Mahmoud, A S; Sanni-Anibire, M O; Hassanain, M A and Ahmed, W (2019) Key performance indicators for the evaluation of academic and research laboratory facilities. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 37(2), pp. 208-230. ISSN 23984708
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive list of key performance indicators (KPIs) that can be employed in determining the functional performance of academic and research laboratory facilities. Design/methodology/approach: The study employed a two-phase approach. First, a thorough literature review was conducted to identify potential KPIs specific to the performance of laboratory facilities. This was followed by an assessment of the KPIs by 12 respondents including 6 professionals and 6 users. The KPIs were arranged in the form of a questionnaire survey containing response columns for agree/disagree, and importance rating scales for evaluation. The relative importance index values were also computed. Findings: The result of the study was a comprehensive list of 161 KPIs classified into nine categories including: space, access/circulation, utilities and waste, environmental conditions, furniture, appearance/finishes/image, communications, storage within the space and special building features. These KPIs were perceived to be at varying levels of importance by the respondents. Originality/value: Though previous studies developed KPIs for the performance of facilities, these KPIs are not universal. Thus, the originality of this study is in its identification of a comprehensive set of KPIs unique to the design, evaluation and management of research and academic laboratory facilities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | evaluation; facilities; kpi; laboratories; performance indicators; research |
| Index terms: | environmental conditions, finishes, questionnaire, methodology, column, survey, relative importance index, literature review, circulation, laboratory, performance indicator, utilities, key performance indicator |
| Subjects: | project delivery, data analysis and analytics, environmental science, building materials, data collection methods, construction type, risk assessment, research management, urban design, research methods, performance management, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here