Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original articles

Ranking the indicators of building performance and the users risk via
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia
Natasha Khalil a,b , Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman (Sr. Dr.) (Asoc. Prof.) b, ,
Mohamad Rizal Baharum (Dr.) b
a
Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA Perak, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak,
Malaysia
b
Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 April 2016
Received in revised form 18 July 2016
Accepted 20 July 2016
Available online 3 August 2016
Keywords:
Building performance evaluation
Health and safety risk
Rating tool
Analytical Hierarchy Process
Higher educational buildings

a b s t r a c t
The need to optimise the performance of buildings has increased consequently due to the expansive
supply of facilities in higher education building (HEB). Hence, a proper performance assessment as a
proactive measure may help university building in achieving performance optimization. However, the
current maintenance programs or performance evaluation in the HEB is a systemic and cyclic process
where maintenance is considered as an operational issue and not as opposed to a strategic issue. Hence,
this paper proposed a Building Performance Risk Rating Tool (BPRT) as an improved measure for building
performance evaluation by addressing the users risk in health and safety aspects. The BPRT was developed from the result of a rating index using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. A total of 12
facilities management (FM) experts and practitioners were involved in the rating process. The subjective
weightings were analysed by using the AHP computer software programme, the Expert Choice 11. The
result of the AHP had successfully assigned weighting scores to all performance-risk indicators, with
ve indicators ranked as the most critical indicators; structural stability (14.9%), re prevention services
(9.1%), building-related illnesses (7.4%), emergency exits (6.8%), and electrical services (6.3%). The nal
indication to the assessed building using the BPRT provided a rating classication in terms of the following: Excellent, Good, Medium, Low, or Poor, which suggested further actions to improve the
performance of the building, as well as to mitigate the users health and safety risks. Hence, the establishment of the BPRT was successfully employed as an aid of improvement towards the current performance
assessment of HEB by emerging the concept of building performance and risk into a numerical strategic
approach.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The development of higher education buildings (HEB), including
expanding facilities, is spirally a welcoming sign of the growth of
tertiary educational programs. Unlike most land developers, university authorities need to have a long-term view of operations
to ensure sustainability is achieved through performance optimization. However, building performance is not guaranteed as it
depends on its lifespan, as well as the changes that take place in the

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: natashakhalil29@gmail.com (N. Khalil),
syahrulnizam2013@yahoo.com (S.N. Kamaruzzaman), mrizal@um.edu.my
(M.R. Baharum).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.032
1470-160X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

physical requirement from the growing learning activities and students populations. Hence, further issues, such as space inefciency,
ventilation discomfort, and inefcient of energy use, may decrease
the performance of the buildings from time to time (Altan, 2010;
Gillen et al., 2011; Hassanain, 2007; Sapri and Muhammad, 2010).
Performance failure, nevertheless, does not only affect the sustainability of the building, but the users are also affected by the failure of
building performance (Olanrewaju et al., 2010b). Hence, in order to
optimise the performance of HEB, occupants, visitors, and passersby should never be exposed to risks (Amaratunga and Baldry, 1999).
This is because; several studies have shown that poor building
performance presents vulnerability of risk towards the safety and
health of building users (Almeida et al., 2010; Altan, 2010; Cole,
2000; Ltzkendorf and Lorenz, 2007, 2006; Meacham, 2010; Wolski

568

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

et al., 2000; Zalejska-Jonsson, 2012). This demonstrates the significance of addressing risk in the building performance evaluation.
HEBs constitute an important part of a universitys facilities and
considerable resources are committed to their design, construction and maintenance (Olanrewaju et al., 2010b). Human resources,
materials and nancial resources are devoted to the acquisition,
operation and management of the facilities (Sapri and Muhammad,
2010). It is imperative for institutions to manage their facilities
well by adopting good practices in various aspects of their operations. However, sadly, the challenges and inspiration that can be
sparked by commitments to a full suite of environmental performance variables have been missing in both education and practice
(Loftness et al., 2005). The focus in HEBs seems more narrowed
to the universitys policy and research in energy usage, maintenance management, and the students learning efciency. There is
an absence of a holistic approach in the management of HEBs, that
would be benecial not only for the building itself but also for its
users.
In revealing the crucial aspect of performance assessment, the
Malaysian government, under the maintenance division, had issued
the General Circular (No.1) dated 27th March 2009, which states
holistic management of asset through all management should
undertake a systematic approach to achieve building performance
optimization. Furthermore, as described in the Guideline of Building Condition Assessment (BCA) to the existing government and
public buildings (Public Works Department, 2013), the assessment
for a building is essential not only for building repairs and improvement, but the assessment must also t the aspect of safety and risk
of building. Hence, employing a strategic approach via numerical
building rating tool may resonate with the changing needs of HEB
operations and expansive functions.
University buildings in Malaysia have been constructed since
1960. Nevertheless, all buildings deteriorate and decay with age
as a result of various factors, including poor quality materials, bad
workmanship, excessive usage, abuse, as well as inadequate and
poor maintenance (Ali et al., 2010; Che-Ani et al., 2010). As buildings become larger and house more people, political and societal
issues would have become more complex, which in turn, amplify
the risks associated with occupying such buildings (Thompson and
Bank, 2007). Hence, indicating a list of criteria towards a proper
building performance assessment is denitely needed to mitigate
hazards upon users.

2. Building performance and risk impact to the users

The basic concept of building performance evaluation (BPE)
has been emerged on various issues, characteristics with various
objectives. The performance concept involves recommendations
for improvement and it is used for feedback and feed forward
regarding the performance of similar buildings (Amaratunga and
Baldry, 1998). It denotes the comparison of clients goals and performance criteria against actual building performance, measured
both subjectively and objective. Building performance has been
dened in BS 5240 as behaviour of a product in use (Almeida
et al., 2010; Douglas, 1996). It is also described as a process of
assessing progress towards achieving goods and services efciency,
quality of building outputs and effectiveness of building operations
(Amaratunga and Baldry, 2003). This refers to the comprehensive
features of a building, including structural, architectural, surroundings, environmental issues and building services. The performance
measurement of a building is rstly summarised in terms of the
background of the building and the scope of performance assessment (McDougall et al., 2002). Therefore, all relevant stakeholders
need to understand the key performance factors in a building.

Building performance assessment is carried out in the context

of the facilities management phase. Therefore Wong et al. (2011)
stressed that its implementation is able to mitigate the potential
loss of building data over the life cycle of the building. The ability
of an emergency response team to attain information from such
an assessment could substantially reduce risk to the responders,
building occupants and the general public (Wong et al., 2011). This
exemplies the ability of a building performance assessment to
reveal risk prevalence to be benecial to its users at large. Consequently, risk can have a direct impact on end users, society and
individuals or the whole building itself. Benchmarking the risk in
building performance can be framed as a health risk, a safety risk,
an environmental risk, an economic risk, a political risk or another
type of risk (Almeida et al., 2010; Meacham, 2010).
The aspect that needs to be thoroughly assessed in building performance depends on the evaluation purposes. Risks are associated
with the unintended consequences of building performance and
the primary cause of these risks may be due to lack of measured
performance data (Woods, 2008). Besides, the risk approach advocates principles on the level of building performance and predicts
the impact on the society that is ultimately affected by the sources
of risk. Therefore, to suit with the aspects of building performance
in Malaysian HEBs, health risk and safety risk had been the main
focus of this research. With that, the following provide the description of health risk and safety risk in the context of study for this
research:
i) Health Risk
Impact towards human health effects; either direct or indirect
exposure of building factors that can cause health risk (latent or
patent); the effect in short-term or long-term health suffers.
ii) Safety Risk
The risks or hazards that create a tendency for injury, death,
crime, theft, nuisance or burglary to the building users.
Since the risk frames are focussed towards health risk and
safety risk, a list of performance elements or indicators needs to
be constructed in prevailing the users health and safety risks from
elements of poor performance.

3. Initial development of the rating tool: the

Performance-Risk Indicators (PRI)
The initial step in developing a new rating tool is to select the
assessment areas that should be included; and next, determine the
parameters, attributes or indicators that can be used to measure
the selected aspects (Ali and Al, 2008; Malmqvist and Glaumann,
2009). In fact, a number of analyses upon previously established
performance rating tools, such as Building Research Establishments Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Total Building Performance (TBP), Building Safety Condition Index (BSCI), Building
Health Hygiene Index (BHHI), Malaysias Green Building Index
(GBI), and Building Rating Assessment System (BARIS) by the Public
Works Department (PWD), had been carried out in the literature
stage. The review is considered by far the most comprehensive
method to develop a new rating scheme and to examine sustainability issues (Ali and Al, 2008).
Literatures by Ltzkendorf and Lorenz (2007), as well as Preiser
(2005), showed that the mandates or the criteria in building performance depend on the objectives of evaluation. The elements
can be technical performance (heat insulation, re), functional
performance (functionality, applicability, adaptability), social performance (comfort, health, safety), economic performance (LCC,
cash ow, market value) or environmental performance (energy
use, materials use). Based on the review, functional performance,
technical performance, and indoor environmental performance

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

had been found appropriate for assessing both technical and social
aspects in meeting demands for reducing risk to building users.
From this division of elements, it was further divided to sub-items
as the indicators might have an impact on building performance
condition, as well as users health and safety risks. The indicators were initially compiled from the existing performance, the
green rating tools, and also some precedent researches concerning
risk in building performance (for example: Almeida et al., 2010;
Ltzkendorf and Lorenz, 2006; Meacham, 2010; Meins et al., 2010;
Wolski et al., 2000).
The initial construct of indicators, named as Performance-Risk
Indicators (PRI), was further conrmed through a preliminary survey, using the semi-structured interview technique. Eighteen (18)
FM building managers and operators in Malaysian public HEBs
were involved in the interview. Their input had been needed to
determine the suitability of the listed indicators for building performance rating assessment to be used in the Malaysian HEBs. The
list of Performance-Risk Indicators (PRI) was presented to the participants during the interview. The PRI was associated with users
health and safety risks and besides, it was initially constructed
to provide guidance for the participants. The participants were
asked to rate Yes if the indicator was suitable for the performance
assessment of Malaysian HEBs, or No if the indicator had been
irrelevant.
Out of the 25 indicators that were initially outlined, only two (2)
indicators; building integrity and heating (thermal comfort), were
removed from the list. Other than that, three (3) new indicators;
roof, amenities, and lift, were suggested as additional items that
should be incorporated into the building performance-risk rating tool. Hence, the ndings of the interview had nalised 26
indicators that were categorised into the performance elements
of functional, technical, and indoor environmental performances,
as recommended by Ltzkendorf and Lorenz (2007) and Preiser
(2005). Table 1 depicts the nal framework of the constructed PRI.
The listed indicators were conrmed as the predictor variables that
could contribute to the performance level, as well as to the users
health and safety risks. The PRI constructs were comprised of the
preliminary basis of a framework for further development of the
proposed building performance-risk rating tool. It had been developed further with relative importance and assigned weights for
each PRI in the next stage by employing the Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) as the decision-making approach.

569

the survey and the study area. This is supported by Amaratunga

(2000), who stated that there is a trend in FM industries towards
performance measurement, particularly for strategic development
and the focus of this study offered a good setting for the study
of performance measurement. In a similar vein, according to Pitt
and Tucker (2008), performance measurement in FM is important
to ensure the success of an organisation, in terms of effectiveness, efciency, and added value. Hence, it is valid to enlist the
services of experts with backgrounds in FM and FM organisations.
Furthermore, this process required the experts to provide justication on the importance of the construct indicators and also the
rating process of each weighted parameter. After the judgment had
been completed, the ranking of indicators was arranged based on
the highest order to the lowest order of importance. Next, the nal
set of the weights assigned for each indicator was presented at the
end stages. The data obtained from this section had been crucial for
this survey, as well as for the study. Hence, each respondent was
briefed on the procedure for rating the importance scale of AHP by
the researcher. A detailed explanation of the application and the
strength of the AHP method is given in the next section.
4.1. Application of analytical hierarchy process
In dealing with such a multi-criteria decision-making process,
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Dr. Thomas
Saaty in 1977, is used for this study. AHP allowed the experts to
evaluate the attribute weightings with greater consistency through
pairwise comparisons. The AHP is a theory of measurement through
pairwise comparisons and relies on the judgements of experts
to derive priority scales (Alexander, 2012; Bunruamkaew, 2012;
Saaty, 2008, 1990). In AHP, all criteria or parameters are assigned
with the weight score that shows the importance of each criterion.
The AHP approach has been widely adopted in the built environment elds as decision-making tool (Ali and Al, 2008; Chen et al.,
2006; Hsieh et al., 2004; Poveda and Lipsett, 2011). Existing performance schemes and rating tools such as LEED, BHHI and BSCI also
adopted the process of AHP to develop hierarchy or rating tool. It is
also found that AHP is used to assess risk in a supply chain (Pujawan
and Geraldin, 2009). Therefore, the application of AHP for this survey is robust and do not constitute any bias result as the judgment
on the weighted depending on the experts decision. Moreover, the
methodology of the AHP allows for the internal consistency of the
respondents results to be checked.

4. Methodology
4.2. Administration of AHP survey
This research adopted the quantitative approach using questionnaires that consisted of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
as the main instrument. The nal list of the PRI was incorporated
into the questionnaire as survey questions. Since the AHP method
relies on the experts judgment to moderate feedback throughout
the process, therefore, the respondents were facilities management (FM) practitioners from both public and private organisations.
The sampling was drawn with the help of the Malaysian Association of Facility Managers (MAFM), while the experts were selected
based on purposive samples with predetermined criteria. The criteria required the experts from the position of manager or director
level, with at least 10 years of working experience, owned a
core business in building audit or performance evaluation, and
possessed experience or involvement in any project related to
education buildings. Hence, the list of potential respondents was
shortlisted to 22 experts. The experts were from different academic backgrounds, such as architecture, engineering, surveying,
facilities management, and international business studies. The
selection of prominent experts who represented the FM industry indeed had been relevant and suited the objectives of both

A letter of invitation and the sample set of questionnaire were

rst distributed to the shortlisted respondents. Out of the total
22 experts, 12 experts gave consent to participate in the survey
and the rate of response to this survey was 54.6%. According to
Saaty and zdemir (2014), there are no pre-set rules to determine
the acceptable sample size of experts for the AHP survey. In AHP,
one expert judge may sufce, depending on the objectives of the
survey, unless political expediency requires that several experts
from different constituencies are necessary, and therefore, several experts are needed if they are available (Saaty and zdemir,
2014). Proceeding with the survey, the researcher introduced the
purpose of the survey to the respondents and showed all the sections involved in the survey forms. A detail explanation was also
conveyed to the respondents for the application of AHP as the process had been unfamiliar to most of the respondents. The steps
for performing the AHP are shown in Fig. 1. The experts were
required to compare the importance between two pairwise indicators and to rate the scale of importance of the chosen indicator.
Comparison of importance for each indicator was rated by using

570

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Table 1
The construct of PRI based from the result of preliminary survey.
Performance elements

Performance-Risk Indicators (PRI)

Remark

Functional Performance

Spaces
Orientation
Infrastructure
Access/entrance
Circulation area
Ergonomic building facilities
Adequacy of building signage
Emergency exits
Building-related illnesses/sick building syndrome
Amenities
Design of building ttings
Structural stability
Information Technology systems operations
Electrical services
Plumbing services
Fire Prevention Services
Materials & Internal Finishes
Roof
Lift
Cooling (Thermal comfort)
Articial lighting (Visual comfort)
Natural lighting (Visual comfort)
Waste reduction
Building ventilation
Acoustic comfort (Noise)
Level of cleanliness

100% (based on ndings)

100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
56% (based on ndings)
New Suggestion
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
94% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
New Suggestion
New Suggestion
94% (based on ndings)
94% (based on ndings)
72% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
100% (based on ndings)
83% (based on ndings)
89% (based on ndings)

Technical Performance

Indoor Environmental Performance

Fig. 1. 2Steps for performing AHP.

the values of importance 19 scale (as shown in Table 2). Meanwhile, the weightings of the building factors were assessed by
using nine (9) scales of importance, as developed by Saaty (1990,
2008).

mental performance. The pairwise importance of the indicators was

compared in accordance with the other indicators only for the same
performance areas. Hence, there were ten (10) indicators for functional performance, nine (9) indicators for technical performance,
and seven (7) indicators of indoor environmental performance.

5. Analysis of results and discussion

5.1. The result of AHP weightings
The weightings provided by the respondents for the different
factors were extracted from a pairwise comparison of the relative
importance of all pairs of factors using the AHP computer software
package Expert Choice 11. The list of PRI was compared to each criterion in the three separate areas of performances; i) functional
performance, ii) technical performance, and iii) indoor environ-

The relative importance (relative weight) of each category and

each indicator within each category was established using a square
matrix structure. For each category and indicator, the weight was
calculated by the geometric mean of values of questionnaires lled
by the experts who participated in the survey. The nal step in the

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

571

Fig. 2. Pairwise Comparison of Indicators and The Priorities of Indicators, Using the Expert Choice 11.

Table 2
AHP scale of importance (Saaty, 2008, 1990).
AHP SCALE OF IMPORTANCE

DESCRIPTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Equal Importance
Equally to Moderately
Moderate Importance
Moderately to Strong
Strong Importance
Strongly to Very Strong
Very strong Importance
Very strong to Extremely
Extreme Importance

process combined the ratings of the criteria to form an overall rating

for each decision alternative. The numerical pairwise comparison
and the priorities of indicators obtained by combining the overall
judgment from the 12 experts is shown in Fig. 2.
To obtain the priorities of indicators, the distributive mode is
chosen as it normalizes alternative scores under each criterion so
that they sum to one (1.00). This creates a dependency on how
well all other alternatives perform and hence the potential for
rank reversal. It shows that the internal consistency ratio (CR) 0.04

where in AHP, the CR must be less than 0.1 (10%) (Saaty, 1990).
Therefore, the data is reliable and achieves consistency.
To ease the calculation of weight for each performance element, the result from the combined synthesis of each indicator is
illustrated in Table 3. The weightings in Table 3 show that structural stability is ranked as the most important indicator, with a
global weight 14.9%, and followed by re prevention services (9.1%),
building-related illnesses (7.4%), emergency exits (6.8%) and electrical services (6.3%). This suggests that these ve indicators become
the top important factors to be well performed in building performance, as it may generate larger impact towards the users health
and safety risk. This suggests that the focus on building performance and users risk on the priority of the indicator structural
stability is more signicant than other 25 indicators. This is supported by previous studies (Ali et al., 2010; Baird et al., 1996;
Clift, 1996; Goh and Ahmad, 2012; Liu, 2003) that described structural degradation and deterioration causes impact on performance
quantication in terms of collapse safety and health of the users.
Structural elements are among the important safety factors for performance assessment (Husin et al., 2012). The structural stability of
a building must be inspected and maintained from time to time in
order to ensure the occupants safety (Ali et al., 2010). Hazards in

572

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Table 3
Summary of Relative Weights for Performance Elements and Performance-Risk Indicators.
PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS (PE)

PERFORMANCE-RISK INDICATORS (PRI)

WEIGHT (%)

RANKING

Functional Performance 36.7%

Spaces
Orientation
Infrastructure
Access/entrance
Circulation area
Ergonomic building facilities
Adequacy of building signage
Emergency exits
Building-related illnesses/SBS
Amenities
Design of building ttings/xtures
Structural stability
IT systems operations
Electrical services
Plumbing services
Fire Prevention Services
Materials & Internal Finishes
Roof
Lift
Cooling (Thermal comfort)
Articial lighting
Natural lighting
Waste disposal
Building ventilation
Acoustic comfort
Level of cleanliness

1.3
1.4
2.1
2.7
2.2
4.5
3.7
6.8
7.4
4.6
2.7
14.9
1.7
6.3
3.3
9.1
2.7
4.1
5.1
2.0
1.1
0.9
1.6
4.1
1.4
2.3

23
24
18
14
17
8
11
4
3
7
15
1
20
5
12
2
13
9
6
19
25
26
21
10
22
16

Technical Performance 49.9%

Indoor Environmental Performance

13.4%

the built environment were closely related to accidents occurring

in buildings; therefore, the occupants must be safeguarded against
hazards arising from structural failure (Khalil et al., 2015).
With respect to the result of the Expert Choice, it shows that
the weightings for functional performance, technical performance
and indoor environmental performance are 36.7%, 49.9% and 13.4%,
respectively. This insinuates that technical performance was a bit
more important than functional performance and indoor environmental performance. The discussion of the ndings is further
explained in the following section.

5.2. Discussion of results

It can be summarised that the attained weightings for the technical performance suited the support from the academic theories
and literature on the importance of building technical performance.
The signicant nding based on the summation score was that
technical performance had been considered as the most critical
performance element, which seemed to place greater impact in the
context of building performance and users risk. Inevitably, the performance assessment of technical performance in a building had
become a crucial measure. The need for continuous monitoring of
the technical performance of buildings over their lifetime becomes
obvious since buildings are not operatively static (Augenbroe and
Park, 2005). Technical performance aspects of a building complete the functionality aspect; therefore, a building may succeed
in achieving a high level of functionality if it is able to meet
the prescribed technical standards. Moreover, the performance
requirements for building need to match with the provision of
reliable information about the alternatives, including technical
specications with indications of service life and performance over
time (Trinius and Sjstrm, 2005).
On top of that, the empirical ndings obtained from this study
indicated that the PRIs did display a signicant difference based on
the judgment by the panel of experts. The results suggested that
the relevant stakeholders in the facility or maintenance management of higher education buildings should pay greater attention
to the priority of indicator with signicant risk impact, ideally the
top priority indicators. This is also supported by Olanrewaju et al.

(2010a,b), who described that the maintenance organisation in university buildings must look far beyond the immediate objectives of
the products or services to the users. Since the performance evaluation in university buildings is under the responsibility of facility or
maintenance unit, information on the building performance should
be well-documented in a safe register.

6. Development of the building performance-risk rating

tool (BPRT)
The result of weightings had successfully aided in establishing
the further development of the BPRT for this study. Hence, the BPRT
was proposed as an improved method to carry out building condition survey. The steps and the processes contained in the proposed
BPRT had been adapted from the steps of the existing performance
and rating tools, such as Malaysias GBI, BARIS by Public Works
Department (2013) and SABA by Ali and Al (2008). In fact, three (3)
steps were included in the proposed BPRT. The rst step required
the building assessors to evaluate the performance and the risk
of the indicators, and the second step was comprised of the overall score for PRI. Lastly, the third step was the nal process of the
assessment where the assessed building would be classied into a
rating classication. The description of the steps and the processes
involved are entailed in the following:

6.1. Step 1 evaluation of performance and risk for each indicator

In this step, the evaluation of performance and risk indicators was carried out so as to capture the performance grading
of the building. Hence, the assessment outcome, which is known
as the performance risk assessment score, suggested ve scales
that ranged from 0.2 to 1.0. If the score achieves 1.0, it generally
denes that the indicator exerts excellent performance that denitely presents insignicant risk impact to the users. Table 4 shows
the score and the description for the scales. The description of scale
for the performance risk assessment was adopted and modied
from the assessment of BARIS (Integrated Asset Planning Branch
(CPAB), 2015; Public Works Department, 2013) and also from pre-

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Table 4
Scale and Description for Performance-Risk Assessment Score for each indicator.
Scale

Description of scale

0.2

Poor performance with catastrophic building defects

Catastrophic: Present risk that results in multiple
fatalities; may result in human death or serious
injury/illness

0.4

0.6

Low performance with major building defects

Signicant risk: Present risk towards serious or fatal
injury to occupants or major injury/illness
Medium performance with moderate building
defects
High risk: Present risk towards signicant impact
with minor injury or minor occupational illness

0.8

Good performance with minor building defects

Medium risk: Present risk towards minor physical
discomfort to occupants or minor occupational
illness

1.0

Excellent performance with little building defects

Low risk: Present risk that the impact is
insignicant; minimal impact or no apparent impact
at all

vious studies concerning risk in building assessment (Massingham,

2010; Whiteld, 2003; Zou et al., 2008).
During the assessment, the performance of each indicator was
rated in accordance with the above PR score. Hence, Fig. 3 shows
the extracted steps of assessment using the assessment score and
the weightings.

573

Table 5
The BPRT Rating Classication.
Total performance-risk
score

BPRT Rating

Description of rating

80100

Excellent

6079

Good

4159

Medium

3140

Low

2030

Poor

Excellent building performance

with low impact to the users
risk on health and safety
Good building performance
with medium impact to the
users risk on health and safety
Medium building performance
with high impact to the users
risk on health and safety
Low building performance
with signicant impact to the
users risk on health and safety
Poor performance building
with catastrophic impact to the
users risk on health and safety

actions on mitigating or reducing the risks through performance

improvement.
With the proposed BPRT through this study, it shall be useful to
the building operators in Malaysian HEBs to assess the condition of
the academic building that concerns both performance and users
risks. Moreover, surveys that employ ratings instead of descriptions
are gaining wide acceptance in the industry because they cater
to the need for numerical analysis output (Che-Ani et al., 2010).
Besides, the application of the BPRT, as proposed in this study, shall
initiate an improved proactive procedure for performance assessment and maintenance in HEB.
7. Validity and reliability of the proposed BPRT

6.2. Step 2 overall score for performance risk indicators (PRI)

As mentioned in step 1, the performance of each indicator was
evaluated using a performance risk assessment score that ranged
from 0.2 to 1.0. Then, the obtained score was multiplied by the
weighting assigned to each indicator. The total of the overall PRI
score generated the score of the performance elements. Once the
performance assessment of all indicators had been completed, the
overall score of PRI was calculated by summing up each of the PRI
score. This generated the overall score of performance elements,
in accordance with the categories of functional performance, technical performance, and indoor environmental performance. Since
each of the performance elements had been assigned with maximum weight that derived from the result of AHP, the score obtained
from the performance assessment should not be more than the
maximum weight.
6.3. Step 3 the performance-Risk rating classication
The nal step in the performance assessment using the BPRT
was to determine the rating classication of the assessed building.
The rating classication generated the performance grade and the
level of risk. In fact, ve ratings determined the nal performance
measurement of the assessed building, which were: Excellent,
Good, Medium, Low and Poor, as shown in Table 5. The
determinants of the rating classication depended on the nal
score attained from the performance assessment to all indicators.
The description of each rating was adapted from BARIS (Integrated
Asset Planning Branch (CPAB), 2015; Public Works Department,
2013; Massingham 2010; Whiteld 2003; Zou et al., 2008) and
modied from the combination of scale descriptions for PR score.
The nal risk classication should help the building assessors to rectify areas concerning performance failure and its possible impact on
building users. Thus, it could help the management to plan further

In order to strengthen the reliability and the applicability of the

proposed rating tool, the validity process was carried out via semistructured interview (face validity) with the industry experts. The
interview was carried out to elicit the experts views on the appropriateness and the applicability of the proposed rating tool in the
Malaysian context. A total of four (4) experts agreed to participate in
the validation interviews, and they represented both government
and private organisations. All the experts were knowledgeable in
the BPE exercise with more than 15 years of working experience
and they were prominent gures in the Malaysian FM sector. The
interpretation of ndings from the interview was analysed using
Atlas.ti software and the network of responses is shown in Fig. 4.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, all the experts agreed with the appropriateness and the clarity of the proposed rating tool, as evidenced by
participant 1, quotation 1 (P1:q1) and the rest of the participants
(P2:q1q5, P3:q1, and P4:q1). The overall responses concerning the
appropriateness derived from the fact that no rating tool was available for building performance assessment that specically focused
on the aspect of users health and safety risks. The experts also felt
that the incorporation of risk elements into a comprehensive list
of building performance is indeed an excellent approach. Thus, the
development of the building performance rating tool, which relates
to users health and risk aspects, is signicant as an aid for the
improvement of building performance. In terms of applicability, all
the participants agreed with the aspect of applicability projected by
the proposed rating tool in the context of the industry, as supported
by the quotations shown in Fig. 4 (P1:q2, P2:q2, P3:q2, P4:q2). Furthermore, participant 4 in quotation 3 (P4:q3) pointed out that the
indicators were widely established and provided various types of
building, even though the rating tool was developed in the context
of performance and maintenance management of HEBs. It was also
found that the agreement displayed by the participants based on
several quotations (P2:q6, P2:q7, P3:q4, P4:q3) were provided with

574

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Fig. 3. Steps During the Performance Assessment using the Assessment Score and Weightings.

further justications. The ndings from this validation interview

had successfully supported the appropriateness and the applicability of the proposed BPRT in the context of HEB. The ndings also
had strengthened the reliability of the proposed BPRT for use in
Malaysia. It was also discovered that the range of expertise among
the experts provided diversity in the suggestions for improvement
to the proposed BPRT.
8. Conclusion
By integrating the performance-risk indicators from the perspectives of functional, technical, and indoor environmental
performances, this research had successfully strengthened the
assessment of the current state of building performance with risk
concerns for users health and safety. The proposed BPRT offers a
more holistic assessment approach that takes the Malaysian HEBs
context into consideration. The signicant nding for the proposed
BPRT had been the value of the weighting system (AHP system),
including to assess the indicators and the performance elements.

Signicantly, there were differences in the weighting of each indicator, although some similarities were identied regarding the
category level between the proposed BPRT and previous performance rating tools. The approach adopted in this study was able
to produce signicant benet that is unlikely to result from standard practices, as well as its ability to ensure maximum benecial
social and economic impacts. Its contribution is, thus, far greater
than that achieved by merely concentrating on the conventional
approach of building condition improvement and minimizing risks
upon the users.
The proposed BPRT also provides important information on the
level of risk to the users of HEBs. Students, academicians, administrative staff, and other supporting personnel in HEBs are the entity
or group of individuals who are users of the HEBs. The building
users can be presented with a warranty that the building fulls
the performance optimization with a precise risk level in terms of
health and safety aspects. These two aspects of risk are the most
crucial information that needs to be conveyed to the users; however, without a proper assessment, users are deemed to accept

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

575

Fig. 4. Network of responses in terms of appropriateness and applicability of the rating tool using Atlas.ti.

the risk in HEBs without knowing the impacts that may jeopardise their health and safety. In summary, then, the proposed BRPT
does not only benet the owners, but at the same time, it benets
the operators, the designers, and also the building users. Hence,
it is recommended that the proposed BPRT should be used by
the relevant organisations as it had been developed and established through multiple strategies, with the participation of FM
experts, who contributed their knowledge and experiences in the
collaborative process. On top of that, the proposed BPRT suits the
context of Malaysian HEBs as it had been validated in regard to
various instruments, such as review of the literature, academic theories, semi-structured interviews, questionnaire survey, and also
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of funding for
this research under the Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS)
Phase 1/2013 from Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Malaysia.
References
Alexander, M., 2012. Decision-making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
and SAS/IML. In: SESUG 2012., pp. 112.
Ali, H.H., Al, S.F., 2008. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries Case of Jordan. Build. Environ. 44 (112), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2008.07.015.
Ali, A.S., Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Sulaiman, R., Peng, Y.C., 2010. Factors affecting
housing maintenance cost in Malaysia. J. Facil. Manag. 8, 285298, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/14725961011078990.
Almeida, N., Sousa, V., Alves Dias, L., Branco, F., 2010. A framework for combining
risk-management and performance-based building approaches. Build. Res. Inf.
38, 157174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210903516719.
Altan, H., 2010. Energy efciency interventions in UK higher education institutions.
Energy Policy 38, 77227731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.024.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., 1998. Appraising the total performance of higher
education buildings: a participatory approach towards a knowledge- base
system. In: Construction and Building Research Conference 1998 Proceedings
(COBRA), 2nd3rd September 1998, Oxford Brookes University, pp. 117.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., 1999. Building performance evaluation In higher
education properties: towards a process model. Construction and Building

Research Conference (COBRA) 1999. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS), 4556.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., 2003. A conceptual framework to measure facilities
management performance. Prop. Manag. 21, 171189, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/02637470310478909.
Amaratunga, D., 2000. Assessment of facilities management performance. Prop.
Manag. 18, 258266.
Augenbroe, G., Park, C.-S., 2005. Quantication methods of technical building
performance. Build. Res. Inf. 33, 159172, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0961321042000325327.
Baird, G., Gray, J., Isaacs, N., Kernohan, D., McIndoe, G., 1996. Building Evaluation
Technique. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Bunruamkaew, K., 2012. How to do AHP analysis in Excel. In: Division of Spatial
Information Science. University of Tsukuba (Retrieved September 20, 2015,
from the site: http://giswin.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/sis/gis seminar/
How%20to%20do%20AHP%20analysis%20in%20Excel.pdf).
Che-Ani, A.I., Ali, A.S., Tahir, M.M., Abdullah, N.A.G., Tawil, N.M., 2010. The
development of a condition survey protocol (CSP) 1 matrix for visual building
inspection. In: The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference
of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (COBRA2010), 23 September
2010 Dauphine Universit, Paris, pp. 822.
Chen, Z., Clements-croome, D., Hong, J., Li, H., Xu, Q., 2006. A multicriteria lifespan
energy efciency approach to intelligent building assessment. Energy Build.
38, 393409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.08.001.
Clift, M., 1996. Building quality assessment (BQA) for ofces. Struct. Surv. 14,
2225.
Cole, R.J., 2000. Building environmental assessment methods: assessing
construction practices. Constr. Manag. Econ. 18, 949957, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/014461900446902.
Douglas, J., 1996. Building performance and its relevance to facilities management.
Facilities 14, 2332.
Gillen, A., Wright, A., Spink, L., 2011. Student perceptions of a positive climate for
learning: a case study. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 27, 6582, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/02667363.2011.549355.
Goh, A.T., Ahmad, Y., 2012. Public Low-Cost Housing In Malaysia: Case Studies On
Ppr Low-Cost Flats In Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur.
Hassanain, M.A., 2007. Post-Occupancy indoor environmental quality evaluation of
student housing facilities. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 3, 249256.
Hsieh, T., Lu, S., Tzeng, G.-H., 2004. Project Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and
design tenders selection in public ofce buildings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22,
573584, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002.
Husin, H.N., Nawawi, A.H., Ismail, F., Khalil, N., 2012. Preliminary survey of
integrated safety elements into post occupancy evaluation for Malaysias low
cost housing. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 36, 583590, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.064.
Integrated Asset Planning Branch (CPAB), 2015. Sesi 1: Pemeriksaan dan penilaian
bangunan bagi tujuan penarafan bangunan (Session 1: Necessity of Building
Condition Assessment (BCA) for building performance improvement).

576

N. Khalil et al. / Ecological Indicators 71 (2016) 567576

Workshop Handouts for Building Condition Assessment (BCA), Public Works

Department Malaysia, 15 June 2015.
Khalil, N., Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Baharum, M.R., 2015. A survey on the
performance-risk rating index for building performance assessment in higher
education. J. Teknol. 75, 5763.
Ltzkendorf, T., Lorenz, D.P., 2006. Using an integrated performance approach in
building assessment tools. Build. Res. Inf. 34, 334356, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/09613210600672914.
Ltzkendorf, T., Lorenz, D., 2007. Integrating sustainability into property risk
assessments for market transformation. Build. Res. Inf. 35, 644661, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/09613210701446374.
Liu, A.M.M., 2003. The quest for quality in public housing projects: a
behaviour-to-outcome paradigm. Constr. Manag. Econ. 21, 147158, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000049700.
Loftness, V., Lam, K.P., Hartkopf, V., 2005. Education and environmental
performance-based design: a Carnegie Mellon perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 33,
196203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000325336.
Malmqvist, T., Glaumann, M., 2009. Environmental efciency in residential
buildings a simplied communication approach. Build. Environ. 44, 937947,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.06.025.
Massingham, P., 2010. Knowledge risk management: a framework. J. Knowl.
Manag. 14, 464485, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011050166.
McDougall, G., Kelly, J.R., Hinks, J., Bititci, U.S., 2002. A review of the leading
performance measurement tools for assessing buildings. J. Facil. Manag. 1,
142153.
Meacham, B.J., 2010. Risk-informed performance-based approach to building
regulation. J. Risk Res. 13, 877893, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13669871003703260.
Meins, E., Wallbaum, H., Hardziewski, R., Feige, A., 2010. Sustainability and
property valuation: a risk-based approach. Build. Res. Inf. 38, 280300, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613211003693879.
Olanrewaju, A.L., Khamidi, M.F., Idrus, A., 2010a. Quantitative analysis of defects in
Malaysian university buildings: providers. J. Retail Leis. Prop. 9, 137149,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2010.2.
Olanrewaju, A.L., Khamidi, M.F., Idrus, A., 2010b. Building maintenance
management in a malaysian university campuses: a case study. Australas. J.
Constr. Econ. Build. 10, 7689.
Pitt, M., Tucker, M., 2008. Performance measurement in facilities management:
driving innovation? Prop. Manag. 26, 241254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02637470810894885.
Poveda, C.a., Lipsett, M., 2011. A review of sustainability assessment and
sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. J.
Sustain. Dev. 4, 3655, http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n6p36.

Preiser, W.F., 2005. Building performance assessmentfrom POE to BPE, a personal

perspective. Archit. Sci. Rev. 48, 201204, http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2005.
4826.
Public Works Department, 2013. Garis Panduan Pemeriksaan Dan Penilaian
Keadaan Bangunan Sedia Ada (JKR 21602 0004 13), JKR 21602-. ed.
Bahagian Senggara Fasiliti Bangunan, Cawangan Kejuruteraan Senggara Ibu
Pejabat JKR Malaysia.
Pujawan, I.N., Geraldin, L.H., 2009. House of risk: a model for proactive supply
chain risk management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 15, 953967, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/14637150911003801.
Saaty, T.L., zdemir, M.S., 2014. How many judges should there Be in a group? Ann.
Data Sci. 1, 359368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40745-014-0026-4.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 48, 926.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv.
Sci. 1, 8398, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
Sapri, M., Muhammad, S., 2010. Monitoring energy performance in higher
education buildings for sustainable caumpus. Malaysian J. Real Estate 5, 125.
Thompson, B., Bank, L., 2007. Risk perception in performance-based building
design and applications to terrorism-resistant design. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,
6169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:1(61).
Trinius, W., Sjstrm, C., 2005. Service life planning and performance
requirements. Build. Res. Inf. 33, 173181, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0961321042000323806.
Whiteld, R.N., 2003. Managing Institutional Risks A Framework. University of
Pennsylvania.
Wolski, A., Dembsey, N.A., Meacham, B.J., 2000. Accommodating perceptions of
risk in performance-based building re-safety code development. Fire Saf. J. 34,
297309.
Wong, A.K.D., Wong, F.K.W., Nadeem, A., 2011. Government roles in implementing
building information modelling systems: comparison between Hong Kong and
the United States. Constr. Innov. Inf. Process. Manag. 11, 6176, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/14714171111104637.
Woods, J.E., 2008. Expanding the principles of performance to sustainable
buildings. Real Estate Issues 33, 3746.
Zalejska-Jonsson, A., 2012. Evaluation of low-energy and conventional residential
buildings from occupants perspective. Build. Environ. 58, 135144, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.07.002.
Zou, P.X.W., Redman, S., Windon, S., 2008. Case studies on risk and opportunity at
design stage of building projects in Australia: focus on safety. Archit. Eng. Des.
Manag. 4, 221238, http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/aedm.2008.0082.