Perceived inefficiency in social housing maintenance

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to identify areas of waste and inefficiency in the built asset maintenance process and to outline an alternative approach based around performance metrics, which seeks to minimise waste and produce a more sustainable, cost‐ effective approach to built asset maintenance.Design/methodology/approachA theoretical analysis of the built asset maintenance process identified potential areas within the process that could be subject to significant waste or inefficiencies. Structured interviews with 37 property managers and two in‐depth case studies of UK social landlords were used to provide greater insights into the causes of the waste/inefficiencies and to develop a performance‐based approach to identify built asset maintenance needs.FindingsThe current approach to built asset maintenance is prone to wide ranging inefficiencies. These inefficiencies are deep rooted and resulted from an intrinsic weakness in the theoretical model underpinning built asset maintenance management. The theory assumes condition is a suitable proxy for performance. Whilst this assumption may have been valid in the past, current drivers for a sustainable future, coupled with the need to reduce costs in light of current public sector spending, requires a wider range of issues to be considered when identifying and prioritising maintenance needs. Identifying needs, planning of work and post contract inspection were perceived to be the most inefficient activities in the current approach to built asset maintenance management. These could be reduced by adopting a new approach that links performance of the built asset to key business drivers.Research limitations/implicationsAt this stage, the new performance model is conceptual and requires further implementation to test its robustness and resilience.Practical implicationsThe adoption of the model will force maintenance managers to consider the implications of their maintenance actions at a strategic level that links priorities to critical success factors through targeted key performance indicators.Originality/valueThis paper extends the concept of performance‐based approaches used in other industries to built asset maintenance and provides a practical representation of a process model by which the theory can be implemented.

Optimising maintenance cost by prioritising maintenance of facilities services in residential buildings

“…Prioritising the maintenance tasks of facilities services is vital. Commonly, the maintenance actions are prioritised by taking into consideration the cost and risk factors, which seek to maximise the maintenance performance and minimise the risk of failure (Sharp & Jones, 2012). Velmurugan and Dhingra (2015) state that the priorities of maintenance work orders contributing to the effective implementation of maintenance strategy.…”

“…Sometimes, maintenance priorities are compulsory when it involves the corrective maintenance for severe facilities (Ismail, 2014). Hence, several factors are taken into consideration in the decision-making of maintenance prioritisation as follows (Chong et al, 2016):  Riskrelated to safety, health and comfort  Performance measurementbenchmarking, post-occupancy evaluation, key performance indicators  Resourcesavailable budget, equipment, labour, and time  Stakeholdersmanagement committee, owners, residents, and tenants Consequently, maintenance priorities assist the maintenance personnel and building owner to carry out maintenance tasks according to critical levels and subsequently achieve user satisfaction at optimal cost (Sharp & Jones, 2012).…”

Analysis of Factors Influencing Reported Housing Maintenance Costs in Sweden’s Public and Private Rental Sectors

“…The quality of the construction and that of the spare parts and materials have a bearing on the frequency of the maintenance actions. Factors such as poor workmanship together with elements of an administrative nature such as budget constraints and poor budgetary control as well as the maintenance organ isation's structure and competence of the staff, also influence the amount of maintenance carried out (Boverket 2002;Sharp, Jones 2012). Based on an analysis of life cycle costs a company might choose a construction strategy with high initial capital costs that on the other hand provide lower maintenance costs (Wu et al 2006).…”

“…The private companies classify more of their activities as investment than maintenance Lind and Muyingo (2012a) Budget constraints The private companies postpone maintenance in times of decreasing revenues Elsinga and Lind (2013) El-Haram and Horner (2002a) Borg and Lind (2006) Planning of activities The public companies base their measures more on longterm plans thus carrying out unnecessary measures Sharp and Jones (2012) Lind and Muyingo (2012b) Olanrewaju and Abdul-Aziz 2015Building construction quality…”

Developing a planned work process model for housing associations

“…A need exists to develop a process model specific to HA planned works which practitioners regard as relevant to the requirements of the context and represents their professional needs. This would mark an important first step to improving the efficiency of process management in this sector and will help establish the basis of future efforts such as the performance metrics approach proposed by Sharp and Jones (2012).…”