Various post-occupancy evaluation schemes have been introduced for assessing building performance but one tailored for large-scale commercial buildings remains to be seen. Intended to develop a scheme for evaluating the performance of engineering facilities in existing commercial buildings, a multi-stage study was carried out in a dense-built metropolis-Hong Kong. Reported here is the part of work based on an extensive literature review. Considering the characteristics of relevant evaluation schemes, the requirements for useful performance evaluation and the criteria for selecting key performance indicators (KPIs), an integrated process-hierarchy model was formed for identifying applicable indicators for the intended scheme. A total of 71 indicators, classified into five categories: (i) physical, (ii) financial, (iii) task and equipment related, (iv) environmental, and (v) health, safety and legal, were identified. Their representations and their empirical applications, which are helpful for the strategic management of existing buildings, are also described.

Purpose -Worldwide, many carbon audit guidelines have been developed, but comparative reviews of these guidelines and empirical findings of carbon emissions from hotels remain limited. The aim of the study reported here was to bridge these knowledge gaps. Design/methodology/approach -A comparative review of the legislations and guidelines for carbon audits in Australia, the UK and Hong Kong was made. An empirical audit, which entailed a series of site visits and interviews for collecting the record data of a typical hotel in Hong Kong, was conducted to identify the sources and amounts of carbon emissions from the hotel. Findings -Conducting carbon audits for buildings in Hong Kong is entirely voluntary. Reporting of certain scopes of carbon emissions is at the sole discretion of the reporting party. Purchased electricity for the hotel is the dominant source of carbon emissions. Research implications -Audits in future may follow the reported audit process to identify carbon emissions from other hotels to enlarge the pool of empirical findings, which is a prerequisite to developing carbon emission benchmarks and carbon footprint analyses. Practical implications -The suggestions made for overcoming the obstacles found from the audit are crucial for performing smoother and more complete audits in future. Originality/value -The review findings and the practical problems identified are useful information for the stakeholders of carbon audits, including policy makers and facilities management practitioners.

Purpose The purpose of this paper (Part 1 of 2) is to classify and map, in a systematic manner and from a facilities management (FM) perspective, the performance indicators that are applicable to evaluating facilities operation and maintenance (O&M) in commercial buildings. Design/methodology/approach Forming part of a multi-stage research project, the applicable performance indicators that had been identified from an extensive literature review were consolidated and defined. Based on a phase-hierarchy (P-H) model – a fundamental classification framework comprising three phases of facilities services delivery and three hierarchical FM levels – the indicators were systematically classified, and a map showing their distribution along the phase and hierarchy dimensions was obtained. Findings The P-H model enabled systematic classification of the 71 applicable indicators. Mapping the indicators with the model showed that more indicators concern the input or output phase of facilities services delivery. Indicators at the strategic level, which have a wide span of control, are small in quantity, compared to the large number of indicators at the operational level. Research implications The P-H model, which proves useful for classifying performance indicators for facilities in commercial buildings, may be applied to similar research on other types of buildings or infrastructures. Practical implications The method of classifying the performance indicators and the mapping result of the indicators are useful reference for different levels of FM practitioners. Originality/value This paper illustrates a novel attempt that made use of the P-H model to classify O&M performance indicators.

Purpose This paper (Part 2 of 2) aims to shortlist performance indicators which are used in evaluating facilities operation and maintenance (O&M) in commercial buildings. Design/methodology/approach A three-session focus group meeting, with the use of a customized questionnaire and audio recording, was convened to solicit opinions from O&M experts. Their quantitative responses (ratings on the importance of the indicators) and the qualitative ones (reasons for having the indicators selected or excluded) were taken for analysis, followed by mapping the shortlisted indicators based on the phase-hierarchy (P-H) model for facilities management (FM). Findings From a total of 74 performance indicators (71 identified from the literature and three added by the focus group), 17 indicators were shortlisted, and time constraint was the most common reason for having those indicators excluded from the shortlist. Mapping the shortlisted indicators with the P-H model revealed that the performance evaluation focus of the experts was at the tactical level, on the output phase of facilities services delivery. Research implications The shortlisted indicators serve as a keystone for establishing a performance evaluation scheme for engineering facilities in commercial buildings. Research on other areas may follow the approach of this study to shortlist key performance indicators (KPIs). Practical implications Professionals of the other building types (e.g. residential, industrial and healthcare) or sectors with diverse FM organizations may conduct a similar study to identify indicators for performance evaluation purposes. In particular, the process of shortlisting the O&M KPIs may be used to shortlist KPIs for the other FM services. Originality/value The focus group study demonstrates how to rigorously select KPIs for use in managing facilities.

No abstract