Inspection Method for Building Maintenance Management

in Higher Education Institutions

Scheyla Maria Cardinal 1; Carlos Eduardo Tosin 2; Silvio Edmundo Pilz 3;
and Marcelo Fabiano Costella 4

Abstract: In Brazil’s public university sector, there is a lack of information regarding the building inspection activity; besides, there is a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

normative gap in this area. This paper’s objective was to develop and validate an inspection management method focused on the management
of building maintenance in universities. Design science research was adopted to develop the artifact called the inspection method for main-
tenance management, which was evaluated in a university in Brazil. This method consists of scope, planning, inspection, verification, pri-
oritization, and recommendation steps. It was found that the application of the inspection method in the case study provided a maintenance
inspection guided by scope and prioritization. However, it is necessary to align design information, especially for new buildings, with the
maintenance strategies to meet the required performance criteria. The inspection method for maintenance management could be experimented
in other commercial buildings, as long as the design needs were adjusted. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001521. © 2020 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Building inspection; Design science research; Prioritization; Maintenance; Useful life.

Introduction for example, university managers may encounter difficulties in

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, several higher edu-
cation public institutions were created in Brazil and there was also
an expansion of the existing universities, with new campuses being
expanded by 85% (Brasil Ministério da Educação (Ministry of
Education) 2012). These two factors demanded new inspection
and building maintenance processes based on performance to in-
crease the value of assets and prolong their useful life (UL). In the
new institutions, there are only managerial positions and techni-
cians for traditional activities in their functional staff. The mainte-
nance system needs to be structured since, currently, any repair
requires the contracting of outsourced labor. On the other hand, the
existence of maintenance management systems for universities
built more than 50 years ago presents challenges to improvement,
1
M.Sc. Student, Dept. of Exact and Environmental Sciences, Technol-
ogy and Innovation Management Postgraduate Program, Community Univ.
of Chapecó Region, Servidão Anjo da Guarda, 295D, Efapi, Chapecó,
Santa Catarina CEP 89809-900, Brazil. Email: scheyla@uffs.edu.br
2
M.Sc. Student, Dept. of Exact and Environmental Sciences, Technol-
ogy and Innovation Management Postgraduate Program, Community Univ.
of Chapecó Region, Servidão Anjo da Guarda, 295D, Efapi, Chapecó,
Santa Catarina CEP 89809-900, Brazil. Email: carlos.tosin@udesc.br
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Exact and Environmental Sciences,
Technology and Innovation Management Postgraduate Program, Commu-
nity Univ. of Chapecó Region, Servidão Anjo da Guarda, 295D, Efapi,
Chapecó, Santa Catarina CEP 89809-900, Brazil. Email: sep@superip
.com.br
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Exact and Environmental Sciences,
Technology and Innovation Management Postgraduate Program, Commu-
nity Univ. of Chapecó Region, Servidão Anjo da Guarda, 295D,
Efapi, Chapecó, Santa Catarina CEP 89809-900, Brazil (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6471-9848. Email: costella@
unochapeco.edu.br
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 2, 2020; approved on
June 15, 2020; published online on September 4, 2020. Discussion period
open until February 4, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
obtaining information about the building conditions of their insti-
tutions (Ferreira 2017; Thabet and Lucas 2017).
The existence of specific standards contributes to the improve-
ment of this scenario, as they help regulate the management process
of buildings, observing their life cycle. Norma técnica brasileira
(NBR) 15575 (ABNT 2013) lists the performance aspects for res-
idential buildings, but with several applications in educational
buildings; ISO 19208 (ISO 2016) presents the performance speci-
fication foundations for buildings; NBR 5674 (ABNT 2012) gov-
erns the building maintenance process; NBR 16280 (ABNT 2014b)
regulates renovation processes; and NBR 14037 (ABNT 2014a)
addresses use, operation, and maintenance. However, there is a
regulatory gap related to building inspections.
In order to overcome the lack of information regarding the
building inspection activity, the Brazilian Institute of Ratings and
Forensics (Instituto Brasileiro de Avaliações e Perícia, IBAPE) has
proposed an inspection system for Brazil (IBAPE 2012), which is
used by its members. In the United States, on the other hand, the
ASTMhas a guide to assess infiltration in buildings (ASTM 2012).
However, both models refer to the analysis of pathological mani-
festations and do not focus on building maintenance, which con-
tributes to the absence of a preventive inspection culture since the
inspections tend to be reactive.
In short, the life cycle of a building—which starts with the de-
sign phase and materializes during the construction phase—is not
followed through entirely during the maintenance phase because of
the lack of building inspection methods. This article, therefore,
presents an inspection method focused on building maintenance
management in a university.
Background
When the life cycle of construction is associated with main-
tenance, it can be argued that, economically, the maintenance
of building functionality is essential for the sustainability of
buildings (Chiang et al. 2015; Ding 2008; Zhang et al. 2011;

© ASCE 04020112-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112

 Grussing and Liu 2013; Ding and Xu 2014; Rauf and Crawford
2015). This sustainability needs to consider the performance re-
quirements (Ding and Xu 2014), the lower consumption of resour-
ces, the increased efficiency of the installed systems (De Wilde
et al. 2011; Hong et al. 2015), and the extension of the building’s
operational phase. In this context, sustainable development covers
innovative business models for the construction industry, which en-
ables extended value for customers in the postconstruction period
(Zhao et al. 2017), guides architecture choices to reduce energy
consumption in the management phase of the facilities (Delgado
et al. 2018), and transfers relevant information between the con-
struction life cycle phases in an agile and efficient manner using
computational tools (Thabet and Lucas 2017).
The differentiation between the sustainability of the construc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion activity and the sustainability of the constructed works (Mora
et al. 2011) encompasses aspects related to durability, raw materi-
als, and the design concept in the life cycle of the building (Ding
2008; Delgado et al. 2018) with sustainable maintenance technol-
ogies (Thabet and Lucas 2017; Zhang et al. 2011; Zhao et al. 2017).
Another critical factor is the relationship between sustainability and
maintenance as part of asset management (Grussing and Liu 2013),
through the efficient use of natural resources (Hong et al. 2015)
with tools that allow for the flow of information between the de-
sign, construction, and operation stages (Ding and Xu 2014; Rauf
and Crawford 2015).
The following main impacts on the UL of buildings and main-
tenance activities can be cited: the choice of appropriate strategies,
in which maintenance actions slow the natural degradation pro-
cess (Grant and Ries 2013); the upgrade of building functionality
(De Wilde et al. 2011); the professionalization of human resour-
ces linked to building management (Abdul-Rahman et al. 2014;
Becerik-Gerber et al. 2011); and government actions regarding
safety aspects in older buildings (Chan et al. 2014; Chiang et al.
2015).
Different types of performance are considered by management.
While the functional performance of buildings is related to the fit
between users’ activities and the functional elements, such as the
finish of interiors, support services, and circulation efficiency,
the technical performance elements are related to safety, lighting,
hygrothermal behavior, ventilation, acoustics, and thermal condi-
tions. Each technical performance element should be maintained
to ensure a comfortable, safe, and healthy environment (Abdul-
Rahman et al. 2014).
The best way to assess the life cycle is through inspections,
which must be undertaken in a planned manner (ASTM 2012).
According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE (2013)], commissioning
focused on civil construction is a quality process geared to im-
proving the delivery of a building through the verification and
documentation of the design, implementation, operation, and main-
tenance phases to ensure that all systems operate under the design
requirements.
The commissioning of sustainable buildings ensures that the
building systems operate as outlined in the criteria during the clos-
ing of the design phase and the beginning of construction
(Robichaud and Anantatmula 2010). The normalized median cost
of commissioning services in existing buildings is between 0.1%
and 0.4% of the cost of a new building (Mills 2011). In buildings
with an efficiency certification, the commissioning includes the
certification process.
When a building is not considered an appropriate investment
from a financial perspective, both in the design phase and the op-
eration phase, this will enable the obsolescence and accelerated
degradation of a building (Grussing and Liu 2013). The choice of
© ASCE 04020112-2
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
low quality and nondurable materials may be an economical option,
but they anticipate the maintenance and repair services because
of degradation. Inevitably, the performance of a building will be
affected by the degradation of its components unless adequate
maintenance is performed (De Wilde et al. 2011; Mora et al. 2011).
Grussing and Liu (2013) listed requirements for a management
model that enables one to decrease, stop, or reverse a building’s loss
of use so that the building maintenance management is thought of as
a function of the building’s life cycle. These requirements include:
(1) establishing a decomposition model of the components and sys-
tems; (2) classifying and objectively measuring the deterioration;
(3) predicting its progress, and (4) determining the maintenance
and building renovation actions in order to estimate the costs of
these actions as well as the financial impact of not performing them.
The data related to UL assists in defining the required activities
and their frequency to maintain, repair, and replace materials and
construction systems (Grant and Ries 2013). Understanding the de-
sired performance levels may assist in decision-making since the
whole building is designed as a function of one demand, which
will have its functionality defined by the activities that will be
developed.
The evaluation of a building’s life cycle from the perspective of
the least energy incorporated into processes motivates research into
materials and sustainable processes for the construction and dem-
olition phases. Similarly, less consumption is pursued in the oper-
ation phase in order to prolong the UL and facilitate the renewal
strategy of existing building inventories. Buildings need to be as-
sessed from the perspective of the expected use so the materials and
systems can meet the performance requirements.
Other research similar to this study focuses on the diagnosis of
anomalies in facades (Madureira et al. 2017), in bathrooms (Che-
Ani et al. 2015), and is applicable to all building systems (Shohet
2003; Bortolini and Forcada 2018; Leite et al. 2020). They also
address building conditions and highlight the relevance of the
user’s opinion (Lateef 2010; De Medici and Senia 2015; Bento
Pereira et al. 2016) and maintenance actions based on user com-
plaints (Olanrewaju 2012). Besides, there is a methodology that
assesses the security risk of the building (Druķis et al. 2017).
Mostly, they adopt models to prioritize maintenance actions based
on several criteria: safety, functionality, aesthetics, hygiene, acces-
sibility, cost, and frequency of failures (Fig. 1).
Method
This study uses the design science research approach (Bayazit
2004; Pandza and Thorpe 2010; Dresch et al. 2015) made up of
five steps:
1. awareness;
2. suggestion;
3. development of the artifact;
4. evaluation of the artifact; and
5. communication.
The formalization of the problem (Step 1) was performed
through a literature review and the experience of the researchers
with the building maintenance process. In addition, the mainte-
nance managers of all campuses of the university were interviewed
regarding the difficulties in this process.
The following results were compiled in Step 2 (suggestion):
(1) definition of the building performance factors based on ISO
19208 (ISO 2016); and (2) study of inspection methods focused
on evaluating the building condition, attesting to the management
and its activities, checking the natural degradation and patholo-
gies present, reporting prognoses, recommending actions for the
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Summary of inspection methods.
maintenance plan, considering the user complaints, and presenting a
technical building inspection methodology, in addition to the IBAPE
standard (IBAPE 2012) and the ASTM standard (ASTM 2012).
In Step 3 (development), the inspection method for maintenance
management artifact was constructed. This method considers re-
quirements evaluated proactively (stability; fire safety; safety in
use for risks related to chemical, physical, and electrical hazards
or risks of accidents; sealing; anthropodynamic fit; durability;
economy; and dynamic behaviors related to the sites or the user)
and reactively (hygrothermal requirements for solids and fluids, air
quality, acoustics, lighting, tactile comfort, hygiene, accessibility,
and contributions to sustainable development). The proposed
method adopts the inspection techniques standard to determine
the level of inspection, planning, audit, analysis, classification, pri-
oritization, and recommendations (ASTM 2012). The delimitation
of the scope defines the level of inspection; planning describes the
adopted strategy; inspection gathers the information on the building
conditions and documents, including all applicable laws and reg-
ulations; verification establishes the performance parameters; pri-
oritization determines the degree of relevance of the information;
and the last step presents guidelines based on the information in the
reports.
Step 4 (evaluation) includes the verification of the method’s
capacity to meet the objective for the case study: a building with
two blocks made up of classrooms, computer labs, and a canteen
with an area of 10,000 m2 . The building belongs to the Federal Uni-
versity of Fronteira Sul, which is a new university with five campuses
located in different cities with a total built area of 119,249.52 m2 in
which there is no maintenance management sector implemented.
Forty-five days were needed for the completion of Steps 3 and 4.
In Step 5 (communication), the method was presented to the
university’s management committee, which intends to adopt it
as a standard procedure for building inspections.
Inspection Method for Maintenance Management
The proposed inspection method for maintenance management was
established in six steps, as depicted in Fig. 2.
© ASCE 04020112-3
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
Fig. 2. Maintenance inspection steps.
Scope
The scope should describe the information on the inspection’s pur-
pose, contracting parties, contracted parties, qualifications of the
professionals, building data, and chosen level of inspection, which
depends on the technical characteristics of the building and the
complexity to select the professional team. Also, the building sys-
tems that will be evaluated, the informed pre-existing pathologies,
observations, or exclusions from the scope, and the predicted de-
liverables should be defined (Table 1).
Planning
The document inspection should list the required documents for the
design, implementation, and management phase, including docu-
ments that record changes and others that may be relevant. Both the
document and building inspection require the definition of the de-
livery form of the inspection reports to supply the management
systems.
The building inspection planning is conducted by observing the
designs, in which the anomalies will be written down on the refer-
ence photos of the inspection checklist. The data required are
(1) system/site; (2) anomaly/pathology; (3) reference of the site;
(4) extension of the anomaly/pathology; (5) general observations
or conditions that affect several structures; and (6) observations
of users during the inspection.
In this step, the lists with the standards and laws applicable to
the building’s location are filled out, in addition to the exposure and
use conditions (Table 2 with an example) to list the building sys-
tems and equipment to be inspected.
An appropriate schedule, periods of operation, favorable weather
conditions, and the availability of those responsible for access
to restricted areas should also be considered. The tools and equip-
ment necessary to ensure safety, access, and devices to record
images should be provided for the execution of the activities.
Besides, the degree of influence on maintenance intervals is
determined from severe, in which the repair is immediate, to
beneficial, when the condition increases the expected range of
maintenance.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Inspection
The inspection report should indicate the building system and
present the anomalies, describe them, inform their extent, and
the places where they repeat. Besides, the notes and considerations
of the users accompanying the inspection should be summarized
and presented. If necessary, the inspection report will also include
the identification of other documents, such as designs, checklists,
and images.
Table 1. Delimitation of the inspection deliverables
Inspection objective Main deliveries
( : : : ) Building management ( : : : ) Audit of documents
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
( : : : ) Recommendation of
management improvements
( : : : ) Recommendation of specialized
technical inspection
( : : : ) Draft and update of maintenance
plans and programs
( : : : ) Draft and update of procedures
( : : : ) Use and performance ( : : : ) Technical inspection report
conditions ( : : : ) Technical inspection, diagnosis,
and prognosis report
( : : : ) Report on the performed
performance tests
( : : : ) Recommendation of
improvements or renovations due to
changes in the use of the facilities,
legislation, and other factors
( : : : ) Recommendation of specialized
technical inspection for pathologies
with complementary tests to this
method
( : : : ) Identification of ( : : : ) Technical survey and inspection
pathologic manifestations reports
( : : : ) Forensic tests complementary to
this method
( : : : ) Diagnosis and prescription
( : : : ) Recommendation of solutions for
pathologies
Table 2. Checklist model for assessing the exposure condition in the components of the building (example)
Building List of materials and Identified weather or use
systems and finishes to consider in conditions in the building that
installations the maintenance favor or slow degradation
Walls Masonry walls, with 1. Durability—change of use
plaster and white paint
2. Tightness—presence of
moisture
Table 3. Priority evaluation report (example)
Maintainability Replacement cost
Report item index C2 index C3
Change of use due to Score: 1 (replaceable) Score: 4 (replacement
the laundry facility: costs higher than the
moisture in an initial cost)
uncoated wall that
guarantees tightness
Note: C2 = potential for an item to be replaced, repaired or not repaired; and C3 = financial investment to replace an item.
© ASCE 04020112-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
Verification
The verification report is composed of three parts:
1. verification report of the physical building conditions in which
the occurrences for each one of the performance requirements
are listed (safety in use and operation, fire safety, sealing, struc-
tural performance, and users);
2. building documentation verification report that compares the
current situation with the maintenance plans and schedules,
checks the functionality identified in the environments with
the designed functionality, and crosschecks the documents with
the relevant standards; and
3. final report that seeks to create a database enabling the manager
to assess the occurrences, cost indicators, or practices that pro-
long the UL of the building.
Prioritization
The prioritization of activities is the result of the multiplication of
indicators for each of the five items from the building inspection
report (Table 3 with an example), considering individually, severity,
urgency, and tendency, which can be 1, 5, or 10; maintainability,
from 1 to 3; and replacement costs, from 1 to 5 (Table 4).
By creating a list with a classification order, the manager will
possess a list of recommendations that observe, first and fore-
most, the legislation, design conditions, and technical standards,
which are based on the safety and sustainability conditions. If
the anomalies are classified as severe, monitoring indicators
should be listed among the recommendations in the maintenance
plans.
Recommendation
The recommendations are drawn up following the prioritization and
the verification reports to identify urgent cases (Table 5 with an
example).
The recommendations should be organized according to the
following order: (1) recommendations for compliance with legis-
lation, (2) recommendations for compliance with design require-
ments, and (3) recommendations for compliance with technical
standards.
Degree of influence on Compliance with performance
maintenance intervals (severe/ (complies/does not comply/
favorable/indifferent/beneficial) partially complies)
1. Favorable, if the change Partially complies findings:
implies in tougher conditions
2. Severe 1. Installation of laundry without
adaptation of the coating
2. Moisture on the stairway walls,
with the presence of mold
Severity Urgency Tendency Prioritization
Score: 5 (affects Score: 5 (in the Score: 1 (no Final score: 100
functionality and short term) predictable
image) consequences)
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 4. Classification for the prioritization of anomalies
Indicators Examples Score
Severity
Low Tolerable, but changes the durability and maintainability 1
Average It affects the image, production, and property; problems with sealing, 5
thermal comfort, acoustics, lighting, air quality, functionality
High It affects the structural safety regarding fire, use, operation, 10
environment, and costs; life-threatening or injury risk, dangers to
health or safety in use, interruption in use
Urgency
Low In the long term 1
Average In the short term 5
High Immediate 10
Tendency
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Low No predictable consequences 1

Average Possible legal consequences through notifications from public 5
agencies. Possible poor performance
High Clear consequences in the use, maintenance, or operation of the 10
building due to loss of performance, affecting other activities
Maintainability
Replaceable Tiles and metals 1
Maintainable Windows and seals 2
Not maintainable Foundations and structures 3
Replacement cost
Low maintenance cost Hydraulic repairs; replacement of bulbs 1
Average maintenance cost Replacement of windows; preventive maintenance of fire extinguishers 2
Replacement costs equal to the initial cost Painting 3
Replacement costs higher than the initial cost Replacement of embedded electrical and hydraulic systems 4
Replacement costs much higher than the initial cost Waterproofing of swimming pools 5

Table 5. Model report of the recommendations for the building conditions (example)
Calculated
priority Anomaly Prognosis Corrective and preventive recommendations
100 Moisture in an uncoated Durability and maintainability changes: anticipation of Corrective: moisture repair with the application of a
wall that guarantees maintenance time coating that ensures tightness
tightness due to the Affects functionality and image: stains and dirt on the wall; Preventive: register reforms carried out and establish
laundry facility it can get dirty or stain utensils that are being cleaned new performance requirements for the renovated place

Application of the Inspection Method for
Maintenance Management
Scope
The building is public and serves the academic community of a
university with classrooms, a canteen, administrative offices on
the ground floor, and computer and research labs on the fourth
floor. The building was delivered and occupied in 2013 and was
designed in a premolded structure with a metal roof and thermal
insulation, brick masonry, and precast concrete; window frames
of aluminum and tempered glass; metal canopies at the entran-
ces; basalt stone, porcelain tile, and wooden floors; accessible
lifts; and air conditioning. This building is through the first
maintenance inspection because this is a newly created univer-
sity, and therefore it does not have an established maintenance
sector.
Planning
The building designs were analyzed in conjunction with the budget
of the work and its additives, which briefly list the materials and
equipment used. The items to evaluate the exposure conditions
are based on the budget, specifications, and inspected documents.
The architectural design, on the other hand, assisted in defining the
roadmap of the building inspection.
Both the designs and the carried out renovations were not
developed according to the building information modeling
(BIM) technology, which limits the information about the building.
In the planning, the standards and laws applicable to the building
were also verified, and the questionnaires and verification reports
were drafted. Table 6 presents an excerpt of the document used for
verifying the exposure conditions of coatings.
Inspection
The inspection of the documents was performed before the building
inspection, based on the digital files and documents made available
by the university.
The building inspection occurred as planned, and the informa-
tion was recorded through images, identification of the images in
the design, and description of the conditions found in the inspection
checklist (Fig. S1). During this step, the questionnaire was also ap-
plied to the building’s users.
In the inspection report, the pictures were grouped according to
the type of occurrence and their summarized information, which
generated a database with 437 images classified in 90 types of
anomalies (Fig. 3).

© ASCE 04020112-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112

 Table 6. Example of the entering of exposure conditions
Building systems List of materials and finishes to consider in the
and installations preventive maintenance Deteriorating agent
Coating Ceramic coating placed with adhesive mortar and
grout: toilets, pantry and kitchen of the canteen
Frame in granite: opening the doors of the lifts
External coating: common plaster
Internal painting
Acrylic paint on plaster: internal walls
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Example of the inspection report.
Verification
Since the construction 5 years ago, the first inspection considered
and observed the durability requirements cited in the owner’s
manual, and the estimated UL was adopted for both systems and
materials. The annual maintenance planning should provide for the
replacement or maintenance of the system and its parts, with the
standards of performance not being restrictive.
The durability information served to justify recommendations
for the systems that met the designed functionality, whether be-
cause a natural event caused damage to the structure or because of
design, implementation, or lack of maintenance problems.
This evaluation proposed improvements to the maintenance plan
of the systems and updated the maintenance and renovation pro-
gram regarding the needs of the building. The recommendations
were based on the legislation, standards applicable to the inspected
systems, and the observed building conditions.
Prioritization
The prioritization revealed that the classification by severity de-
fined based on performance requirements was useful. Although
there are recommendations about sealing and maintainability, for
example, that have a low degree of severity, the classification re-
garding the urgency and tendency repositioned these recommenda-
tions on the list of priorities. Recommendations related to safety are
at the top of the list of priorities to ensure the safety of users, pre-
vent interdictions of environments, and reduce maintenance costs.
© ASCE 04020112-6
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
Whether or Degree of influence
use condition (severe/indifferent/favorable)
Physical/chemical Weather/usage Favorable
Physical Use Favorable
Physical/chemical Weather Favorable
Physical Weather Favorable
For example, in the access to the water reservoir, there was infil-
tration in the walls with peeling of paint, the prioritization calcu-
lation resulted in the score 4,000 (maintainability: 2, replacement
costs: 4, severity: 5, urgency: 10, and tendency: 10).
With the prioritization, the main demands could be identified as
being linked to the lack of façade maintenance. This demand was
submitted to the design department before the completion of the
works, in which it was established that the development of a façade
adjustment design would result in more considerable savings than
performing the maintenance actions.
The prioritization of the recommendations was made by first
complying with legislation, and then with the design require-
ments and standards on maintenance. The questionnaire prepared
for the users returned problems related the acoustic and thermal
performance, resulting in the recommendations for corrective
maintenance.
Recommendations
The recommendations resulted from three evaluations performed
during the inspection: inspection of the building conditions and
their prognoses, evaluation of the changes in use and exposure con-
ditions, and evaluation of the management documents as a function
of the identified performance conditions. Related to the recommen-
dations according to the type of anomaly, the greatest one still fo-
cuses on corrective maintenance (65%), since it is the first cycle of
the maintenance management system.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 7. Some excerpts of the building inspection recommendations
Block Item Priority Anomaly Prognosis
A 53 3000 Rusty grid, ladder, Ruin by corrosion
and door hatch
B 12 150 Plates/runners of the Increase of seepage
central span poorly and corrosion
fixed and worn paint
A 9 125 Absence of finishing Loss of the ability
in the toilets to use
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Finally, the final report was drafted with recommendations clas-
sified according to the prioritization criteria (Table 7).
Discussion
The verification step has the peculiarity of observing the state of
conservation of the entire building, which may or may not have
been subjected to interventions from users and maintenance teams.
Nevertheless, this comparison reveals only a lack of correction of
anomalies or a lack of preventive maintenance of the planned ac-
tivities, which should already have been complied with considering
the age of the building. It is, therefore, also necessary to evaluate
the forthcoming activities to see if they are in line with the aging
expectations, always because of the current condition of the build-
ing. However, the method did not consider testing because its cost
of implementation would be financially inviable for the university.
The recommendation of system testing would, therefore, occur
only for those systems on the prioritization list whose degradation
was seen as accelerated and if this became clear during the
inspections.
At the same time, the method allows the manager to analyze the
history of occurrences through the maintenance inspection records,
recommend maintenance and conservation strategies prioritizing
situations, and identify if the use of the environment is following
the project’s design.
The use of this management method requires more hours of
dedication related to other management activities. However, as
the owner’s manual and maintenance strategies are consolidated, the
number of anomalies tends to be reduced and, consequently, the time
spent for the maintenance inspection will be shorter.
The most significant difficulty identified in the case study when
considering the maintenance management processes, renovations,
and complementary processes is related to the inspection and up-
date of maintenance plans because of the lack of both human and
material resources.
As the proposed method uses prioritized recommendations, the
use of human resources is optimized since the internal maintenance
team is assigned according to the classification of activities. Fur-
thermore, another effect is the reduction of the service time of the
maintenance teams, whose focus is not the cause of the problem. As
such, both the prioritization and the recommendations accompa-
nied by the prognosis contribute to the management of risks.
Besides, the summary of the recommendations resulting from
the application of the method becomes the basis for the corrective
maintenance program, which can be accomplished by internal
teams through existing contracts or as the scope of new contracts.
When considering sustainable development, this method con-
tributes to:
© ASCE 04020112-7
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
Recommendations
Corrective Preventive
Perform maintenance on steel parts: Evaluate improvement project if
remove rust, apply protection against the maintenance costs are high
rust, and repaint
Close the structure of the central span, Include roof inspection
including the correct mounting, removal verification in the coverage
of rust, and painting closure surveys
Reinstall the finishes and replace the Perform maintenance based on
seals of the flush valves the checks provided for in the
conservation contracts
1. completing the inspection phase while considering the triad:
description of the malfunction, location in the blueprint, and
image;
2. prioritizing severity, tendency, urgency, and replacement cost;
3. drafting inspection reports based on the requirements of the per-
formance standard and current legislation;
4. evaluating financial costs of the building management based on
replacement costs and price reference tables;
5. evaluating the use and incorporation of sustainable building
systems or maintenance management procedures and natural
resources; and
6. evaluating the maintenance and renovation management while
considering planned versus performed, prioritized versus planned,
and complaints from users.
One way to achieve the continuous development of maintenance
management is to check the maintenance history and customer
complaints in cases in which there are no established performance
levels. The adoption of anomaly monitoring parameters prioritizing
degrees of severity classified as high enables the standardization of
responses in the tool’s recommendation step.
Conclusion
The success in the use of the management tool in the case study’s
university occurred mainly by adopting the maintenance schedule
based on the building’s condition, the identification of activities
performed in duplicate, and the use of recommendations to update
the plans based on legislation and standards. The cost in the pri-
oritization of activities, description, location, and image as standard
for inspection, are also criteria that are worth noting.
The study of general issues, involving the area of the built envi-
ronment, promotes awareness about the technological develop-
ments in the area. This way, the proposed method will not become
obsolete regarding technological innovations since the model con-
siders sustainable development issues, inspection legislation, and
the requirements of the performance standard. The method is
divided into six steps and proposes that the performance should
be evaluated through the categorization performed by the standard
(ISO 2016), which addresses the influence of human activities, in-
cluding changes in the use of the environments or maintenance and
conservation activities, degradation mechanisms, and changes in
performance over the years.
Deployment cycles are needed throughout the deployment
process. These are proposed in this article in the form of mainte-
nance inspection and will not only be restricted to assessing the
building’s condition, but also contribute to its management over
the years. Institutions with several buildings have difficulty in di-
agnosing building conditions, which demands resources and efforts
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 to develop viable solutions for the treatment and systematization of
information. The maintenance inspection guided by scope and pri-
oritization is one of the viable solutions, although it is necessary to
align design information with the maintenance strategies to meet
the required performance criteria.
It is possible to apply the method in other commercial buildings;
however, it is suggested that future studies verify this proposition
and highlight the points that should be included, if necessary, to
allow such application.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be pro-
vided with restrictions. The confidential data is the university data-
base, with 437 images classified in 90 types of anomalies.
Supplemental Materials
Fig. S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary
.org).
References
Abdul-Rahman, H., C. Wang, S. N. Kamaruzzaman, F. A. Mohd-Rahim,
M. S. Mohd-Danuri, and K. Lee. 2014. “Case study of facility perfor-
mance and user requirements in the university of Malaya research and
development building.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (5): 04014131.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000629.
ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) (Brazilian Association
of Technical Standards). 2012. Manutenção de edificações—Requisitos
para o sistema de gestão de manutenção (Building maintenance—
Requirements for the maintenance management system). NBR 5674.
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: ABNT.
ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) (Brazilian Association
of Technical Standards). 2013. Edificações habitacionais—Desem-
penho parte 1: requisitos gerais (Housing buildings—Performance
part 1: General requirements). NBR 15575-1. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil:
ABNT.
ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) (Brazilian Association
of Technical Standards). 2014a. Diretrizes para elaboração de manuais
de uso, operação e manutenção das edificações—Requisitos para elab-
oração e apresentação dos conteúdos (Guidelines for the preparation
of building use, operation and maintenance manuals—Requirements
for the preparation and presentation of contents). NBR 14037. Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil: ABNT.
ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) (Brazilian Association
of Technical Standards). 2014b. Reformas em edificações—Sistemas de
gestão de reformas—Requisitos (Building renovations—Renovation
management systems—Requirements). NBR 16280. Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil: ABNT.
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers). 2013. Commissioning process for buildings
and systems. Standard 202. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2012. Standard guide
for evaluating water leakage of building walls. E2128-12. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bayazit, N. 2004. “Investigating design: A review of forty years of de-
sign research.” Des. Issues 20 (1): 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1162
/074793604772933739.
Becerik-Gerber, B., F. Jazizadeh, N. Li, and G. Calis. 2011. “Application
areas and data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138 (3): 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000433.
Bento Pereira, N., R. Calejo Rodrigues, and P. Fernandes Rocha. 2016.
“Post-occupancy evaluation data support for planning and management
© ASCE 04020112-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
of building maintenance plans.” Buildings 6 (4): 45. https://doi.org/10
.3390/buildings6040045.
Bortolini, R., and N. Forcada. 2018. “Building inspection system for evalu-
ating the technical performance of existing buildings.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 32 (5): 04018073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF
.1943-5509.0001220.
Brasil Ministério da Educação (Ministry of Education). 2012. “Análise
sobre a Expansão das Universidades Federais—2003 a 2012 (Analysis
on the expansion of federal universities—2003 to 2012).” Accessed
February 15, 2020. https://portal.mec.gov.br/docman/janeiro-2013-pdf
/12386-analise-expansao-universidade-federais-2003-2012-pdf.
Chan, D. W., H. T. Hung, A. P. Chan, and T. K. Lo. 2014. “Overview of the
development and implementation of the mandatory building inspection
scheme (MBIS) in Hong Kong.” Built Environ. Project Asset Manage.
4 (1): 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-07-2012-0040.
Che-Ani, A. I., A. R. M. Nasir, S. N. Kamaruzzaman, N. M. Tawil, and
M. Surat. 2015. “Common defects of lavatory space in institutions
of higher learning: Analysis of building condition survey.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 29 (6): 04014152. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF
.1943-5509.0000542.
Chiang, Y. H., J. Li, L. Zhou, F. K. Wong, and P. T. Lam. 2015. “The nexus
among employment opportunities, life-cycle costs, and carbon emis-
sions: A case study of sustainable building maintenance in Hong Kong.”
J. Clean. Prod. 109 (Dec): 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro
.2014.07.069.
Delgado, L., T. Shealy, M. Garvin, and A. Pearce. 2018. “Framing energy
efficiency with payback period: Empirical study to increase energy
consideration during facility procurement processes.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 144 (5): 04018027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0001464.
De Medici, S., and C. Senia. 2015. “Ottimizzazione dei servizi di manu-
tenzione per l’edilizia universitária [Streamlining of maintenance facili-
ties for the university real estate].” [In Italian.] Techne 9: 267–273.
https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-16130.
De Wilde, P., W. Tian, and G. Augenbroe. 2011. “Longitudinal prediction
of the operational energy use of buildings.” Build. Environ. 46 (8):
1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.006.
Ding, G. K. C. 2008. “Sustainable construction—The role of environmental
assessment tools.” J. Environ. Manage. 86 (3): 451–464. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
Ding, L., and X. Xu. 2014. “Application of cloud storage on BIM life-cycle
management.” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 11 (8): 129. https://doi.org/10
.5772/58443.
Dresch, A., D. P. Lacerda, and J. A. V. Antunes Jr. 2015. Design science
research: A method for science and technology advancement. New York:
Springer.
Druķis, P., L. Gaile, and L. Pakrastins. 2017. “Inspection of public build-
ings based on risk assessment.” Procedia Eng. 172: 247–255. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.106.
Ferreira, F. M. C. 2017. “Modelo para gestão de manutenção predial em
universidades públicas: Caso das IFES mineiras (Model for building
maintenance management in public universities: Case of IFES in Minas
Gerais).” Tese (Doutorado em Ciências da Engenharia Civil), Univer-
sidade Federal de Ouro Preto.
Grant, A., and R. Ries. 2013. “Impact of building service life models on life
cycle assessment.” Build. Res. Inf. 41 (2): 168–186. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09613218.2012.730735.
Grussing, M. N., and L. Y. Liu. 2013. “Knowledge-based optimization of
building maintenance, repair, and renovation activities to improve facility
life cycle investments.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 28 (3): 539–548.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000449.
Hong, T., C. Koo, J. Kim, M. Lee, and K. Jeong. 2015. “A review on
sustainable construction management strategies for monitoring, diag-
nosing, and retrofitting the building’s dynamic energy performance:
Focused on the operation and maintenance phase.” Appl. Energy
155 (Oct): 671–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.043.
IBAPE (Instituto Brasileiro de Avaliações e Perícias). 2012. Norma de
inspeção predial nacional (National building inspection standard).
São Paulo, Brasil: IBAPE.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2016. Framework
for specifying performance in buildings. ISO 19208. Geneva,
Switzerland: ISO.
Lateef, O. 2010. “Case for alternative approach to building maintenance
management of public universities.” J. Build. Appraisal 5 (3): 201–212.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jba.2009.19.
Leite, F. M., R. A. Volse, H. R. Roman, and F. A. Saffaro. 2020. “Building
condition assessment: Adjustments of the building performance indica-
tor (BPI) for university buildings in Brazil.” Ambiente Construído
20 (1): 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212020000100370.
Madureira, S., I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, and C. Pereira. 2017. “Maintenance
planning of facades in current buildings.” Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (Aug):
790–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.195.
Mills, E. 2011. “Building commissioning: A golden opportunity for reduc-
ing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 09/04/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Energy Effic. 4 (2): 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-011-9116-8.
Mora, R., G. Bitsuamlak, and M. Horvat. 2011. “Integrated life-cycle de-
sign of building enclosures.” Build. Environ. 46 (7): 1469–1479. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.01.018.
Olanrewaju, A. A. L. 2012. “Quantitative analysis of defects in university
buildings: User perspective.” Built Environ. Project Asset Manage.
2 (2): 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441241211280909.
© ASCE 04020112-9
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2020, 34(6): 04020112
Pandza, K., and R. Thorpe. 2010. “Management as design, but what kind of
design? An appraisal of the design science analogy for management.”
Br. J. Manage. 21 (1): 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551
.2008.00623.x.
Rauf, A., and R. H. Crawford. 2015. “Building service life and its effect on
the life cycle embodied energy of buildings.” Energy 79 (Jan): 140–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.093.
Robichaud, L. B., and V. S. Anantatmula. 2010. “Greening project man-
agement practices for sustainable construction.” J. Manage. Eng. 27 (1):
48–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000030.
Shohet, I. M. 2003. “Building evaluation methodology for setting mainte-
nance priorities in hospital buildings.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 21 (7):
681–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000115562.
Thabet, W., and J. Lucas. 2017. “Asset data handover for a large educational
institution: Case-study approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (11):
05017017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001389.
Zhang, X., L. Shen, and Y. Wu. 2011. “Green strategy for gaining competi-
tive advantage in housing development: A China study.” J. Cleaner Prod.
19 (2–3): 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.005.
Zhao, X., L. Chen, W. Pan, and Q. Lu. 2017. “AHP-ANP—Fuzzy integral
integrated network for evaluating performance of innovative business
models for sustainable building.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 143 (8):
04017054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001348.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.