The social housing industry continues to struggle in the UK to provide the most appropriate amount of quality housing stock necessary to serve the growing number of citizens that seek these affordable housing options. The existing housing stock has often suffered from poor quality because there has not been the reinvestment in these assets to maintain their quality in terms of health, safety, comfort and environmental concern. Now, with the need to create a decent home standard and fulfil stringent sustainability measures to improve the environmental record of the UK, more attention has turned to the concept of building maintenance management.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Analysis of Social Housing Industry" essay for youCreate order
This aims to create a formalised approach and set of standards that can unify the way in which these houses are maintained and improved for use by needy residents. To look for ways that might offer a formal process for doing so through the building maintenance management concept, this research study aims to critically review of building maintenance management within social housing to determine the best approach. To carry out this research aim, the research study methodology uses a literature-based approach to investigate difference theoretical concepts and a case study approach to examine empirical evidence, including maintenance management in the construction industry, the challenges in asset management, the current state of maintenance management in social housing, and the real world application of how social housing stock is managed. The case studies examine specific housing authorities charged with maintaining social housing as seen through the assistance of their professional building maintenance management companies that deliver a standardised, multi-criteria approach for faster, more efficient delivery of high-quality housing stock. Conclusions focused on the finding that there is no standardised, formal whole life asset management approach that integrates strategy with the perspective that a specific building maintenance management programme could provide cost-effective solutions to help an industry burdened by budget cuts and challenging economic conditions. Recommendations and proposed future research endeavours were also developed.
As a long-held programme in the UK, social housing is a term which makes reference to housing which is managed and supplied by Local Authorities (LA), housing associations, and various other organisations throughout the United Kingdom (SHARE, 2011). Also known as council housing, the homes are often found within council estates or clustered areas of homes overseen by voluntary organisations that are charged with managing and providing the housing to qualified candidates (SHARE, 2011). The last few years have seen a sharp rise in the demand for these homes as more people fall below the poverty line and cannot afford rent or ownership on a private basis (Hills, 2007).
In recent years, more attention has been made to ensure that these homes are of a decent standard so that even those without funds have the right to enjoy comfortable, safe, and healthy accommodations whether they come from a voluntary organisation or that are now even supplied by a private landlord (SHARE, 2011). Improvements have been made as reports show that social housing is now “more likely to meet the new ‘decent homes’ standard than private rented housing, particularly for disadvantaged households” (Hills, 2007: 9).Yet, there is still a policy discourse in place that relates to the public and even government perception about those in need of social housing that slants toward ‘individual responsibility’ rather than just receiving social housing (Haworth & Manzi, 1999). This attitude borders on animosity that spills over into the management of social housing that acts as though it is an additional burden to maintain these properties on top of providing them rather than see the asset value to maintaining them (Haworth & Manzi, 1999).
There are also significant challenges that remain before the objective has been met to provide all citizens in the UK with decent homes no matter what their income because of the lack of housing stock and the poor quality of what is often available (SHARE, 2011). Just in 2000, it was reported that 1.5 million homes in the UK did not qualify as a decent home (SHARE, 2011). The reports also show that those in social accommodation are actually more likely to feel dissatisfied with the experience due to the fact that houses are not repaired or upgraded in a timely manner (Hills, 2007).
Because the budget and financial means have not been available to undertake new social housing stock, the existing stock becomes more important than ever before and, therefore, the need to maintain these houses to last over the longer term has as well (Hills, 2007). As the problem grows, the government and organisations involved in housing, including the construction industry, are beginning to pay attention to the problem with the lack of decent social housing (Chanter & Swallow, 2008). Despite the understanding that maintenance must be addressed, it is still not looked upon fondly because it is thought to consumer 40 to 50 per cent of an operating budget but, at the same time, is the most controllable of all expenses if addressed appropriately through planning (Mather, 2010). As such, there is a growing understanding that the process of building maintenance management need to be more formalised within the social housing sector in order to achieve the decent homes standard (Changer & Swallow, 2008). With this need, there is a rationale to research the factors involved, including challenges, opportunities, and proposed solutions to assist with the process of creating a model that can effectively achieve a higher standard of social housing in the UK.
In conducting a research study on this topic, there is an opportunity to expand the knowledge base available on a subject that does have considerable literature but not many solutions that have been enacted from the building maintenance management side of the social housing dilemma. By looking into how maintenance is perceived and incorporated in the social housing environment, this may provide some new insights on how it could be more effectively incorporated into the overall asset management framework that is overseeing how social housing is managed and provided to those that need it throughout the UK. And, with the uneven delivery of quality social housing and formalised building maintenance management programmes, there is additional rationale for conducting a specific research study into this area of housing research.
The research aim is to critically review of building maintenance management within social housing to determine the best approach. The research objectives are to:
Evaluate maintenance management in the construction industry.
Critically assess the challenges in asset management.
Determine current state of maintenance management in social housing.
Understand the real world application of how social housing stock is managed.
This research study uses a qualitative framework because the focus is on a social issue that does not need to be quantified in any way but must be approached in a way that assesses the intangible concepts involved (Tellis, 1997). The issue of social housing involves social, economic, and political issues that are not necessarily alleviated or addressed by simply quantifying the problem and may involve aspects that are not easily disseminated. To frame the research study, the qualitative tools include a literature review format as well as a case study that addresses local councils and how they are managing or maintaining social housing stock. Both qualitative tools provide a way to explore the concepts on a theoretical and empirical level, creating new levels of insight through identifiable patterns that arise from the evidence collected (Tellis, 1997).
There are advantages and limitations to using a literature review and case study approach, which focuses entirely on secondary research. First, the advantages are that these tools help to generate a picture of the issues, challenges, needs, opportunities and solutions to a social problem by creating a wider picture of the evidence. This is in contrast to using a research tool that is focused on primary data and that could be limited by narrow or biased opinions (Yin, 1993). Second, reliance on secondary sources in the literature review and case study are time and cost-effective research strategies because they do not require as many resources as would be demanded by a primary research focus (Yin, 1993). Third, the use of two different research tools – literature review-based study and case study – offer a way to raise the level of validity by expanding the number of sources and information to deliver a more balanced and diverse approach to the findings that may not be possible from primary research where there are so many things that could be open to interpretation or misrepresentation, thereby impacting the results (Tellis, 1997).
In terms of data collection, the information was gathered by referring to journal articles, online sources, documents, reports, surveys and books that focused on housing management, social housing, facilities, management and building maintenance management. These were also key terms used to locate the appropriate literature that aligned with the research aim and objectives. The information was then segmented into key concepts for further analysis and then linked together in a way that presented the connections and barriers between the various areas of building maintenance management and social housing.
In addressing research limitations that arise from this research framework, the researcher noted limitations with time and available data as potential issues. While the ability to gather more data in a shorter time is one of the advantages to this strategy, there are still time limitations in reading, collecting, and assessing all available research, especially when there appears to be a considerable amount of information available. In addition, the type of available data may not have been created or intended for the specific research aim and objectives of this study, so there may be limitations in terms of the conclusions that can be drawn from what is available. A further assessment as to how these potential research limitations have impacted the findings are found in the final chapter of this research study.
To begin the exploration of social housing and building maintenance management, this chapter explores the current strategies in place around the concept of maintenance management as it applies to the construction industry.
The general term of maintenance has been defined many ways. In offering one definition that summarises many of those ideas, maintenance involves “re-installing physical condition to a specific standard” and “preventing further deterioration or failure (Dept. of Public Works, 1999: 3). There are many diversions where some definitions of maintenance include the idea of refurbishment and upgrades done to fulfil certain requirements whilst other organisations do not include this as part of the scope of maintenance (Dept. of Public Works, 1999).
Maintenance management is a concept that was conceived from within the manufacturing industry that was then adopted by the construction trade. The objectives associated with maintenance management can also vary just like the definition of maintenance. For instance, a public department in Queensland, Australia set its own very specific set of maintenance management objectives, including the idea of linking it with continual improvement processes for asset planning and management, risk management processes, and strategic objectives (Dept. of Public Works, 1999). This particular example has also emphasised the value of finding key maintenance service providers that could deliver on these objectives and fill in the voids in skills and expertise in maintenance management (Dept. of Public Works, 1999). Other perceptions of maintenance management for buildings focuses on making them fit for use in terms of health and safety, the ability to help the structure retain its value, and the ability to actually increase its quality and value (El-Haram & Horner, 2002).
There are two primary types of maintenance management, namely planned and unplanned. Planned maintenance management is defined as a system where all work is planned – pre-planned or planned during the execution stage (Taylor, 2003; Dept. of Public Works, 1999). The advantage to this type of maintenance management is that “pre-planning insures needed parts, materials and skills are available” (Taylor, 2003: 1). It should have a combination of preventative and predictive measures to minimise unplanned repairs (Taylor, 2003). Unplanned maintenance management is essentially maintenance that must be performed when equipment or a structure unexpectedly breaks down, has created a safety hazard, or led to some other type of low-quality environment that impacts the overall environment (PEMMS, 2012).
There is also reactive and proactive maintenance management. Whilst reactive maintenance involves taking care of repairs in the event of breakdown (Zhang et al., 2009), the concept of maintenance move toward effective management when Japanese engineers looked to the idea of preventative maintenance by making observations and taking actions in advance of a breakdown (TPM Online, 2011). It was intended to decrease downtime, but it also led to an increase in costs that made it unpopular when it was first introduced and that even has its sceptics today (TPM Online, 2011). Part of the issue with preventative maintenance is the idea of replacing parts, equipment, or materials when they could potentially last longer (TPM Online, 2011).
After this concept came that of productive maintenance, which was intended to alleviate the costs and concerns by formalising maintenance as a technical skill and as a continuous improvement process (TPM Online, 2011). Reliability-Centred Maintenance (RCM) is another dimension of maintenance management that is focused on making improvements at the operating and procedural level to ensure proper working order to machines, tools, and materials to maximise the capital costs of those assets and retain their value by evaluating risk for breakdown and creating a standardised minimum maintenance level (Pride, 2010). As an engineering framework, it has been used primarily for machinery applications but can be applied to other maintenance environments (Pride, 2010).
Maintenance management can also be defined by its many stages or steps. According to Mather (2010), six fundamental steps have been identified. These start with establishing a certain set of rules and guides that formalises the inclusion of maintenance into the process of overall operations management (Mather, 2010). This can be done through a paper-based or automated system that then links to the next step of defining all work processes involved in operations so that there is a better understanding of how a control system for maintenance management could be incorporated into a system (Mather, 2010). Another stage in the process is to have a specific strategy for equipment, which is part of both an implementation and operational stage that is dependent upon certain criteria like the current state of equipment, structures, and materials (Mather, 2010). From there, the next stage is to design exception and functional reports that create a hierarchical structure of reporting and tracking of maintenance needs and concerns (Mather, 2010). The last stage involves tying all maintenance management activities to the company’s strategic direction by integrating it with all current and future goals (Mather, 2010).
In relation to a maintenance management programme tied directly to asset performance management, Damm (2005) provided a maintenance approach model where each stage is viewed as an evolutionary process that can be incorporated to enhance the ability of maintenance to serve an organisation in a way that is both productive and cost-effective. Stage one is reactive repair where work is done as things break whilst stage two is demand maintenance, which involves more planning (Damm, 2005). Stage three is then preventative maintenance where equipment is managed by looking directly at those issues or amount of time that could precipitate repairs so that they are addressed prior to occurring (Damm, 2005). From there, stage four is predictive maintenance, which is based on statistical analysis wherein historical data is analysed to predict when breakdowns or maintenance would be needed in the future (Damm, 2005). Stage five is reliability centred maintenance “where engineering based maintenance programmes are complemented with operational performance trends to ‘push’ the maintenance cycles to the max within the context of an overall system risk assessment” (Damm, 2005: 1). Finally, stage six is the most advanced stage in the maintenance management system and is known as life cycle management where the focus becomes more comprehensive around maximising the useful life of what is considered an asset, whether that be a machine or a structure (Damm, 2005).
Damm (2005) also identified three key elements that characterise a ‘fully evolved maintenance management system,’ which include a performance management framework, practices and processes, and data and technology. The performance management framework is identified as “a clear set of asset specific strategies, objectives, initiatives and goals, where meaningful targets can be established and progress measured” (Damm, 2005: 2). The practices and processes are “a set of common work methods and asset specific management practices with a target of implementing defined industry best practices” (Damm, 2005: 2). Finally, the data and technology component are defined as “an integrated set of information, engineering, and communications technologies use to gather, store, interpret and report performance data and information” (Damm, 2005: 2).
The construction industry has a significant role to play in building maintenance management in terms of how it has evolved and responded to various economic cycles, including maintenance during recessionary periods and boom year construction periods. Despite the influence, there have also been some noticeable conflicts between the construction industry and maintenance management, according to available research. For instance, Chanter & Swallow (2008: 19) noted the lack of value provided to maintenance management by the construction industry: “This manifests itself in a general lack of understanding of both its scope and its significance by all parties to the building procurement, construction, and management processes. In consequence, the backlog of repair and maintenance work required to bring the country’s building stock to a minimum acceptable level continues to grow at an unacceptable rate.”
The construction industry must address and reconcile the fact that it often faces numerous factors when looking at ways to handle the costs involved with housing maintenance. This is especially true as research suggests that the costs associated with building maintenance continue to rise and consumer a larger percentage of the budget (El-Haram & Horner, 2002). These costs are found to be primarily affected and dependent upon certain factors, such as human aspects, building characteristics, the way and frequency of the building maintenance, government policies that guide building maintenance standards and the related costs (El-Haram & Horner, 2002).
The UK government has put pressure on the construction industry to do their share in achieving the goals and objectives for the decent home standard, which has dictated that homes must be in a reasonable state of repair, have modern facilities and services, and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort (CLG, 2006). To achieve this, the construction industry must be relied upon to use their expertise and training to quickly upgrade and refurbish a social housing stock that is often considered very old, in disrepair, and lacks modern amenities that make them decent (CLG, 2006). Often, the construction industry is challenged by its scope of what building maintenance means in terms of their responsibilities because they must consider the government standards, tenants’ wishes, the social housing landlords’ expectations and environmental considerations (CLG, 2006). However, beyond a somewhat reactionary building maintenance framework described here, the construction industry is also charged with having the ability to deliver a higher level of sophisticated building maintenance that includes predicting future progress and deterioration, the impact of specific investment and funding cycles to maintain predictive and preventative maintenance strategies (CLG, 2006).
Asset management has been defined as “strategic discipline which gives rigour and accountability to the way organisations decide” on a number of areas, including what to invest in and when, what are the most critical assets, what risks need to be managed, how performance should be measured and what improvements must be made to maintain or improve that asset (Lloyd, 2010). The asset management framework holds all these decisions together so that an organisation has a way to look at the whole picture of what may need to be done within an operation or a structure (Lloyd, 2010). This chapter covers the many challenges in asset management in relation to maintenance in terms of both physical challenges and perceptions that hinder effective management of assets.
One of the biggest problems is how the idea of maintenance is viewed, which is as a problem rather than something that is simply part of taking care of an asset and ensuring that it keeps or increases its value. As one source explained, “Property Maintenance has long been viewed by many as a necessary evil; something that, grudgingly, has to be done; a source of complaints from customers; a headache for the Board or Council and a constant source of gripes for tenants” (NHMF, 2004: 1).
With this perception, the concept of asset management cannot be properly fulfilled. In order to achieve a proper level of asset management and therefore achieve the intended standard of decent property standard, the right perception of asset management is that it “looks beyond the traditional property management approach of bricks and mortar. Successful asset management requires a thorough understanding of all issues that could affect a property; the physical, structural, economic and demographic needs of a property and its surrounding community” (NHMF, 2004: 1).Within the area of perspective challenges is the idea of conflicting goals related to financial targets, different timelines and forecasting conclusions, and contrasting approaches to work toward asset management on a network versus project viewpoint (Vanier, 2001).
Beyond the perspective challenges, there are also fundamental operations challenges that exist with asset management (Lloyd, 2010). As one source noted, “For most organisations, the adoption of asset management will mean developing mechanisms to enhance, encourage and facilitate coordination between previously distinct functions” (Lloyd, 2010: xix). Overall understanding of asset management is often weak, which creates challenges in terms of making smart decisions and investments. Technical challenges include determining exactly what they own, the true value or worth of those buildings, their current condition and expected service life, and what types of repairs should be the priority over others (Zhang et al., 2009). Nath (2009) also identified specific challenges with asset management tied to lack of information, integration, technology, balance and risk. The result is miscommunication and incompetence, which further exacerbates these challenges and leads to less support (Nath, 2009).
Like maintenance management, the problem lies in the lack of a formal set of tools to collect, assess, and track data about properties to better understand when and where maintenance might be needed in advance so as to cost effectively uphold the value of these assets (NHMF, 2004). This includes the inability to model different scenarios in relation to repair and maintenance because there lacks the resources to create such a tool box (NHMF, 2004). For instance, if owners and operators of buildings incorporated such tools as Building Information Modelling (BIM) or GIS into their asset management processes, they could “facilitate data collection, processing, and display” as well as “integrate asset mapping with project management and budgeting tools so maintenance, inspections, and expenses can be accounted for in the same place” (Zhang et al., 2009: 13). This challenge is also linked to the fact that maintenance management may not be integrated within the overall asset management system again due to the aforementioned perception, making it less efficient and reinforcing the opinion that it is a ‘necessary evil’ rather than essential tool (NHMF, 2004). This includes both process and operational integration, including existing “computerized maintenance management systems, geographic information systems and corporate legacy systems” (Vanier, 2001: 35).
In order to maintain a consistently high value on these assets, there are many barriers that can get in the way, including the characteristics of the tenants and their viewpoint of the care and concern of the building (El-Harman & Horner, 2002). There are also political and regulatory measures that have put greater pressures on the construction industry, including energy costs and sustainability measures (El-Harman & Horner, 2002). Budget constraints due to economic pressures, such as lack of financing and investors, are further challenging the construction industry and leading them to minimise their focus on maintenance as an integral aspect of social housing. Further challenges are the idea that the construction trade is fully aware of the consequences of what could occur if they decide to cut out maintenance, which is greater costs in the future (Horner et al., 1997). However, they are willing to risk those costs in light of saving money in the short term (Horner et al., 1997).
Other research has identified critical success factors that play a role in overcoming building maintenance management challenges, which can help address all perspectives involved – from the customer to the internal to the financial (Zulkarnain et al., 2011). These critical success factors have some patterns that overlap perspectives, including customer satisfaction and complaints, service quality, staff development, technology capability and asset utilisation (Zulkarnain et al., 2011). These factors are embedded into a larger framework known as a whole life asset management approach to maintenance management that addresses the challenges listed in this chapter and provides a way to spend less whilst getting more with each maintenance action, managing risks in order to not waste resources, taking a whole systems approach rather than an equipment or component approach and ensuring all stakeholders share the same perspective (Lloyd, 2010).To adopt this approach and work through the asset management challenges, research has recommended restructuring organisations to work as a whole life asset management model (Lloyd, 2010).
Maintenance management, as linked to an overall asset management system, has become increasingly important in relation to social housing because UK government initiatives are driving the goal for more efficient and economical means of creating high-quality housing stock (Kempton & Chapman, 2003). Yet, the literature suggests ongoing challenges with making this work in a way that leads to the higher social housing stock. Problems identified include an ongoing short-term perspective about the social housing assets by those in charge of them despite being directed to take a more long-term strategic approach to maintaining these assets (Kempton & Chapman, 2003). Additionally, there is a large discrepancy in the standard of quality in regards to maintenance management across the geographical area of the UK, reflecting the fact that there is no formal framework in place to guide the maintenance management process (Kempton & Chapman, 2003).
There is considerable maintenance management that goes into taking care of the UK’s sizable social housing stock, including repairs and improvement work to bring it up to a certain standard as the homes age or undergo abuse from tenants (Audit Commission, 2000). The level of care and uptake also varies widely across the UK in terms of performance and quality due to a number of reasons, including uneven resources, ill-conceived maintenance programmes, and lack of control and oversight when it comes to repairs (Audit Commission, 2009). Other problems include a lack of participation by tenants and leaseholders in the process, no use of performance management tools and basic monitoring or feedback mechanisms as well as a lack of value for money when establishing letting contracts (Audit Commission, 2009).
As part of the maintenance requirements issued by the UK government for social housing has been for landlords to provide what are known as Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which is intended for the potential tenant to understand what type of energy efficiency upgrades have been completed on the housing and ensure that it is decent (Macphail, 2009). However, the challenge has been for landlords to be able to gather the energy data, understand how to do so and how it needs to be used and presented, and decided on how this should be integrated with other maintenance management responsibilities that should be undertaken (Macphail, 2009). This is one example of the challenges faced with social housing in terms of making it both decent and now fulfilling the UK government’s energy initiatives.
The challenges associated with achieving this by social landlords was documented in a comprehensive set of interviews conducted by researchers at the University of Greenwich (Cooper & Jones, 2009). The conclusions from the interviews with social landlords about the various responsibilities and challenges they face were that the government’s sustainability agenda is beginning to impact the scope of what social housing maintenance managers must do and make decisions on in regards to social, economic, and environmental aspects of this new agenda (Cooper & Jones, 2009).
Despite the challenges, new models of maintenance for social housing have been proposed that are aimed at integrating sustainability objectives into the decent homes initiative in order to fulfil all levels of responsibility placed on the social housing sector. The University of Greenwich presented a performance-based sustainability housing maintenance model that linked policy/strategy, needs identification, causes, actions, solutions and evaluations/feedback (Cooper & Jones, 2009).
This level of integration has been viewed as the only identifiable means of addressing all the factors and issues that have now become embedded in the area of social housing, including the multiple levels of performance criteria now placed on social housing landlords and managers. As the research study concluded, “Maintenance managers will need to move away from the use of a (predominantly) single, subjective criteria model to a multi-criteria model which includes a holistic examination of the root cause of the problems and the technical and business solutions required to ensure the business case for action needs is established” (Cooper & Jones, 2009: 61). In addition, other recommendations have been made that would provide a more effective maintenance programme for the social housing stock (Audit Commission, 2000). These recommendations include “adopting a strategic, long-term approach to repairs and maintenance, supported by an effective business planning process; engaging more with residents, to improve services and input to decisions; managing effective planned maintenance and capital programmes; running efficient responsive repairs services; improving performance management and competition, and moving to new forms of procurement” (Audit Commission, 2000: 1).
With this theoretical evidence that has spanned from overall maintenance management to asset management challenges to the intersection of maintenance management of social housing, the literature review chapters have provided a foundation for now exploring some empirical evidence in the form of a case study that looks at how some local authorities and their maintenance company partners. This glimpse at how the issues play out in a real world scenario can help to better understand the context for this theoretical background in terms of the perceptions about maintenance management and its role in achieving a set of complex goals related to social housing.
The first case study involves the work MITIE Group PLC has done with various local housing authorities to address the need for a formal maintenance management framework that guides the social housing asset management process. As a maintenance service provider, the company illustrates that it does more than work in a way that is reactive; instead it takes on a more comprehensive, strategic approach. Three examples of the work illustrate what might serve as a best practices approach for other local housing authorities or social landlords around the UK.
The first example is that of the Magna Housing Association located in Dorset, which handles 6,200 properties in that area (MITIE, 2012). The Association is part of a group of companies responsible for the social housing and handling the daily operations of the assets to ensure all internal and government objectives are achieved in relation to the housing stock, including those that are also under construction. The intent is to continually strive for quality service, tenant satisfaction, and high value asset management (MITIE, 2012). Because of the number of properties being managed, the Association believed it was good to partner with a private firm on maintenance management and coordinate activities with its partnership with Registered Social Landlords to deliver a better quality of social housing stock (MITIE, 2012I).
To illustrate the various ways in which maintenance management has become integrated into the housing association, the first level is the physical maintenance of the properties in which they have been brought up to a decent home standard (MITIE, 2012). The second level is that a Resident Liaison Officer has been employed to maintain a relationship with residents and remain connected to the assets in a way to employ predictive and preventative maintenance strategies through the feedback they receive (MITIE, 2012).
The second example is Contour Housing in Greater Manchester. Contour Homes is one of the region’s largest registered social landlords, overseeing more than 11,000 properties across 27 local authorities (Contour Housing, 2012). It is tasked with providing high-quality “housing, leaseholder and regeneration and development services to neighbourhoods” (Contour Housing, 2012: 1). The site handled with the assistance of MITIE consists of 160 sheltered housing sites where the team performs maintenance in and around the grounds (MITIE, 2012). The intent here is also to establish a service relationship when it comes to maintenance that goes beyond just the physical tasks of maintaining the area (MITIE, 2012). This is done through a focus on communication and goal-setting as well as feedback from area residents and the local association that is charged with overseeing the site (MITIE, 2012). Contour Housing also relies on other private firms to handle construction, maintenance, and repair across its entire housing stock with the understanding that this provides value and helps to overcome some of the barriers for effective asset management.
The third example associated with MITIE is that of the Poole Housing Partnership known as an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) in which assistance was needed to meet the UK government’s decent homes standard as well as the local Poole housing standard, which was even more demanding (MITIE, 2012). Its aim is to collect investment monies to improve and maintain the social housing throughout Poole (Poole Housing Partnership, 2012). The Partnership consists of “5 Councillors from all political parties, 5 residents and leaseholders and 5 independent people with professional skills to help run the service” (Poole Housing Partnership, 2012: 1).
The actions of MITIE enabled a faster, more efficient rollout of needed facilities for those in social housing stock (MITIE, 2012). The results were significant:
We set up a dedicated base in the heart of the community to carry out the complete refurbishment of more than 750 bathrooms and 750 kitchens per year as part of a programme that provides better facilities for residents much sooner. By significantly reducing administration costs for our customer, we’ve enable Poole Housing Partnership to carry out more installations for the same allotted budget. We’ve also set up dedicated teams to manage certain aspects of the project, which has delivered improvements in the supply chain and better value for money for our customer. (MITIE, 2012: 2).
The company understands that it has an integral role in helping the local association more readily fulfil their responsibilities by changing the way they view maintenance management as part of the process, including aligning productivity, progress, and costs with the overall asset management objectives (MITIE, 2012).
In each situation, the results were that the maintenance of the social housing stock was more effective because it was viewed as part of the asset management and community relationship process, which helped to stay on course with delivering measurable improvements that have fulfilled the decent housing standard. In comparing these real-world scenarios to the work completed by a planned property maintenance firm, M&R, and its partnership with L&Q Housing Trust illustrate some of the same reasons why it is important to take a multi-criteria approach to a maintenance model for social housing stock.
In this case study, significant maintenance was undertaken over a period of five years on 6,500 homes in London and the Home Counties to address sustainability, health, safety and comfort concerns (M&R Refurbishments, 2012). All maintenance work is guided by the firm’s Quality Management system, which has “involved not only tight on-site quality controls, but also tenant surveys, the monitoring of complaints and any necessary corrective and preventative actions required” (M&R Refurbishments, 2012: 1). The results have been a greater level of satisfaction of over 90 per cent and awards for the work produced from the maintenance management programme (M&R Refurbishments, 2012).
In looking for specific learning lessons to date in terms of how social housing and building maintenance management are aligned to achieve the decent home and sustainability standards, it is important to assess the results of the first Arm’s Length Management Organisations (ALMOs). This programme received significant funding to provide decent social housing up until 2006 at which time it migrated to a strategy that would have these ALMOs self-financing approaches (Audit Commission, 2003). This framework set a true precedent of what is possible when it comes to incorporating business maintenance management into an asset-based management system for social housing because it incorporated the idea of positive practice, tailored services to meet specific local community needs, and professional business practices (Audit Commission, 2003).
These asset management frameworks set a precedent when it came to service levels for social housing tenants. This included expanding the hours of service in which tenants could reach out for assistance with repairs, upgrades, maintenance or anything related to the care and uptake of the social housing (Audit Commission, 2003). Beyond the physical maintenance, this framework was the first of its kind to recognise the value of creating relationships with tenants to improve the quality of life and also provide a way to encourage their care and concern for the properties (Audit Commission, 2003). This also meant using the asset management to help those within the community find ways to sustain the housing availability and stock for generations to come (Audit Commission, 2003). Another significant difference was to operate these authorities as a business with strategies, initiatives, and tactics that could reduce turnover and improve letting rates, decide on new investments and improvements based on what the local community wanted, and monitor and assess both the viability and success of such initiatives (Audit Commission, 2003).
Lastly, ALMOs were intent on working in partnerships with external agencies, especially in those particular areas where they did not have expertise or skill (Audit Commission, 2003). This extended not only to construction and maintenance, but it also included local agencies in health, safety, benefits and administration and the police (Audit Commission, 2003). From such experiences, a number of lessons were learned that could be applied to the social housing sector and the idea of a standardised asset management programme that included building maintenance management. These recommendations included thinking beyond the short term because there are long-term factors that need to be addressed prior to coming into play so that they do not disrupt the overall service delivery through the development of a specific strategy with tactics to address those long-term changes in population, maintenance needs, and similar variables (Audit Commission, 2003). It was also thought that a professional board or set of overseers should serve as a control mechanism for the ALMOs to ensure the most beneficial decisions were made that focused on tenant welfare in terms of decent homes rather than profits and an internal agenda (Audit Commission, 2003).
A further recommendation was that the local council should develop a relationship with the ALMO to improve service delivery, determine strategic direction, support the ALMO in filling in knowledge and skills gaps and align business plans established by ALMO with those of the council’s own housing strategy (Audit Commission, 2003). Finally, the last recommendation was to develop a procurement practice that would control how available funding was used to deliver the best possible value for money and meet the objectives for quality social housing that meets the local tenants’ needs (Audit Commission, 2003).
Whilst the ALMOs offered a certain framework from which to work, there has been literature that suggests that the approach was not ideal, considering it pushed back toward a welfare system that did not help or support a high-quality sustainable social housing stock (Walker, 2000). Perhaps the fact that the system eventually had to migrate to a self-financing channel that did not rely so heavily on government support illustrated why it could not offer the appropriate solution when the need for social housing was continuing to grow with no slowdown in sight (Audit Commission, 2003). Instead, it has been suggested that more has to be done to include privatised groups and organisations into the process of maintenance, upgrade, and upkeep for social housing stock (Groves et al., 1999) as well as seek out more local community and tenant support for maintaining these homes (Weaver, 2004). This has been viewed as a way to introduce more direct services for faster, more skilled service that also can set a greater precedent for proactive and preventative maintenance service, which was difficult to deliver under the slower public systems of maintenance delivery (APSE, 2002).
In examining the findings from the literature reviews and the case study, there are some specific conclusions that can be made in relation to the research aim and the research objectives. In terms of the research aim, which was to critically review of building maintenance management within social housing to determine the best approach, it could be concluded that building maintenance management still requires standardised practices and a formal integrated approach that aligns with the strategic intent of an asset management system that guides the social housing process. Therefore, throughout the research collected, including the empirical evidence found in the case studies, providing a set of standards and systematic application for more efficient delivery of social housing without the previous amount of effort, labour, and, most importantly, costs.
The conclusions in relation to the research objectives are:
Evaluate maintenance management in the construction industry: Maintenance management in the construction industry is looked upon begrudgingly as a ‘necessary evil’ that is often cast aside until absolutely necessary because it is thought to consume too much of the budget and not deliver the return that would make up for those costs, especially within the construction industry’s service to the social housing sector. The construction industry is under significant pressure to deliver its skills and knowledge within an often constricted budget as well as meet a wide range of stakeholder expectations about varied definitions of what should be incorporated within their building maintenance management system, including everything from repairs and upkeep to upgrades, appliance modernisation, and energy-efficiency improvements.
Critically assess the challenges in asset management: The challenges in asset management are that it is not a developed system within the social housing sector because it has not been formalised in a way that aligns stakeholders and strategies nor integrates any of the building maintenance management practices. The challenges are associated with the lack of knowledge about how to initiate a whole life approach to asset management and migrate to a long-term perspective on social housing stock as a valuable asset that can benefit from a solid building maintenance management program that covers health, safety, the environment and comfort and delivers it quickly and effectively for all social housing residents. There is a definite lack of balance between investment in the long term and the need to fulfil short-term financial needs or simply handle current needs to find housing for social housing tenants.
Determine current state of maintenance management in social housing: The current state of maintenance management in social housing is uneven throughout the UK with some areas of social housing being well served by effective property management partners and others underserved with no formal maintenance tools or practices being used by social landlords or managers in charge of the housing stock. This has made it very difficult for those seeking to find good quality social housing due to shortages and then selecting from poor quality housing stock that is not safe, healthy, or comfortable because no investment is made in building maintenance management.
Understand the real world application of how social housing stock is managed: The case studies selected all illustrate what is possible with a formalised asset management system that incorporates a high standard of building maintenance management practices. None of the case studies actually covered a specific local housing authority that was not using a standardised approach. These provided good best practices that could be implemented across the UK effectively if there were enough private maintenance companies that understood the higher service standard and strategic approach that made these case study examples into successes. In these case studies, it could be seen that formalised structures that use a multi-criteria approach were the ones that satisfied residents as well as achieved the UK’s decent home framework while some even began to touch on the sustainability objectives now enacted by the government.
In now drawing conclusions about the research limitations to this research study, the focus on secondary research through literature reviews of various theoretical concepts and case studies conducted by gathering secondary source materials may have limited the findings by not offering the perspective of those working in the social housing industry, including construction professionals, local authorities, or building maintenance companies. Another limitation may have been only focusing the case studies on successful examples of building maintenance management frameworks instead of also including on those local housing authority examples that did not succeed. This might have provided a greater context for the findings. However, with the time allotted to conduct research and develop the research study, there were still many insights about the issues, challenges, and opportunities available to standardise building maintenance management practices within the social housing industry and achieve both decent home and sustainability objectives set by the UK government.
In light of these findings and conclusions, the recommendations are:
Change perspectives about the state of social housing stock in terms of investing in its upkeep, especially in a time period where there are no or limited new builds due to the economic crisis faced in the UK and around the world that is clearly stunting the ability of the construction industry to fulfil its strategic objectives.
Develop a set of stages in the building maintenance management process for social housing that includes all key standards for both decent homes and sustainability objectives set by the UK government.
Use these stages to develop a set of standardised practices for proactive and preventative building maintenance as well as any tools or practices that could address any type of necessary reactive building maintenance. Looking at the case studies provides a good foundation for potential best practice approaches in this regard.
Structure an asset management organisation that uses incentives and controls to push innovation toward sustainable, cost-effective while still tracking risk assessment through a whole life asset management cycle that looks beyond the current building use for a long-term benefit.
Establish a measurement and feedback loop that provides a way to maintain a continual improvement process across the building maintenance management framework to either customise on a local/regional level with housing authorities and local maintenance partners or adapt the formalised building maintenance management structure when changes are necessary.
Look into more relationships that can be developed on a local level with the community and tenants to understand their needs but also to give them a sense of ownership and knowledge on how to upkeep their social housing residence to work together for long-term value and maintenance of the housing stock.
Recommendations for future research endeavours include further analysis of local maintenance programmes within the social housing sector to better understand the specific best practices that produce the most results in relation to the UK government’s decent homes standard as well as the sustainability standards now being introduced. Specific aspects of the decent homes standard can become the focus of individual research studies to better assess the challenges of integrating maintenance management into the overall asset management framework for social housing in the UK.
APSE. (2002). New millennium service providers: building a future for direct services.
Audit Commission. (2000). Housing repairs and maintenance, 1-8.
Audit Commission. (2003). Learning from the first housing ALMOs, 1-37.
Chanter, B. & Swallow, P. (2008). Building Maintenance Management. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.
CLG. (2006). A decent home: Definition and guidance for implementation. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Cooper, J. & Jones, K. (2009). Sustainability and social housing maintenance. University of Greenwich.
Damm, M. (2005). Evolution of your maintenance management program, 1-2.
Dept. of Public Works. (1999). Maintenance management framework: Policy for the maintenance of Queensland Government buildings, 1-24.
El-Haram, M.A. & Horner, M.W. (2002). Factors affecting housing maintenance cost. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 115-123.
Groves, R., Morris, J., Murie, A. & Paddock, B. (1999). Local maintenance initiatives for home owners: good practice for local authorities.
Haworth, A. & Manzi, T. (1999). Managing the ‘underclass’: Interpreting the moral discourse of housing management. Urban Studies, 153-165.
Hills, J. (2007). Ends and means: The future roles of social housing in England. ESRC Research Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.
Horner, R.M.W., El-Haram, M.A., & Munns, A.K. (1997). Building maintenance strategy: A new management approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 273-280.
Kempton, J. & Chapman, K. (2003). Perspectives of asset management in the United Kingdom social housing sector, 1-8.
Lloyd, C. (2010). Asset Management: Whole-life Management of Physical Assets. London: Thomas Telford.
Macphail, R. (2009). Thanks for the EPC but what about the data? National Housing Maintenance Forum.
Vanier, D.J. (2001). Why industry needs asset management tools. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 35-43.
Walker, R.M. (2000). The changing management of social housing: the impact of externalisation and marginalisation. Housing Studies, 281-299.
Weaver, M. (2004). Bid to revive faltering homes programme. The Guardian.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publishing.
Zhang, X., Arayici, Y., Wu, C. & Aouad, A.G. (2009). Integrating BIM and GIS for large scale (building) asset management: a critical review. School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, 1-15.
Zulkarnain, S.H., Zawawi, E.M.A., Rahman, M.Y.A. & Mustafa, N.K.F. (2011). A review of critical success factors in building maintenance management practices for university sector. World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology, 195-199.
Contour Housing. (2012). About Contour Housing. (Online). Available at: https://www.contourhousing.co.uk/. [Accessed 16 August 2012].
ICMA. (2005). Evolution of your maintenance management program. (Online). Available at: https://icma.org/en/Article/10937/Evolution_of_Your_Maintenance_Management_Program. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
Mather, D. (2010). Maintenance management—the planned state. Maintenance World. (Online) Available at: https://www.maintenanceworld.com/Articles/matherd/maintenancemanagement.html. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
MITIE. (2012). Case studies. (Online). Available at: www.mitie.com. [Accessed on 9 August 2012].
M&R Refurbishments. (2012). Decoration and repair work for L&Q Housing Trust. (Online). Available at: https://www.mrrefurbishments.co.uk/casestudy1.htm. [Accessed 9 August 2012].
Nath, G. (2009). Most common problems with asset management. PRLog. (Online) Available at: https://www.prlog.org/10270748-most-common-problems-with-asset-management.html. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
NHMF. (2009). Asset management and property maintenance. (Online). Available at: https://www.nhmf.co.uk/bestpractice/index.cfm?article=29. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
PEMMS. (2012). Maintenance CMMS and reliability glossary. (Online). Available at: https://www.pemms.co.uk/maintenance_glossary.htm. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
Poole Housing Partnership. (2012). About us. (Online). Available at: https://www.yourphp.org.uk/about-us. [Accessed 16 August 2012].
Pride, A. (2010). Reliability-Centred Maintenance (RCM). WBDG. (Online). Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/rcm.php. [Accessed 8 August 20112].
SHARE. (2011). Social housing in the UK. (Online). Available at: https://www.socialhousingaction.com/social_housing_in_the_uk.htm. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
Taylor, J.W. (2003). Integrated machinery management. MaintenanceResources.com. (Online). Available at: https://www.maintenanceresources.com/referencelibrary/ezine/integratedmachinerymanagement.htm. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report. (Online). Available at: www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
TPM Online. (2011). Maintenance in history. (Online). Available at: https://www.leanexpertise.com/TPMONLINE/articles_on_total_productive_maintenance/tpm/tpmprocess/maintenanceinhistory.htm. [Accessed 8 August 2012].
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper