Assessing The Maintenance Aspect of Facilities Management through ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ProcediaProcedia Engineering 00 (2011) 000–000 Engineering 20 (2011) 329 – 338

Procedia Engineering www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

The 2nd International Building Control Conference 2011

Assessing the Maintenance Aspect of Facilities Management through a Performance Measurement System: A Malaysian Case Study N. E. M. Nik-Mata *, S. N. Kamaruzzamanb, M. Pitta a

Bartlett School of graduate Studies, University College London, WC1E 6BT London, UK Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

b

Abstract Facilities Management (FM) is a resource management that combines people, property and process management expertise to provide vital services in support of the organisation. The effectiveness of FM service delivery to the end users is highly depending on the FM performance itself. Performance Measurement (PM) is seen as a vital tool to assess the level of performance of FM by analysing feedbacks from the end users. This study proposes a Performance Measurement System (PMS) for the enhancement of FM specifically focusing on the maintenance delivery aspect. The PMS, which encompasses three important aspects of maintenance namely Functional, Technical and Image, developed with respective PM dimensions and tested in five chosen office buildings in Malaysia. This study also suggests a positive correlation between the performance of maintenance management and the maintenance management system applied. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Universiti Teknologi MARA (Perak) and Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (ISM) Keywords: Facilities Management, Performance Measurement, Service, End Users, Malaysia

1. Introduction FM has established itself as a key service sector, with ac diverse and highly competitive market of FM contractors, in-house FM teams, FM vendors, FM consultants and professional FM institutions. [1 2] The elements of FM range from corporate level in which it contributes to the delivery of strategic and operational objectives on day-to-day basis.[3] FM was traditionally viewed as the poor relation between real estate and construction professions, which often-conjuring images of maintenance plants, care-taking and cleaning.[4] _________________ * Corresponding author. Tel.: +447999546237 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.174

330

N.E.M. Nik-Mat et al. / Procedia Engineering 20 (2011) 329 – 338 N. E. M. Nik-Mat, S. N. Kamaruzzaman, M. Pitt Procedia Engineering 00 (2011) 000–000

/

Many still view FM in collective terms that lump together all building facilities and services within the organisation. When viewed in strategic terms, it becomes a non-core department, supporting services and more importantly the innovation that can be brought about by improving the management of services. [5] Over the last 10-15 years, FM 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 a portfolio of buildings in support of an organisation‟s overall mission. [6] It is also seen as a management of cost-efficiency rather than a method to achieve multi-dimensional enhancement of business competitiveness. However, FM is not just about delivering services in the most effective ways, it is also about providing them within an ever-evolving world and industry. [3] High profile events such as the British Institute of Facilities Management (BIFM) Annual Awards for Innovation reflect a growing recognition of innovation in the FM sector. [7] FM deals with the management of built assets and incorporates controlling services necessary for successful business operations of an organisation.[8] It is concerned with the delivery of the enabling workplace environment, the optimum functional space that supports the business processes and human resources and not mainly covers the physical equipment of the building. [9] More often than not, the FM remit is interpreted as maintenance management, space management and accommodation standards; project management for new-build and alterations‟ the general premises management of the building stock and the administration of associated support services. Many organisations have re-evaluated the contributions of FM in making a business successful, recognising the business consequences of poorly-managed facilities and searching for value that can be added through effective planning and management. [10] Facilities have an influence on organisational effectiveness and it is clear that the introduction of FM, as a response to the need for more effective control and the promotion of effectiveness in the whole workplace, set new management challenges within an organisations. [11] The aim of FM should not be limited to simply reducing the operating expenses of a built facility, but it should focus on enhancing efficiency of the facility as well. [12] Effective FM encompasses multiple activities under various disciplines, combining resources and is vital to the success of any organisation. [3] In order for FM to be effective, both the “hard” issues, such as financial regulation and the “soft” issues, such as managing people, have to be considered. [4] Both issues have to be efficiently managed to ensure that FM can harmonise and provide a safe and efficient working environment. To gauge the effectiveness of facility management, it is necessary to reach an understanding of the current conditions of the facility and to postulate changes in facility management practices in order to achieve the desired performance. [8] 2. Facilities management in Malaysia The growth of FM in Malaysia is very slow and the field is still in its infancy. [13] The definition of FM is poorly understood and here it is not being practiced in an appropriate way. The automated computerised system as an integrated approach, is the closest example to the adoption of FM. The traditional management methods are dominantly applied compared to integrated FM systems although the new approach has proven to be positive in strategic operations. The lack of understanding in FM definitions and functions is possibly the root problem of the passive development of FM in Malaysia. FM practice is not guided and most often its importance is neglected in

Nik-Mat et al.M. / Procedia Engineering 20 (2011) 329 – 338 N. E. M. Nik-Mat, S.N.E.M. N. Kamaruzzaman, Pitt / Procedia Engineering 00 (2011) 000–000

business strategies. The non-existence of a specific organisation to provide guidelines and control on the quality level as well as to assess the performance of FM practice is one reason why evaluation is difficult. The Public Works Department (PWD) or „Jabatan Kerja Raya‟ (JKR) is the responsible government body that has started the introduction of FM to Malaysian industry in 1974. The subsequent launch of quality service directives and guidelines followed the development of FM in this country as shown in Figure 1.0. Concern on the need to upgrade the quality level of public services by the then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2001 resulted in an allocation of one trillion Ringgit Malaysia (RM) for public building facilities maintenance. [14] Generally, FM has not been readily adopted or encouraged by the Malaysian government in any organised way. This also provides little identity for property management as a profession in its own right, leading to the perception that FM is not a profession on its own and just a part of a property management. Ariff [15] suggests the need of coordination in an organisation‟s vision to integrate the people, process and technology/systems. He further claims that a strategic model is needed to overcome the challenges and issues faced in the Malaysian FM sector. Samad [16] suggests hat the first and foremost issue in handling FM is determining the right department in charge to handle government buildings, whether Ministry of Finance as it involves the public assets are created under the public funds or Public Works Department as the assets are under their supervision. The confusion of the responsible ministry or department to perform a full surveillance of FM practice in Malaysia indicates that the sector is not progressing well. Assets in Malaysia require good maintenance performance to extend the life capacity of the assets. In this respect, Hussin [17] suggests that the application of technology in the management of assets leads to effective and efficient management of government‟s assets and facilities.

Fig. 1. Government‟s initiatives in providing quality public service

3. Implementing performance measurement in FM In the past two decades, performance measurement (PM) has received a great amount of attention from the researchers and practitioners where each successful company measures its performance in order to remain competitive and cost effective in business. [18] Major issues related to this field concern what to measure and how to measure it in a practically feasible and cost-effective way. [19] Current condition

331

332


/

of FM in Malaysia specifically where there is lack of FM guidelines and PM monitoring approaches by the practitioners shows the need of PM in the FM services. This is to enable the organisations and practitioners to continuously assess the performance of facilities services provided. Acting like an early warning system, PM aims to bridge the gap and establish the relationship between the internal measures that are the causes and the external measure like the effects. [20] The efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance systems play a pivotal role in the organisations‟ success and survivability. Therefore the system‟s performance needs to be measured using a performance measurement system. The first step in developing high-level, portfolio-oriented performance indicators is to assess which organisational goals are to be attained and to establish a time frame for attainment. In other words, goals for facilities asset management should be tied to the attainment of organisational goals. Organisational goals should cascade to strategic goals to functional unit goals, to team goals, and finally to individual performance goals. As goals cascade through the organisation they become increasingly more specific, but are entirely consistent in their support of the organisational goals. [6] The important factors behind the strong demands of PM in facilities services as are as follows [18]: Measuring value created by the services- The most important reason for implementing PM is to measure the value created by FM process. As a manager, one must know that what is being done is what is needed by the business process. Alternatively, if the FM output is not contributing or creating any value for the business then it needs to be restructured. This brings the focus on doing right things keeping in view the business goal of the company. Justifying investment- To justify the organisation‟s investment made in FM, which is not only whether the FM managers are doing the right thing but whether the investment they are making is producing a return on the resources that are being consumed. Revising resource allocations- To determine if additional investment is required and to justify the investment should the management needs more of what the managers are doing. Alternatively, such measurements of activities also permit the FM managers to change what they are doing or how they are doing it more effectively by using the resources allocated. Health safety and environmental (HSE) issues- To understand the contribution of maintenance towards HSE issues. A bad FM performance can lead to accidents (safety issue) and pollutions (health hazard and environmental issues) besides encouraging an unhealthy work culture and environment. Focus on knowledge management- Many companies especially those involved in service delivery and product support services are focused on effective management of knowledge in their companies. Furthermore, technology is ever changing and is changing faster in the new millennium. This has brought in new sensors and embedded technology, information and communication technology (ICT) and condition-based inspection technology to replace preventive maintenance with predictive maintenance. This necessitates a systematic approach for the knowledge growth in the field of specialisation. Adapting to new trend in operation and FM strategy- New operating and FM strategy is adopted and followed by industries in quick response to market demand for the reduction of production loss and process waste. FM performance measures the value created by the service. Organisational structural changes- Today organisations are trying to adopt a flat and compact organisational structure, a virtual work organisation and empowered, self-managing, knowledge management work teams and workstations. All these motivations need to integrate the FM measurement system to provide a rewarding return for FM services.


The importance of PM cannot be overemphasised, with many authors stressing its role in today‟s information-driven decision-making environment. In 1995, Rose [21] states that performance measurement system (PMS) is the language of process for one organisation as it indicates where the organisation is and where it is heading. It functions as a guide to whether the organisation is en route to achieving its goals. It is also a powerful behavioural tool, since it communicates with the employee on what is important and what matters for the achievement of the organisation‟s goal. Ahmad [22] affirms that building services assessment & condition monitoring needs to be carried out as to determine the status of services provided to the users. Webster and Hung [23] state that measurement is a key management activity that provides decision makers with info necessary for decision making, monitoring performance and effective allocation of resources. This is proved when companies using an integrated balanced performance measurement system perform better than those that do not measure their performance. [24, 19, 25] Nutt [1] further added that there is a strong correlation between performance and satisfaction. He also suggested that buildings must be allowed to be benchmarked against the other so that its relative performance can be assessed. The performance measurement needs to be aligned to both organisational and FM strategies. [26, 27, 28, 18] Wordsworth [29] states the important aspects in designing the framework of a performance measurement system are the goals, design and management. He also agrees that organisations need such a framework to align their performance measurement system with the corporate strategic goals of a company by setting objectives and defining key performance at each level. White [30] points out that performance measurement system should include subjective measures as well as objective measures whereby objective measures are addressed to have the advantage of not being biased by whoever is providing the opinion. Conversely, subjective measures provide a wealth and variety which is not obtainable from objective measures alone. Sinclair and Zairi [31] highlight the need to involve employees in the development of performance measurement. Employees are the individuals who operate the processes and who know the task best and thus, getting them involved will not only result in commitment toward efficient performance measurement but also influence the actual performance too. In other words, an effective PMS presents a balanced view of the system and should be able to recognise different performance hierarchies and multiple dimensions of performance measures, relate the measures to the relevant goals and link them to strategy, address cross-functional issues and also involve subjective measures as well as objective ones. 4. Performance measurement system developed A PMS was developed focusing on the maintenance aspect of FM services. Based on the literature review, the performance or maintenance indicators are identified complete with the performance indicators respectively: Functional- This aspect covers the management service delivery attributes or the service profiles that the management holds. Technical- Focuses mainly on the daily and scheduled maintenance services provided to the end users of the office buildings. Image- This sections is dedicated to analyse the internal and external image of the buildings.

333

334


/

Table 1. The performance measurement system designed Maintenance Aspects

Performance Measurement Dimensions

Functional Management Service Delivery

Focus

Performance

Groups

Key Metrics

Delivery Characteristics Assurance Reliability Responsiveness Relevance Timeliness Validity Maintenance Services Cleaning &

Technical Maintenance Services

Landscaping General Maintenance Lightings Air-Conditionings Lifts/ Escalators Mechanical & Electrical Sanitary &

Maintenance Managers End Users

Time/Use Quality

Washing Facilities Access, Signage & Parking Safety & Security

Image

External Finishes Internal Finishes

Building Image

The three maintenance indicators namely functional, technical and image with respective dimensions were measured with both focus groups that are maintenance managers and end users. All elements in this system are in overall interrelated and play important roles in sustaining the overall performance of maintenance management. These elements also meet the characteristics defined [31, 18] as it is believed to be relevant, interpretable, valid, time effectiveness and also easy to be implemented. 5. Approach and methodology Five high-rise office buildings in the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur are chosen for the case studies whereby the important focus groups involved are the maintenance managers and end users respectively. Multiple data collection techniques were used in data collection process that is the combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods, which includes focused interviews, case studies and observation. Interviews are conducted specifically to the maintenance managers of five chosen high-rise office buildings. Maintenance managers were asked on the building background, maintenance services provided, systems used, manpower, subcontractors as well as problems and improvements that have been completed or in progress for the building. 1230 sets of questionnaires were distributed to the five office buildings and 252 sets were returned for analysis. The authors personally distributed the questionnaires to the respondents and opted for follow up phone surveys for the late respondents. Sets of questionnaires with structured and semi-structured / open-ended questions were distributed to the respective building end

335


users to discover regularities among groups of maintenance management by comparison of answers to the same set of questions. The analysis of data from the questionnaires responses provides precise data from which tables and graphs are produced. 6. Key findings From the case studies, the priorities of the three major elements of maintenance namely service characteristics, building services and building image from both end users and maintenance managers perspectives were analysed. This study also proposes the relationship between the performance of FM services specifically on maintenance services and the management system focusing on the maintenance aspects applied. 6.1 Priorities of service characteristics Table 2. Top priorities of service characteristics as rated by end users and maintenance managers Rank

Rated by End Users (%)

Rated by Maintenance Managers (%)

1

Reliability

(27%)

Assurance

(60%)

2

Responsiveness

(26%)

Reliability

(20%)

3

Assurance

(23%)

Responsiveness

4

Tangibles

(14%)

-

-

5

Empathy

(10%)

-

-

(20%)

It was found that the priorities of service characteristics set by end users and maintenance managers are in contradiction with each other as shown in Table 2. Survey results have shown that the end users have chosen Reliability as the first and foremost priority in service characteristics followed by Responsiveness and Assurance. Similarly, all maintenance managers have positioned the said service characteristics as their top three priorities in maintaining a building with a slightly different priority order. Maintenance managers believe that the focus on service characteristics should be emphasised on Assurance whereby concentration on giving a personalised attention and providing services that will build a strong confidence and trust from the users to the maintenance team. This would then leads to the focus that should be given for Reliability and Responsiveness. 6.2Priorities of building services It can be seen from Table 3 that there are eight building services that are in the priority list of end users as opposed to twelve being selected by the maintenance managers. Similarly, end users and maintenance managers have placed Cleaning and Safety & Security in the top two (2) most important building services. While end users have placed Cleaning on top of the Safety & Security, maintenance managers have a contrary judgment. Maintenance managers believe that Safety & Security should have been given the first priority prior to Cleaning service. A different set of priorities order between the two groups is also seen for the other building services.

336


/

Table 3. Top priorities of building services as rated by end users and maintenance managers Rank



1

Cleaning

(33%)

Safety & Security

(95%)

2

Safety & Security

(29%)

Cleaning

(88%)

3

Air-Conditionings

(18%)

Lifts/Escalators

(75%)

4

Landscaping

(10%)

Air-Conditionings

(70%)

5

Parking

(5%)

Lighting

(65%)

6

Access

(4%)

Access

(60%)

7

Lighting

(2%)

Sanitary/Plumbing

(55%)

8

Lifts/Escalators

(1%)

M&E

(50%)

9

-

-

Landscaping

(45%)

10

-

-

Parking

(42%)

11

-

-

Signage

(40%)

12

-

-

General Maintenance

(35%)

6.3Priorities of building image Table 4. Top prioritities of building image as rated by end users and maintenance managers Rank

1 2


Internal Image External Image


(54%) (46%)

Internal Image External Image

(60%) (40%)

Priorities of building image were also analysed and as shown in Table 4, both end users and maintenance managers are in consensus with Internal Image as the top priority of building image as opposed to External Image. This shows that these two groups have similar concerns in terms of the performance of the image inside the buildings compared to the presentation of the building from the outside. 7. Relationship between the performance of maintenance service and the maintenance management systems applied

Fig. 2. Correlation between performance of maintenance management and maintenance systems applied


Figure 2 depicts the correlation between the performance of maintenance management and maintenance management systems applied. In overall, all elements of maintenance management systems correlate with the maintenance management performance as rated by end users. There are three maintenance elements that record medium correlation that is Tangibles (V1), Internal Image (V18) and External Image (V19) with respective coefficients of 0.67, 0.61 and 0.62. Meanwhile V5: Assurance (r=0.41, p>0.05) and V6: Cleaning (r=0.33, p>0.05) both signify low correlation between their levels of performance and systems. The other fourteen (14) maintenance elements that are also the variables record very low correlations for the respective correlations are between 0.01 and 0.30. Overall, it can be concluded that there is a minimal impact of correlation between the maintenance management performance and systems applied. 7. Conclusions & recommendations The results presented above are among the significant findings analysed but do not represent the entire findings of this study. In general, there is a minor discrepancy of priorities order between end users and maintenance managers. It is strongly believed that this is due to different dimensions of importance viewed by these focus groups based on their experience as users and providers. The findings also suggest that the common maintenance management systems applied for office building comprises of three major aspects namely Functional, Technical and Image. Important service elements for instance Service Characteristics, Building Services and Building Image encompass the three major aspects respectively. It can also be seen that the needs and focus of services by end users and maintenance managers are generally different with only major similarities on some of the top priorities. The most significant finding from the study is that there is a positive relationship between the maintenance management systems and performance of maintenance management especially in several elements of Service Characteristics and Building Services. It is also noted that maintenance managers have a similar perception in the importance ranking of maintenance management service elements with a fractionally difference of ranking order. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that maintenance management system affects its performance despite a minimal impact is seen in this study. This study also proposes that measuring the performance of FM services particularly on the maintenance aspect of this study is very important as it enables the FM or maintenance managers to comprehend the strengths, weaknesses and also significance of the service provided and also both tangible and intangible values of the building. Indirectly, both FM and maintenance managers can identify any probable threats or risks of their services. The positive relationship also ascertains that the implementation standard of maintenance management systems determine the performance of maintenance management system. At the same time, the difference shown in the priorities of maintenance management service elements signifies a strong emphasis on users‟ needs and requirements is required from maintenance managers. The findings validate that the variables used for the survey are reliable and the PMS developed can be considered as a robust instrument to measure maintenance management performance. As a recommendation, it is strongly advised that the FM or maintenance managers should value the important roles of end users in evaluating the performance of maintenance services with a great attention given on their needs and requirements. Consultations with the end users should be a mechanism to establish a proactive management process. Both FM and maintenance managers must also consider implementing a continuous benchmarking or assessments on the services provided and subsequently focus on any critical service elements identified. A thorough analysis on the implementation of all maintenance services and respective sub-contractors helps to identify the weaknesses and criteria that need to be improved.

337

338


/

References [1] Nutt, B. and McLennan, P. “Facility Management Risks and Opportunities”, Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd, 2000 [2] Tay,L. and Ooi, J.T. “Facilities Management: A Jack of All Trades‟?”, Facilities; 2001 Vol.19 No.10, pp.357-362; [3] Mohd Noor, M.N. and Pitt, M. “A Critical Review on Innovation in Facilities Management Service Delivery”, Facilities, 2009, Vol.27. No.5/6, pp.211-228 [4]Atkin, B. and Brooks, A., “Total Facilities Management”, Blackwell Science, London,2000 [5] Hinks, J. and McNay, P., “The creation of a management-by-variance tool for facilities management performance assessment”, Facilities,1999, vol.17 Nos 1/2 pp.48-60 [6] Cable, J.H. and Davis, J.S., “Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios”, Federal Facilities Council Technical report 147, National Academic Press, Washington, DC,2004 [7] Cardellino,P. and Finch, E., “Evidence of systematic approaches to innovation in facilities management”, Journal of Facilities Management, 2006, Vol.4 No.3, pp.150-66 [8] Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A. and Dixit, M.K., “Establishment of KPIs for facility performance measurement: review of literature”, Facilities,2010, Vol.28 No.9/10, pp.440-464. [9] Then, D.D., ”An integrated resource management view of facilities management”, Facilities, 1999, Vol.17 Nos 12/13, pp.462469. [10]Alexander, K., “Facilities Management Theory and Practice”, Taylor & Francis, Basingstoke,1996 [11] Goyal, S., “Determining the role of innovation management and measurement in strategic facilities management: ensuring optimisation and continuity”, PhD thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, 2007a [12] Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar,M., “Assessment of facilities management performance- what next?”, Facilities, 2000a,Vol.18 Nos 1/2. pp. 66-75. [13] Moore, M. and Finch, E., “Facilities Management in South East Asia”, Facilities, 2004, Vol.22. No.9/10, pp.259-70. [14] Ninth Malaysian Plan.Available from www.parlimen.gov.my/news/eng-ucapan_rmk9.pdf. [Accessed on 20/06/2011],2006 [15] Ariff, A.M., “Current issues and challenges in managing government‟s assets and facilities”, Proceeding of the National Asset and Facilities Management (NAFAM) Convention, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13 August, 2007 [16] Samad, S.A., “Critical issues in managing government‟s assets & facilities in Malaysia”, Proceeding of the National Asset and Facilities Management (NAFAM) Convention, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13 August, 2007 [17] Hussin, M, “Utilisation of Technology in Managing the Government‟s Asset & Facilities”, National asset and facility management development”, Proceeding of the National Asset & Facilities Management (NAFAM) Convention, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13 August, 2007 [18] Parida, A. and Kumar, U., “Maintenance Performance Measurement(MPM): Issues and Challenges”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance, 2006, Vol.12 No.3 pp.239-251. [19] Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K., “Performance Measurement System Design: A Literature Review and Research Agenda”, International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 1995, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116. [20] Jonsson, P. and Lesshammar, M., "Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing performance measurement systems - the role of OEE", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,1999, Vol.19 Issue: 1, pp.55 – 78 [21]Rose, K.H., “A performance measurement model'', Quality Progress, February, 1995, pp. 63-66. [22]Ahmad, R., “Role and Approach of Building Surveying in Facilities & Maintenance Management”, National Seminar on Facilities & Maintenance Management In the 21st Century: The Demands & Needs for Growth In Malaysian Building Industry, 12 th August 2008, Kuala Lumpur. [23] Webster, C. and Hung, L., “Measuring Service Quality and Promoting Decent ring'', The TQM Magazine, 1994, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 50-55. [24] Kennerley, M. and Neely, A., "Measuring performance in a changing business environment", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2003, Vol.23 Issue: 2, pp.213 – 229. [25] Lingle, J. and Schiemann, W., „„From balanced scorecard to strategic gauges : is measurement worth it?‟‟, Management Review,1996, Vol.85 No.3 , March, pp. 56-61. [26] Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., “Transforming The Balanced Scorecard From Performance Measurement To Strategic Management: Part I”, Accounting Horizons, 2001, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 87-104. [27] Eccles, R., “The performance measurement manifesto”, Harvard Business Review, January- February, 1991, pp. 131-137. [28] Murthy, D.N.P., Atrens, A. and Eccleston, J.A., “Strategic Maintenance Management”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 2002, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305. [29] Wordsworth, P. “Lee's building maintenance management: 4th Edition”, Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd, 2001 [30] White, G.P., “A Survey and Taxonomy of Strategy-Related Performance Measures of Manufacturing'', International Journal of Operations & Productions Management, 1996, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 42-62. [31] Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M., “Assessing the Effectiveness of Performance Measurement Systems: A Case Study'', Total Quality Management, 1996, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 367-78. [32]Al-Turki, U. and Duffuuaa, S., “Performance Measures for Academic Departments”, International Journal of Educational Management, 2003, Vol.17 No.7, pp.330-338.