Search

Building condition assessment is a critical activity in Malaysia-s Comprehensive Asset Management Model. It is closely related to building performance that impact user-s life and decision making. This study focuses on public primary school, one of the most valuable assets for the country. The assessment was carried out based on CSP1 Matrix in Kuching Division of Sarawak, Malaysia. Based on the matrix used, three main criteria of the buildings has successfully evaluate: the number of defects; schools rating; and total schools rating. The analysis carried out on 24 schools found that the overall 4, 725 defects has been identified. Meanwhile, the overall score obtained was 45, 868 and the overall rating is 9.71, which is at the fair condition. This result has been associated with building age to evaluate its impacts on school buildings condition. The findings proved that building condition is closely related to building age and its support the theory that 'the ageing building has more defect than the new one'., {"references":["Syamilah Yacob. 2005. Maintenance Management System through\nStrategic Planning for Public School in Malaysia. Sarjana Sains\n(Pengurusan Pembinaan). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.","Nik Elyna Myeda, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & Pitt, M. 2011.\nMeasuring the performance of office buildings maintenance\nmanagement in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management. Vol 9 No.\n3. pp. 181-199.","Abdul Lateef, O. A., Mohd Faris Khamidi & Arazi Idrus. 2011.\nAppraisal of the building maintenance management practices of\nMalaysian universities. Journal of Building Appraisal. Vol 6, . Pp\n261-275.","Edwards, M. 1992. Building Condition, Parental Involvement and\nStudent Achievement in the D.C. Public School System. M. Ed.\nDissertation. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University.","Lewis, M. 2001. Facility conditions and students test performance in the\nMilwaukee Public School. Council of Educational Facility Planner,\nInternational, Scottsdale, AZ.","Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic\nAchievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &\nAccess. University of California, Los Angeles.","Earthman, G.I. 2002. School Facility Conditions and Student Academic\nAchievement. UCLA-s Institute for Democracy, Education, &\nAccess. University of California, Los Angeles.","Hutchinson, L. 2003. Educational environment. British Medical Journal.\nVol. 326. Pp 810-812.","Mendell, M.J., Heath, G.A. 2003. Do Indoor Environments in Schools\nInfluence Student Performance? A Review of the Literature. Indoor\nHealth and Productivity Project (IHP). USA.\n[10] Bosch, S.J. 2004. Identifying relevant variables for understanding how\nschool facilities affect educational outcomes. Tesis doktor falsafah.\nTidak diterbitkan. Georgia Institute of Technology.\n[11] Tiburcio, T. & Finch, E.F. 2004. The impact of an intelligent classroom\non pupils- interactive behavior. Facilities. 23(5/6): 262-278.\n[12] Adeogun, A.A. & Osifila, G.I. 2008. Relationship between Educational\nResources and Students- Academic Performance in Lagos State\nNigeria. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol 5&6.\npp. 144-153.\n[13] Tanner, C.K. 2008. Effect of school design on students outcomes.\nJournal of Educational Administration. 47(3): 381-399.\n[14] Uline, C. & Tschannen-Moran, M. 2008. The wall speak: the interplay\nof quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal\nof Education Administration. Vol 46. No 1. pp. 56-73.\n[15] Fram, S.M. 2010. One built environment: an example for school\nadministrators and planners. Journal of Educational Administration.\nVol. 48. No. 4 pp 468-489.\n[16] Nurul Syakima, M.Y., Maimunah Sapri, Mohd Shahril A.R. 2011.\nMeasuring Performance for Classroom Facilities. 2011 International\nConference on Sociality and Economics Development IPEDR. Vol.10.\nIACSIT Press, Singapore.\n[17] Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal\nCommunication Approach. Sage. Beverly Hill. USA.\n[18] Schneider, M. 2002. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?\nNational Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington D.C.\n[19] GAO. 2011. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in\nGovernment Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.\nReport to Congressional Addressees. United States Government\nAccountability Office. Mac 2011.\n[20] Ministry of Education (MOE). 2010. Number of School Statistic.\nWebsite: MOE. Access: 22 Aug 2010. Last update: 20 Aug 2010.\n[21] Che-Ani A.I., Tazilan A.S.M., Kosman K.A. 2011. The Development of\na Condition Survey Protocol Matrix.Structural Survey. 29(1):35-45."]}