Analytic Hierarchy Process Decision-Making Framework
for Procurement Strategy Selection in Building
Maintenance Work
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Shirley Chua Jin Lin 1; Azlan Shah Ali 2; and Anuar Bin Alias 3
Abstract: This paper presents a study of selection of procurement method in building maintenance management for public universities in
Malaysia through the use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), particularly the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). There are many
different types of procurement methods that have been developed to overcome the weaknesses of the existing procurement method and to
meet the range of service requirement. The decision makers are faced with challenges when it comes to selecting the most appropriate
procurement method for a specific building as different types of procurement methods suit different types of projects. This research seeks
to investigate the current practices of the available procurement methods for building maintenance work in public universities and identify the
procurement selection criteria to develop an effective decision-making framework. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 20 public
universities in Malaysia with 85% response rate to identify and validate two important components for the development of a decision-making
framework: the possible assessment criteria and the alternatives available for selection. The finding of this research proves that the selection of
procurement methods by university organizations is neither strategic nor systematic as there is no guidance available for the decision maker to
rely on in order to select the most appropriate procurement strategy. It is vital to develop a systematic approach that can assist maintenance
personnel in making a decision on selecting procurement methods for a particular building. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000529.
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Analytic hierarchy process; Building maintenance management; Procurement strategy alternative; Procurement
selection criteria; Public university.
Introduction
This paper presents research on developing a preference framework
for the selection of procurement methods in building maintenance
management through the use of multiple criteria decision making
(MCDM), particularly the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Lateef
et al. (2011) claimed that the size and scope of university building
maintenance in Malaysia is huge and the potential is increasing.
The annual government allocation for the maintenance of university buildings is only 1% of the total allocation for the entire
education sector (Lateef et al. 2011). This amount of allocation
is inadequate to provide a high-quality maintenance service.
However, an increase in the allocation without improvement of
the management systems is also not a strategic solution in optimizing the given allocation.
Asset and facilities management has been successfully developed and established in many western countries such as Japan,
Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Kamaruzzaman
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (corresponding author). E-mail:
[email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]
3
Associate Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 6, 2013; approved on
October 24, 2013; published online on July 17, 2014. Discussion period
open until December 17, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/04014050(13)/
$25.00.
© ASCE
and Zawawi 2010). However, Moore and Finch (2004) emphasized
that the definition of asset and facilities management is not
well understood and not being practiced appropriately in Malaysia.
Mustapa et al. (2008) supported that the definition of asset and
facilities management is poorly understood in Malaysia which
caused it to not be practiced in an appropriate way. They further
stated that asset and facilities management is relatively new in
Malaysia, and the wider concept of asset and facilities management
of building management is still in the process of improving its
maintenance management structure. Nik-Mat et al. (2011) noted
that the Public Works Department (PWD) is the government body
responsible for introducing asset and facilities management to
Malaysian industry in 1974, but it has not been readily adopted
or encouraged by the Malaysian government in any organized
way. In addition, Lateef et al. (2011) highlighted that the maintenance management systems of universities in Malaysia are not
IT based, which requires the work to be computed manually
which wastes time, energy, and resources. They also perceived that
the current maintenance management systems of universities in
Malaysia are mainly corrective and cyclical and have not been scrutinized for inefficiencies which has led to backlogged maintenance
work that results in poor user satisfaction.
Public universities are very important to the nation as they are
where future leaders, captains of industry, entrepreneurs, scientists,
engineers, and managers are produced (Lateef et al. 2010). Thus,
university buildings became a factor of production. The objective
of the university might not be met without proper infrastructure.
Lateef et al. (2011) highlighted that there have been many complaints voiced in the media. Research literature also points out that
many of the university buildings are not in optimal operable condition. Lateef et al. (2010) pointed out that a major reason why the
04014050-1
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
universities focus more on corrective maintenance was because of
budget constraints and the lack of a competent workforce. In fact,
the maintenance of the buildings in universities which is supposed
to be a core activity is considered by the university management as
a noncore activity.
Lateef et al. (2011) also mentioned that it is essential to select an
appropriate procurement method in the management of building
maintenance to provide better service to the occupants of the building and increase productivity of the management. Selection of
the most appropriate procurement strategy is significant if the
universities wish to provide a conducive learning environment
and research centers for university organizations, students, faculty
members, parents, and other users. Alhazmi and McCaffer (2000)
mentioned that the nature of the procurement system selection requires an effective decision-making technique to systematically
evaluate the procurement systems against a number of criteria.
Thus, this study aims to develop a systematic decision-making
framework by identifying the available procurement method for
building maintenance and the criteria that is to be considered when
selecting a procurement method.
Several researchers have developed models for procurement
selection in other industries, adapting AHP as a development
tool, but none of the research found is related to the building
maintenance industry and university building. Cheung et al. (2001)
adapted AHP while Musa (2011) integrated AHP techniques and
principles as well as adapted Expert Choice 11 software (Arlington,
Virginia) as a development tool in selecting the most appropriate
service delivery system. This research by Cheung et al. and
Musa received good comments and is accepted by respondents during the implementation and validation stage. Masterman (1992)
mentioned that many clients have been selecting procurement systems in a cursory manner simply based upon biased past experience
and conservative decisions, and some clients even use a specific
procurement system by default without making a deliberated
choice. Although past experiences may be an essential factor that
influences the selection of procurement strategy, experiences and
solutions to problems retrieved from previous projects may not
be applicable to current projects because each building has its
own distinct characteristics. In addition, Love et al. (1998) highlighted that owners of a similar nature do not necessarily have
similar needs. In fact, the needs depend on many factors and are
usually specific to the particular project. The application of AHP
is a decision-making process based on multiple criteria that enables
the decision maker to derive his own set of important criteria for the
selection according to the characteristics of the building. The findings of this study will act as a tool to guide the university organization to select the most suitable and appropriate procurement
method that will then improve the maintenance management of
universities in Malaysia.
Background
Public University
The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is the government
ministry that has the authority to determine the policies and
direction of higher education in Malaysia. According to MOHE,
the higher education system is designed to ensure that public institutions of higher education (PIHEs) have the ability to build a
reputation with dynamic capabilities, competitive as well as able to
anticipate future challenges and be prepared to respond effectively
in line with global trends. Efforts to enhance the capacity of
PIHEs will be continuous to ensure that the PIHEs perform their
© ASCE
functions and responsibilities in a more efficient, transparent,
and effective way to create an excellent higher education system.
In accordance with this, the public universities in Malaysia are
categorized into three groups: research universities; focused universities (technical, education, management, and defense); and comprehensive universities. So far, there are 20 public universities
in Malaysia, including 5 research universities, 4 comprehensive
universities, and 11 focused universities. Research universities
are public universities recognized by the cabinet on October 11,
2006, to become a leading research and educational hub; comprehensive universities offer various courses without focusing on any
one area; and focused universities emphasize specific fields such
as technical, education, management, and defense (Department
of Higher Education 2011). Table 1 shows the categorization of
public universities in Malaysia.
The maintenance of public universities is managed and carried
out by the Department of Development and Maintenance. However,
it must be noted that the maintenance department of each university
is named differently. The names of maintenance departments are
shown in Table 2. Most of the Departments of Development and
Maintenance in the universities are divided into divisions: administrative, maintenance and upgrading, development, contract, and
services. Maintenance works are the responsibility of the maintenance and upgrading division which usually consists of five units
that are responsible for the management and maintenance of facilities and buildings in the campus, landscaping and infrastructure for
the entire campus, and any upgrading or renovation. The five units
are the civil, electrical, mechanical, landscape, and renovation
units. The electrical unit is responsible for maintenance of closedcircuit televisions (CCTVs), telecommunication and automation
systems, and low-tension (LT) switchboard; the replacement of
light fittings, light tubes, and bulbs; rewiring; servicing of the building automation system (BAS); and many other electrical and electronic systems. The mechanical unit is responsible for installation
and maintenance of the air-conditioning system, fire-fighting system, lift system, transport system, and water-cooler system. The
civil unit is responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement
of building components and finishes; external works such as roads,
pavements, rivers, and walkways; civil infrastructure works such as
water tank, reservoir, and sewerage system; cleaning of buildings
and toilets; pest control; and painting work. Furthermore, the landscape unit is responsible for road sweeping and roadside drains
cleaning, grass cutting, landscaped-area weeding and trimming,
as well as pressure-jet cleaning of the footpaths, covered walkways,
and bus stops. The renovation unit is responsible for planning and
carrying out renovation work in the university.
Procurement Strategy Alternative
According to Love et al. (2002) and Adekunle et al. (2009, p. 343),
procurement is defined as “an organizational system that assigns
specific responsibilities and authorities to people and organizations.” Wordsworth (2001, p. 218) defined maintenance procurement as “the process by which required maintenance works are
carried out.” The procurement process is concerned with the form
of procurement whether by contract or direct labor and the quality
of delivery of both the work carried out as well as the level of
service provided (Wordsworth 2001). The Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS 2009) highlighted that under a comprehensive maintenance procurement plan, all of the elements of
building maintenance need to be addressed through some form
of contract strategy.
Maintenance work ranges from very large maintenance projects
to very small maintenance tasks. Subsequently, many different
04014050-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Table 1. Categorization of Public Universities in Malaysia
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Number
University
Research universities
1
2
3
4
5
Comprehensive universities
1
2
3
4
Focused universities
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Characteristics
University of Malaya (UM)
University of Science, Malaysia (USM)
National University of Malaysia (UKM)
Putra University, Malaysia (UPM)
University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM)
•
•
•
•
Fields of study: focus is on research
Competitive entries
Quality lecturers
Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 50:50
MARA University of Technology (UiTM)
International Islamic University of Malaysia (UIA)
University of Malaysia, Sabah (UMS)
University of Malaysia, Sarawak (UNIMAS)
•
•
•
•
Various fields of study
Competitive entries
Quality lecturers
Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 70:30
Northern University of Malaysia (UUM)
Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI)
Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia (UTHM)
Technical University of Malaysia, Melaka (UTeM)
University of Malaysia, Perlis (UniMAP)
University of Malaysia, Terengganu (UMT)
University of Malaysia, Pahang (UMP)
Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM)
Sultan Zainal Abidin University (UniSZA)
University of Malaysia, Kelantan (UMK)
National Defense University of Malaysia (UPNM)
•
•
•
•
Fields of study: focus is on research
Competitive entries
Quality lecturers
Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 50:50
Note: Data from Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.
types of procurement methods have been developed to overcome
the weaknesses of the existing procurement method and meet the
range of services requirement. The main differences between the
various types of procurement strategies lie in the methods of evaluating the work and the degree of financial risk borne by the contractor and the client, respectively (Wordsworth 2001).
The types of procurement methods identified through literature
review for building maintenance are discussed below (Wordsworth
2001; Sheng 2012; RICS 2009; Hui and Tsang 2004; Ancarani and
Capaldo 2005; Atkin and Brooks 2005).
Direct or in-house labor includes operatives within the maintenance management organization employed to maintain the building
in an acceptable standard (Wordsworth 2001). Wordsworth (2001,
p. 223) defined in-house as “a service provided by a dedicated
resource directly employed by the organization, monitoring and
control of performance is normally conducted under the terms
of conventional employer or employee relationships, although internal service-level agreements may be employed as regulating
mechanisms.”
Outsourcing is defined as the “contracting-out” of services
that were previously executed in house (Ancarani and Capaldo
2005). In addition, outsourcing means the “service is commissioned from an external supply organization which is usually
under the terms of a formal contractual arrangement based upon
terms and conditions derived from a service level agreement, there
may be several of these contractual relationships operating in parallel for a range of services from a variety of suppliers” (Ancarani
and Capaldo 2005, p. 234; Atkin and Brooks 2005). Outsourcing
can be a trade of service under several types of contract which
include
Table 2. Public Universities’ Maintenance Department Name
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
© ASCE
University
Maintenance department
University of Malaya (UM)
University of Science, Malaysia (USM)
National University of Malaysia (UKM)
Putra University, Malaysia (UPM)
University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM)
MARA University of Technology (UiTM)
International Islamic University of Malaysia (UIA)
University of Malaysia, Sabah (UMS)
University of Malaysia, Sarawak (UNIMAS)
Northern University of Malaysia (UUM)
Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI)
Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia (UTHM)
Technical University of Malaysia, Melaka (UTeM)
University of Malaysia, Perlis (UniMAP)
University of Malaysia, Terengganu (UMT)
University of Malaysia, Pahang (UMP)
Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM)
Sultan Zainal Abidin University (UniSZA)
University of Malaysia, Kelantan (UMK)
National Defense University of Malaysia (UPNM)
Department of development and estate maintenance
Development department
Department of development and maintenance
Department of development and asset management
Office of asset and development
Department of facilities management
Development division
Department of development and maintenance
Asset management division
Department of development and maintenance
Department of development and estate maintenance
Development and property management office
Development office
Department of development
Office of asset and development
Property management and development
Department of development and facilities management
Development and maintenance department
Department of development, infrastructure, and services
Development and maintenance department
04014050-3
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Procurement Selection Criteria
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outsourcing by lump sum contract,
Outsourcing by measured term contract,
Outsourcing by specialist term contract,
Outsourcing by day work term contract,
Outsourcing by tendered schedule term contract,
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contract,
Outsourcing by cost reimbursement contract, and
Outsourcing by service-level agreement.
Out-tasking is “a management process whereby specific tasks,
as opposed to a whole package of support function in the case of
outsourcing are performed by a contractor” (Hui and Tsang 2004,
p. 86; Kleeman 1994).
A public-private partnership (PPP) occurs between the organization and service provider to share the responsibility of delivery
and performance of the service whereby the benefits gained in
terms of cost saving and efficiency are shared as well (Ancarani
and Capaldo 2005; Atkin and Brooks 2005).
In total facilities management (TFM), a supplier is totally
responsible for a whole range of services such as delivery, monitoring, controlling, and attainment of performance objectives that
relate to operational benefit (Ancarani and Capaldo 2005; Atkin
and Brooks 2005).
Straub (2007) stated that the majority of maintenance projects
adopted the traditional procurement method where three to five
competitive bids are solicited and the lowest tender price is chosen.
“Partnering,” according to the Construction Industry Institute,
“is a long-term commitment between two or more organizations
for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives by
maximizing the effectiveness of each participant’s resources”
(RICS 2009, p. 44).
As this research mainly focuses on assisting the university
organizations that wish to outsource services, direct labor, which
is also known as in-house, was not included in the present study.
Luu et al. (2003a) confirmed that it is essential to establish a list of
procurement selection criteria (PSC) before various procurement
options can be evaluated. Through the analysis of procurement
selection criteria of previous research, it can be seen that there
are similarities which can be seen in Table 3.
In addition, the criteria were usually divided under some main
criteria or factors such as clients’ requirements which are known
as clients’ characteristics and objectives (owner’s needs and preferences), project characteristics, and external environment. The
grouping of procurement selection criteria had similarities through
the analysis of previous research that can be seen in Table 4. In
this research, the 26 criteria identified from literature review were
divided into three main categories that were clients’ requirements,
project characteristics, and external environment or factor that can
be referred to Table 5.
Analytic Hierarchy Process
In this study, the selection of procurement method for building
maintenance management adapted MCDM, particularly AHP.
Pirdashti et al. (2009, p. 55) stated that MCDM is “an analytic
method to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives based on multiple criteria.” Saaty (2008, p. 83) explained that
AHP is “a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons
and relies on the judgments of experts to derive priority scales.”
The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgments that
indicate how much one element dominates another in respect to a
given attribute (Saaty 2008). There are three basic principles of the
AHP which include the following (Saaty 1982):
First is the principle of constructing hierarchies. A complex system was structured hierarchically by decomposing the elements
into constituent parts according to essential relationships toward
Table 3. Procurement Selection Criteria
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
© ASCE
Criteria
Speed
Time certainty
Price/cost certainty
Degree of complexity
Degree of flexibility
Responsibility
Risk allocation/avoidance
Quality level
Price competition
Public accountability
Political issues/constraint
Intuition and past experience of the decision maker
Dissatisfaction with previous process used
Knowledge of the strategy
Culture
Objective or policy of organization
Working relationship
Government policy
Clarity of scope
Existing building condition
Involvement of owner in the project
Disputes and arbitration
Experience contractor availability
Client’s in-house technical capability
Client’s financial capability
Project size
Luu
Cheung
Ng Hibberd and Hashim
Alhazmi and Love
Luu
et al.
et al.
et al.
Djebarni
et al. Al Khalil McCaffer
et al. et al.
(2003a) (2001) (2002)
(1996)
(2006)
(2002)
(2000)
(1998) (2003b)
—
X
X
—
X
—
X
—
X
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
04014050-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
X
X
X
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
X
X
X
—
X
X
—
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
X
—
X
X
X
X
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Table 4. Main Procurement Selection Criteria
Main criteria
Clients’ requirements
and characteristics
Project characteristic
External environment
or factor
Luu et al.
(2003b)
Ratnasabapathy and
Rameezdeen (2007)
Al Khalil
(2002)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
reflects the degree to which the intensity of relationships between
elements can be discriminated.
Third is the principle of logical consistency. Logical consistency
ensures that elements are grouped logically and ranked consistently
according to a logical criterion (Saaty 1982). The consistency of the
comparison matrix is monitored by an inconsistency ratio (IR) or
consistency ratio (CR) calculated by the formula below (Cheung
et al. 2001; Saaty 1982):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Consistency ratio ðCRÞ
a desired goal which can make the whole system well understood
(Saaty 1982).
Second is the principle of establishing priorities. The first step in
establishing the priorities of elements in a decision problem is to
make a pairwise comparison that is to compare the elements in pairs
against a given criterion (Saaty 1982). Table 6 shows the scale for a
pairwise comparison matrix. Saaty (1982) pointed out that past experience has confirmed that a scale of nine units is reasonable and
¼ Consistency index ðCIÞ=Random index ðRIÞ
where CI ¼ ðλmax − nÞ=ðn − 1Þ, with n the number of elements;
λ max = maximum eigenvalue of the comparison matrix; and
RI = consistency index of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix
within a scale of 1 to 9.
The consistency ratio (CR) is acceptable if it does not exceed
0.10. Repeat and review the judgment if the CR is greater than
Table 5. Procurement Method Selection Criteria
Criteria
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
C2
C 2.1
C
C
C
C
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
Experienced contractor availability
Quality level
Knowledge of the strategy
Degree of responsibility
Client’s financial capability
Price competition
Time certainty
Speed
Public accountability
Clarity of scope
Client requirement and characteristics
C 1.11
C 1.12
C 1.13
C 1.14
C 1.15
C 1.16
C 1.17
C 1.18
C 1.19
—
Involvement of owner in the project
Working relationship
Intuition and past experience
Client in-house technical capability
Price or cost certainty
Risk allocation or avoidance
Dissatisfaction with previous process
Degree of complexity
Degree of flexibility
—
Existing building condition
Project characteristic
C 2.2
Project size
Objective or policy of organization
Government policy
Dispute and arbitration
External environment/factor
C 3.4
C 3.5
—
Political issue/constraint
Cultural differences
—
Note: Data from Hibberd and Djebarni (1996), Love et al. (1998), Alhazmi and McCaffer (2000), Cheung et al. (2001), Al Khalil (2002), Ng et al. (2002), Luu
et al. (2003a, 2003b), and Hashim et al. (2006).
Table 6. Scale for Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Intensity of
importance
Definition
Explanation
1
Equal importance of both elements
3
Weak importance of one over another
5
Essential or strong importance of one
element over another
Very strong and demonstrated importance of
one element over another
Absolute importance of one element over another
7
9
2, 4, 6, 8
Reciprocals of
above nonzero
Rational
Intermediate values between adjacent scale values
If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers
assigned to it when compared with activity j,
then j has the reciprocal value when compared
with i
Ratios arising from the scale
Two criteria are of equal importance and equally contribute to
the property or objectives
Experience and judgment slightly favor one criterion or
element over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor one criterion or
element over another
A criterion or element is strongly more important or favored
and its dominance is demonstrated in practice more than the other
The evidence favoring one criterion over another is of the highest
possible order of affirmation
When compromise is needed between two judgments
A reasonable assumption
If consistency were to be forced by obtaining n numerical
values to span the matrix
Note: Data from Cheung et al. (2001), Saaty (1980, 1982, 1990).
© ASCE
04014050-5
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Table 7. Consistency Index (RI) of a Randomly Generated Reciprocal
Matrix within a Scale of 1 to 9
Size of
matrix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Random
0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
consistency
Note: Data from Cheung et al. (2001), Saaty (1980, 1982, 1990).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.10. Table 7 shows the random index (RI) for a consistency index
of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix within a scale of 1 to 9.
Research Design and Methodology
Generally, there are two types of data collected: primary and secondary. According to McNabb (2008), primary data are researcher
generated, and secondary data are collected by other parties but are
used by the researcher to have more understanding for the research.
The present study starts with identification of secondary data collected through an extensive literature review. The literature review
for the development of a decision-making framework is mainly
focused on two important components: the possible assessment
criteria and the alternatives available for selection. The assessment
criteria and alternatives for selection are evaluated by the maintenance personnel in public universities in Malaysia in order to determine and shortlist the assessment criteria and alternatives that are
considered important to select the most appropriate procurement
method for building maintenance management specifically for
public universities in Malaysia.
Before the questionnaire survey was conducted, a pilot study
was conducted to assure that the questionnaires achieve the objectives of the survey and to test the ease of understanding of the
questions. It was also taken into consideration whether the time
allocated to complete the survey is appropriate, and any ambiguities
arising from the wording of the questions was also addressed. Once
the questionnaire was completed, an official cover letter from the
faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, and a cover
letter that contained the objectives of the research, the importance
of the information requested, and when the respondents are expected to return the completed questionnaire were attached as well.
The respondents were promised a summary report of the findings of
the survey for their corporation, requiring them to provide their
name and e-mail address at the end of the questionnaire. This contact information will then be used to forward to them the findings of
the survey. A set of questionnaires with the letter was posted to all
respondents on the same day together with a self-addressed prepaid
envelope that was provided in order to expedite and facilitate return. However, the respondents were also allowed to return their
completed questionnaire by e-mail. All the questionnaire were sent
using the Faculty of Built Environment, University Malaya, address
as the return address to reflect the importance of the work and to
indicate that the survey is official in nature.
Data collection and collation commenced on September 15,
2012, and lasted until the end of December 2012. Feedback from
the questionnaires was analyzed using computer packages, namely
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 17.0.
Table 8. Distribution of Respondents’ Position
Job title
Facilities manager
Maintenance manager
Maintenance executive
Director or deputy director of development
Others
Total
17.6
11.8
17.6
29.4
23.5
100.0
survey. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) claimed that 30% is the
common response rate for a postal survey. However, this high response rate is possible because of the long survey duration of time
given and the numerous reminders that were sent to the respondents. Analysis of the data shows that a majority (29.4%) of the
respondents are directors or deputy directors of development
as shown in Table 8. Director of development is the highest
managerial position in the Department of Development and
Maintenance. The director of development is responsible for planning, executing, and monitoring development projects, maintenance works, and building and infrastructure upgrading work in the
university. In addition, they need to manage the administration
and operations of the department and assist the university’s vice
chancellor in planning the strategy and direction of development
in and around the vicinity of the university as well as plan and implement development initiatives. Thus, the directors or deputy
directors of development and maintenance are the most appropriate
people to respond to the questionnaire because they are involved in
the decision-making process and are relied upon to provide valid,
factual, and unbiased information.
In addition, Table 9 shows that 35.3% of the respondents have
more than 15 years of experience in building maintenance works,
and 76.4% of the respondents have more than five years of
experience in the said field. Hence, there is no doubt that the respondents have sufficient experience to provide valid feedback. An
analysis was also carried out on the number of university buildings
that had been managed by the respondents prior to the current university that they are managing to study the respondents’ experience
in managing university buildings. It can be seen in Table 10 that
nearly half of the respondents (41.2%) managed more than 15
buildings. With this, there is no doubt as to the respondents’ experience in managing university buildings. An analysis on academic
qualification of the respondents reveals that 64.7% of respondents
Table 9. Distribution of Respondents’ Working Experience in Building
Maintenance Works
Experience in building maintenance works
Less than 5 years
5–10 years
10–15 years
More than 15 years
Total
Percentage (N ¼ 17)
23.5
23.5
17.6
35.3
100.0
Table 10. Distribution of Number of University Buildings Managed by the
Respondents before This University
Results and Discussion
Number of university buildings have been
managed before this university
From the 20 public universities surveyed, 17 questionnaires were
returned and were subsequently analyzed for this study. This marks
the response rate at 85%. This is considered satisfactory for a postal
Less than five buildings
More than 15 buildings
Total
© ASCE
Percentage (N ¼ 17)
04014050-6
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
Percentage (N ¼ 17)
58.8
41.2
100.0
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Table 11. Distribution of Respondents’ Highest Academic Background
Percentage (N ¼ 17)
Highest academic qualification
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bachelor degree
Master degree
Ph.D.
Total
64.7
23.5
11.8
100.0
who have obtained their bachelor’s degree, 23.5% of them have
obtained their master’s degree. A total of 11.8% of the respondents
have a doctorate degree. From Table 11, the results revealed that all
(100%) of the respondents have at least a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, it can be deduced that the majority of the respondents have
satisfactory working experience and knowledge in providing required information. This indicated that the respondents’ role,
knowledge, and extensive background provide valid, factual, and
unbiased information that contribute to the high reliability and validity of the conclusion which has been drawn from the research
findings.
Table 12 shows that most (70.6%) of the universities that
participated in this research occupied more than 100,001 m2 build
area. Only one university occupied 40,000–50,000 m2 , one university occupied 50,001–60,000 m2 , one university occupied 60,001–
70,000 m2 , while two universities occupied 70,001–80,000 m2
built area. This indicated that the universities that participated in
this survey were large. Ali (2009) claimed that the level of maintenance work required depends on the age of building. He further
explained that the older the building, the more attention and focus is
needed. Lateef (2009) agreed that a building’s age is one of the
most important elements that needs to be considered in the allocation of maintenance resources. Cross tabulation is performed to determine whether age of building influences the allocation of the
annual maintenance budget of the university. The age of the building refers to the years of establishment of that particular university.
There are two universities that are more than 50 years old and
the buildings have been listed under the National Heritage Act
2005 and recorded as heritage buildings. The buildings that have
been recorded are Suluh Budiman Building which is known as
Bangunan Suluh Budiman in Malay located in Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI) and Chancellery building as well as
Table 12. Distribution of Size of the University Built Area
Size of the university built area
Percentage (N ¼ 17)
2
40,000–50,000 m
50,001–60,000 m2
60,001–70,000 m2
70,001–80,000 m2
100,001 m2 and above
Total
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.8
70.6
100.0
Tunku Chancellor Hall which is known as Dewan Tunku
Chancellor (DTC) in Malay located in University of Malaya. Suluh
Budiman Building was built in August 1919 and completed in June
1922, while Chancellery building and Tunku Chancellor Hall were
completed and officiated in 1966. The buildings have historical
value, cultural heritage significance, and represent the nature of
the universities. The results in Table 13 reveal that only 11.8%
of the universities that are more than 50 years old are allocated
the most annual maintenance budget (at more than RM40 million).
It also revealed that the universities that have been in existence for
at least 31 years were allocated more than RM10 million for their
annual maintenance budget. This proves that the older the building,
the higher is the allocation of annual maintenance budget for the
university.
Likert scale and ranking analysis were employed to rate the importance of procurement selection criteria. As mentioned earlier,
there are 26 criteria to be considered in this study. The respondents
were asked to rate the degree of importance of criteria to be considered for procurement method selection for universities’ building
maintenance. Likert scales of 5, from which 1 indicates “least important” to 5 which indicates “very important” were employed.
Ranking of the importance of procurement selection criteria uses
the mean score to indicate the degree of importance of the criteria.
The mean, standard deviation, mode, and ranking can be referred to
in Table 14. The Likert scale was also used to rate the importance of
each type of procurement method identified from the literature review. Ranking analysis was performed to indicate the degree of
importance of the building maintenance procurement method.
The mean, standard deviation, mode, and ranking can be referred
to in Table 15.
Furthermore, a multiple-response analysis was performed on the
procurement methods currently employed in Malaysia’s public universities. The results are shown in Table 16 and Fig. 1 for reference.
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contracts is the most popular procurement method adapted in public universities. Out of 17
universities that participated in this survey, 14 universities employed this type of procurement method as opposed to only 3 universities that do not. In addition, outsourcing by specialist term
contracts (14.3%) is also popular among the procurement methods.
On the other hand, out-tasking (1.1%) and total facilities management (1.1%) are the least used in public universities in Malaysia.
The ranking of the procurement method used in public universities
in Malaysia can be referred to in Fig. 1.
There are some methods that the decision maker applied to select the most appropriate procurement method. Some respondents
may choose the procurement method based on previous experiences, on the maintenance budget allocation, on the age of the building, or on government policies. Some may think the best way is to
select a procurement method that carries the least risk and will
deliver optimum efficiency. Based on the data collected from 17
universities that participated in this survey, some universities
Table 13. Cross Tabulation between Age of University and Annual Maintenance Budget of University
Annual maintenance budget of university
Age of university
Less than 10 years
10–20 years
21–30 years
31–40 years
41–50 years
More than 50 years
Total
© ASCE
Less than
RM10 million
RM11–20 million
RM21–30 million
11.8
29.4
5.9
0
0
5.9
52.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
0
0
23.5
0
0
0
0
5.9
0
5.9
04014050-7
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
RM31–40 million
More than
RM40 million
Total
percentage
(N ¼ 17)
0
0
0
5.9
0
0
5.9
0
0
0
0
0
11.8
11.8
17.6
35.3
11.8
11.8
5.9
17.6
100.0
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 14. Ranking of Procurement Selection Criteria
Procurement selection criteria
Standard Mean
Mean deviation ranking Mode
Experience contractor availability
Existing building condition
Objective or policy of organization
Quality level
Government policy
Knowledge of the strategy
Degree of responsibility
Client’s financial capability
Price competition
Time certainty
Speed
Public accountability
Clarity of scope
Involvement of owner in the project
Working relationship
Project size
Intuition and past experience
Client in-house technical capability
Price or cost certainty
Risk allocation or avoidance
Dispute and arbitration
Dissatisfaction with previous process
Degree of complexity
Degree of flexibility
Political issue/constraint
Culture
4.71
4.59
4.53
4.47
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.29
4.29
4.24
4.24
4.18
4.12
4.06
4.00
3.94
3.88
3.76
3.71
3.59
3.53
3.47
0.470
0.618
0.514
0.717
0.618
0.712
0.712
0.795
0.606
0.493
0.493
0.686
0.686
0.752
0.831
0.636
0.781
0.827
1.061
0.748
0.697
0.903
0.985
1.004
0.717
0.800
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
Table 16. Distribution on Procurement Methods Currently Employed in
Malaysia’s Public Universities
Responses
Procurement method used in universities
N
Percentage
Percent of
cases
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance
contract
Outsourcing by specialist term contract
Outsourcing by tendered schedule term
contract
Outsourcing by measured term contract
Outsourcing by lump sum contract
Traditional
Outsourcing by day work contract
Outsourcing by service-level agreement
Public-private partnership (PPP)
Outsourcing by cost reimbursement
contract
Out-tasking
Total facilities management
Partnering
Total
14
18.2
82.4
13
12
16.9
15.6
76.5
70.6
11
6
6
5
4
2
2
14.3
7.8
7.8
6.5
5.2
2.6
2.6
64.7
35.3
35.3
29.4
23.5
11.8
11.8
1
1
0
77
1.3
1.3
0
100.0
5.9
5.9
0
452.9
depend on more than one method in choosing a suitable procurement method. Thus, a multiple-response analysis was performed on
this analysis. From the results obtained in Table 17, the majority of
universities choose their procurement method based on maintenance budget allocation (45.7%) and on previous experiences
(31.4%). The minority of universities consider government policies
(2.9%) and select the procurement method that provides lower risk
and optimizes efficiency (2.9%). In addition, some universities consider the age of the building (17.1%) in selecting their procurement
method.
Lateef et al. (2011) pointed out that university organizations
prefer to outsource the larger part of maintenance services, and
it seems that outsourcing is the most commonly used procurement
method for universities in Malaysia. It also can be seen from
Fig. 1. Ranking of procurement methods currently employed in
Malaysia’s public universities
Table 15. Ranking of Building Maintenance Procurement Method
Procurement method
Outsourcing by specialist term contract
Outsourcing by tendered schedule term
contract
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance
contract
Outsourcing by measured term contract
Outsourcing by service-level agreement
Total facilities management
Outsourcing by lump sum contract
Outsourcing by day work contract
Traditional
Outsourcing by cost reimbursement
contract
Public-private partnership (PPP)
Out-tasking
Partnering
© ASCE
Standard Mean
Mean deviation ranking Mode
4.18
4.12
0.728
0.781
1
2
4
4
4.06
0.659
3
4
3.94
3.47
3.24
3.24
3.06
3.00
2.88
0.966
1.007
1.200
1.251
0.899
1.000
0.928
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2.82
2.82
2.71
0.809
0.809
1.263
11
11
12
3
3
3
Table 17. Distribution on Ways to Select Procurement Method
Responses
Ways to select procurement method
N
Percentage
Percent of
cases
Based on previous experiences
Based on the maintenance budget
allocation
Based on the age of the building
Based on government policies
Select a procurement method that carries
the least risk and will deliver optimum
efficiency
Total
11
16
31.4
45.7
64.7
94.1
6
1
1
17.1
2.9
2.9
35.3
5.9
5.9
35
100.0
205.9
04014050-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Table 18. Distribution on Reason to Outsource Building Maintenance
Services
Responses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Reasons to outsource building maintenance
N Percentage
Reduce maintenance task to corrective
10
maintenance
In-house staff less competent and inactive
5
Number of in-house staff is not adequate
14
It can reduce maintenance cost
4
University management consider the
5
management of building as noncore activity
Complexity of the maintenance work
1
Total
39
Table 16 and Fig. 1 that most of the universities prefer to outsource
their building maintenance services to contractors. The reasons for
this are identified in Table 18. Table 18 shows that the main reason
that the universities outsourced their maintenance services was because of the inadequacy of in-house staff. Fourteen out of the 17
universities that participated in this survey claimed that the number
of in-house staff is not adequate which means that the number of
maintenance personnel in the university organization is not sufficient to carry out all the maintenance work in the university. Thus,
the university organizations prefer to outsource the maintenance
services to contractors to carry out the maintenance task, and
the in-house maintenance team focuses only on monitoring and
planning the building maintenance task. The universities also
Percent of
cases
25.6
58.8
12.8
35.9
10.3
12.8
29.4
82.4
23.5
29.4
2.6
100.0
5.9
229.4
Consider constraints
Market condition
Procurement Selection Criteria
Experience contractor availability
Existing building condition
Objective or policy of organisation
Quality level
Government policy
Knowledge of the strategy
Degree of responsibility
Client's financial capability
Price competition
Time Certainty
Speed
Public accountability
Clarity of scope
Involvement of owner in the project
Working relationship
Project size
Intuition and pass experience
Client in house technical capability
Price or cost certainty
University organization policies i.e
safety
Regulatory constraints
Identify problem
The decision problem is
decomposed by structuring the
hierarchy based on AHP technique
and principles
Perform pairwise comparisons
using the relative measurement
scale
Synthesizing the pairwise
comparison
Employ the shortlisted criteria and
alternatives using Expert Choice
Software as development tool to
develop the hierarchy framework
Evaluate the consistency for the
entire hierarchy. The consistency
ratio (CR) is acceptable if it does
not exceed 0.10. Repeat and
review the judgement if the CR is
greater than 0.10.
Development Stage
Evaluation Stage
Procurement method used in
universities
Outsourcing by Repair and Maintenance
Contract
Outsourcing by Specialist Term Contract
Outsourcing by Tendered Schedule Term
Contract
Outsourcing by Measured Term Contract
The most appropriate
procurement method is
selected
Fig. 2. Decision-making framework for procurement method selection of building maintenance management for public universities
Table 19. Selected Procurement Selection Criteria and Procurement Options for the Proposed Decision-Making Framework
Procurement selection criteria
Mean
Mode
Procurement method used in universities
Mean
Mode
Percent of cases
Experience contractor availability
Existing building condition
Objective or policy of organization
Quality level
Government policy
Knowledge of the strategy
Degree of responsibility
Client’s financial capability
Price competition
Time certainty
Speed
Public accountability
Clarity of scope
Involvement of owner in the project
Working relationship
Project size
Intuition and past experience
Client in-house technical capability
Price or cost certainty
4.71
4.59
4.53
4.47
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.41
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.29
4.29
4.24
4.24
4.18
4.12
4.06
4.00
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contract
Outsourcing by specialist term contract
Outsourcing by tendered schedule term contract
Outsourcing by measured term contract
4.06
4.18
4.12
3.94
4
4
4
4
82.4
76.5
70.6
64.7
© ASCE
04014050-9
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Select the most appropriate procurement method of building maintenance management
services for public university
Level 1: Goal
C1
Level 2: Main
Criteria
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Level3: Sub Criteria
Level 4: Alternatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C3
C2
•
•
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6
C1.7
C1.8
C1.9
C1.10
C1.11
C1.12
C1.13
C1.14
C1.15
A1
•
•
C2.1
C2.2
A2
A3
C3.1
C3.2
A4
Fig. 3. Hierarchy structure for selecting the most appropriate procurement method for building maintenance management of public universities in
Malaysia
claimed that outsourcing reduces the maintenance task to corrective
maintenance (25.6%) because the maintenance task will be carried
out by a trained and experienced team for better-quality service.
This is supported by Sheng (2012) who found that external specialists are engaged to provide certain specialized trade of service that
can improve the quality of maintenance work, reduce corrective
Table 20. List of Final Procurement Selection Criteria
Abbreviation used
C1
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
C1.6
C1.7
C1.8
C1.9
C1.10
C1.11
C1.12
C1.13
C1.14
C1.15
C2
C2.1
C2.2
C3
C3.1
C3.2
© ASCE
Criteria
Clients’ requirements
Experienced contractor availability
Quality level
Knowledge of the strategy
Degree of responsibility
Client’s financial capability
Price competition
Time certainty
Speed
Public accountability
Clarity of scope
Involvement of owner in the project
Working relationship
Intuition and pass experience
Client in house technical capability
Price or cost certainty
Project characteristic
Existing building condition
Project size
External environment/factor
Objective or policy of organization
Government policy
maintenance, and reduce maintenance cost. The universities also
claimed that in-house staff are less competent and inactive
(12.8%), and university management considers the management
of the building as a noncore activity (12.8%), thus the services
are outsourced. However, some universities argued that outsourcing
can reduce maintenance cost (10.3%) as it can eliminate the cost of
training provision for internal employees, while other universities
claimed that the complexity of the work (2.6%) caused them to outsource the work to the experts.
From the survey, 58.8% (N ¼ 10) of the respondents opined
that there was no proper guidance available to select the most appropriate procurement method. This result provides an impetus for
this research. However, 41.2% (N ¼ 7) of the respondents stated
that some guidance is available such as government policies that
were produced by the ministry of finance and public works department, also known as Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR). Furthermore, a
majority (52.9%) of the respondents opined that there is no
decision-making theory or tool available in helping them to select
a procurement strategy for the university. However, the analysis
reveals that 47.1% of the respondents stated that there were some
tools available to help them in selecting procurement methods such
as problem solving and priority selection (Pareto Ishikawa 80:20),
cut-off statistic, appointment of procurement committee members,
Table 21. List of Final Alternative
Abbreviation used
Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contract
Outsourcing by specialist term contract
Outsourcing by tendered schedule term contract
Outsourcing by measured term contract
04014050-10
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
Proposed Decision-Making Framework
Define the problem and determine its goal
Structure the hierarchy
Construct a set of n × n pair-wise comparison matrices.
Establish priorities by making pairwise comparison
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Synthesis the pairwise comparison and obtain the overall priority ranking
Evaluate the consistency for the entire hierarchy. The consistency ratio (CR)
is acceptable if it does not exceed 0.10. Repeat and review the judgments if
the CR is greater than 0.10
Select the most suitable alternative
Fig. 4. Steps for adapting AHP
urgency level, total asset management, evaluation criteria based on
Quantity Surveyor and JKR, as well as strategic planning.
The finding of this research has proven that the selection of procurement method by university organization is not strategic or systematic, as there is no guidance available for the decision maker to
select the most appropriate procurement strategy. It is vital to develop a systematic approach that can assist the maintenance personnel in the decision-making process of selecting the most suitable
procurement method in building maintenance management for
the public university.
The development of the framework includes the employment of
procurement selection criteria and procurement method option, integration of AHP technique and principles, as well as the adaption
of Expert Choice 11 software as development tool. The proposed
decision-making framework is shown in Fig. 2. In order to derive
a set of procurement selection criteria that were considered essential, only those criteria that obtained both mean rating and mode
equivalent to or above four were considered as important and very
important according to Likert scales of 5 (1 indicates “least important” to 5 indicating “very important”) and are included in this
study for the proposed decision-making framework. This method
of criteria elimination using the mean rating value was employed
by Cheung et al. (2001) in developing a model for the selection of
construction procurement. Thus, only 19 criteria will be considered in the development of a decision-making framework in this
study. The procurement methods that were considered as most
commonly used (percentage of cases more than 50%) and categorized as important and very important with both mean rating and
mode equal to or above 4 will be considered for the proposed
decision-making framework. The procurement selection criteria
and procurement option that were selected are provided in summary in Table 19.
The hierarchy structure for the present study that is constructed
manually can be referred to in Fig. 3 and the abbreviation used in
the figure can be referred to in Tables 20 and 21. The procedure and
step for adapting AHP are illustrated in Fig. 4.
The AHP implementation steps will be simplified by using the
Expert Choice 11 professional software that is available commercially and designed for the implementation of AHP (Al-Harbi
2001). Expert Choice 11 software is employed as a development
Fig. 5. A model tree view of the decision hierarchy in Expert Choice 11 software
© ASCE
04014050-11
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tool to assist in development of the decision-making framework.
Expert Choice 11 software offers a model view containing either
a tree view or cluster view of the decision hierarchy. Fig. 5 illustrates a model tree view of the decision hierarchy of the proposed
framework in Expert Choice 11 software.
In addition, one of the AHP’s strengths is the possibility to
evaluate qualitatively as well as qualitatively the criteria and alternatives on the same preference scale of nine levels (Ishizaka
and Labib 2009). The judgments can be performed in three
ways in Expert Choice 11: numerical, verbal, and graphical. Furthermore, this software works by examining judgments made by
the decision makers and measuring the consistency of those
judgments.
Expert Choice 11 allows the decision maker to reexamine and
revise the judgments for all levels of the hierarchy, and it shows
where the inconsistency exists and how to minimize it in order to
improve the decision. Another feature of Expert Choice 11 is that
it provides tools for performing a sensitivity analysis which helps
the decision maker to see how different weights assigned to each
criterion could affect the outcome of the model. In the sensitivity
analysis, the input data are slightly modified in order to observe
the impact on the result (Ishizaka and Labib 2009). The main purpose of the sensitivity analysis is graphically seen by how the alternative changes in respect to the importance of the criteria. Generally,
there are five types of sensitivity analysis that can be performed in
Expert Choice 11 which include performance sensitivity, dynamic
sensitivity, gradient sensitivity, head-to-head sensitivity, and twodimensional sensitivity.
Conclusion
The finding of the present research has proven that the selection
of procurement method by university organization is not strategic.
The study also shows that there is no proper guidance available;
thus, it is essential to develop a systematic approach that can assist
the maintenance personnel in selecting the most suitable procurement method. The development of a decision-making framework
using AHP and Expert Choice 11 software mainly focused on
two important components that are the possible assessment criteria
and the alternatives available for selection. The assessment criteria
are used to evaluate the alternatives. The framework integrates AHP
techniques and principles as well as adapts Expert Choice 11 software as a development tool. The application of AHP and Expert
Choice 11 which enable calculation of the judgment consistency
assure that the decision maker’s judgments are consistent and
the final decision is made well. The proposed decision-making
framework is expected to be a useful tool for the maintenance
organizations that provide alternatives and procurement selection
criteria. This is critical during the decision-making process of selecting the most appropriate procurement strategy. Nonetheless,
the final phase of the research that includes implementation and
validation of the proposed framework through structured interviews
with a number of public universities selected is ongoing. During the
structured interview, the framework produced is demonstrated to
the interviewees. Then, the interviewees are asked to run the framework in the Expert Choice 11 software and evaluate the framework
in terms of capability, applicability, and validity in an evaluation
form. The results of the interviews will be reported as soon as they
are completed. The framework is created to be flexible in which
the decision makers are recommended to assert or eliminate the
procurement selection criteria that they think are appropriate for
a particular project.
© ASCE
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
University of Malaya Research Grant (UMRG), No. RG183/
12SUS established at the University of Malaya, Sustainability
Science Research Cluster.
References
Adekunle, S. O., Michael, D., Malik, M. A. K., Peter, M., and Steve, R.
(2009). “Construction project procurement routes: An in-depth
critique.” Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 2(3), 338–354.
Al-Harbi, K. M. A.-S. (2001). “Application of the AHP in project management.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 19(1), 19–27.
Al Khalil, M. I. (2002). “Selecting the appropriate project delivery method
using AHP.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 20(6), 469–474.
Alhazmi, T., and McCaffer, R. (2000). “Project procurement system
selection model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2000)126:3(176), 176–184.
Ali, A. S. (2009). “Cost decision making in building maintenance practice
in Malaysia.” J. Facil. Manage., 7(4), 298–306.
Ancarani, A., and Capaldo, G. (2005). “Supporting decision-making process in facilities management services procurement: A methodological
approach.” J. Purch. Supply Manage., 11(5–6), 232–241.
Atkin, B., and Brooks, A. (2005). Total facilities management, 2nd Ed.,
Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
Cheung, S. O., Lam, T. I., Leung, M. Y., and Wan, Y. W. (2001). “An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 19(4), 427–437.
Dept. of Higher Education. (2011). “Categories of public HEIs.” Higher
Education Institution, 〈http://jpt.mohe.gov.my/eng/index.php?page=
index%20kanan2.php〉 (Jul. 4, 2013).
Expert Choice 11 [Computer software]. Arlington, VA, Expert Choice.
Hashim, M., Li, M. C. Y., Yin, N. C., Hooi, N. S., Heng, S. M., and Yong,
T. L. (2006). “Factors influencing the selection of procurement systems
by clients.” Int. Conf. on Construction Industry 2006, Univ. of Technology, Johor, Malaysia.
Hibberd, P., and Djebarni, R. (1996). “Criteria of choice for procurement
methods.” Proc., Cobra 1996 September 19–20, University of West
England, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyor, Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors (RICS), London, U.K.
Hui, E. Y. Y., and Tsang, A. H. C. (2004). “Sourcing strategies of facilities
management.” J. Qual. Mainten. Eng., 10(2), 85–92.
Ishizaka, A., and Labib, A. (2009). “Analytic hierarchy process and expert
choice: Benefits and limitations.” ORInsight, 4(4), 201–220.
Kamaruzzaman, S. N., and Zawawi, E. M. A. (2010). “Development of
facilities management in Malaysia.” J. Facil. Manage., 8(1), 75–81.
Kleeman, W. B. (1994). “Out-tasking: More widespread than outsourcing
in the USA.” Facilities, 12(2), 24–26.
Lateef, O. A. (2009). “Building maintenance management in Malaysia.”
J. Build. Appraisal, 4(3), 207–214.
Lateef, O. A., Khamidi, M. F., and Idrus, A. (2010). “Building maintenance
management in a Malaysian university campuses: A case study.”
Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build., 10(1–2), 76–89.
Lateef, O. A. A., Khamidi, M. F., and Idrus, A. (2011). “Appraisal of the
building maintenance management practices of Malaysian universities.”
J. Build. Appraisal, 6(3/4), 261–275.
Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., Cheng, E., and Li, H. (2002). “A model for
supporting inter-organizational relations in the supply chain.” Eng.
Construct. Architect. Manage., 9(1), 2–15.
Love, P. E. D., Skitmore, M., and Earl, G. (1998). “Selecting an appropriate
procurement method for the construction process: An empirical study.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 16(2), 221–233.
Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., and Chen, S. E. (2003a). “A case-based procurement
advisory system for construction.” Adv. Eng. Software, 34(7), 429–438.
Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., and Chen, S. E. (2003b). “Parameters governing the
selection of procurement system—An empirical survey.” Eng.
Construct. Architect. Manage., 10(3), 209–218.
04014050-12
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Masterman, J. W. E. (1992). An introduction to building procurement
systems, Spon Press, London, U.K.
McNabb, D. E. (2008). Research methods in public administration and
nonprofit management: Quantitative and qualitative approaches,
2nd Ed., M.E. Sharpe, New York.
Moore, M., and Finch, E. (2004). “Facilities management in South East
Asia.” Facilities, 22(9), 259–270.
Musa, Z. N. (2011). “Determining the best options for facilities management (FM) service delivery in UK shopping complex.” Ph.D. thesis,
Liverpool John Moores Univ., Liverpool, U.K.
Mustapa, S. A. H. B. S., Adnan, H., and Jusoff, K. (2008). “Facility management challenges and opportunities in the Malaysian property sector.”
J. Sustain. Dev., 1(2), 79–85.
Ng, S. T., Luu, D. T., and Chen, S. E. (2002). “Decision criteria and their
subjectivity in construction procurement selection.” Aust. J. Constr.
Econ. Build., 2(1), 70–80.
Nik-Mat, N. E. M., Kamaruzzaman, S. N., and Pitt, M. (2011). “Assessing the maintenance aspect of facilities management through a
performance measurement system: A Malaysian case study.” 2nd
Int. Building Control Conf. 2011, Elsevier Procedia, Philadelphia,
PA.
Pirdashti, M., Ghadi, A., Mohammadi, M., and Shojatalab, G. (2009).
“Multi-criteria decision-making selection model with application to
chemical engineering management decisions.” World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol., 49, 54–59.
© ASCE
Ratnasabapathy, S., and Rameezdeen, R. (2007). “A decision support
system for the selection of best procurement system in construction.”
Built-Environ. Sri Lanka, 7(2), 43–53.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2009). Building maintenance: Strategy, planning and procurement RICS guidance note, 2nd
Ed., Coventry, U.K.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority
setting, resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. (1982). Decision making for leaders: The analytical
hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, Lifetime Learning
Publication, A division of Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy
process.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48, 9–26.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.”
Int. J. Serv. Sci., 1(1), 83–98.
Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R. (2009). Research methods for business: A skill
building approach, 5th Ed., Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.
Sheng, L. C. (2012). “Overview of in-house and outsourcing strategies for
property maintenance and management services.” Malaysian Surveyor,
47(1), 54–56.
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0 [Computer software].
IBM Corporation, New York.
Straub, A. (2007). “Performance-based maintenance partnering: A promising concept.” J. Facil. Manage., 5(2), 129–142.
Wordsworth, P. (2001). Lee’s building maintenance management, 4th Ed.,
Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.
04014050-13
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2015.29.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.