IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Planned maintenance vs Unplanned maintenance and facility costs

To cite this article: Theodore J Weidner 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1176 012037

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 216.19.199.129 on 09/05/2023 at 14:03

CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

Planned maintenance vs Unplanned maintenance and facility

costs

Theodore J Weidner
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

tjweidne@purdue.edu

Abstract. Planned maintenance, preventive, predictive, or reliability-based, are

assumed to minimize costs and ensure facility sustainment and provide for high
customer satisfaction. Good facility management supports sustainability and occupant
satisfaction. Planned maintenance is the most efficient means to serve a facility while
unplanned maintenance, reactive response to service failures and interruptions, is
costly. Customer survey results can be used to measure the effectiveness of preventive
maintenance and identify alternative approaches. This research looks at maintenance
records from several North American universities, focusing on planned and unplanned
maintenance activities and occupant surveys. The ultimate goal is to find the
appropriate mix of planning and unplanned maintenance and achieve occupant
satisfaction.

1. Introduction
Maintenance of facilities is an operating cost that owners seek to minimize while also addressing
occupant satisfaction. The use of a comprehensive decision-making process [1] allows for efficient use
of resources. Planning of maintenance activities allows facility managers to identify the correct
resources for the problem including appropriate measurements of success and alternative solutions as
well as a clear action plan to execute on the selected solution. Planned Preventive Maintenance (PPM)
is a subset of maintenance activities that are planned in advance which result in an efficient allocation
of resources due to the planning and coordination effort done prior to the work assignment. These
factors form the essence of planned preventive maintenance. While preventive processes may not be
used, the planning steps allow for efficient movement of equipment and personnel between maintenance
tasks and avoidance of random, reactive, or emergency maintenance that may require additional transit
time, waiting for materials, and overtime hours (with associated pay rates). Identification of likely
maintenance activities addresses the goal of planning to minimize costs.
Unplanned Maintenance (UPM) is an alternate maintenance [2] method that responds to equipment
failures which may occur on a random basis, at any time. The ability to plan for the efficient allocation
of resources, assignment of technically qualified workers, and the availability of materials and
equipment is greatly reduced with UPM work. The resulting lack of planning and coordination, which
may result in workers waiting for materials, additional material acquisition costs, or performing the
work in an overtime basis is more costly due to the inability to control the cost-based inputs. Unplanned

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

maintenance may also be the result of facility occupant dissatisfaction with interruptions due to
equipment failures, disruption of normal activities, and environmental disturbances. Spending more
time on PPM has cost savings benefits.

2. Background and Related Studies

PPM and UPM are two classifications of maintenance that make up annual expenditures to keep a
facility operating. Maintenance is a cost for an organization which an owner seeks to minimize while
also maximizing occupant satisfaction. APPA-1000 [3,4] is a standard that provides a process to
measure the Total Cost of Ownership of constructed infrastructure. The process allows for multiple cost
inputs (factors) that describe how a facility owner is spending resources on a facility. It is transparent
and makes use of a comprehensive set of cost inputs from multiple sources including capital and
operating expenditures, which are frequently managed by different business units that many not
communicate data in consistent ways. It also considers costs associated with the end-of-life
expenditures associated with resale, remediation, or repurposing of the facility. The inputs are defined
and provide for a credible answer based on the inputs from several areas in the demand organization. In
the event costs are mis-categorized, they are still included in the TCO result. TCO relies on the quality
of information from different business units in the demand organization to provide an accurate answer
about a facility’s true cost to the organization. When the true costs are known, better decisions can be
made about the facility and the organization dependent on the facility.

TCO = ∑Ca + ∑Cb + ∑Cc + ∑Cd + ∑Ce (1)

Where: Ca – First cost (one time)
Cb – Operating cost (annual)
Cc – Renewal/renovation (periodic)
Cd – Energy/Utilities (annual)
Ce – End-of-life (one time)

When a facility is new, the first cost is known while the other four costs may only be predictions;
experience provides more accurate estimates of the future costs. As the facility ages, clarity of the
operating (Cb) and energy/utility (Cd) costs improves and is more predictable. However, the
renewal/renovation (Cc) costs remain largely based on estimates that require the future cost of a system
or component and the effective life of the system or component. The effective life may be extended or
foreshortened depending on how the system or component is maintained while installed and operating
or due to renovations which may replace components prematurely. Renovation costs are frequently a
function of occupant needs for physical changes to the facility and driven by business purposes. The
renewal costs (capital expenditures to replace components of the facility) are mostly driven by the
overall effectiveness of the component to continue to serve its intended purpose which is affected by the
annual maintenance to ensures it is operating for the intended purpose. Annual maintenance consists of
a combination of planned preventive maintenance (PPM) and unplanned or reactive maintenance
(UPM). Planned preventive maintenance is preferred since it can be scheduled to minimize costs of
labor, materials, and support services.
APPA-1000 [3,4] allows for separate energy/utility and renewal/renovation costs from the operations
& maintenance costs. While not significantly different compared to other analysis methods, the separate
categories increase clarity for the two factors, particularly the renewal/renovation factor which may be
driven by reasons other than normal operating costs or scheduled renewal. Keeping both factors
separate, and high level, may allow for increased capacity to analyse energy efficiency decisions to
improve operations and to study the long-term effects of maintenance expenditures on capital renewal
needs.

2
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

Considering all five factors allows for comparison between different factors and how one may
influence another. Holding three factors constant, changing one can show the effect on the remaining
factor over time. For example, a capital renewal project such as a roof replacement with additional
insulation may result in a change in energy consumption. Correspondingly, the roof replacement, with
no additional insulation, may change annual maintenance & operating costs. Changing the annual
maintenance & operating costs through increased maintenance work may result in a change in annual
energy consumption; or the capital renewal costs may change due to an extended life for better
maintained components. When planning a facility, one can make value engineering trade-offs by
comparing first costs of different components to modelled energy and/or projected annual operating &
maintenance costs.
This study focuses on the operating & maintenance costs. Most organizations have a clear
demarcation between operating expenditures that maintain the facility and capital expenditures that may
be used for facility renewal/rehabilitation, adaptation, or remodelling. The demarcation is typically
controlled by accounting rules within the organization. While there may be some capital expenditures
imbedded in the annual O&M expenditures this study assumes that all tasks are below the threshold that
would otherwise be considered a capital expenditure by the university. Higher education (university)
facilities were selected to study because of the breadth of facility types that can be found at an individual
campus including residential, office, meeting (classroom), food service, and retail spaces. University
facilities also provide a wide range of facility ages for study.
APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities, an international organization based on North American,
with ties to higher education facility organizations around the world maintains a database of facility
information gathered primarily through an annual survey. The APPA Facility Performance Indicators
[5] survey of college and university facilities is a voluntary survey collecting essential data about facility
operations and costs. There are two versions of the survey, ‘express’ (100 questions) and ‘full’ (400
questions). Several hundred organizations respond to the survey annually and provide data to specific
measures about facilities. The measures include Annual Facility Operating Expenditures (AFOE),
facility Current Replacement Value (CRV), campus gross square feet (GSF), Gross Institutional
Expenditures (GIE), Student Full Time Equivalent (SFTE) and the number of employees in the
organization (frequently by trade) and the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI). While there is significant
data available in the survey results, since the survey is voluntary, not all campuses respond, nor do they
provide responses to all questions. The survey has been available for twenty (20) years and is a valuable
source of information.
Early research into the maintenance and operations costs and capital renewal needs was conducted
by Nealy & Neathammer [6,7] at the US Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory about 40-years
ago. They examined facilities around the world and developed model costs per area for 34 facility types.
The modelled facilities address maintenance tasks and costs based on facility size and ignored climate
differences. The models were accepted by some commercial organizations, Whitestone Research [8]
utilized the data and developed additional models. The models utilized assumed component life values
from Nealy & Neathammer’s original work and subsequent manufacturer claims. The component life
values have not changed except for climate-based adjustments for HVAC components (Uniformat D30)
which focus on the annual operating hours rather than age. Variations remain in the form of use intensity
(similar to HVAC components in extreme climate zones) or by all facility components.
Krstic and Marenjak [9] studied the potential to analyze building operations and maintenance costs
on a single campus with an indefinite number of buildings ranging in age from 10 to 300 years. The
buildings were limited to those on a single university campus and covered between four and twelve
years of costs and other facility operating characteristics for eight buildings. The goal was to develop
statistical models to predict the maintenance and operating costs for the university buildings. While the
approach found statistically significant methods it was limited to general information about area-based
expenditures and not based on individual components or the maintenance activities for those
components.

3
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

Backus & Bruhl [1] identified the need for a comprehensive decision-making process to maintain
facilities. Decision-making is operational, tactical, and strategic and addressed different funding
approaches, operational, capital, and non-capital. Improved decision-making is accomplished by
understanding the problem, having a clear solution, developing a good technique, and avoiding the need
to make adaptations once the solution is implemented. A good preventive maintenance plan addresses
the requirements of a well-structured solution strategy. As such, they developed the FDMP (Facility
Decision-Making Process) steps to understand the need, identify a solution, and prepare for the solution
including options, and measurement of the results of the solution to make process improvements. The
steps outlined demonstrated the need for clear planning to avoid wasting resources and risking failure.
Pampana, etal [2] utilized Natural Language Processing (NLP) and statistical analysis to identify the
frequency of planned preventive maintenance (PPM) and unplanned maintenance (UPM) activities.
They evaluated data from several universities that provided work order data for analysis. A negative
binomial analysis provided information about where UPM work orders were likely to appear annually.
The analysis looked at the likelihood of 100 failures (inoperability) occurring in a year using negative
binomial distribution. It showed there was a 40% chance for inoperability of plumbing systems, 35%
chance for inoperability of HVAC systems, and 30% chance for inoperability of electrical systems
overall. The analysis further showed which specific subsystems would experience inoperability in a
year with plumbing fixtures, HVAC controls, and lighting being the most likely to exhibit inoperability
and thus require an unplanned work task, time and cost. The analysis provides facility managers with a
way to develop a risk-profile and outlier analysis operations to improve the deployment of workers and
allocation of funds.
Prior research indicates the development of consistent procedures to perform maintenance and
conduct preventive maintenance activities leads to a more efficient and effective facility maintenance
organization. Identification of the building systems where preventive maintenance is more effective has
the potential to reduce overall maintenance costs further. Combining these with a consistent tool to
measure the total cost of ownership for a facility can provide additional clarity and documentation of
the results of specific facility maintenance decisions.

3. Data Description
The study utilized detailed work order data from several North American universities. The universities
studied comprise over 60 million gross square feet of space. Facilities ranged in complexity from simple
storage buildings and animal barns to high tech nanotechnology and drug development facilities serving
instructional, research, recreational, and residential uses. The variety of facilities is seen as beneficial
for the analysis due to the different systems and occupant demands served. Data available included the
detailed descriptions of the work including component name, type, and the location. Time and cost data
was available for most of the records including costs of materials and other expenditures.
Pampana, etal [2] reviewed the work order data by individual entry to ensure each record was
classified correctly as being PPM, UPM, or other (capital renewal, capital improvement, or non-
maintenance customer service). This was necessary because some systems do not ensure entries clearly
specify whether the work is preventive or scheduled to avoid costs associated with unplanned tasks.
Rules were developed with the help of an expert with over 30 years of experience in higher education
maintenance. The PPM/UPM data was analysed by system to see how PPM tasks compared to UPM
tasks in frequency and cost. The analysis identified which systems were likely to experience an
inoperability event which would result in a UPM task.
Customer satisfaction data was available from the APPA (Excellence in Educational Facilities)
annual Facility Performance Indicators (FPI) survey about facility operations. The survey is one of few
available to assess overall satisfaction and to compare the responses with other valuable facility metrics.
The APPA FPI survey uses a forced choice Likert scale. (1 = Extremely Dissatisfied, 2 = Very
Dissatisfied, 3 = Dissatisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied, 6 = Extremely Satisfied).
Combining work order data which contained both PPM and UPM tasks with occupant satisfaction
results creates an opportunity to measure the effect of PPM tasks on customer satisfaction results.

4
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

Identifying the correct balance between PPM and UPM activities and customer satisfaction has the
potential to reduce overall operating costs when PPM tasks are avoided and a small number of added
UPM tasks result. Accepting the risk of a UPM task by avoiding a PPM task may result in a lower total
cost when customer satisfaction is maintained. The analysis ignores the greater capital renewal costs
resulting from reduced PPM.

4. Methodology
The allocation of work time was investigated to see if PPM work focused on the most likely systems to
experience inoperability. The ratio between PPM and UPM identifies the organization’s focus on
planning maintenance to avoid inoperability of a specific system or subsystem and the organization’s
ability to control its costs for maintenance. In addition, utilization of available customer satisfaction
from the APPA FPI survey, was used to verify the success of performing PPM work and avoid UPM
work due to inoperability of systems.
The ratio of costs for PPM and UPM work is used to identify the additional costs associated with
UPM and restoration from inoperability. Higher costs for UPM may come from several factors,
expedited material delivery and performing work on premium time are typical examples. Data from
eight campuses was available; most provided labor hours, labor costs, and other cost associated with
individual work orders. Comparison of the PPM and UPM ratios and the customer satisfaction data
provided additional insight on the value of PPM.
Table 1 shows the PPM labor hours and other costs for the campuses reporting over their reporting
time periods. Table 2 shows the UPM labor hours and other costs for the same campuses over the same
reporting periods.

Table 1. Planned Preventive Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours.

Campus Labor ($) Other ($) Total ($) Labor Hours Avg. $/Hr
A 2,0014,713 7,150,084 27,164,797 413.039 48.35
B 8,344,896 18,231,173 26,576,069 164,263 50.80
C 58,683,532 37,149,091 110,271,920 800,112 73,34
D 13,198,325 5,038,552 18,236,876 163,157 80.89
E 1,503,330 366,984 1,870,314 28,654 52.46
F 61,442,492 26,326,622 87,769,114 1,902,381 32.30

Table 2. Unplanned Maintenance Costs and Labor Hours.

Campus Labor ($) Other ($) Total ($) Labor Hours Avg. $/Hr
A 15,531,618 10,193,863 25,725,481 274,051 56,67
B 19,637,035 16,552,214 36,189,248 369,248 53.18
C 15,777,568 5,502,557 21,280,125 207,161 76.16
D 20,464,494 15,099,055 35,563,549 285,515 71.68
E 3,252,954 1,860,308 5,113,262 50,484 64.44
F 9,566,997 2,730,588 12,297,584 261,813 36.54

Because maintenance costs are often regional due to varying labor rates and material or services,
costs in this study are focused on differences between PPM and UPM work. The costs were derived
from information provided by six of the campuses that provided both cost and time data. Table 3
shows the costs differences between PPM and UPM work. Cost differences between PPM and UPM
work represent the extra cost applied to work beyond the normal workday (overtime). In five of the six
campuses, UPM work cost more per hour than PPM work, by as much as 23%: an average of 12% more.

5
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

The campus with the lower UPM/PPM ratio is assumed to have used different personnel to perform
PPM work and UPM work.

Table 3. Average Labor Cost per hour between PPM and UPM work.
Campus PPM Average $/Hr UPM Average $/Hr UPM/PPM
A $48.35 $56.67 1.17
B $50.80 $53.18 1.05
C $73.34 $76.16 1.04
D $80.89 $71.68 0.89
E $52.46 $64.44 1.23
F $32.30 $36.54 1.13

Unplanned tasks are understood to be interruptions or inoperability of the system in question. The
overall goal of performing preventive maintenance tasks is to reduce the number of unplanned tasks and
thus to maximize the operability of the system. If time resources are allocated in accordance with the
likelihood of interoperability, the ratio of UPM/PPM will be low. The data show most maintenance
tasks (both PM and UPM) were performed on HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems followed by fire
protection. Preventive maintenance tasks were performed on HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and
plumbing. Unplanned tasks were performed on HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and interior construction.
Table 4 shows the distribution of time expended for PPM, UPM, all maintenance tasks and the ratio
UPM/PPM on building systems. HVAC tasks and time comprised more than 30% of all preventive and
unplanned tasks and time followed by electrical and fire protection time.
Table 4 shows relative PPM time is heavily allocated for conveying systems, furnishings, and fire
protection with more time on PPM tasks than UPM tasks (PPM/UPM ratio). In the case of conveying
and fire protection systems, the high ratio of PPM/UPM makes sense due to regulatory requirements
and the limited scope of such maintenance. These systems focus on life safety issues that provide a
measurable benefit if only from a compliance perspective. Furnishings received the least PPM time and
the third lowest total time for maintenance suggesting limited scope of installed furnishings, high
durability, and likelihood of occupant performed maintenance not recorded in the work order system.

Table 4. Percent of Time Expended by System.

System PPM Time UPM Time Total Time PPM/UPM
Exterior Enclosure 1.03% 1.37% 1.18% 62%
Interior Construction 1.44% 8.06% 4.23% 86%
Plumbing 12.72% 21.93% 16.61% 88%
Interior Finishes 4.03% 8.51% 5.92% 91%
HVAC 31.56% 32.92% 32.13% 51%
Conveying Systems 1.70% 0.32% 1.12% 195%
Fire Protection 28.74% 2.71% 17.76% 122%
Electrical 13.28% 16.49% 14.63% 53%
Equipment 4.59% 4.93% 4.73% 65%
Furnishings 0.91% 2.76% 1.69% 176%

Time was allocated poorly for HVAC, electrical, and exterior enclosures with nearly twice the time
expended on UPM tasks over PPM tasks. The HVAC and electrical systems have high exposure to
facility occupants in the form of temperature/humidity and lighting/power that affect occupant comfort
and functionality respectively. These systems are perceived to be inoperable by occupants resulting in
UPM tasks. Occupant identified tasks may occur when either IoT systems are not present or linked to

6
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

the work order system. Exterior enclosure systems may be similar such that roof leaks are frequently
difficult to identify in advance and vandalism to windows and doors cannot be predicted in advance.
Repairs to envelope enclosure is frequently an issue of occupant safety or property protection, an
emergency, which falls in the UPM classification.
When resources are limited, it is important to direct resources to those areas creating the greatest risk
of inoperability and higher UPM cost. Since the hourly cost for UPM is 12% greater for the data
analyzed, there is a cost savings available by identifying the systems most likely to be inoperable and to
perform preventive maintenance tasks and avoid unplanned work which would also result in reduced
customer satisfaction. However, as described above, there are some limitations to achieve meaningful
reductions in UPM work through a focused PPM task implementation.
Consistency in the delivery of maintenance services can result in customer satisfaction when
implementation of an effective PPM program cannot overcome the UPM workload. This can be
accomplished through an effective FDMP system that identifies and executes lasting repairs. An
effective FDMP system may be identified using customer satisfaction. The limited customer survey
responses available from the APPA FPI survey are shown in Table 5 with the corresponding PPM/UPM
labor hour ratios and graphically in Figure 1. The APPA FPI survey results shown are from 2015, the
oldest work order record from the campuses providing data, through 2019.

Table 5. Campus Satisfaction Survey (CSS) Results and PPM/UPM Labor Hours Ratios.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Campus
CSS PPM/UPM CSS PPM/UPM CSS PPM/UPM CSS PPM/UPM CSS PPM/UPM
B 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 40% 5 34%
C 4 55% 4 54% 4 60% 4 61% 4 58%
E 5 - 5 81% 5 83% 5 84% 5 82%

0.9

0.8
Campus E - Very satisfied
0.7

0.6
Campus C - Satisfied
0.5

0.4

0.3 Campus B - Very satisfied

0.2

0.1

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 1. Campus Satisfaction Survey (CSS) Results and PPM/UPM Labor Hour
Ratio.

The campuses shown in Table 5 that delivered a consistent level PPM/UPM service delivery
appeared to have the higher customer satisfaction rating. Campus B maintained a high level of
satisfaction (Very Satisfied) in the APPA FPI survey with a UPM/PPM ration between 34% and 40%.
Campus C maintained a good level of customer satisfaction (Satisfied) and maintained a UPM/PPM
ratio between 54% and 61%. Campus E maintained a high customer satisfaction rating (Very Satisfied)

7
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

and a higher UPM/PPM ratio above 80%. Given the limited data, it is unclear whether increasing the
focus on PPM will affect customer satisfaction; other factors may contribute such as a consistent FDMP
approach.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

It is possible to utilize data from organization work order systems to identify building systems that are
mostly likely to experience inoperability. The cost difference between UPM and PPM tasks provide
further rationale to focus on PPM tasks. Some systems are more difficult than others to implement a
PPM system that is effective at reducing UPM due to the nature of UPM tasks for a particular system.
Campuses that focused on PPM tasks completed the work and maintained the operability of building
systems saw reduced hourly costs compared to other campuses in the study. The average time expended
for PPM work was 12% less costly per hour compared UPM work. By focusing on PPM tasks for the
systems most likely to experience inoperability, and thus avoiding UPM. This means savings can be
directed to other priorities at the institution such as capital renewal or energy reduction projects.
When more time is expended on PPM activities, less time is available for UPM when total hours are
constant through a fixed labor force. UPM activities are frequently generated by customer requests.
Addressing customer requests typically results in high customer satisfaction. The limited data indicates
achieving a high level of customer satisfaction is possible even when the facility organization focuses
on PPM activities over UPM activities.
Recognizing those systems and components that are favourably affected by PPM may also allow less
attention to those not affected by PPM. That is, the facility manager may choose to accept the risk of
inoperability of building systems when the benefit of PPM expenditure does not justify avoiding the risk
(and cost) of UPM when inoperability occurs. Measuring customer satisfaction provides another
method to select systems to receive PPM and which systems to take a risk-based approach and perform
UPM. As an example,
Campus B had a low PPM/UPM ratio but had customer satisfaction rankings similar to Campus E
with a high PPM/UPM ratio. The difference is difficult to explain without looking at additional data
not included in this analysis. Possible reasons could be an increased emphasis on response to customer
requests, a high proportion of simple buildings that do not have sophisticated equipment requiring
maintenance, or an extremely efficient PPM process. There is insufficient information to identify one
of these situations or another one not mentioned.
When taking a risk-based approach to building systems that do not benefit from a PPM focus,
customer service can be maintained through a FDMP approach to UPM work. Consistency of work
delivery through FDMP methods may maintain or improve customer satisfaction results. Selecting
systems for PPM tasks based on effectiveness of limiting inoperability and the higher cost of UPM leads
to better budget development and customer satisfaction.
The maintenance of facility components through a PPM focus is assumed to affect the life of the
component itself. Components experience a shorter life when run outside of expected operating
conditions. There are several ways to maintain facility components, periodic inspection, preventive
maintenance which includes predictive and reliability-based maintenance, or reactive maintenance
based on non-catastrophic failure. Performing predictive maintenance, inspecting components using
appropriate metrics, and identify operational problems and identify pending inoperability of systems so
PPM can be performed in lieu of UPM.
This study did not investigate the linkage between PPM and Capital Renewal/Replacement (CRR);
additional information is required. As facility managers become more sophisticated and the data
recorded is more developed, detailed analysis of the effects of PPM and CCR may be possible. In
addition, detailed records addressing energy consumption and equipment replacements may be obtained
to recognize total cost of ownership savings resulting from premature replacement of energy-consuming
equipment. In the meantime, focusing on PPM tasks, particularly on the systems that present the greatest
risk for inoperability, has benefits.

8
CIB W070 Conference on Facility Management and Maintenance 2023 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1176 (2023) 012037 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012037

Future studies should look at the long-term effects of PPM and capital renewal and the effect of
remodelling and renovation expenditures have on capital renewal and system life. The risk-based effect
of interoperability on customer service should also be considered.

References
[1] Backus E C and Bruhl J C 2021 The need for a comprehensive facility decision-making process
Facilities 40(1/2) pp 40–55 (https://doi.org/10.1108/f-06-2020-0081)
[2] Pampana A, Jeon J, Yoon S, Weidner T J and Hastak M 2022 Data-Driven Analysis for Facility
Management in Higher Education Institution Buildings 2022 (12/12)2094
(https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122094)
[3] APPA 2017 Total Cost of Ownership for Facilities Asset Management (TCO) – Part 1: Key
Principles Available online: https://www.appa.org/appa-total-cost-of-ownership-tco-part-1-
key-principles/ (last accessed on <add date>)
[4] APPA 2020 Total Cost of Ownership for Facilities Asset Management (TCO) – Part 2:
Implementation and Data Elements https://www.appa.org/appa-1000-2-part-2-
implementation-and-data-elements/
[5] APPA (nd) APPA Facilities Performance Indicators Report 2018-19. https://www.appa.org/fpi-
survey-access/
[6] Neely E S and Neathammer R D 1989 Computerized Life‐Cycle Cost Systems in the Army.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 3(1) (https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-
3801(1989)3:1(93))
[7] Neely E S and Neathammer R D 1991 Life‐Cycle Maintenance Costs by Facility Use Journal of
the Construction Division and Management 117(2) pp 310–320
(https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1991)117:2(310))
[8] Whitestone Research 2014 The Whitestone Facility Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference
2014-2015 (Santa Barbara CA: Whitestone Research 19th ed)
[9] Marenjak S and Krstić H 2012 Analysis of buildings operation and maintenance costs Journal of
the Croatian Association of Civil Engineers 64(4) pp 293–303
(https://doi.org/10.14256/jce.651.2011)