Editorial

Facilities

ISSN: 0263-2772

Article publication date: 30 January 2009

491

Citation

(2009), "Editorial", Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 1/2. https://doi.org/10.1108/f.2009.06927aaa.001

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2009, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Facilities, Volume 27, Issue 1/2

A variety of different though connected issues are addressed in this issue of Facilities. In the paper by Sarel Lavy and David Bilbo, the examine the state of public schools in Texas, following on from the US Department of Education’s observation that “many facility problems are not due to geography or socio-economic factors; instead, they are related to maintenance staffing levels, training, and management practices” Moreover, the link between the quality of the school facility and the learning experience is clear: “The physical environment – the school building – is an undeniably integral part of the ecological context of learning” (IES National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.) The results of the study provide interesting reading, indicating the level of attainment of facility maintenance set against US Department of Education criteria.

Post occupancy evaluation is the theme of the paper by Karim Hadjri and Carl Crozier, with a critical review of the subject’s development over the last 30 years. The paper observes the continuing frustration relating to the use of this technique, with uncertainty about how best to evaluate a buildings functional performance and exactly who should pay for it? It also brings up the broader issue of inclusion of the technique in the student syllabus. It would be encouraging to see the day when post occupancy evaluation is seen not as a “nice to have” option in the procurement process, but a very necessary part of seeking “closure” in the design process.

The paper by John Hudson on the representation of the office in cinema and popular culture is an unusual and insightful analysis. It would also be useful to examine the representation of facilities management in popular culture, with the archetypal scowling janitor. The work reminds us of the changing nature of the office and the almost imperceptible assimilation of change in our popular understanding. Such an analysis is certainly instructive in tracing where we have got to and perhaps providing some insight into the directions in which we are headed.

In the paper by Margrethe Aune, Thomas Berker and Robert Bye, the tasks and daily lives of five building operators focusing on their mediating activities are examined. The study also included open-ended interviews with 42 respondents. The paper provides a fascinating inside view of building operators fulfilling roles of “teachers”, “housekeepers”, “management” and “juggling”.

Finally, in the survey by Azlan Ali, Syahrul Nizam and Hafez Salleh there is clear commonality with the paper by Lavy and Bilbo, looking at the backlog of maintenance issues in the Malaysian property sector. The study points to problems in refurbishment projects in failing to meet client’s needs, with escalating costs and projects going beyond the estimated time.

References

IES National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.), Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities, Chapter 1, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/maintenance/ (accessed 11 December 2008)

Related articles