Analytic Hierarchy Process Decision-Making Frameworkfor Procurement Strategy Selection in Building

Maintenance WorkShirley Chua Jin Lin1; Azlan Shah Ali2; and Anuar Bin Alias3

Abstract: This paper presents a study of selection of procurement method in building maintenance management for public universities inMalaysia through the use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), particularly the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). There are manydifferent types of procurement methods that have been developed to overcome the weaknesses of the existing procurement method and tomeet the range of service requirement. The decision makers are faced with challenges when it comes to selecting the most appropriateprocurement method for a specific building as different types of procurement methods suit different types of projects. This research seeksto investigate the current practices of the available procurement methods for building maintenance work in public universities and identify theprocurement selection criteria to develop an effective decision-making framework. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 20 publicuniversities in Malaysia with 85% response rate to identify and validate two important components for the development of a decision-makingframework: the possible assessment criteria and the alternatives available for selection. The finding of this research proves that the selection ofprocurement methods by university organizations is neither strategic nor systematic as there is no guidance available for the decision maker torely on in order to select the most appropriate procurement strategy. It is vital to develop a systematic approach that can assist maintenancepersonnel 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; Procurementselection criteria; Public university.

Introduction

This paper presents research on developing a preference frameworkfor the selection of procurement methods in building maintenancemanagement through the use of multiple criteria decision making(MCDM), particularly the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Lateefet al. (2011) claimed that the size and scope of university buildingmaintenance in Malaysia is huge and the potential is increasing.The annual government allocation for the maintenance of univer-sity buildings is only 1% of the total allocation for the entireeducation sector (Lateef et al. 2011). This amount of allocationis inadequate to provide a high-quality maintenance service.However, an increase in the allocation without improvement ofthe management systems is also not a strategic solution in optimiz-ing the given allocation.

Asset and facilities management has been successfully devel-oped and established in many western countries such as Japan,Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Kamaruzzaman

and Zawawi 2010). However, Moore and Finch (2004) emphasizedthat the definition of asset and facilities management is notwell understood and not being practiced appropriately in Malaysia.Mustapa et al. (2008) supported that the definition of asset andfacilities management is poorly understood in Malaysia whichcaused it to not be practiced in an appropriate way. They furtherstated that asset and facilities management is relatively new inMalaysia, and the wider concept of asset and facilities managementof building management is still in the process of improving itsmaintenance management structure. Nik-Mat et al. (2011) notedthat the Public Works Department (PWD) is the government bodyresponsible for introducing asset and facilities management toMalaysian industry in 1974, but it has not been readily adoptedor encouraged by the Malaysian government in any organizedway. In addition, Lateef et al. (2011) highlighted that the mainte-nance management systems of universities in Malaysia are notIT based, which requires the work to be computed manuallywhich wastes time, energy, and resources. They also perceived thatthe current maintenance management systems of universities inMalaysia are mainly corrective and cyclical and have not been scru-tinized for inefficiencies which has led to backlogged maintenancework that results in poor user satisfaction.

Public universities are very important to the nation as they arewhere 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 objectiveof the university might not be met without proper infrastructure.Lateef et al. (2011) highlighted that there have been many com-plaints voiced in the media. Research literature also points out thatmany of the university buildings are not in optimal operable con-dition. Lateef et al. (2010) pointed out that a major reason why the

1Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (corresponding author). E-mail:shirleychua01@yahoo.com

2Associate Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: asafab@um.edu.my

3Associate Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, Univ. of Malaya,50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail: anuar_a@um.edu.my

Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 6, 2013; approved onOctober 24, 2013; published online on July 17, 2014. Discussion periodopen until December 17, 2014; separate discussions must be submittedfor individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performanceof Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/04014050(13)/$25.00.

© ASCE 04014050-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

universities focus more on corrective maintenance was because ofbudget constraints and the lack of a competent workforce. In fact,the maintenance of the buildings in universities which is supposedto be a core activity is considered by the university management asa noncore activity.

Lateef et al. (2011) also mentioned that it is essential to select anappropriate procurement method in the management of buildingmaintenance to provide better service to the occupants of the build-ing and increase productivity of the management. Selection ofthe most appropriate procurement strategy is significant if theuniversities wish to provide a conducive learning environmentand research centers for university organizations, students, facultymembers, parents, and other users. Alhazmi and McCaffer (2000)mentioned that the nature of the procurement system selection re-quires an effective decision-making technique to systematicallyevaluate the procurement systems against a number of criteria.Thus, this study aims to develop a systematic decision-makingframework by identifying the available procurement method forbuilding maintenance and the criteria that is to be considered whenselecting a procurement method.

Several researchers have developed models for procurementselection in other industries, adapting AHP as a developmenttool, but none of the research found is related to the buildingmaintenance industry and university building. Cheung et al. (2001)adapted AHP while Musa (2011) integrated AHP techniques andprinciples as well as adapted Expert Choice 11 software (Arlington,Virginia) as a development tool in selecting the most appropriateservice delivery system. This research by Cheung et al. andMusa received good comments and is accepted by respondents dur-ing the implementation and validation stage. Masterman (1992)mentioned that many clients have been selecting procurement sys-tems in a cursory manner simply based upon biased past experienceand conservative decisions, and some clients even use a specificprocurement system by default without making a deliberatedchoice. Although past experiences may be an essential factor thatinfluences the selection of procurement strategy, experiences andsolutions to problems retrieved from previous projects may notbe applicable to current projects because each building has itsown distinct characteristics. In addition, Love et al. (1998) high-lighted that owners of a similar nature do not necessarily havesimilar needs. In fact, the needs depend on many factors and areusually specific to the particular project. The application of AHPis a decision-making process based on multiple criteria that enablesthe decision maker to derive his own set of important criteria for theselection according to the characteristics of the building. The find-ings of this study will act as a tool to guide the university organi-zation to select the most suitable and appropriate procurementmethod that will then improve the maintenance management ofuniversities in Malaysia.

Background

Public University

The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) is the governmentministry that has the authority to determine the policies anddirection of higher education in Malaysia. According to MOHE,the higher education system is designed to ensure that public in-stitutions of higher education (PIHEs) have the ability to build areputation with dynamic capabilities, competitive as well as able toanticipate future challenges and be prepared to respond effectivelyin line with global trends. Efforts to enhance the capacity ofPIHEs will be continuous to ensure that the PIHEs perform their

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 arecategorized into three groups: research universities; focused univer-sities (technical, education, management, and defense); and com-prehensive universities. So far, there are 20 public universitiesin Malaysia, including 5 research universities, 4 comprehensiveuniversities, and 11 focused universities. Research universitiesare public universities recognized by the cabinet on October 11,2006, to become a leading research and educational hub; compre-hensive universities offer various courses without focusing on anyone area; and focused universities emphasize specific fields suchas technical, education, management, and defense (Departmentof Higher Education 2011). Table 1 shows the categorization ofpublic universities in Malaysia.

The maintenance of public universities is managed and carriedout by the Department of Development andMaintenance. However,it must be noted that the maintenance department of each universityis named differently. The names of maintenance departments areshown in Table 2. Most of the Departments of Development andMaintenance in the universities are divided into divisions: admin-istrative, maintenance and upgrading, development, contract, andservices. Maintenance works are the responsibility of the mainte-nance and upgrading division which usually consists of five unitsthat are responsible for the management and maintenance of facili-ties and buildings in the campus, landscaping and infrastructure forthe entire campus, and any upgrading or renovation. The five unitsare the civil, electrical, mechanical, landscape, and renovationunits. The electrical unit is responsible for maintenance of closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs), telecommunication and automationsystems, and low-tension (LT) switchboard; the replacement oflight fittings, light tubes, and bulbs; rewiring; servicing of the build-ing automation system (BAS); and many other electrical and elec-tronic systems. The mechanical unit is responsible for installationand maintenance of the air-conditioning system, fire-fighting sys-tem, lift system, transport system, and water-cooler system. Thecivil unit is responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacementof building components and finishes; external works such as roads,pavements, rivers, and walkways; civil infrastructure works such aswater tank, reservoir, and sewerage system; cleaning of buildingsand toilets; pest control; and painting work. Furthermore, the land-scape unit is responsible for road sweeping and roadside drainscleaning, 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 andcarrying 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 assignsspecific responsibilities and authorities to people and organiza-tions.” Wordsworth (2001, p. 218) defined maintenance procure-ment as “the process by which required maintenance works arecarried out.” The procurement process is concerned with the formof procurement whether by contract or direct labor and the qualityof delivery of both the work carried out as well as the level ofservice provided (Wordsworth 2001). The Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors (RICS 2009) highlighted that under a compre-hensive maintenance procurement plan, all of the elements ofbuilding maintenance need to be addressed through some formof contract strategy.

Maintenance work ranges from very large maintenance projectsto very small maintenance tasks. Subsequently, many different

© ASCE 04014050-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

types of procurement methods have been developed to overcomethe weaknesses of the existing procurement method and meet therange of services requirement. The main differences between thevarious types of procurement strategies lie in the methods of evalu-ating the work and the degree of financial risk borne by the con-tractor and the client, respectively (Wordsworth 2001).

The types of procurement methods identified through literaturereview for building maintenance are discussed below (Wordsworth2001; Sheng 2012; RICS 2009; Hui and Tsang 2004; Ancarani andCapaldo 2005; Atkin and Brooks 2005).

Direct or in-house labor includes operatives within the mainte-nance management organization employed to maintain the buildingin an acceptable standard (Wordsworth 2001). Wordsworth (2001,p. 223) defined in-house as “a service provided by a dedicatedresource directly employed by the organization, monitoring and

control of performance is normally conducted under the termsof conventional employer or employee relationships, although in-ternal service-level agreements may be employed as regulatingmechanisms.”

Outsourcing is defined as the “contracting-out” of servicesthat were previously executed in house (Ancarani and Capaldo2005). In addition, outsourcing means the “service is commis-sioned from an external supply organization which is usuallyunder the terms of a formal contractual arrangement based uponterms and conditions derived from a service level agreement, theremay be several of these contractual relationships operating in par-allel for a range of services from a variety of suppliers” (Ancaraniand Capaldo 2005, p. 234; Atkin and Brooks 2005). Outsourcingcan be a trade of service under several types of contract whichinclude

Table 1. Categorization of Public Universities in Malaysia

Number University Characteristics

Research universities1 University of Malaya (UM) • Fields of study: focus is on research2 University of Science, Malaysia (USM) • Competitive entries3 National University of Malaysia (UKM) • Quality lecturers4 Putra University, Malaysia (UPM) • Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 50:505 University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM)Comprehensive universities1 MARA University of Technology (UiTM) • Various fields of study2 International Islamic University of Malaysia (UIA) • Competitive entries3 University of Malaysia, Sabah (UMS) • Quality lecturers4 University of Malaysia, Sarawak (UNIMAS) • Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 70:30Focused universities1 Northern University of Malaysia (UUM) • Fields of study: focus is on research2 Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI) • Competitive entries3 Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia (UTHM) • Quality lecturers4 Technical University of Malaysia, Melaka (UTeM) • Ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates is 50:505 University of Malaysia, Perlis (UniMAP)6 University of Malaysia, Terengganu (UMT)7 University of Malaysia, Pahang (UMP)8 Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM)9 Sultan Zainal Abidin University (UniSZA)10 University of Malaysia, Kelantan (UMK)11 National Defense University of Malaysia (UPNM)

Note: Data from Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.

Table 2. Public Universities’ Maintenance Department Name

Number University Maintenance department

1 University of Malaya (UM) Department of development and estate maintenance2 University of Science, Malaysia (USM) Development department3 National University of Malaysia (UKM) Department of development and maintenance4 Putra University, Malaysia (UPM) Department of development and asset management5 University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM) Office of asset and development6 MARA University of Technology (UiTM) Department of facilities management7 International Islamic University of Malaysia (UIA) Development division8 University of Malaysia, Sabah (UMS) Department of development and maintenance9 University of Malaysia, Sarawak (UNIMAS) Asset management division10 Northern University of Malaysia (UUM) Department of development and maintenance11 Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI) Department of development and estate maintenance12 Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia (UTHM) Development and property management office13 Technical University of Malaysia, Melaka (UTeM) Development office14 University of Malaysia, Perlis (UniMAP) Department of development15 University of Malaysia, Terengganu (UMT) Office of asset and development16 University of Malaysia, Pahang (UMP) Property management and development17 Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM) Department of development and facilities management18 Sultan Zainal Abidin University (UniSZA) Development and maintenance department19 University of Malaysia, Kelantan (UMK) Department of development, infrastructure, and services20 National Defense University of Malaysia (UPNM) Development and maintenance department

© ASCE 04014050-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

• 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 ofoutsourcing are performed by a contractor” (Hui and Tsang 2004,p. 86; Kleeman 1994).

A public-private partnership (PPP) occurs between the organi-zation and service provider to share the responsibility of deliveryand performance of the service whereby the benefits gained interms of cost saving and efficiency are shared as well (Ancaraniand Capaldo 2005; Atkin and Brooks 2005).

In total facilities management (TFM), a supplier is totallyresponsible for a whole range of services such as delivery, moni-toring, controlling, and attainment of performance objectives thatrelate to operational benefit (Ancarani and Capaldo 2005; Atkinand Brooks 2005).

Straub (2007) stated that the majority of maintenance projectsadopted the traditional procurement method where three to fivecompetitive 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 organizationsfor the purpose of achieving specific business objectives bymaximizing the effectiveness of each participant’s resources”(RICS 2009, p. 44).

As this research mainly focuses on assisting the universityorganizations that wish to outsource services, direct labor, whichis also known as in-house, was not included in the present study.

Procurement Selection Criteria

Luu et al. (2003a) confirmed that it is essential to establish a list ofprocurement selection criteria (PSC) before various procurementoptions can be evaluated. Through the analysis of procurementselection criteria of previous research, it can be seen that thereare similarities which can be seen in Table 3.

In addition, the criteria were usually divided under some maincriteria or factors such as clients’ requirements which are knownas clients’ characteristics and objectives (owner’s needs and pref-erences), project characteristics, and external environment. Thegrouping of procurement selection criteria had similarities throughthe analysis of previous research that can be seen in Table 4. Inthis research, the 26 criteria identified from literature review weredivided into three main categories that were clients’ requirements,project characteristics, and external environment or factor that canbe referred to Table 5.

Analytic Hierarchy Process

In this study, the selection of procurement method for buildingmaintenance management adapted MCDM, particularly AHP.Pirdashti et al. (2009, p. 55) stated that MCDM is “an analyticmethod to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alterna-tives based on multiple criteria.” Saaty (2008, p. 83) explained thatAHP is “a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisonsand relies on the judgments of experts to derive priority scales.”The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgments thatindicate how much one element dominates another in respect to agiven attribute (Saaty 2008). There are three basic principles of theAHP which include the following (Saaty 1982):

First is the principle of constructing hierarchies. A complex sys-tem was structured hierarchically by decomposing the elementsinto constituent parts according to essential relationships toward

Table 3. Procurement Selection Criteria

Number Criteria

Luuet al.

(2003a)

Cheunget al.(2001)

Nget al.(2002)

Hibberd andDjebarni(1996)

Hashimet al.(2006)

Al Khalil(2002)

Alhazmi andMcCaffer(2000)

Loveet al.(1998)

Luuet al.

(2003b)

1 Speed — X X X — — — X —2 Time certainty X — X X X X X X —3 Price/cost certainty X X X X X X X X —4 Degree of complexity — X X — X X X X —5 Degree of flexibility X X X — — X X X X6 Responsibility — X X — X X X X —7 Risk allocation/avoidance X X X X X — — X X8 Quality level — X X — X — — X X9 Price competition X X X — X — — X X10 Public accountability — — X — — — — — —11 Political issues/constraint — — X — — — — — X12 Intuition and past experience of the decision maker X — X — — — — — X13 Dissatisfaction with previous process used — — — X — — — — —14 Knowledge of the strategy — — — X — — — — —15 Culture — — — — — — — — X16 Objective or policy of organization — — X — — — — — —17 Working relationship — — — X — — — — —18 Government policy X — — — X — — — —19 Clarity of scope — — — — — X — — —20 Existing building condition — — — — — X X — —21 Involvement of owner in the project — — — — — — — — X22 Disputes and arbitration — — X — — — — X —23 Experience contractor availability — — — — — — — — X24 Client’s in-house technical capability — — — — — — — — X25 Client’s financial capability — — — — — — — — X26 Project size — — — — — — — — X

© ASCE 04014050-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

a desired goal which can make the whole system well understood(Saaty 1982).

Second is the principle of establishing priorities. The first step inestablishing the priorities of elements in a decision problem is tomake a pairwise comparison that is to compare the elements in pairsagainst a given criterion (Saaty 1982). Table 6 shows the scale for apairwise comparison matrix. Saaty (1982) pointed out that past ex-perience has confirmed that a scale of nine units is reasonable and

reflects the degree to which the intensity of relationships betweenelements can be discriminated.

Third is the principle of logical consistency. Logical consistencyensures that elements are grouped logically and ranked consistentlyaccording to a logical criterion (Saaty 1982). The consistency of thecomparison matrix is monitored by an inconsistency ratio (IR) orconsistency ratio (CR) calculated by the formula below (Cheunget al. 2001; Saaty 1982):

Consistency ratio ðCRÞ¼ Consistency index ðCIÞ=Random index ðRIÞ

where CI ¼ ðλmax − nÞ=ðn − 1Þ, with n the number of elements;λmax = maximum eigenvalue of the comparison matrix; andRI = consistency index of a randomly generated reciprocal matrixwithin a scale of 1 to 9.

The consistency ratio (CR) is acceptable if it does not exceed0.10. Repeat and review the judgment if the CR is greater than

Table 4. Main Procurement Selection Criteria

Main criteriaLuu et al.(2003b)

Ratnasabapathy andRameezdeen (2007)

Al Khalil(2002)

Clients’ requirementsand characteristics

X X X

Project characteristic X X XExternal environmentor factor

X X —

Table 5. Procurement Method Selection Criteria

Criteria

C 1 Client requirement and characteristicsC 1.1 Experienced contractor availability C 1.11 Involvement of owner in the projectC 1.2 Quality level C 1.12 Working relationshipC 1.3 Knowledge of the strategy C 1.13 Intuition and past experienceC 1.4 Degree of responsibility C 1.14 Client in-house technical capabilityC 1.5 Client’s financial capability C 1.15 Price or cost certaintyC 1.6 Price competition C 1.16 Risk allocation or avoidanceC 1.7 Time certainty C 1.17 Dissatisfaction with previous processC 1.8 Speed C 1.18 Degree of complexityC 1.9 Public accountability C 1.19 Degree of flexibilityC 1.10 Clarity of scope — —

C 2 Project characteristicC 2.1 Existing building condition C 2.2 Project size

C 3 External environment/factorC 3.1 Objective or policy of organization C 3.4 Political issue/constraintC 3.2 Government policy C 3.5 Cultural differencesC 3.3 Dispute and arbitration — —

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), Luuet al. (2003a, 2003b), and Hashim et al. (2006).

Table 6. Scale for Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Intensity ofimportance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance of both elements Two criteria are of equal importance and equally contribute tothe property or objectives

3 Weak importance of one over another Experience and judgment slightly favor one criterion orelement over another

5 Essential or strong importance of oneelement over another

Experience and judgment strongly favor one criterion orelement over another

7 Very strong and demonstrated importance ofone element over another

A criterion or element is strongly more important or favoredand its dominance is demonstrated in practice more than the other

9 Absolute importance of one element over another The evidence favoring one criterion over another is of the highestpossible order of affirmation

2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between adjacent scale values When compromise is needed between two judgmentsReciprocals ofabove nonzero

If activity i has one of the above nonzero numbersassigned to it when compared with activity j,then j has the reciprocal value when comparedwith i

A reasonable assumption

Rational Ratios arising from the scale If consistency were to be forced by obtaining n numericalvalues to span the matrix

Note: Data from Cheung et al. (2001), Saaty (1980, 1982, 1990).

© ASCE 04014050-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

0.10. Table 7 shows the random index (RI) for a consistency indexof 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 sec-ondary. According to McNabb (2008), primary data are researchergenerated, and secondary data are collected by other parties but areused by the researcher to have more understanding for the research.The present study starts with identification of secondary data col-lected through an extensive literature review. The literature reviewfor the development of a decision-making framework is mainlyfocused on two important components: the possible assessmentcriteria and the alternatives available for selection. The assessmentcriteria and alternatives for selection are evaluated by the mainte-nance personnel in public universities in Malaysia in order to de-termine and shortlist the assessment criteria and alternatives that areconsidered important to select the most appropriate procurementmethod for building maintenance management specifically forpublic universities in Malaysia.

Before the questionnaire survey was conducted, a pilot studywas conducted to assure that the questionnaires achieve the objec-tives of the survey and to test the ease of understanding of thequestions. It was also taken into consideration whether the timeallocated to complete the survey is appropriate, and any ambiguitiesarising from the wording of the questions was also addressed. Oncethe questionnaire was completed, an official cover letter from thefaculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, and a coverletter that contained the objectives of the research, the importanceof the information requested, and when the respondents are ex-pected to return the completed questionnaire were attached as well.The respondents were promised a summary report of the findings ofthe survey for their corporation, requiring them to provide theirname and e-mail address at the end of the questionnaire. This con-tact information will then be used to forward to them the findings ofthe survey. A set of questionnaires with the letter was posted to allrespondents on the same day together with a self-addressed prepaidenvelope that was provided in order to expedite and facilitate re-turn. However, the respondents were also allowed to return theircompleted questionnaire by e-mail. All the questionnaire were sentusing the Faculty of Built Environment, University Malaya, addressas the return address to reflect the importance of the work and toindicate 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 fromthe questionnaires was analyzed using computer packages, namelyStatistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 17.0.

Results and Discussion

From the 20 public universities surveyed, 17 questionnaires werereturned and were subsequently analyzed for this study. This marksthe response rate at 85%. This is considered satisfactory for a postal

survey. Sekaran and Bougie (2009) claimed that 30% is thecommon response rate for a postal survey. However, this high re-sponse rate is possible because of the long survey duration of timegiven and the numerous reminders that were sent to the respond-ents. Analysis of the data shows that a majority (29.4%) of therespondents are directors or deputy directors of developmentas shown in Table 8. Director of development is the highestmanagerial position in the Department of Development andMaintenance. The director of development is responsible for plan-ning, executing, and monitoring development projects, mainte-nance works, and building and infrastructure upgrading work in theuniversity. In addition, they need to manage the administrationand operations of the department and assist the university’s vicechancellor in planning the strategy and direction of developmentin and around the vicinity of the university as well as plan and im-plement development initiatives. Thus, the directors or deputydirectors of development and maintenance are the most appropriatepeople to respond to the questionnaire because they are involved inthe 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 havemore than 15 years of experience in building maintenance works,and 76.4% of the respondents have more than five years ofexperience in the said field. Hence, there is no doubt that the re-spondents have sufficient experience to provide valid feedback. Ananalysis was also carried out on the number of university buildingsthat had been managed by the respondents prior to the current uni-versity that they are managing to study the respondents’ experiencein managing university buildings. It can be seen in Table 10 thatnearly half of the respondents (41.2%) managed more than 15buildings. With this, there is no doubt as to the respondents’ expe-rience in managing university buildings. An analysis on academicqualification of the respondents reveals that 64.7% of respondents

Table 7. Consistency Index (RI) of a Randomly Generated ReciprocalMatrix within a Scale of 1 to 9

Size ofmatrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Randomconsistency

0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Note: Data from Cheung et al. (2001), Saaty (1980, 1982, 1990).

Table 8. Distribution of Respondents’ Position

Job title Percentage (N ¼ 17)

Facilities manager 17.6Maintenance manager 11.8Maintenance executive 17.6Director or deputy director of development 29.4Others 23.5Total 100.0

Table 9. Distribution of Respondents’ Working Experience in BuildingMaintenance Works

Experience in building maintenance works Percentage (N ¼ 17)

Less than 5 years 23.55–10 years 23.510–15 years 17.6More than 15 years 35.3Total 100.0

Table 10.Distribution of Number of University Buildings Managed by theRespondents before This University

Number of university buildings have beenmanaged before this university Percentage (N ¼ 17)

Less than five buildings 58.8More than 15 buildings 41.2Total 100.0

© ASCE 04014050-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

who have obtained their bachelor’s degree, 23.5% of them haveobtained their master’s degree. A total of 11.8% of the respondentshave a doctorate degree. From Table 11, the results revealed that all(100%) of the respondents have at least a bachelor’s degree. There-fore, it can be deduced that the majority of the respondents havesatisfactory working experience and knowledge in providing re-quired information. This indicated that the respondents’ role,knowledge, and extensive background provide valid, factual, andunbiased information that contribute to the high reliability and val-idity of the conclusion which has been drawn from the researchfindings.

Table 12 shows that most (70.6%) of the universities thatparticipated in this research occupied more than 100,001 m2 buildarea. Only one university occupied 40,000–50,000 m2, one univer-sity 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 inthis survey were large. Ali (2009) claimed that the level of main-tenance work required depends on the age of building. He furtherexplained that the older the building, the more attention and focus isneeded. Lateef (2009) agreed that a building’s age is one of themost important elements that needs to be considered in the alloca-tion of maintenance resources. Cross tabulation is performed to de-termine whether age of building influences the allocation of theannual maintenance budget of the university. The age of the build-ing refers to the years of establishment of that particular university.There are two universities that are more than 50 years old andthe buildings have been listed under the National Heritage Act2005 and recorded as heritage buildings. The buildings that havebeen recorded are Suluh Budiman Building which is known asBangunan Suluh Budiman in Malay located in Sultan Idris Univer-sity of Education (UPSI) and Chancellery building as well as

Tunku Chancellor Hall which is known as Dewan TunkuChancellor (DTC) in Malay located in University of Malaya. SuluhBudiman Building was built in August 1919 and completed in June1922, while Chancellery building and Tunku Chancellor Hall werecompleted and officiated in 1966. The buildings have historicalvalue, cultural heritage significance, and represent the nature ofthe universities. The results in Table 13 reveal that only 11.8%of the universities that are more than 50 years old are allocatedthe most annual maintenance budget (at more than RM40 million).It also revealed that the universities that have been in existence forat least 31 years were allocated more than RM10 million for theirannual maintenance budget. This proves that the older the building,the higher is the allocation of annual maintenance budget for theuniversity.

Likert scale and ranking analysis were employed to rate the im-portance of procurement selection criteria. As mentioned earlier,there are 26 criteria to be considered in this study. The respondentswere asked to rate the degree of importance of criteria to be con-sidered for procurement method selection for universities’ buildingmaintenance. Likert scales of 5, from which 1 indicates “least im-portant” to 5 which indicates “very important” were employed.Ranking of the importance of procurement selection criteria usesthe mean score to indicate the degree of importance of the criteria.The mean, standard deviation, mode, and ranking can be referred toin Table 14. The Likert scale was also used to rate the importance ofeach type of procurement method identified from the literature re-view. Ranking analysis was performed to indicate the degree ofimportance of the building maintenance procurement method.The mean, standard deviation, mode, and ranking can be referredto in Table 15.

Furthermore, a multiple-response analysis was performed on theprocurement methods currently employed in Malaysia’s public uni-versities. The results are shown in Table 16 and Fig. 1 for reference.Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contracts is the most popu-lar procurement method adapted in public universities. Out of 17universities that participated in this survey, 14 universities em-ployed this type of procurement method as opposed to only 3 uni-versities that do not. In addition, outsourcing by specialist termcontracts (14.3%) is also popular among the procurement methods.On the other hand, out-tasking (1.1%) and total facilities manage-ment (1.1%) are the least used in public universities in Malaysia.The ranking of the procurement method used in public universitiesin Malaysia can be referred to in Fig. 1.

There are some methods that the decision maker applied to se-lect the most appropriate procurement method. Some respondentsmay choose the procurement method based on previous experien-ces, on the maintenance budget allocation, on the age of the build-ing, or on government policies. Some may think the best way is toselect a procurement method that carries the least risk and willdeliver optimum efficiency. Based on the data collected from 17universities that participated in this survey, some universities

Table 11. Distribution of Respondents’ Highest Academic Background

Highest academic qualification Percentage (N ¼ 17)

Bachelor degree 64.7Master degree 23.5Ph.D. 11.8Total 100.0

Table 12. Distribution of Size of the University Built Area

Size of the university built area Percentage (N ¼ 17)

40,000–50,000 m2 5.950,001–60,000 m2 5.960,001–70,000 m2 5.970,001–80,000 m2 11.8100,001 m2 and above 70.6Total 100.0

Table 13. Cross Tabulation between Age of University and Annual Maintenance Budget of University

Age of university

Annual maintenance budget of university Totalpercentage(N ¼ 17)

Less thanRM10 million RM11–20 million RM21–30 million RM31–40 million

More thanRM40 million

Less than 10 years 11.8 5.9 0 0 0 17.610–20 years 29.4 5.9 0 0 0 35.321–30 years 5.9 5.9 0 0 0 11.831–40 years 0 5.9 0 5.9 0 11.841–50 years 0 0 5.9 0 0 5.9More than 50 years 5.9 0 0 0 11.8 17.6Total 52.9 23.5 5.9 5.9 11.8 100.0

© ASCE 04014050-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

depend on more than one method in choosing a suitable procure-ment method. Thus, a multiple-response analysis was performed onthis analysis. From the results obtained in Table 17, the majority ofuniversities choose their procurement method based on mainte-nance 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 riskand optimizes efficiency (2.9%). In addition, some universities con-sider the age of the building (17.1%) in selecting their procurementmethod.

Lateef et al. (2011) pointed out that university organizationsprefer to outsource the larger part of maintenance services, andit seems that outsourcing is the most commonly used procurementmethod for universities in Malaysia. It also can be seen from

Table 14. Ranking of Procurement Selection Criteria

Procurement selection criteria MeanStandarddeviation

Meanranking Mode

Experience contractor availability 4.71 0.470 1 5Existing building condition 4.59 0.618 2 5Objective or policy of organization 4.53 0.514 3 4Quality level 4.47 0.717 4 5Government policy 4.41 0.618 5 4Knowledge of the strategy 4.41 0.712 6 5Degree of responsibility 4.41 0.712 6 5Client’s financial capability 4.41 0.795 7 5Price competition 4.35 0.606 8 4Time certainty 4.35 0.493 9 4Speed 4.35 0.493 9 4Public accountability 4.29 0.686 10 4Clarity of scope 4.29 0.686 10 4Involvement of owner in the project 4.24 0.752 11 4Working relationship 4.24 0.831 12 5Project size 4.18 0.636 13 4Intuition and past experience 4.12 0.781 14 4Client in-house technical capability 4.06 0.827 15 4Price or cost certainty 4.00 1.061 16 4Risk allocation or avoidance 3.94 0.748 17 4Dispute and arbitration 3.88 0.697 18 4Dissatisfaction with previous process 3.76 0.903 19 4Degree of complexity 3.71 0.985 20 4Degree of flexibility 3.59 1.004 21 3Political issue/constraint 3.53 0.717 22 3Culture 3.47 0.800 23 3

Table 15. Ranking of Building Maintenance Procurement Method

Procurement method MeanStandarddeviation

Meanranking Mode

Outsourcing by specialist term contract 4.18 0.728 1 4Outsourcing by tendered schedule termcontract

4.12 0.781 2 4

Outsourcing by repair and maintenancecontract

4.06 0.659 3 4

Outsourcing by measured term contract 3.94 0.966 4 4Outsourcing by service-level agreement 3.47 1.007 5 3Total facilities management 3.24 1.200 6 4Outsourcing by lump sum contract 3.24 1.251 7 3Outsourcing by day work contract 3.06 0.899 8 3Traditional 3.00 1.000 9 3Outsourcing by cost reimbursementcontract

2.88 0.928 10 3

Public-private partnership (PPP) 2.82 0.809 11 3Out-tasking 2.82 0.809 11 3Partnering 2.71 1.263 12 3

Table 16. Distribution on Procurement Methods Currently Employed inMalaysia’s Public Universities

Procurement method used in universities

Responses Percent ofcasesN Percentage

Outsourcing by repair and maintenancecontract

14 18.2 82.4

Outsourcing by specialist term contract 13 16.9 76.5Outsourcing by tendered schedule termcontract

12 15.6 70.6

Outsourcing by measured term contract 11 14.3 64.7Outsourcing by lump sum contract 6 7.8 35.3Traditional 6 7.8 35.3Outsourcing by day work contract 5 6.5 29.4Outsourcing by service-level agreement 4 5.2 23.5Public-private partnership (PPP) 2 2.6 11.8Outsourcing by cost reimbursementcontract

2 2.6 11.8

Out-tasking 1 1.3 5.9Total facilities management 1 1.3 5.9Partnering 0 0 0Total 77 100.0 452.9

Fig. 1. Ranking of procurement methods currently employed inMalaysia’s public universities

Table 17. Distribution on Ways to Select Procurement Method

Ways to select procurement method

Responses Percent ofcasesN Percentage

Based on previous experiences 11 31.4 64.7Based on the maintenance budgetallocation

16 45.7 94.1

Based on the age of the building 6 17.1 35.3Based on government policies 1 2.9 5.9Select a procurement method that carriesthe least risk and will deliver optimumefficiency

1 2.9 5.9

Total 35 100.0 205.9

© ASCE 04014050-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Table 16 and Fig. 1 that most of the universities prefer to outsourcetheir building maintenance services to contractors. The reasons forthis are identified in Table 18. Table 18 shows that the main reasonthat the universities outsourced their maintenance services was be-cause of the inadequacy of in-house staff. Fourteen out of the 17universities that participated in this survey claimed that the numberof in-house staff is not adequate which means that the number ofmaintenance personnel in the university organization is not suffi-cient to carry out all the maintenance work in the university. Thus,the university organizations prefer to outsource the maintenanceservices to contractors to carry out the maintenance task, andthe in-house maintenance team focuses only on monitoring andplanning the building maintenance task. The universities also

Table 18. Distribution on Reason to Outsource Building MaintenanceServices

Reasons to outsource building maintenance

Responses Percent ofcasesN Percentage

Reduce maintenance task to correctivemaintenance

10 25.6 58.8

In-house staff less competent and inactive 5 12.8 29.4Number of in-house staff is not adequate 14 35.9 82.4It can reduce maintenance cost 4 10.3 23.5University management consider themanagement of building as noncore activity

5 12.8 29.4

Complexity of the maintenance work 1 2.6 5.9Total 39 100.0 229.4

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

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

Development Stage

Identify problem

The decision problem is decomposed by structuring the

hierarchy based on AHP technique and principles

Employ the shortlisted criteria and alternatives using Expert Choice Software as development tool to develop the hierarchy framework

Evaluation Stage

Perform pairwise comparisons using the relative measurement

scale

Synthesizing the pairwise comparison

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.

Consider constraints

Market condition Regulatory constraints University organization policies i.e safety

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 4.71 5 Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contract 4.06 4 82.4Existing building condition 4.59 5 Outsourcing by specialist term contract 4.18 4 76.5Objective or policy of organization 4.53 4 Outsourcing by tendered schedule term contract 4.12 4 70.6Quality level 4.47 5 Outsourcing by measured term contract 3.94 4 64.7Government policy 4.41 4Knowledge of the strategy 4.41 5Degree of responsibility 4.41 5Client’s financial capability 4.41 5Price competition 4.35 4Time certainty 4.35 4Speed 4.35 4Public accountability 4.29 4Clarity of scope 4.29 4Involvement of owner in the project 4.24 4Working relationship 4.24 5Project size 4.18 4Intuition and past experience 4.12 4Client in-house technical capability 4.06 4Price or cost certainty 4.00 4

© ASCE 04014050-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

claimed that outsourcing reduces the maintenance task to correctivemaintenance (25.6%) because the maintenance task will be carriedout by a trained and experienced team for better-quality service.This is supported by Sheng (2012) who found that external special-ists are engaged to provide certain specialized trade of service thatcan improve the quality of maintenance work, reduce corrective

maintenance, and reduce maintenance cost. The universities alsoclaimed that in-house staff are less competent and inactive(12.8%), and university management considers the managementof the building as a noncore activity (12.8%), thus the servicesare outsourced. However, some universities argued that outsourcingcan reduce maintenance cost (10.3%) as it can eliminate the cost oftraining provision for internal employees, while other universitiesclaimed that the complexity of the work (2.6%) caused them to out-source the work to the experts.

From the survey, 58.8% (N ¼ 10) of the respondents opinedthat there was no proper guidance available to select the most ap-propriate procurement method. This result provides an impetus forthis research. However, 41.2% (N ¼ 7) of the respondents statedthat some guidance is available such as government policies thatwere produced by the ministry of finance and public works depart-ment, also known as Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR). Furthermore, amajority (52.9%) of the respondents opined that there is nodecision-making theory or tool available in helping them to selecta procurement strategy for the university. However, the analysisreveals that 47.1% of the respondents stated that there were sometools available to help them in selecting procurement methods suchas problem solving and priority selection (Pareto Ishikawa 80:20),cut-off statistic, appointment of procurement committee members,

Select the most appropriate procurement method of building maintenance management services for public university

Level 1: Goal

Level3: Sub Criteria

Level 4: Alternatives A4 A3 A2 A1

Level 2: Main Criteria

C1 C2 C3

• 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

• C2.1

• C2.2 • C3.1

• C3.2

Fig. 3. Hierarchy structure for selecting the most appropriate procurement method for building maintenance management of public universities inMalaysia

Table 20. List of Final Procurement Selection Criteria

Abbreviation used Criteria

C1 Clients’ requirementsC1.1 Experienced contractor availabilityC1.2 Quality levelC1.3 Knowledge of the strategyC1.4 Degree of responsibilityC1.5 Client’s financial capabilityC1.6 Price competitionC1.7 Time certaintyC1.8 SpeedC1.9 Public accountabilityC1.10 Clarity of scopeC1.11 Involvement of owner in the projectC1.12 Working relationshipC1.13 Intuition and pass experienceC1.14 Client in house technical capabilityC1.15 Price or cost certaintyC2 Project characteristicC2.1 Existing building conditionC2.2 Project sizeC3 External environment/factorC3.1 Objective or policy of organizationC3.2 Government policy

Table 21. List of Final Alternative

Abbreviation used Alternative

A1 Outsourcing by repair and maintenance contractA2 Outsourcing by specialist term contractA3 Outsourcing by tendered schedule term contractA4 Outsourcing by measured term contract

© ASCE 04014050-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

urgency level, total asset management, evaluation criteria based onQuantity Surveyor and JKR, as well as strategic planning.

The finding of this research has proven that the selection of pro-curement method by university organization is not strategic or sys-tematic, as there is no guidance available for the decision maker toselect the most appropriate procurement strategy. It is vital to de-velop a systematic approach that can assist the maintenance person-nel in the decision-making process of selecting the most suitableprocurement method in building maintenance management forthe public university.

Proposed Decision-Making Framework

The development of the framework includes the employment ofprocurement selection criteria and procurement method option, in-tegration of AHP technique and principles, as well as the adaptionof Expert Choice 11 software as development tool. The proposeddecision-making framework is shown in Fig. 2. In order to derivea set of procurement selection criteria that were considered essen-tial, only those criteria that obtained both mean rating and modeequivalent to or above four were considered as important and veryimportant according to Likert scales of 5 (1 indicates “least im-portant” to 5 indicating “very important”) and are included in thisstudy for the proposed decision-making framework. This methodof criteria elimination using the mean rating value was employedby Cheung et al. (2001) in developing a model for the selection ofconstruction procurement. Thus, only 19 criteria will be consid-ered in the development of a decision-making framework in thisstudy. The procurement methods that were considered as mostcommonly used (percentage of cases more than 50%) and catego-rized as important and very important with both mean rating andmode equal to or above 4 will be considered for the proposeddecision-making framework. The procurement selection criteriaand procurement option that were selected are provided in sum-mary in Table 19.

The hierarchy structure for the present study that is constructedmanually can be referred to in Fig. 3 and the abbreviation used inthe figure can be referred to in Tables 20 and 21. The procedure andstep for adapting AHP are illustrated in Fig. 4.

The AHP implementation steps will be simplified by using theExpert Choice 11 professional software that is available commer-cially and designed for the implementation of AHP (Al-Harbi2001). Expert Choice 11 software is employed as a development

Define the problem and determine its goal

Structure the hierarchy

Construct a set of n × n pair-wise comparison matrices.

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

Synthesis the pairwise comparison and obtain the overall priority ranking

Select the most suitable alternative

Establish priorities by making pairwise comparison

Fig. 4. Steps for adapting AHP

Fig. 5. A model tree view of the decision hierarchy in Expert Choice 11 software

© ASCE 04014050-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

tool to assist in development of the decision-making framework.Expert Choice 11 software offers a model view containing eithera tree view or cluster view of the decision hierarchy. Fig. 5 illus-trates a model tree view of the decision hierarchy of the proposedframework in Expert Choice 11 software.

In addition, one of the AHP’s strengths is the possibility toevaluate qualitatively as well as qualitatively the criteria and al-ternatives on the same preference scale of nine levels (Ishizakaand Labib 2009). The judgments can be performed in threeways in Expert Choice 11: numerical, verbal, and graphical. Fur-thermore, this software works by examining judgments made bythe decision makers and measuring the consistency of thosejudgments.

Expert Choice 11 allows the decision maker to reexamine andrevise the judgments for all levels of the hierarchy, and it showswhere the inconsistency exists and how to minimize it in order toimprove the decision. Another feature of Expert Choice 11 is thatit provides tools for performing a sensitivity analysis which helpsthe decision maker to see how different weights assigned to eachcriterion could affect the outcome of the model. In the sensitivityanalysis, the input data are slightly modified in order to observethe impact on the result (Ishizaka and Labib 2009). The main pur-pose of the sensitivity analysis is graphically seen by how the alter-native changes in respect to the importance of the criteria. Generally,there are five types of sensitivity analysis that can be performed inExpert Choice 11 which include performance sensitivity, dynamicsensitivity, gradient sensitivity, head-to-head sensitivity, and two-dimensional sensitivity.

Conclusion

The finding of the present research has proven that the selectionof 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 assistthe maintenance personnel in selecting the most suitable procure-ment method. The development of a decision-making frameworkusing AHP and Expert Choice 11 software mainly focused ontwo important components that are the possible assessment criteriaand the alternatives available for selection. The assessment criteriaare used to evaluate the alternatives. The framework integrates AHPtechniques and principles as well as adapts Expert Choice 11 soft-ware as a development tool. The application of AHP and ExpertChoice 11 which enable calculation of the judgment consistencyassure that the decision maker’s judgments are consistent andthe final decision is made well. The proposed decision-makingframework is expected to be a useful tool for the maintenanceorganizations that provide alternatives and procurement selectioncriteria. This is critical during the decision-making process of se-lecting the most appropriate procurement strategy. Nonetheless,the final phase of the research that includes implementation andvalidation of the proposed framework through structured interviewswith a number of public universities selected is ongoing. During thestructured interview, the framework produced is demonstrated tothe interviewees. Then, the interviewees are asked to run the frame-work in the Expert Choice 11 software and evaluate the frameworkin terms of capability, applicability, and validity in an evaluationform. The results of the interviews will be reported as soon as theyare completed. The framework is created to be flexible in whichthe decision makers are recommended to assert or eliminate theprocurement selection criteria that they think are appropriate fora particular project.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of theUniversity of Malaya Research Grant (UMRG), No. RG183/12SUS established at the University of Malaya, SustainabilityScience Research Cluster.

References

Adekunle, S. O., Michael, D., Malik, M. A. K., Peter, M., and Steve, R.(2009). “Construction project procurement routes: An in-depthcritique.” Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus., 2(3), 338–354.

Al-Harbi, K. M. A.-S. (2001). “Application of the AHP in project manage-ment.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 19(1), 19–27.

Al Khalil, M. I. (2002). “Selecting the appropriate project delivery methodusing AHP.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 20(6), 469–474.

Alhazmi, T., and McCaffer, R. (2000). “Project procurement systemselection 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 practicein Malaysia.” J. Facil. Manage., 7(4), 298–306.

Ancarani, A., and Capaldo, G. (2005). “Supporting decision-making pro-cess in facilities management services procurement: A methodologicalapproach.” 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 ana-lytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method.” Constr.Manage. Econ., 19(4), 427–437.

Dept. of Higher Education. (2011). “Categories of public HEIs.” HigherEducation 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 systemsby clients.” Int. Conf. on Construction Industry 2006, Univ. of Tech-nology, Johor, Malaysia.

Hibberd, P., and Djebarni, R. (1996). “Criteria of choice for procurementmethods.” Proc., Cobra 1996 September 19–20, University of WestEngland, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyor, Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors (RICS), London, U.K.

Hui, E. Y. Y., and Tsang, A. H. C. (2004). “Sourcing strategies of facilitiesmanagement.” J. Qual. Mainten. Eng., 10(2), 85–92.

Ishizaka, A., and Labib, A. (2009). “Analytic hierarchy process and expertchoice: Benefits and limitations.” ORInsight, 4(4), 201–220.

Kamaruzzaman, S. N., and Zawawi, E. M. A. (2010). “Development offacilities management in Malaysia.” J. Facil. Manage., 8(1), 75–81.

Kleeman, W. B. (1994). “Out-tasking: More widespread than outsourcingin 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 maintenancemanagement 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 thebuilding 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 forsupporting 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 appropriateprocurement 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 procurementadvisory system for construction.” Adv. Eng. Software, 34(7), 429–438.

Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., and Chen, S. E. (2003b). “Parameters governing theselection of procurement system—An empirical survey.” Eng.Construct. Architect. Manage., 10(3), 209–218.

© ASCE 04014050-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Masterman, J. W. E. (1992). An introduction to building procurementsystems, Spon Press, London, U.K.

McNabb, D. E. (2008). Research methods in public administration andnonprofit management: Quantitative and qualitative approaches,2nd Ed., M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Moore, M., and Finch, E. (2004). “Facilities management in South EastAsia.” Facilities, 22(9), 259–270.

Musa, Z. N. (2011). “Determining the best options for facilities manage-ment (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 man-agement 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 theirsubjectivity 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). “Assess-ing the maintenance aspect of facilities management through aperformance measurement system: A Malaysian case study.” 2ndInt. 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 tochemical engineering management decisions.” World Acad. Sci. Eng.Technol., 49, 54–59.

Ratnasabapathy, S., and Rameezdeen, R. (2007). “A decision supportsystem 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 main-tenance: Strategy, planning and procurement RICS guidance note, 2ndEd., Coventry, U.K.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, prioritysetting, resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Saaty, T. L. (1982). Decision making for leaders: The analyticalhierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, Lifetime LearningPublication, A division of Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchyprocess.” 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 skillbuilding approach, 5th Ed., Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.

Sheng, L. C. (2012). “Overview of in-house and outsourcing strategies forproperty 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 prom-ising concept.” J. Facil. Manage., 5(2), 129–142.

Wordsworth, P. (2001). Lee’s building maintenance management, 4th Ed.,Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.

© ASCE 04014050-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

HO

WA

RD

UN

IV-U

ND

ER

GR

AD

UA

TE

LIB

on

02/2

7/15

. Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.