corporate performance. Design/methodology/approach -An action research approach was used in which participants from within a commercial organisation worked with the research team to develop a new theoretical approach to built asset maintenance. A series of meetings, workshops and interviews were used to: evaluate the organisation's approach to built asset maintenance; identify opportunities for improvement; and develop a new conceptual model of their built asset maintenance process. The logic underpinning the conceptual model was tested through a series of presentations to the organisation's middle and senior management. Findings -The current theoretical model underpinning built asset maintenance does not allow direct links to be drawn between expenditure and impact on business performance. The new approach forces facilities managers to consider the business implications of their actions before large maintenance programmes are developed and provides feedback mechanisms to monitor the impact of any actions against key business drivers. Research limitations/implications -At this stage the new performance model is still theoretical and requires implementation to test its robustness and resilience. Practical implications -The adoption of the model will force facilities managers to consider the implications of their maintenance/refurbishment actions at a strategic level, thus placing their considerations on a similar footing to their human resource and financial counterparts. Originality/value -This paper extends the performance based concept to built asset maintenance and provides a practical process model through which the concept can be implemented.

Building maintenance management in Malaysia

“…The defi ciencies in the practices could be due to the way the policies are framed, how they are being understood or how they are enforced. Good maintenance management should be simple, dynamic, and capable of periodic review as the need arises to accommodate technological advancements and the clients ' and users ' value systems ( Vanier, 2001 ;Jones and Sharp, 2007 ). When developing a maintenance management system, users (and client-occupiers) must be involved to ensure that their satisfaction is proactively taken into account while formulating the maintenance policy.…”

Quantitative analysis of defects in Malaysian university buildings: Providers’ perspective

“…Although it was not the intention of the research study to carry out a census, all the universities were involved in order to enhance the response rate. The questionnaire was developed from the studies of authors including Wood (1999), Zavadskas et al (1998), Jones et al (2007), Seeley (1987) and Horner et al (1997) and a series of discussions with those concerned with university building maintenance in Malaysia. Twenty-eight defects in buildings were identifi ed and addressed by the respondents.…”

Identifying rail asset maintenance processes: a human-centric and sensemaking approach

“…It is understood that existing maintenance process models focus on sequential task-oriented processes (Hassanain et al 2001;Braaksma et al 2013;Zoeteman 2006). Few of them only (see Jones and Sharp 2007), acknowledge the importance of human factors within assets maintenance process lifecycle or recognise potential iterative steps embedded within identified processes. This seems to be rather counterintuitive considering that it is human actors (operators and asset managers) who formulate and execute asset maintenance plans and actions.…”

“…Jones and Sharp 2007;Pintelon and Gelders 1992;Pintelon and Van Wassenhove 1990;Vanneste and van Wassenhove 1995;Hassanain et al 2001;Braaksma et al 2013;Zoeteman 2006), there is limited research that has unpacked notions of sensemaking that aim to enhance the way that asset professionals understand and interact with asset data (Sergeeva 2014;Mardiasmo et al 2008;Schippera and Gerritsb 2017). Approaching asset maintenance with such a lens can provide a further insight as to human-centric needs and requirements that emerge within asset maintenance.…”

“…Assetrelated information is necessary to establish a baseline understanding of what an asset's expected lifecycle is, what the available budget is and what the associated actions would need to be. Jones and Sharp (2007) provided an example of such a cyclic process in built maintenance where policy plays a start-up role in triggering the maintenance process, which mainly consists of information collection, modelling and planning activities. Other maintenance models focus on mapping the process activities that emphasise on the interoperability, necessary to be established in-between the different maintenance phases.…”