The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-2772.htm

F
39,5/6 Occupant satisfaction on facility
services: case studies of six multi-
generational condominiums
286 Chaiwat Riratanaphong
Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University,
Received 23 November 2019 Pathum Thani, Thailand, and
Revised 24 April 2020
16 June 2020
Accepted 18 June 2020
Sorawis Limjaroensuk
The Beaumont Partnership, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – Feedback from condominium occupants on multi-generational condominium facility services
makes it possible to identify areas in need of improvement and development concerning facilities
management in this residential project type. This paper aims to examine behaviours, needs, preferences and
patterns of space use in condominium occupants from three different age groups (under 30, 30 to 50 and over
50 years old) relative to their satisfaction with facility services. The paper examines the impact of the physical
environment and facility service arrangement (i.e. cleaning and security) on occupant satisfaction in the
common areas of six multi-generational condominiums and investigates whether occupant satisfaction varies
between the three age groups.
Design/methodology/approach – Six case studies classified as multi-generational condominiums were
conducted. Research methods included document analysis, field surveys, interviews with juristic person
managers and surveys from condominium occupants regarding their satisfaction with cleaning and security
services in the common areas. The findings were then applied one-way ANOVA to test occupant satisfaction
mean differences between age groups.
Findings – The findings indicate that physical environment characteristics including the location, size,
number and design attributes of common areas have an impact on the provision of facility services and may
influence occupant satisfaction. In terms of the facility service arrangement, both the service method and the
ratio of staff to areas of responsibility can be explained in connection to functional and technical quality,
respectively. Occupants’ demands and behaviours, such as the strong requirement for privacy, the preference
towards service staff accessibility and the frequency of space usage, contribute to different levels of occupant
satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – More case studies in Thailand and also in other countries, based
on surveys with large samples of respondents, are required to increase the validity and to establish whether it
is possible to generalise the study’s findings.
Practical implications – The findings and reflections upon them help understand the impact of
physical environment characteristics and the provision of facility services on occupant satisfaction in
various age groups. Recommendations are provided concerning building design and the provision of
facility services in connection to perceived service quality and occupant satisfaction in multi-
generational condominiums in Thailand that can apply to other types of real estate projects where
similar facility services are offered.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to research on occupant satisfaction with facility services and
provides evidence on occupants’ feedback in different types of perceived service quality (i.e. technical and
functional quality). Identifying the impact of physical environment characteristics, facility service

Facilities
Vol. 39 No. 5/6, 2021
pp. 286-304 The authors would like to thank Dr. Tipsuda Janjamlha, Assistant Professor of the Architecture
© Emerald Publishing Limited programme at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University for the advice on
0263-2772
DOI 10.1108/F-11-2019-0123 statistical analysis.
arrangements and occupant behaviours on occupant satisfaction with the technical and functional aspects of Occupant
facility services contributes to the body of research on facilities management.
satisfaction on
Keywords Facility services, Occupant satisfaction, Perceived service quality,
Physical environment, Common areas, Multi-generational condominiums
facility
services
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction 287
Multi-unit residential projects – a type of property that separates units for individual ownership
– include both housing estates and condominiums. Due to the high costs of land, the latter is
becoming more popular in many parts of Asia’s urban communities, including Seoul in South
Korea, Manila in the Philippines, Bangkok in Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore (Jones Lang
LaSalle, 2015). A condominium has been defined as a building that can be separated into units
for individual ownership and includes personal and common properties. In Thailand,
condominium projects have emerged in major provinces such as Khon Kaen, Phuket, Cholburi
and Chiang Mai and have been found more common in Bangkok city centre. Generally,
condominium units are resided with one or two family members due to the limited square
metre area of a unit’s space. The provision of common areas and shared facilities meets the
preferences of specific target groups, such as new graduates and junior or mid-level managers.
Data from Thailand National Statistical Office indicate that Thailand is becoming a
middle-aged and elderly society (National Statistical Office, 2016). The concept of
condominiums provided for the living of family members in various age groups has recently
become popular in Thailand. The term multi-generational household defines as a family
consisting of two or more generations living together under the same roof. However,
changes in occupants’ behaviours, needs and preferences can have an effect on building
design and the provision of facility services of condominium projects.

2. Literature review
2.1 Facilities management in condominium projects
Facilities management (FM) is a key function in managing facility resources, support services
and working environment to support the core business of the organisation in both the long and
short term (Bröchner et al., 2019; Jensen and Van der Voordt, 2017). Nutt (2002-2003) argues that
FM activities are relevant to an organisation’s aspects and dimensions, such as the following:

purpose, vision, mission, objectives, core competencies and goals;

processes of work, operations and projects;

environmental context, behaviour, culture and market; and

product (s), infrastructure, property and facilities.

FM in multi-unit residential projects involves a different approach in comparison with FM in other

building types. The practice of FM in multi-unit residential projects consists of the management of:

common areas; and

services and activities (i.e. common services, residential services and community
activities).

In this project, the term “common areas” refers to areas that are available for use by all tenants
of a condominium building such as the lobby hall, the elevator hall, parking and recreational
facilities, including swimming pool, fitness, multipurpose room, recreation room and kids’ area.
F 2.1.1 Factors influencing the management of physical resources in condominium
39,5/6 projects. FM in condominium projects involves a variety of factors influencing the
management of physical resources that can be described as follows (Kongsirikhun, 2009):

location and accessibility – determines project value, unit price, traffic and security
of the project;

physical characteristics of the building (s) – includes square metre area of the
288 project (s) and building (s), number of floors and units, architectural styles, the
proportion of residential areas and common and green areas;

physical characteristics of the units – includes square metre area of the units, unit
functions, facilities and space usage capability of the unit;

common areas of the project – includes the ratio of common areas to residents and
the standard of the facilities provided;

management and maintenance – includes management styles, maintenance of
building systems and common facilities and project costs; and

price of the project – determines factors such as the ratio of common areas and
facilities and unit sizes.
The first four items are linked to architectonic quality, which defines a building as a
combination of relationships between form, function, construction, consistency and context (Van
der Voordt and Van Wegen, 2005). According to Tyvimaa (2011), the physical environment and
common areas have an important role in involving residents. When well-designed common
areas exist, a higher level of engagement can be achieved by getting residents involved in the
planning and running of activities. Leung et al. (2019) argue that the architectural components in
the common areas of private buildings should be planned by taking into account the size of
various spaces (i.e. lobby size or corridor width) and the distance among different functional
spaces (e.g. between flats and elevator). In terms of multi-generational condominiums,
supporting facilities should satisfy the elders and improve their quality of life (Duncan-Myers
and Huebner, 2000). Furthermore, previous research found that public traffic network, proximity
to workplace, sense of safety, medical and health facilities and education facilities are the top five
determinants in housing consumption by young occupants (Wu, 2010). This study mainly
focuses on three factors (i.e. physical characteristics of the building (s), the arrangement of
facility services of the project, and behaviours, needs and preferences of occupants) that will be
discussed in relation to occupant satisfaction with facility services in different age groups.
2.1.2 Support services. The scope of FM includes the management of support services
that cover the areas of:

operation and maintenance (i.e. control, maintenance and repair);

building services (e.g. security, cleaning, pest control, gardening and traffic control); and

general services (e.g. provision of stationery, furnishings, procurement, meeting and travel
service).
Chotipanich (2006) argues that the support services of multi-unit residential projects include
the following items:

cleaning;

security;

pest control;

health and well-being (e.g. garbage and waste management and disease control);

monitor and control of building service engineering and facilities;

maintenance of building, building system and landscape; Occupant

tenant services, such as transportation, moving service, renovation, agent service satisfaction on
and arrangement of land or unit during the selling period; and facility

community activities, such as sport or celebrating events throughout the year. services
The person who has responsibilities on the arrangement of facility services in the
condominium buildings and common areas is called a juristic person manager. Concerning 289
the multi-generational condominiums, Leung et al. (2019) argue that the three main
supporting facilities factors that can positively affect the quality of life for older people in a
private building are security, barrier-free facilities and recreational facilities. This study
offers an assessment of occupant satisfaction with cleaning and security services in multi-
generational condominiums. The implications of the findings are discussed in Section 5.

2.2 Occupant satisfaction

Occupants of condominiums are considered as not only customers of FM operations but also
customers of the real estate project. It is widely accepted that the customer (client) plays an
important role in many industries, particularly in the service business (Hui and Zheng, 2010).
Customer satisfaction with facilities is one of the performance measures that are frequently
mentioned in connection with real estate (Gopikrishnan and Kumar, 2019). Customer
satisfaction has been linked to higher profit margins and greater employee satisfaction,
customer retention and repeat purchases (Gupta et al., 2018). Satisfaction is an overall
psychological state that reflects a customer’s level of approval when comparing a product’s
perceived performance with their expectations. It can be classified into three levels:
(1) dissatisfaction: perception is lower than expectation;
(2) satisfaction: perception is equal to expectation; and
(3) high satisfaction: perception is higher than expectation.

Previous research indicates five parameters on the overall satisfaction of dwellers in

Bangkok, Thailand: neighbours, public facilities, environmental conditions, dwelling units
and location aspects (Savasdisara et al., 1989). In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the residential
satisfaction of housing dwellers was assessed with respect to a range of variables, including
dwelling unit features, dwelling unit support services, public facilities, social environment
and neighbourhood facilities (Mohit et al., 2010).
2.2.1 Client perception of facilities management services. FM is implemented towards
providing a service that is difficult to identify because there is no end product to show to the
customer. FM services are increasingly being recognised as a key service sector (Nardelli and
Rajala, 2018). The increasing amount of literature on service quality, client’s satisfaction and
loyalty marks its importance in marketing literature (Annamdevula and Bellamkonda, 2016).
However, not many studies have been implemented relative to the building and construction
industries. The assessment of facility services is likely to revolve around a comparison between
clients’ perception of services received and their expectation of services (Rasmussen et al., 2019).
Mobach (2009) argues that facility services have different effects on organisational performance
with regard to the impact of spatial characteristics on health, mood and behaviour of people in
and around organisations. Concerning the client’s perspective, FM can make efforts
contributing to performance by managing the client’s initial expectation and managing the
client’s perception of the service. Figure 1 shows two categorial factors in technical and
functional quality that influence the corporate image of a facilities department, which affects
perceived service quality (Barrett and Finch, 2014). Technical quality includes knowledge,
F
39,5/6

290

Figure 1.
Factors influencing
perceived service
quality

machines, procedures and solutions, whereas functional quality covers the area of accessibility,
attitude, appearance and relationships. These factors are the main input to the client’s
assessment of the service provided. Moreover, the interaction between customers and service
personnel (i.e. the service encounter) is considered to be a crucial factor influencing customer
experience in the service delivery process (Vos et al., 2019).
2.2.2 Measurement methods. Measures of performance for customers could include
customer satisfaction surveys and the recording of the number of complaints (Walters,
1999). According to Lindholm and Gibler (2005), customer satisfaction with facilities is the
most commonly used corporate real estate (CRE) measure. Carder (1995) offers performance
measures that can provide a useful proxy for customer satisfaction, such as the number of
calls by category and building, the average call frequency and the cost per square foot of the
help desk. Customer satisfaction with facilities can be measured by:

survey rating (e.g. customer or tenant survey of the facilities, building, property
management and CRE services);

number of complaints;

number of calls by category and building;

average call frequency;

cost per square foot of the help desk; and

location success factors (e.g. access to customers and distance to other sites and
businesses).

The source of control information can be achieved by tabulating the number of calls by
category and building and then comparing them against the average call frequency and cost
per foot of the help desk (Carder, 1995). This study applied survey rating on occupant
satisfaction with cleaning and security service in terms of technical and functional quality.
The findings of the survey are discussed in connection to:

physical attributes of the condominium buildings and common areas;

facility service arrangement in case studies; and

behavioural factors of the occupants in Section 5.
2.3 Problem formulation and research question Occupant
Leung et al. (2019) argue that architectural factors (such as space size and distance) and satisfaction on
security in common areas positively affect the overall evaluation of the environment
from older occupants in private buildings. The FM of common areas, particularly
facility
architectural and supporting facilities, can significantly affect the quality of life of older services
people. Wu (2010) mentioned the determinants influencing housing consumption of
young occupants such as sense of safety, which relates to the arrangement of facility
services in common areas. In terms of the multi-unit residential project, there is a need 291
to further evaluate the impact of facility service arrangement, that is, cleaning and
security on occupant satisfaction in different age groups. The purpose of this paper is
to identity the impact of physical environment characteristics and facility service
arrangement on occupant satisfaction with facility services in multi-generational
condominiums whose occupants belong to three different age groups (i.e. under 30, 30
to 50, over 50 years old). The paper aims to answer the following question:

Q1. What factors influence occupant satisfaction with cleaning and security services of
multi-generational condominiums?

3. Research methods
In 2016, there were the total number of 53,748 units of the medium-priced condominiums (US
$2,200–US$2,800 per square metre) in Thailand (AREA, 2017). To improve our
understanding of occupant responses to facility services of multi-generational
condominiums, six medium-priced condominiums that had been operated for more than two
years were selected as case studies. Criteria for case selection were based on building
characteristics and design features that respond to the needs of occupants in various age
groups including the concern about safety in the physical environment such as the use of a
slip resistant material, the provision of sufficient lighting of the areas, sanitary facilities and
ramps for elderly. Design criteria focus on the flexibility of common areas such as
multipurpose and recreation rooms that are provided for various activities of occupants in
different age groups. The cases were chosen from condominium project developers that
were in the top list of Chulalongkorn University’s Brand Trust Index (REIC, 2017), which
considered customers, reputation, leadership and local familiarity criteria. The case selection
was also based on the willingness to cooperate of the condominium projects.
Research methods included field surveys, interviews with juristic person managers and
surveys from condominium occupants regarding the satisfaction with facility services,
including cleaning and security in common areas. Data collection included three main parts:
(1) physical environment characteristics of condominium buildings and common areas;
(2) facility service arrangement in the condominiums; and
(3) occupant satisfaction with facility services, namely, cleaning and security in
common areas.

A field survey was conducted by a walk through the condominiums to examine physical
environment characteristics that could affect the arrangement of facility services. A semi-
structured interview was developed to be used for six participants interviews with the
juristic person managers of each condominium. Interview questions focused on facility
service arrangement of the condominiums, obstacles regarding the design and management
of facilities that affected occupant satisfaction in various age groups. The interview was
conducted at the juristic person office of each condominium with the average duration of 1 h.
F The survey on occupant satisfaction included data from 360 condominium residents who
39,5/6 are between 15 and 65 years old relative to their satisfaction with facility services (i.e.
cleaning and security) in common areas:

lobby;

elevator hall;

parking area;
292

swimming pool;

fitness;

multipurpose room;

recreation room;

kids’ area;

green area; and

shops.

The sample size was calculated using Taro Yamane formula (Yamane, 1973), with a 95%
confidence level and 5% error.

n ¼ N=½1 þ Ne2 

n = sample size, N = size of population, e = error of 5% points.

The calculation was made on a population of 3,600 that included multi-generational
condominium units of all cases, including case A (390 units), case B (560 units), case C (680
units), case D (650 units), case E (1,020 units) and case F (300 units). The population of 3,600
units came up with 360 condominium residents that accounted for 10% of the total units of
the six cases. The study applied 10% of the unit number of each case for the respondent
numbers, including case A (39 respondents), case B (56 respondents), case C (68
respondents), case D (65 respondents), case E (102 respondents) and case F (30 respondents).
The juristic person manager of each condominium disseminated satisfaction questionnaires
to the respondents by simple random sampling without replacement method.
Questionnaires on occupant satisfaction regarding facility services were based on the
perceived service quality model (Figure 1) and were classified into two groups: technical and
functional quality. The first group of questions on cleanliness and security of the areas
related to technical quality (result quality). The second group of questions on the service of
staff related to functional quality (process quality, i.e. responsibility, personality and
accessibility). Questions were rated on a one-to-five-point scale (“very dissatisfied”,
“dissatisfied”, “neutral”, “satisfied” and “very satisfied”). Satisfaction scores were calculated
from the average scores of occupants that marked as satisfied and very satisfied.
The data were collected from January to March 2017. Data analysis included descriptive
statistics of the satisfaction percentages of the facility services. The study tested significant
differences between the means of occupant satisfaction with different types of facility
services in three age groups using one-way ANOVA.

4. Research findings
4.1 Physical environment characteristics of condominium buildings and common areas
The total size of common areas in the case studies ranged from 26,170 to 45,360 square
metres, which accounted for 30–36% of the total building areas. The findings indicate that
all cases had similar common areas and were located in different spots and with varying Occupant
numbers of facilities to support the usage of occupants in various age groups. Except for satisfaction on
case F, which lacked a shop area, all cases comprised primary common areas common areas,
such as lobby and elevator hall, parking, swimming pool, fitness, multipurpose room,
facility
services

Project detail Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F 293

Location Chatuchak Suan Luang Bang Sue Suan Luang Bang Bua Bang Kho
Thong Laem
Building age (year) 4 3 3 2 4 2
Number of towers 1 3 2 1 5 2
Storey 30 Tower A: 30 Tower A: 40 Tower A 25 Tower A: 29 Tower A: 44
Tower B: 32 Tower B: 39 Tower B 25 Tower B: 30 Tower B: 54
Tower C: 12 Tower C: 29
Tower D: 30
Tower E: 30
Unit 804 1,390 1,724 1,613 2,824 556
Price (Baht/sq. m.)* 80,000 88,000 85,000 80,000 73,000 88,000
Room type Studio: 1 Bedroom: Studio: 1Bedroom: 1 Bedroom: 1 Bedroom:
32 sq. m. 29 sq. m. 29 sq. m. 26 sq. m. 22 sq. m. 77 sq. m.
1 Bedroom: 2 Bedroom: 1 Bedroom: 2 Bedroom: 2 Bedroom: 2 Bedroom:
49 sq. m. 55 sq. m. 35 sq. m. 46 sq. m. 34 sq. m. 82 sq. m.
2 Bedroom: 2 Bedroom: Table 1.
66 sq. m. 63 sq. m. Physical
Gross project area 64,760 85,310 126,160 86,850 153,000 110,200
(sq. m.)
characteristics of
Common area (sq. m.) 29,600 26,170 39,840 27,300 45,360 34,840 mid-range
condominium case
Notes: information at the end of 2019, *30.35 Baht = 1 USD studies

Plate 1.
Condominium
buildings of six case
studies
F recreation room, kids’ area, green area, activity area and shop. Table 1 shows different
39,5/6 characteristics of the common areas in the case studies. Plate 1 shows the exterior of six
condominium buildings from case A to case F.
All cases were high-rise buildings with the total floor areas ranging between 83,791 and
153,00 square metres in 556–2,831 units. All buildings were less than five years old. The
percentages of common areas to gross project area were between 30 and 36%. The findings
294 indicate that the design of condominium buildings was based on the behaviours and
lifestyles of prospective buyers that were the target market in the particular project
segmentation. Three primary factors relative to physical environment attributes of the
common areas impacting facility service arrangement of the condominium projects are
described in the following sections.
4.1.1 Location of common areas. The findings indicate that the common areas were
placed in different locations of the condominium buildings depending on the case. Case A, B,
C and E had car parking spaces in various spots in and around the buildings, whereas in
case D and F car parking spaces were located in one location of each building. Findings
indicate that the first group, which had car parking spaces in various locations, presented
difficulties regarding the monitoring and controlling of security service. Kids’ area of case A,
B and E were situated at the back of the condominium buildings far from the checking
points of the security staff. The findings indicate that multipurpose and recreation area of
case D and E were located on the first floor of the buildings and scattered in different
buildings of the projects. The separate area of responsibility had an impact on the
performance of cleaning service in the area.
4.1.2 Size and number of common areas. Size and number of common areas may affect FM
services and occupant satisfaction. Findings from the field surveys indicate that case B and
E had more lobby and elevator halls than other projects, which affected facility service
arrangement in terms of area of responsibility of staff and impacted on staff performance.
case C and E had a larger green area than other projects. The large green areas of both cases
had blind spots causing difficulties for the security staff to monitor the areas.
4.1.3 Design attributes of common areas. The condominium projects were designed for
residents of various ages, with standard common properties and different design features.
Buildings entrances provided ramps for the elderly and the disabled. All cases had used user-
friendly materials for kids’ playsets. Case A, B, D and E had playgrounds in outdoor areas,
whereas case C and F had kids’ rooms in the buildings. Case A, C, D and F had swimming
pools, fitness rooms, multipurpose rooms and recreation rooms in ground floors or other floors
of the buildings, whereas case B and E provided the same facilities in a building separated from
residential units in the form of clubhouses. Design attributes of the common areas had an
impact on how service staff selected equipment and provided services.

4.2 Facility service arrangement

The findings indicate that all cases had similar working hours of service staff, namely,
cleaning and security staff. The cleaning service was performed between 8:00 and 16:00 (8 h
per day). The security service included two shifts:
(1) from 7:00 to 19:00; and
(2) from 19:00 to 7:00.

The case studies indicate different responsible square metre area of cleaning staff ranging
between 2,000 and 4,000 square metres per staff. In terms of the designated areas of security
personnel, the findings indicate similar checkpoints at the common areas, including the
entrance of the condominium projects, parking spaces, entrance halls of buildings, common Occupant
facilities in buildings and surrounding areas. Only case B and F had security staff assigned satisfaction on
at the parking buildings. facility
The findings indicate two factors impacting the setup of facility service arrangement
directions, including internal factors (e.g. management policies, occupants’ requirements services
and behaviours and physical environment characteristics of the projects) and external
factors (e.g. quality of FM service providers and efficient use of common areas). The two 295
main elements of facility service arrangement in the condominium projects under
investigation were service methods and the ratio of service staff to responsible areas.
4.2.1 Service method. In terms of the security service, the findings indicate that service
operated by personnel staff was supplemented by security technologies such as the
application of keycard at building entrances and smart card at car parking entrances. The
security system applied closed-circuit television (CCTV) to monitor the use of common
properties in all cases. Proper arrangement of tools and technologies generally enhances the
efficiency of services operated by personnel staff. However, the interviews with
condominium residents aged above 50 indicate that they preferred the service operated by
staff rather than technologies. Accessibility and personal courtesy from service staff are
linked to the client’s perspective of FM services in terms of functional quality (perceived
service), including accessibility, attitude, appearance and relationships (Figure 1).
4.2.2 Ratio of staff to areas of responsibility. According to Barrett and Finch (2014), the
technical quality of FM services includes knowledge, machines, procedures and solutions.
Cleanliness and security of the areas relate to the ratio of staff to areas of responsibility. The
findings from case C and E indicate the presence of a larger green area than in the other cases,
which impacted service capacity due to the limited number of staff in comparison to their area
of responsibility. Furthermore, service staff operated in several common areas. For example,
the same group of cleaning staff of case A, B, D and E were responsible for the cleaning service
of the playground, the green area and the car parking space. The ratio of staff to areas of
responsibility relates to the service provider’s capability and affect the technical quality
(expected service, i.e. knowledge, machines, procedures and solutions; Figure 1).

4.3 Findings from the interviews

The findings from interviews with juristic person managers indicate that occupants with
aged between 30 and 50 had a strong requirement for privacy. Kids’ area of case C, D, E and
F were located in kids’ rooms that promoted privacy and were more efficient in terms of
security monitoring and cleaning operations in comparison to the exposed areas. Occupants
older than 50 preferred to have the services operated by personnel staff in addition to the use
of technologies in venues such as the lobby and elevator halls, swimming pool, fitness,
multipurpose room and kids’ room. The preference for functional quality can be explained in
relation to the service method previously mentioned. Previous research indicates that the
presence of cleaning staff influences customer’s perceptions and satisfaction positively (Vos
et al., 2019). This is because service personnel is able to communicate a firm’s ideals and
attributes through the service encounter.
Different frequencies of space usage of occupants in common areas were reported. The
multipurpose and recreation rooms of case F were used more often than the other cases
(three times a week), which affected the arrangement of the facility services. Building design
and facility service arrangement of multi-generational condominiums responded to
behaviours, needs and preferences of residents in different age groups.
F 4.4 Findings from the surveys
39,5/6 The assessment from condominium occupants from six case studies includes occupant
satisfaction with facility services, namely, cleaning and security. Eight hundred surveys
were disseminated to juristic person offices of the six cases and were filled out by 360
participants (45 % response rate), 169 males and 191 females (1: 1.13 ratio). Participants
were classified into three age groups: above 50 years old (30%), between 31 and 40 years old
296 (42%) and below 30 years old (28%). Most participants were well-educated, with 60%
holding a bachelor’s degree and 35% holding a master’s degree or a higher. Of the 360
participants, 20% lived alone, 33% lived with two people, 27% lived with three people, and
20% lived with four or more people. Tables 2 and 3 show the satisfaction data from case A
to F while classifying various aspects of cleaning and security services into three age
groups. In both services, the classification in terms of technical quality (concerned with what
is done, namely, cleanliness and security of the areas) and functional quality (how the
service was rendered, namely, responsibility, personality and accessibility) were applied.
The findings indicate slight differences in the average satisfaction scores between
cleaning and security services. In terms of the cleaning service, the average satisfaction
scores in the cleanliness of the areas ranged from 3.91 to 4.13, whereas the quality of
cleaning staff ranged from 3.98 to 4.24. Findings relative to the security service indicate the
average satisfaction scores ranged from 3.87 to 4.10, whereas the quality of security staff
ranged from 3.96 to 4.23. The findings indicate that occupants above 50 years old were less
satisfied, with lower satisfaction scores (below 3.70) in most common areas than the other
age groups. Case A had the lowest satisfaction scores in the security of recreation area (3.33),
followed by case F (3.50 in the cleanliness of the recreation area) and case B (3.50 in the
security of kids’ area).
Occupants younger than 30 in case A were the ones who appreciated the responsibility of
cleaning staff the most (4.36). In terms of the average satisfaction scores of all common
areas, occupants younger than 30 in case A appreciated the quality of cleaning service (4.13
and 4.24 in the cleanliness of the area and quality of cleaning staff). Likewise, occupants
younger than 30 in case E appreciated the quality of security staff (4.22). Concerning the
occupants aged between 30 and 50 from all cases, there were no satisfaction scores that
exceeded 4.30 in either cleaning or security service.

4.5 Satisfaction mean differences between age groups relative to facility services
One-way ANOVA was used to determine whether there were any statistically significant
differences between the means of occupant satisfaction with different types of facility
services in three age groups (under 30, between 30 and 50 and above 50 years old). The
differences in facilities services concerned the following variables:

cleanliness of the areas;

service of cleaning staff;

security of the areas; and

service of security staff.

Table 4 shows the mean differences between age groups regarding occupant satisfaction
with different types of facility services.
The findings show two sets of variables that have significant mean differences (p < 0.01),
including occupant satisfaction in the three age groups:
(1) cleanliness of the areas; and
 <30 years old 30–50 years old >50 years old
Cleanliness of the areas A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F

Lobby hall 4.24 4.21 4.20 4.17 4.22 4.33 4.22 4.15 4.19 4.14 4.15 4.23 4.33 4.12 4.08 4.27 4.10 4.13
Elevator hall 4.18 4.10 4.20 4.08 4.11 4.33 4.15 4.18 4.26 4.10 4.00 4.14 4.17 4.22 3.92 4.31 4.10 4.25
Parking 4.09 4.07 4.10 3.83 4.00 3.83 4.11 3.97 3.90 3.72 3.85 3.68 4.00 3.75 3.85 3.67 3.70 3.75
Swimming pool 4.00 3.93 4.10 4.17 4.22 4.00 3.96 3.87 4.08 4.14 4.12 3.91 3.67 3.75 4.15 4.10 4.08 3.88
Fitness 4.09 4.17 4.10 4.25 4.33 4.17 4.11 4.13 4.13 4.17 4.19 4.23 4.00 4.00 4.08 4.20 4.17 4.25
Multipurpose rm. 4.09 4.03 4.00 3.92 4.11 3.83 3.93 3.95 3.97 3.86 4.12 3.73 4.00 3.75 3.77 3.75 4.00 3.63
Recreation rm. 4.09 4.14 4.10 3.75 4.00 3.67 4.04 4.10 4.15 3.69 3.92 3.82 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 3.80 3.50
Kids’ area 4.18 3.93 4.00 3.92 3.89 3.83 4.04 3.82 3.95 4.03 3.81 3.95 4.00 3.75 3.69 3.83 3.70 3.88
Green area 4.21 4.14 3.90 4.17 3.78 4.00 4.11 3.97 3.82 4.10 3.92 3.77 4.17 4.00 3.77 4.08 3.70 3.88
Shops 4.09 4.17 4.00 4.08 4.11 – 4.11 4.13 4.05 4.10 4.00 – 3.83 4.22 4.15 4.08 3.90 –
Average 4.13 4.09 4.07 4.03 4.08 4.00 4.08 4.03 4.05 4.01 4.01 3.94 4.02 3.96 3.95 4.00 3.93 3.91
Service of staff A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F
Responsibility 4.36 4.14 4.10 4.08 4.08 4.21 4.15 4.08 4.05 4.14 4.19 4.13 4.32 4.12 4.15 4.08 3.83 4.17
Personality 4.18 4.03 4.18 4.17 4.22 4.33 4.22 4.13 4.13 4.10 4.23 4.27 4.17 4.25 4.00 4.08 4.10 4.24
Accessibility 4.18 4.10 4.14 4.08 4.00 4.00 4.11 4.18 4.15 4.00 3.81 4.07 4.17 4.22 4.20 3.83 4.00 4.10
Average 4.24 4.09 4.14 4.11 4.10 4.18 4.16 4.13 4.11 4.08 4.08 4.16 4.22 4.20 4.12 4.00 3.98 4.17
Occupant

staff in six cases

areas and service of
Satisfaction scores of
Table 2.
facility

the cleanliness of the

297
satisfaction on

services
 F

298
39,5/6

six cases
Table 3.

security of the areas

and service of staff in
Satisfaction scores of
<30 years old 30–50 years old >50 years old
Security of the areas A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F

Lobby hall 4.27 4.14 4.20 4.25 4.33 4.33 4.15 4.10 4.18 4.17 4.15 4.18 4.17 3.96 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.22
Elevator hall 4.09 4.10 4.20 4.08 4.22 4.33 4.11 4.03 4.18 4.14 4.15 4.23 4.00 4.05 4.23 4.18 4.10 4.25
Parking 3.91 4.14 4.10 3.92 3.89 3.83 3.81 4.18 4.13 3.86 3.73 3.91 3.83 4.25 4.15 3.73 3.60 3.88
Swimming pool 4.09 3.97 4.10 4.17 4.11 4.00 3.74 3.85 4.18 4.00 4.08 3.86 3.83 3.75 4.08 4.09 4.10 3.75
Fitness 4.18 4.10 4.10 4.08 4.22 4.17 4.22 4.03 4.15 4.10 4.15 4.14 4.17 4.00 4.08 3.91 4.15 4.13
Multipurpose rm. 4.00 4.17 4.00 3.92 4.00 4.00 3.81 4.08 3.95 3.79 3.77 3.95 3.67 4.00 3.85 3.82 3.90 3.88
Recreation rm. 4.09 4.10 3.90 3.83 4.00 3.83 3.78 4.08 3.87 3.93 3.73 3.82 3.33 4.00 3.77 3.75 3.80 3.63
Kids’ area 3.91 4.00 4.00 4.08 3.89 4.00 3.96 3.82 3.97 4.10 3.77 4.05 3.83 3.50 4.08 4.09 3.70 3.75
Green area 4.00 4.07 3.90 4.17 4.00 4.17 3.89 4.05 3.77 4.10 3.81 4.14 3.67 4.00 3.62 4.18 4.16 4.08
Shops 4.18 4.17 4.20 4.25 4.11 – 4.11 4.13 4.18 4.17 4.00 – 4.17 4.25 4.08 4.15 3.80 –
Average 4.07 4.10 4.07 4.08 4.08 4.07 3.96 4.04 4.06 4.04 3.93 4.03 3.87 3.98 4.01 4.01 3.95 3.95
Service of staff A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F
Responsibility 4.27 4.17 4.18 4.17 4.22 4.17 4.22 4.15 4.21 4.21 4.19 4.05 4.33 4.25 4.18 4.09 4.10 4.13
Personality 4.18 4.07 4.20 4.08 4.11 4.17 4.22 4.10 4.15 4.07 4.08 4.10 4.17 4.18 4.21 4.18 4.00 4.00
Accessibility 4.09 4.14 4.14 4.17 4.33 3.83 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.10 4.12 3.77 4.17 4.25 4.25 4.09 4.20 3.75
Average 4.18 4.13 4.17 4.14 4.22 4.06 4.20 4.13 4.17 4.13 4.13 3.97 4.22 4.23 4.21 4.12 4.10 3.96
 (2) security of the areas. Occupant
There are no significances in other sets of variables. Subsequently, the test of multiple
satisfaction on
comparison show satisfaction mean differences of occupants under 30 and above 50 years facility
old in cleanliness of the areas and security of the areas. Figure 2 shows findings from one- services
way ANOVA on means of occupant satisfaction with cleanliness and security of the areas of
six cases in the three age groups.
The findings show significant mean differences in satisfaction with cleanliness of the areas 299
(left) and security of the areas (right) between occupants under 30 and above 50 years old. The
mean satisfaction scores of occupants over 50 years old are the lowest in both services.

5. Discussions
Findings from the literature indicate that the practice of FM in multi-unit residential projects
consists of the management of common areas and services and activities (Chotipanich,
2006). In this study, physical characteristics, facility service arrangement, occupant
behaviours, as well as their needs and preferences, are discussed in relation to occupant
satisfaction with cleaning and security service in three different age groups. Furthermore,

Variables Sum of squares df Mean square F

Cleanliness of the areas Between groups 0.033 2 0.017 8.189**

Within groups 0.030 15 0.002
Total 0.064 17
Service of cleaning staff Between groups 0.003 2 0.001 0.271
Within groups 0.076 15 0.005
Total 0.079 17
Security of the areas Between groups 0.041 2 0.021 11.058** Table 4.
Within groups 0.028 15 0.002 One-way ANOVA
Total 0.069 17 between occupant
Service of security staff Between groups 0.002 2 0.001 0.185
Within groups 0.100 15 0.007
satisfaction in three
Total 0.103 17 age groups on
different types of
Note: **p < 0.01 facility services

Figure 2.
Means of satisfaction
with cleanliness and
security of the areas
of six cases in
different age groups
F occupant satisfaction mean differences between the three age groups are tested and
39,5/6 discussed in this section.

5.1 Occupant satisfaction with facility services

5.1.1 Physical environment characteristics. Size, number and location of common areas
impact the way that service staff (i.e. cleaning and security) operate the areas. The square metre
300 of common areas directly affects service staffs’ area of responsibility. The placement of
common areas in various spots of the residential project (i.e. at the back or scattered around
buildings) and the separation of common areas from residential buildings affect staff capability
to operate the common areas, which links to the technical quality of FM services. In terms of
architectonic quality (Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, 2005), this aspect relates to the utility
value of the building, which can be defined as the extent to which a building is suitable for use,
which involves the way to provide support services (Dijkstra, 2001). Hillier and Leaman (1976)
also emphasize the significance of the utility functions and argue that a building needs to
provide optimum support for the desired activities by properly arranging the available space.
In the case studies, the buildings were designed according to the regulatory requirements
as well as the preferences and lifestyles of prospective buyers. In terms of facility services,
the requirements on the spatial arrangement and support for service activities influenced the
differences in satisfaction scores between cases. The findings indicate higher satisfaction
scores on the cleaning service of the green area in case A when compared to the other cases
(4.21, 4.11, 4.17 from occupants less than 30, 30–50 and above 50 years old, respectively).
The much smaller size of the green area in case A was more efficient to manage and control
for the cleaning staff, which affected cleaning service quality and might have contributed to
the higher satisfaction scores of this case.
Concerning the sustainability objective, the design of condominium buildings concerns not
only about safety and security of the occupants but also the long-term operation and
maintenance of the buildings and facilities. Buildings and common areas that are properly
designed to be monitored, controlled and operated with the minimum use of resources (such as
service staff and energy) achieve economic benefits in terms of cost savings and cause less
environmental impact (Meng, 2014). Older people prefer common areas such as parks, cafés
and restrooms with regular maintenance that stimulate community activities and social
interaction and help to promote sustainable community development (Nielsen et al., 2016).
5.1.2 Facility service arrangement. In comparison to the other cases, case B indicates a
much larger square metre area of responsibility for service staff in swimming pool and
fitness (6,000 square metres per person). The higher staff workload impacted cleaning
service quality and might have contributed to the lower satisfaction scores concerning the
cleaning service of swimming pool of this case (3.93, 3.87, 3.75 from occupants less than 30,
30–50 and above 50 years old, respectively). The workload of staff, which is calculated as the
square metre area of responsibility per person, affects the capacity of service provision from
service staff and impacts the effectiveness of FM services. In terms of performance criteria,
Sink and Tuttle (1989) describe effectiveness as the degree to which an organisation
accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, which is related to occupant satisfaction with
facility services. Furthermore, the result quality of the cleaning and security services in
common areas is also considered as technical quality of FM services.
5.1.3 Occupant behaviours. The frequency of occupants’ space usage in common areas
affects the staff’s capacity to provide facility services, which impacts service quality and
determines different levels of occupant satisfaction. This aspect impacts staff’s workload
and the arrangement of cleaning and security service, such as frequency of service and
number of staff members provided. Findings from case F indicate a higher frequency of
space usage from occupants in multipurpose and recreation rooms (three times per week), Occupant
which impacted staff workload as well as cleaning service quality, which may have satisfaction on
influenced the lower satisfaction scores on the cleaning service of recreation room of this facility
case (3.67, 3.82, 3.50 from occupants less than 30, 30–50 and above 50 years old,
respectively). The arrangement of facility services to satisfy the requirements of
services
condominium occupants can be considered in terms of the relationship between the built
environment and the psychological well-being of the inhabitants. According to Grum (2018), 301
social design of the built environment is one of the design approaches in environmental
psychology that works towards satisfying the needs of building users with the awareness
that they spend the majority of their time in the built environment.
In terms of the functional quality aspect, the findings indicate slight differences in occupant
satisfaction with cleaning and security staff (i.e. responsibility, personality and accessibility)
between the three age groups. The results do not indicate clear assumed cause–effect
relationships between physical environment characteristics, facility service arrangement,
occupant behaviours and occupant satisfaction with the functional quality of facility services.

5.2 Relationships between physical environment characteristics, facility service arrangement

and perceived service quality
Three factors concerning the physical environment of the common areas lead to differences
in the arrangement of facility services and the perceived service quality as the following.
(1) Location of common areas – common areas in different locations of the
condominium buildings have an impact on the quality of security services. A
certain placement of car parking spaces and kids’ areas, for instance, may cause
difficulties in the monitoring and control of security staff. In terms of the perceived
service quality, the procedure of monitoring and controlling of services is
considered as technical quality.
(2) Size and number of common areas – size and number of common areas have an
impact on both cleaning and security services. For example, a large green space
can cause difficulties to cleaning and security staff in operating and monitoring the
area. The size of common areas can be linked to the ratio of service staff to
responsible areas, which impacts the service provider’s capability, and thus affects
the service in terms of technical quality.
(3) Design attributes – following the case studies, the employment of user-friendly
materials and the provision of ramps for the elderly and the disabled contribute to
a sense of safety. In terms of facility services, physical environment characteristics
have an impact on the way that cleaning staff operate in the areas. Concerning the
perceived service quality, the selection of equipment and procedures to provide
services is considered as technical quality.

5.3 Mean differences between age groups regarding occupant satisfaction with facility
services
The findings indicate satisfaction mean differences between two groups of occupants:
(1) occupants under 30 years old; and
(2) occupants above 50 years old.
F Figure 2 shows that occupants under 30 years old were more satisfied in both cleaning and
39,5/6 security services, whereas occupants above the age of 50 had lower satisfaction scores on
both aspects.
The physical environment characteristics of the condominiums, such as the use of
materials and the design for the elderly and the disabled, were linked to a sense of safety,
which was one of the top five determinants in housing consumption of young occupants
302 (Wu, 2010). In terms of the safety aspect, there is no evidence that the physical environment
characteristics of the condominiums caused negative effects on the cleaning service quality.
On the other hand, the location of common areas, such as the placement of car parking
and kids’ areas that were difficult to monitor and control by security staff, caused negative
impacts in terms of security service quality, which is one of the most important factors that
affects the quality of life of older people (Leung et al., 2019), and thus contributed to the
lower satisfaction scores of occupants older than 50.

6. Conclusions
The assessment of occupant responses to facility services helps designers, real estate
developers, juristic person managers and facility managers to understand a variety of
factors impacting condominium occupant satisfaction. Occupant satisfaction varies
depending on the physical environment characteristics, facility service arrangement and the
behaviours, needs and preferences of occupants in different age groups that can be
described as the following.

The physical environment characteristics of the common areas (i.e. location, size and
number and design attributes of common areas) influence occupant behaviours and
the setup of facility services, but do not directly affect occupant satisfaction.

The findings show two factors relative to facility service arrangement – service method
and ratio of staff to areas of responsibility – that affect the perceived service quality of
the occupants. The service method is explained in relation to the functional quality,
whereas the ratio of staff to areas of responsibility relates to the technical quality of FM
services. The impact of physical environment characteristics on facility service
arrangements can be explained in terms of technical quality.

Behaviours, needs and preferences of condominium occupants can be explained in
relation to age differences of the occupants, which influence building design and the
arrangement of facility services of multi-generational condominiums and contribute
to different satisfaction levels from the occupants’ perspectives.

The findings from descriptive and statistical data analysis show that the occupant
perception of FM services in terms of functional quality (i.e. responsibility, personality and
accessibility) is difficult to prove.
Physical environment characteristics of the condominium buildings affect the
arrangement of facility services, which determines different degrees of client’s perception of
FM services. The design of the buildings and common areas of multi-generational
condominiums should address requirements of users in different age groups, such as size,
number, location, privacy, safety and security of common areas, that have an impact on the
provision of facility services and occupant satisfaction.
The combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods proved to be useful for
data analysis and cross-case comparison. In this study, the case study approach made it
possible to explore the relationships between occupant satisfaction, facility services, physical
environment characteristics, facility service arrangements and occupant behaviours in a
qualitative way. The data from questionnaires about occupant feedbacks on perceived service Occupant
quality (i.e. technical and functional quality) were explored quantitatively. The statistical satisfaction on
analysis confirmed the satisfaction mean differences between the age groups of occupants.
The conclusion of this study is based on the findings from six multi-generational
facility
condominiums in Thailand. Although there are assumed cause-effect relationships between services
the variables of the study, more case studies are needed to collect more reliable and
comparable data that support the findings of this kind of research.
303
References
Annamdevula, S. and Bellamkonda, R.S. (2016), “Effect of student perceived service quality on student
satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities development of HiEduQual”, Journal
of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 488-517.
AREA (2017), A Report on Thailand Residential Units from Accommodation Types in 2016, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Barrett, P. and Finch, E. (2014), Facilities Management: The Dynamics of Excellence, (3rd ed.): John
Wiley and Sons.
Bröchner, J., Haugen, T. and Lindkvist, C. (2019), “Shaping tomorrow’s facilities management”,
Facilities, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 366-380.
Carder, P. (1995), “Knowledge-based FM: managing performance at the workplace interface”, Facilities,
Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 7-11.
Chotipanich, S. (2006), “The concept of FM for multi-unit residential project”, Academic Journal of
Architecture, Vol. 2, pp. 103-118.
Dijkstra, T. (2001), Architectonic Quality Policy Note Prepared by the Government Architect, The
Hague.
Duncan-Myers, A.M. and Huebner, R.A. (2000), “Relationship between choice and quality of life among
residents in long-term-care facilities”, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 54 No. 5,
pp. 504-508.
Gopikrishnan, S. and Kumar, V. (2019), “User centric facility maintenance model for public housing”,
Facilities, Vol. 37 Nos 11/12, pp. 839-859.
Grum, D.K. (2018), “Interactions between human behaviour and the built environment in terms of
facility management”, Facilities, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 2-12.
Gupta, S., Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2018), “Global customer engagement”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Hillier, B. and Leaman, A. (1976), “Architecture as a discipline”, Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 28-32.
Hui, E.C.M. and Zheng, X. (2010), “Measuring customer satisfaction of FM service in housing sector”,
Facilities, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 306-320.
Jensen, P.A. and Van der Voordt, D.J.M. (2017), “Introduction and overall framework”, In Jensen, P.A.
and Van der Voordt, D.J.M. (Eds), Facilities Management and Corporate Real Estate
Management as Value Drivers, (pp. 3-13). Routledge: New York, NY.
Jones Lang LaSalle (2015), “Living the condo lifestyle in Asia”, Retrieved from www.jllrealviews.com/
industries/living-the-condo-lifestyle-in-asia/
Kongsirikhun, N. (2009), Physical Facility Management Guidelines to Reduce Community Conflict for
Low-Income Condominiums in Bangkok, (Master of Science in Innovative Real Estate
Development), Thammasat University.
F Leung, M.Y., Liang, Q. and Pynoos, J. (2019), “The effect of facilities management of common areas on
the environment domain of quality of life or older people in private buildings”, Facilities, Vol. 37
39,5/6 Nos 3/4, pp. 234-250.
Lindholm, A.-L. and Gibler, K.M. (2005), “Measuring the added value of corporate real estate
management: beyond cost minimization”, Paper presented at the 12th Annual European Real
Estate Society Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Meng, X. (2014), “The role of facilities managers in sustainable practice in the UK and Ireland”, Smart
304 and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Mobach, M.P. (2009), Een Organisation Van Vlees en Steen, Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
Mohit, M.A., Ibrahim, M. and Rashid, Y.R. (2010), “Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly
designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
Nardelli, G. and Rajala, R. (2018), “The evolution of facility management business models in supplier-
client relationships”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-53.
National Statistical Office (2016), “The comparison of Thailand population in different age groups”,
Retrieved from http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/th/01.aspx
Nielsen, S.B., Sarasoja, A.-L. and Galamba, K.R. (2016), “Sustainability in facilities management: an
overview of current research”, Facilities, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, pp. 535-563.
Nutt, B. (2002-2003), Life History of Property, Facilities and Services. coursenotes, UCL. UK.
Rasmussen, H.L., Jensen, P.A., Nielsen, S.B. and Kristiansen, A.H. (2019), “Initiatives to integrate
operational knowledge in design: a building client perspective”, Facilities, Vol. 37 Nos 11/12.
REIC (2017), The Development of Chulalongkorn University: Brand Trust Index, Bangkok, Thailand.
Savasdisara, T., Tips, W.E.J. and Suwannodom, S. (1989), “Residential satisfaction in private estates in
Bangkok: a comparison of low-cost housing estates and determinant factors”, Habitat
International, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 65-73.
Sink, D.S. and Tuttle, T.C. (1989), Planning and Measurement of in Your Organisation of the Future,
Industrial Engineering and Management Press: Norcross.
Tyvimaa, T. (2011), “Social and physical environments in senior communities: the finnish experience”,
International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 197-209.
Van der Voordt, D.J.M. and Van Wegen, H.B.R. (2005), Architecture in Use: An Introduction to the
Programming, Design and Evaluation of Buildings, Architectural Press.
Vos, M.C., Sauren, J., Knoop, O., Galetzka, M., Mobach, M.P. and Pruyn, A.T.H. (2019), “Into the light:
effects of the presence of cleaning staff on customer experience”, Facilities, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2,
pp. 91-102.
Walters, M. (1999), “Performance measurement systems – a case study of customer satisfaction”,
Facilities, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 97-104.
Wu, F. (2010), “Housing environment preference of young consumers in Guangzhou, China using the
analytic hierarchy process”, Property Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 174-192.
Yamane, T. (1973), Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 3rd ed., Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Chaiwat Riratanaphong can be contacted at: chaiwat@tu.ac.th

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com