Lateef, O A; Khamidi, M F and Idrus, A (2010) Building maintenance management in a Malaysian university campus: A case study. Construction Economics and Building, 10(1-2), pp. 76-89. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
University buildings require maintenance in order to create a conducive environment that supports and stimulates learning, teaching, innovation, and research. The prime objective of maintenance is to ensure, as far as practicable, the continued peak performance of the building throughout its design life. This paper seeks to report the maintenance management system of a university institution in Malaysia. Primary data was gathered through the analysis of a case study. The objectives of the case study are to identify, describe and assess the maintenance management system used by the university. The major conclusion drawn from the case study was that although university building maintenance practices are corrective and cyclical there is a lack of a comprehensive maintenance management framework that guides the decision-making processes. The case study also revealed irregularities in the university’s maintenance management system.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | maintenance; maintenance management; Malaysia; service delivery; university buildings |
| Index terms: | service delivery, maintenance management, building maintenance, maintenance management system, Malaysia, decision-making process, case study |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, data collection methods, Geography, construction type, management, maintenance engineering, service delivery |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Risk Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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