Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Engineering Asset Management 2011 pp 139–151Cite as

A Proposed Decision-Making Model to Prioritize Building Elements Maintenance Actions Toward Achieving Sustainability in Community Buildings in Australia

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering ((LNME))

Abstract

Sustainable management of community buildings is a challenging task in Australia. Maintenance and renewal of building assets is a prominent issue as a large number of buildings owned by local councils were built in 1970s and become aged and deteriorated. Each building consists of a massive load of building components which adds complexity into their management. Limited asset management models in favor of buildings’ decision making have further widened the gap in finding a reliable decision-making model for building maintenance and renewals. On the other hand, a majority of asset management models available are unable to cope with the uncertainty associated with the data collection which makes the results inconsistent and subjective. This paper presents a useful tool minimizing aforementioned problems and making asset planner’s life easier to prioritize maintenance actions. The model is a multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) which is combined with two analytical tools, i.e., analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and fuzzy inference system (FIS). The model is based on a four level hierarchical structure, which includes a goal, aspects, criteria, and attribute factors representing the level one to level four in the hierarchy respectively. Decision Criticality Index (DCI) has been introduced in order to understand the importance of the decision. The concept which is used in the traffic light system is adapted to categorize maintenance options according to color codes depending on DCI value range and the duration of maintenance plan. Example calculations based on case study and hypothetical data have been demonstrated throughout the paper to showcase and validate the model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Maunsell (2002) International infrastructure management manual, 2nd edn. Association of Local Government Engineering N. Z. Incorporated and National Asset Management Steering Group, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  2. Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia—National Asset Management Strategy Committee (2009) Practice note 3: building condition and performance assessment guidelines. IPWEA-NAMS.AU, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  3. Flourentzos F, Droutsa K, Wittchen KB (2000) EPIQR software. J Energy Build 31(2):129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Flourentzos F (2000) MEDIC-a method for predicting residual service life and refurbishment investment budgets. J Energy Build 31(2):167–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Caccavelli D, Gugerli H (2002) TOBUS—a European diagnosis and decision making tool for office building upgrading. J Energy Build 34(2):113–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. CRC for construction innovation, web page http://www.construction-innovation.info/index.php?action=article&id=847

  7. BRE and dti (2002) Office score: refurbishment support tool for office building. http://www.officescorer.info/

  8. Qbuild (2003) Maintenance assessment report for 111 George street. QDPWH, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  9. Harris R (1998) Introduction to decision making. Available from: http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm

  10. Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Sorenson K (2002) Guidebook to decision making methods. Department of Energy, USA. Available from: http://emi-web.inel.gov/Nissmg/Guidebook_2002.pdf. Report No.: WSRC-IM-2002-00002

  11. Fulop J (2005) Introduction to decision making methods. Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems: Computer and Automation Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty TL (1982) Decision making for leaders: the analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Lifetime Learning Publishers, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nagel SS (1984) Public policy: goals, means and methods. St. Martins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zeng J, An M, Smith NJ (2007) Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment. Int J Project Manage 25(6):589–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang G, Zou XW (2007) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture construction projects in China. J Constr Eng Manage 133:771–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kahraman C, Ruan D, Dogan I (2003) Fuzzy group decision—making for facility location selection. Inf Sci 157:135–153

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiou HK, Tzeng GH, Cheng DC (2005) Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. OMEGA—Int J Manage Sci 33(3):223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdelgawad M, Fayek AR (2010) Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP. J Constr Eng Manage 136(9):1028–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Von Altrock C (1995) Fuzzy logic and neuro-fuzzy applications explained. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  20. Negnevitsky M (2002) Artificial intelligence, a guide to intelligent systems. Addison-Wesley, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jin XH, Doloi H (2009) Modelling risk allocation in privately financed infrastructure projects using fuzzy logic. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 24(7):509–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mao H (1999) Estimating labour productivity using fuzzy set theory. MS Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their appreciation to all associated local councils of the research for all their time, effort, and valuable feedback given for the research. We would also like to give our special thanks to the Municipal Association of Victoria for their work to collaborate all other associated councils in group meetings such as progress meetings and workshops. These were highly beneficial to understand local council expectations on decision making and drive the research accordingly. Furthermore Integrate Australia is sincerely remembered for the support provided in the area of computer software development. Finally our appreciation goes to Australian Research Council for the financial support for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    P. Kalutara, G. Zhang, S. Setunge & H. Mohseni

  2. School of Property Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    R. Wakefield

Authors
  1. P. Kalutara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Setunge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Wakefield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Mohseni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Kalutara .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Mechanical, Industrial & Nuclear Engineering (MINE), University of Cincinnati College of Engineering, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

    Jay Lee

  2. University of Michigan Dept. Mechanical Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

    Jun Ni

  3. Missouri University of Technology, Rolla, USA

    Jagnathan Sarangapani

  4. Management (CIEAM), Queensland University of Technology Centre for Integrated Engineering Asset, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Joseph Mathew

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kalutara, P., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., Wakefield, R., Mohseni, H. (2014). A Proposed Decision-Making Model to Prioritize Building Elements Maintenance Actions Toward Achieving Sustainability in Community Buildings in Australia. In: Lee, J., Ni, J., Sarangapani, J., Mathew, J. (eds) Engineering Asset Management 2011. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4993-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4993-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4992-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4993-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation