Prioritization model for rehabilitation of public school buildings in California

Shehab, T and Noureddine, A (2014) Prioritization model for rehabilitation of public school buildings in California. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 10(1), pp. 58-75. ISSN 1557-8771

Abstract

The condition of the nation's kindergarten through 12th (K-12) grade public school buildings is considered to be in bad shape. To bring back the condition of the American K-12 schools to an acceptable level, it is estimated that about $320 billion may be required. As a starting effort, $40 billion was allocated by the Federal Government to improve the current condition of public school buildings. To properly manage the expenditure of this fund, a prioritization system is required. Existing school prioritization systems in the State of California are based on the subjective judgment of decision-makers and their manual interpretation and manipulation of data collected by their subordinates. This current prioritization practice lacks a structured methodology that rationalizes its outcomes. It may also lead to misleading conclusions, and accordingly, misuse of available resources, especially in challenging cases where the conditions of multiple school buildings may be very similar. This article presents a computer-based prioritization system for the rehabilitation of school buildings in the State of California. The system augments the current school condition data collection process, uses the experience of industry experts, and assists in allocating rehabilitations funds in a rational manner that assures addressing the most deteriorated schools.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: analytical hierarchy process: decision making: infrastructure prioritization: school buildings
Index terms: decision-making, methodology, school building, judgment, analytical hierarchy process, public school
Subjects: educational institutions, decision analysis, dispute resolution, decision-making and optimization, research methods, construction type
Topics: Research Practice, Construction Technology, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Education
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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