MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS MODEL FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS:

AN APPLICATION OF IDEF0 MODELLING METHODOLOGY

Zainal Abidin Bin Akasah1 and Roslan Bin Amirudin2

1
Kolej Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn, Batu Pahat, Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia
zainal59@kuittho.edu.my
2
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai 81310, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
b-roslan@utm.my

ABSTRACT: The lack of a clear understanding of the maintenance management process is

one of the major sources of difficulties in the maintenance of school buildings. A clearer
understanding of the maintenance management process can be achieved by constructing a
process model of the existing practices using a suitable process modelling technique. The
purpose of this study was to develop a process model for the management of maintenance of
school buildings using the IDEF0 structured modelling technique. The modelling process is
divided into three phases, (i) the information gathering phase, (ii) the model development
phase and (ii) the experts’ evaluation and validation phase. In the first phase, information on
existing maintenance practices was obtained through questionnaires and document analysis
of policies, standing orders and maintenance reports. In the second phase, a process model
was drafted through an iterative process using the IDEF 0 process modelling technique. In the
third phase, the draft process model was submitted to three experts on maintenance
management from the Ministry of Education Malaysia for evaluation and validation. A ready
to implement process model for the maintenance management of school buildings was
constructed upon validation by the experts.

Keywords: Process Model, Maintenance Management of school buildings, Structured modelling

technique definition, Project Management

1.INTRODUCTION

Maintaining school buildings in good condition through preventive measures make sense for
academic, health as well as economic reasons (Lair, 2003; Sufean Hussin, 2003, Wei Wu,
2003 dan Muhammad Hamid, 1997). However, there appears to be a lack of preventive
maintenance culture in general based on the various reports on the undesirable conditions of
school buildings (Nazaruddin et-al, 1989, USM dan UTM, 1991, New Straits Times,
September and December 2005).

One of the identified root causes of the problem is the lack of a clear understanding of the
maintenance management process among school administrators that hinder schools from
designing a good maintenance programme for their schools (Hamisah Hafni, 2003). Process
mapping has been identified as one of the techniques that can facilitate one’s understandings
of a process through a rigorous analysis of and an appropriate representation of the existing
process using suitable mapping or modelling tool. Examples of process mapping tools
include flow charts, petri nets, Unified Modelling Language, the Integration Definition for
Function Modelling (IDEF0). This article will discuss the development of a process model
for the management of school buildings using the IDEF0 modelling system.

2.IDEFO MODELLING SYSTEM

The IDEFo modelling system is a structured design and analysis technique based on graphics
syntaxes and semantics (Wilson et al., 1998). This system enables a designer to produce a
process model that is descriptive as well as comprehensive. Developed in the 1970s, it was
initially used by the United States air force for integrated computer aided manufacturing. In
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
57

the early 1980s the U.S National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) published the
system in the Federal Information Processing Standard as a manual under the topic of
Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF0 ) (FIPS PUB 183 (1984). Through
continuous improvements of the manual, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) established the IDEF0 standards (IEEE Std 1320.1-1998). Since then IDEF0 has been
often used not only for process modelling but also for evaluation of current process models.

1.1The IDEF0 technique

IDEF0 uses two basic elements as its modelling language, i.e., boxes that represent activity
and arrows that represent the interfaces. These interfaces are input, output, control and
mechanism. The input element can be anything that will be processed by the activity to
produce the output. The output element is whatever that is produced by the activity and the
control can be condition, situation or information that control the activity, i.e., the answer to
how or why. Lastly the mechanism is the human resource (group or individual) or tool that is
required by the activity to change an input to an output. Figure 1 is a basic IDEF 0 model,
including syntax descriptions.

“Controls”
What are the elements
that control maintenence
activities?
Must be in the form of a
verb

“Inputs” Activity at “Outputs”

What are the elements the highest what is produced after
to be transformed to level maintenance activites
output? (A-0) are carried out?

“Mechanisms”
What are the elements that run
the system?

Figure 1 Basic IDEF0 model with ICOM elements (A-0 level)

The basis of the IDEF0 modeling system is the classification of information using four
questions, i.e., (i) What are the activities?, (ii) what is input that needs to be transformed into
outputs? (iii) What are the elements that influence / control / regulate / constraint those
activities? and (iv) Who/what will implement those activities? These questions are called the
ICOM questions for Input, Control, Mechanism dan Output. The information mapped is then
presented in the from of graphics and texts and arranged in a hierarchical form.
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
58

1.2IDEF0 Procedures

Three main stages of process modeling in the IDEF0 system, (i) construct a context model,
(A-0 model) (ii) identifying the main activity from the A-0 activity (first decomposition to
obtain A0 model). (iii) Identifying sub-activity of the main activities in the A0 model
(second decomposing). The IDEF0 system limits the number of decomposed activity to a
minimum of three an a maximum of six. Each decomposed activity is labeled with a number
according to the label of the parent activity. An IDEF 0 diagram does not contain information
on timing. Figure 2 illustrates how a parent activity is decomposed into its sub-activity.

Figure 2 Decomposition of a parent activity to its sub-activities

The IDEF0 technique which uses simple modeling language of graphics and texts makes it
easily interpreted by users. The emphasis on the hierarchical decomposition increases the
effectiveness of communication between all involved in the process modeling, i.e., the
analyst, the designer and the user.

3.DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

MODEL

The School Building Maintenance Management Process Model (SBMM Process Model) was
developed in three main stages,

• Stage I - gathering of information

• Stage II - developing a draft process model
• Stage III – verifying the process model

1.3Stage I: gathering of information

The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
59

Stage I, involves gathering of information on existing practices from three levels of sources,
country (central), states and districts. Three information gathering techniques used were
document analysis, questionnaires and interviews. Documents analysed include government
circulars and maintenance reports. Fifty eight school heads and five education administrators
were included in the questionnaire and interview samples respectively.

1.4Stage II – Developing the draft model

The draft model was developed through and interactive mapping operations of existing
maintenance process. Information are mapped based on the answers to the four ICOM
questions. Through the interactive process, the context model (A-0) was first produced,
followed by the main function model (A0 model) and followed by the sub-function models
A1, A2 and so on.

3.1.1Context model

The context model was constructed based on the answers to the four ICOM questions. Based
on the first ICOM question two input elements were identified,

(i) Type of building

(ii) Equipment/materials

Based on the second ICOM question, eight control elements were identified,

(i) Building plans,

(ii) Inventory records/log book,
(iii) Equipment specifications/standards,
(iv) Vendors,
(v) Types and costs of materials,
(vi) Technical knowledge and skills,
(vii) Budget allocations
(viii) Associated forms

The identified control elements are the necessary recipe that will ensure the maintenance
management process run smoothly. A single missing element can introduce a flaw in the
process which can contribute towards an increased in deferred maintenance.

Based on the third ICOM question, a single expected output is identified which is “an
effective maintenance management process”. Finally, based on the fourth ICOM question,
three personnel at the school level have been identified as the necessary mechanism for
ensuring the implementation and monitoring of the system, namely school heads, senior
assistants and building maintenance management committee. Figure 3 illustrates the context
model showing the relationship between input, control, mechanism and output.

3.1.2Main function model

The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
60

The second level in the hierarchy of the SBMM Process Model (level A0) is the main
function model. The main function model is the results of the decomposition of the context
model.

Standards/equipment ContractorsC4 C5 Materials & costs

specifications Technical knowledge
C3 C6

C2 C7 Budget Allocations
Inventory/log books
Building plans C1 C8 Forms

Building types SCHOOL BUILDING

I1 MAINTENANCE
Effective building
MANAGEMENT maintenance management
Equipment
I ACTIVITY
2
A-O

M M2
Seniour assistant 1 & 1 School heads
maintenance
managment committee

Figure 3 Level A-0: Context Model for the SBMM Process Model

Similar to the previous process, the identification of the main functions and its descriptions
were achieved by asking the four ICOM questions. The main functions were identified from
existing practices and the A0 model was developed by integrating information on existing
practices (based on the results of document analyses, responses to questionnaires and
interviews) and best practices. The six activities identified for the main function model are,

(i) Identify building status (A1)

(ii) Assess and evaluate defects (A2)
(iii) Estimate maintenance costs (A3)
(iv) Plan maintenance activities (A4)
(v) Implement maintenance activities (A5)
(vi) Evaluate and report maintenance (A6)

The representation of the relationships and descriptions of the six activities is called model
A0 and is illustrated in Figure 4.
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
61

Equipment
specs./standards
Building plan
Inventory/log Technical knowledge Budget allocations
book
/ Buku Log Contractors
Building I1 DETERMINE
types Forms
BUILDING EVALUATE Types /cost of materials
STATUS &
ESTIMATE
I2 / A1 DEFECTS
Equipment/ma
A2 MAINTENANCE
-
terials
ASSESSMENTS

A3 PLAN Effective
MAINTENANCE maintenance
Estimate -
ACTIVITIES managment
maintenance IMPLEMENT
costs MAINTENANCE
A4
EVALUATE AND
A5 REPORT ON -
Plan MAINTENANCE
activities Carry out A6
maintenance A6
Record, evaluate &
report on maintenence

M1 Senior assistants &

M2 School heads
maintenance
committee

Figure 4 Level A0: Main function model

Figure 4 shows the relationships between all elements in the process which helps to clarify
the roles and responsibilities of personnel, identify resource needs, highlights the sequence
of activities etc, in the maintenance management process.

3.1.3Decomposition of main function

Decomposition of the main function was the next step in the model development process.
Each of the main function is then decomposed into their sub-activities and the ICOM
elements are identified by asking the four ICOM questions. The summary of sub activities
identified is given in Table 1.

Table 1 Main activities and the number of corresponding sub-activities

Main activity No of sub-
activities
A1-Determine building status 4
A2-Evaluate and estimate defects 4
A3-Estimate maintenance 3
A4-Plan maintenance activities 4
A5-Implement maintenance 5
A6-Evaluate and report maintenance 3
Total 23

At this stage in the work process, the model is known as the working model. When all the
activities have been decomposed, the combined model represents the process of maintenance
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
62

and management of school buildings. The node tree (in Malay) for the overall process is
shown in Figure 5.

In its complete form the model integrates information on policies, circulars, responsibilities
of personnel in the management of school buildings. The completed model, ready for
experts evaluation is known as the draft model.

3.1.4Stage III: Experts verifications

The draft model was evaluated by three technical experts who were serving the Ministry of
Education as assistant director (architect), project architect and project engineer. These
experts have had more than 10 years experience in the field. The evaluation and verification
process is an iterative one (Presley et-al, 1993) starting with submission of the draft model to
the experts. The experts looked at all information presented in the model and marked with a
tick (√) to show their agreements and with a cross (X) in red ink to show their disagreements
with any presented information. The experts also give suggestions for improvements. The
returned model is called recommended model is then refined by the author accordingly and
the experts’ opinion was sought for confirmation where necessary. Three types of feedback
were obtained from the experts; questions on syntaxes, questions on textual information and
recommendations.

A0
M ENG URUS PENYELENG G ARAAN BANG UNAN
SEKO LAH KPM

A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 6
K E N A LP A S T I U K U R D A N N IL A I A 5 N IL A I D A N L A P O R
T A K S IR R A N C A N G A K T IV IT I
S T A T U S K E R O S A K A N LA K S A N A P E N Y E LE N G G A R A A N
P E N Y E LE N G G A R A A N . P E N Y E LE N G G A R A A N .
P E N Y E LE N G G A R A A N

A 11 A 12 A 13 A 14 A 33
T ENTUKAN LA W A T PERAKUKAN A 31 A 32 A 41 A 42 A 43 A 44
TENTUKAN DAPATKA S E D IA A 61 A 62 A 63
BANG UNAN BANG UNAN KO M PO NEN K E N A LP A S T I RUJUK TENTUKAN S E D IA KEM UKA
LO K A S I N HARG A LA P O RA N N ILA I S E D IA K EM UKA
B U T IR A N P E K E LILIN G KEUTAM AAN DO KUM EN PERM O HO NAN
KO M PO NEN /IS I B O R A N G P E N C A P A IA N DO KUM EN D O KUM EN
PERM O HO NAN
LA P O RA N P EM BAYARAN

A 22 A 23 A 24
A 21
K E NA LP A S T I TENTUKAN TAHAP LA P A O R K A N
RUJUK A 51 A 52 A 53 A 54 A 55
K R IT E R IA KAEDAH K E B O LE HG UNA A N STATUS T E R IM A TENTUKAN RANCANG P ILIH & S E LIA P R O JE K
PENG UKURAN KO M PO NEN K E LU LU S A N KEUTAM AAN A K T IV IT I LA N T IK
P ERUNTUKAN PEM BEKAL

Figure 5 Nod tree (in Malay) for maintenance management of school buildings

The experts agreed that the activities, their sequence and descriptions were accurately
represented. The experts also gave some suggestions on additional control elements which
were incorporated into the model. The model was not submitted again as the changes were
minor and verifications were obtained through phone discussion. The model is now
recognised as a publication model, ready to be used school heads as guidance for the
maintenance management of school buildings.

4.CONCLUSION
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
63

This article describes the development of a process model for maintenance of school
buildings using the IDEFo methodology. The development of the model involves a three
stage process namely data gathering, development of a draft model and verification of the
draft model. The systematic process has resulted in a process model for maintenance
management. The resulted model is an integrated and comprehensives model that is able to
clarify the process of building maintenance. The strength of the model lies in the fact that it
can provide a detailed concrete evidence of the relationships between four management
parameters namely maintenance activities, maintenance objects, human resource, and
materials. Therefore, the applications of this model are expected to improve understanding
of the maintenance process. Even though the model has been developed based on data of
school building maintenance, the model is potentially adaptable for maintenance of other
types of buildings by modifying the four parameters, input, control, mechanism and output.

5.REFERENCE

Bosch, Sheila Jones (2004). “Identifying relevant variables for understanding how school
facilities affect educational outcomes”. Unpublished PhD Theses. Georgia Institute
of Technology, 2004, 374 pg.
British Standard (BS) 3811 (1984).” Glossary of Maintenance Management Term in
Terotechnology“. British Standard Institute (BS), London, UK.
Burge. P. S. (2004). “Sick Building Syndrome”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine
2004;61:185-190 © 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Chee Hong Wong (2004).“Contractor Performance Prediction Model for the United
Kingdom Construction Contractor: Study of Logistic Regression Approach”. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management., Volume 130, Issue 5, pp. 691-698
(September/October 2004). ©2004 ASCE.
Cooper R., Kagioglou M., Aouad G., Hinks.J., Sexton.M, Sheath D. (1998).” Development
of a Generic Design and Construction Process”. Proceedings of the European
Conference on product data technology, pp 205-214, BRE, 1998
Daoud, Wessam Z. (2003). “An investigation on the use of an electromagnetic technology
system to improve indoor air quality”. Unpublished PhD Theses. The University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2003, 256 pages.
FIPS PUB 183 (1984). “Integration definition for Function Modeling ( IDEF0 )” . Federal
Information Processing Standards, United States National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Computer Systems Laboratory, Gaithersburg, 1993, MD.,USA
Hamisah Hafni, (2003).” Laporan kos penyelenggaraan bangunan sekolah-sekolah teknik”.
Lapuran tanpa penerbitan. Jabatan Pendidikan Teknik dan Vokasional. Kementerian
Pendidikan Malaysia.
IEEE Std. 1320.1-(1998).” IEEE Standard for Functional Modeling Language-Syntax and
Semantics for IDEF0 “. Software Engineering Standards Committee. IEEE
Computer Society. USA.
Lair, Susan Brooks (2003). “ A study of the effect school facility conditions have on student
achievement”. Unpublished PhD Theses. The University of Texas at Austin, 2003,
235pg.
Muhammad Hamid (1997).” The relationship between school resources and student
academic achievement in Indonesian senior secondary schools”. Unpublished PhD
Theses. University of Pittsburgh, 1997, 187 pages
Nazaruddin.M.J et.-al,(1989). “Pengurusan kelengkapan sekolah termasuk Pusat Sumber
Pendidikan di Sekolah-Sekolah Rendah dan Menengah di Malaysia”. BPPP;
Educational Faculty. Universiti Pertanian Malaysia
O’Neill, David John (2000).“ The Impact of school facilities on student achievement,
behaviors, attendance, and teacher turn over rate at selected Texes middle schools in
Region XII ESC”. Unpublished PhD Theses. Texas A&M University, 2000, 228 pg.
The International Conference on Construction Industry 2006 (ICCI 2006).
Universitas Bung Hatta. Padang. INDONESIA July 2006
64

Pejabat Daerah Batu Pahat (2002).“Senarai Kerja Penyelenggaraan Mengikut Keutamaan”.

Dokumen-dokumen tidak bercetak. Pejabat Pendidikan Batu Pahat. Johor.
Presley Adrien and Waltman William, D., (1993).” Reading and Critiquing an IDEF0 Model“
Enterprise Integration Frameworks Group. Automation & Robotics Research
Institute.
Sufean Hussin (2003). “Educational Innovations in Secondary Schools in Malaysia” .The
Learning Conference 2003. What Learning Means. Institute of Education. University
of London, 15-18 July 2003.
Universiti Sains Malaysia dan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (1991). Laporan Suruhanjaya
Diraja Keselamatan Sekolah-sekolah Malaysia”. UTM-USM.
Wei, Wu (2003).” An investigation into the relationship between day lighting quality and
quantity for school buildings in Hong Kong (China)“. Unpublished PhD Theses.
Chinese University of Hong Kong (People’s Republic of China), 2003, 449 pages.
Wilson L. L, Catalano Marilee, Tuttle Cynthia and Williamson Jeanine (1998).” An IDEF0
View of the Federation Development Process”. 1998 Spring Simulation
Interoperability Workshop“.(SIW-PROC)