See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287798569

Space utilisation: Interpreting the result

Article  in  Jurnal Teknologi · December 2015

DOI: 10.11113/jt.v77.6868

CITATIONS READS

4 1,944

5 authors, including:

Shahabudin Abdullah Hishamuddin Mohd. Ali

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
17 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ibrahim Sipan Mat Naim Abdullah Mohd Asmoni

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
71 PUBLICATIONS   449 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   298 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implications of property rights system issues on the neighbourhood residential commons View project

Green Building and Sustainable Construction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hishamuddin Mohd. Ali on 12 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

  
Jurnal
Teknologi Full paper

Space  Utilisation:  Interpreting  the  Result  

a* a a b  
Shahabudin  Abdullah ,  Hishamuddin  Mohd  Ali ,  Ibrahim  Sipan ,  Mark  Deakin
 
a
Centre  for  Real  Estate  Studies,  Universiti  Teknologi  Malaysia,  81310  UTM  Johor  Bahru,  Johor,  Malaysia  
b
School  of  Engineering  &  the  Built  Environment,  Edinburgh  Napier  University,  EH10  5DT  Edinburgh,  United  Kingdom  
 
*Corresponding  author:    shahabudinabdullah@utm.my  

Article Abstract
history
This paper discusses space management in universities. The discussion is then focused on space
Received utilisation as a tool for measuring the performance of space management in higher education
XXXX institutes (HEIs). The main objective of this paper is to investigate the use of space utilisation as a
Received tool for measuring space performance. After identifying the methods to be used for this research by
in using the planned timetabling of room usage rather than a field survey, data was collected through
revised interviews and questionnaires. The data was then analysed using descriptive statistics, and a
form qualitative analysis was carried out. The results from the analysis show that UFO rates for Universiti
XXXX Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) should be addressed fully by top management. Furthermore, this paper
Accepte also suggests that in order to increase the utilisation rate, HEIs should consider the occupancy rate as
d XXXX it is the determining factor affecting the utilisation rate.
Keywords: Facilities Management, Space Management, Higher Education Institute

Abstrak

Kertas kerja ini membincangkan pengurusan ruang di universiti. Perbincangan kemudiannya

menjurus kepada pemanfaatan ruang sebagai alat untuk mengukur prestasi pengurusan ruang di
institute pengajian tinggi (IPT). Objektif utama kertas kerja ini ialah untuk mengkaji penggunaan
kadar pemanfaatan ruang untuk mengukur pretasi ruang. Selepas mengenal pasti kaedah-kaedah yang
telah di gunakan, pengkaji memilih untuk menggunakan kaedah perancangan kuliah berdasarkan
jadual waktu berbanding kajian di lapangan. Data ini dikutip berdasarkan temubual dan soal selidik.
Data ini kemudiannya di analisis menggunakan deskriptif statistic dan analisis kualitatif. Hasil
analisis menunjukkan kadar UFO untuk Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) haruslah diambil
perhatian oleh pengurusan tinggi UTM. Selain itu, kertas kerja ini juga mencadangkan agar perhatian
harus di ambil kira keatas kadar okupansi, kerana ia merupakan faktor penentu kepada kadar
pemanfaatan ruang.
Kata kunci: PengurusanRuang, PemanfaatanRuang, InstitutPengajianTinggi

© 2013Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved.

¢1.0 INTRODUCTION sophisticated (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2002). Facilities

In any institution of higher education, space within its
organisation is the most expensive asset owned. This is
because it is essential to the performance of almost all of
their activities. With escalating construction cost, bad
economic circumstances and increased enrolments, there
is ever rising pressure on higher education institutions to
manage the usage of existing space more effectively
before constructing new, costly buildings. Universities
not only need to be successful in teaching and in
spreading participation of the public but they should also
be efficient in order to function in a fashion which
creates the best use of their resources (Pursglove &
Simpson, 2007). Rogers (2002) stressed that the issues of
efficiency and effectiveness of space must be conveyed
to the attentiveness of the top university administration.
The establishment of facilities management (FM) can
be drawn back to the evolution of office administration in
the early 1990s. The move for a better management of
facilities is set to continue as buildings with their
infrastructure and equipment elements become ever more
are essential in any organisation as they embody a
significant portion of most organisations’ assets and their
operating costs. Thus, it is really inexcusable that
performance assessment in facilities management is just
becoming a common and formal part of the facilities
management (FM) process (Amaratunga, 2000;
Amaratunga & Baldry, 2002). One of the main elements
in the FM is managing the workplace or workspaces also
known as workstations.
Having said that, the purpose of FM must not be
optimising the operational costs of buildings
(workstations). Rather, it should be to raise the efficiency
of the management of space and the associated resources
for people and processes. These processes may be at the
best combination of efficiency and cost in order that the
mission and goals of the organisation can be appreciated
(Amaratunga & Baldry, 1998; Amaratunga, Baldry &
Sarshar, 2000). Varcoe (1996) further stated that
facilities are comparable from any other aspect of an
organisation in that they can be measured into three key
performance criteria to which all measures must relate,
 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)
which are: productivity, customer satisfaction, and
flexibility.
The main objective of this research is to investigate the
performance of space based on space type and capacity.
Apart from that, this research also looks at the
performance of space based on fields of study. This
research is limited to the teaching and learning (T&L)
rooms only. The data for this research was gathered for
semester 2 of the academic session 2008/2009.
¢2.0 SPACE MANAGEMENT
Space management can be described as the capability to
allocate space to a specific user and/or for a specific
usage (Rogers, 2002). Facilities Management (FM) may
also refer to the ability to suggest renovations and
alterations to the space that may improve it, change its
use, and/or change its assignment criteria. The scope of
space management includes facility or master planning,
space planning, space configuration and reconfiguration,
space allocation, utilisation and relocation, as well as
space use auditing and monitoring.
Space management is more than the evaluation of
space needs. It relates to the space planning, management
process and space utilisation in determining exactly how
many people the facilities will adequately support. The
primary aim of space management is to make the most
efficient and effective use of space, equipment and
furniture, during the present time as well as in the future.
According to Rourke and Brooks (1966), the allocation
of space is a matter of distributing scarce or limited
resources, and it involves decisions about programmes
and priorities. Space management also provides an
environment that enables the biggest cost and most
important asset of the organisation, its people, to operate.
Space management in the institution of higher
education should translate the organisation objectives
into the spatial relationships of its functions, together
with the needs of the people who perform the functions,
within a given or proposed accommodation space. The
space of a typical HEI includes academic space,
administrative space, commercial space, general teaching
space, library space, student services space and others.
With efficient space management, HEIs can plan,
configure and reconfigure, allocate and reallocate, audit
and monitor the use of space more effectively. However,
poor space management will bring negative impacts to
both the end-user of the space in HEI as well as the
administration of the HEI.
Many HEIs are facing common space management
problems such as low utilisation rate for teaching space
and usage of space mismatched with its design. Space
management problems exist because HEIs do not know
and do not treasure the essentials of space management.
TEFMA (2009), states that space management is about
using standards and benchmarks, and planning models to
measure how well space is being used as well as
planning for future needs. According to Minior, Hanafin
& Bringhurst (2001), the space management process
relies on both qualitative and quantitative analyses to
provide widespread information on all research groups.
¢2.1 Space Management in a University
In order to ensure the cost effective and reliable delivery
of services in the university environment, the adoption of
www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696
the best practice of space management is very important.
This covers the planning, acquisition, operation,
maintenance and disposal in the asset’s whole life cycle.
The university's objective is to maximise all useable
space while providing an environment which supports its
activities and creativity.
Increasingly, the teaching and learning spaces need to
be responsive to the changing demands of a leading
university, and so space should be designed to be flexible
and planned on the basis of functionality in order to
encourage effective utilisation. The key aim of space
management is to effectively manage a dynamic and
limited resource in order to support academic activities,
minimise cost and achieve themaximum and efficient
design, planning and use of the institution’s space.
In managing the use of space in physical buildings,
three concepts are essential. The concepts of space
inventory, measuring utilisation, and future space needs
must be understood first before further analysis is carried
out. Space inventory deals with knowing how much
space is available. Measuring utilisation, on the other
hand, regards knowing how to use space effectively by
looking at the frequency and occupancy rate. Space
management also looks at how to estimate how much
space and what types will be needed at some point in the
future.
According to Rogers (2002), two prerequisites for
increased efficiency are the sophisticated data analysis,
and space usage planning and analysis. With increasing
demand on the existing available space in universities,
space management has to look into the area of space
utilisation. Essentially, the administration of space
utilisation falls into the following categories: Space
Analysis and Planning, Assignment and Scheduling of
Facilities for Academic Classes, Assignment and
Coordination of Facilities for Purposes of Office use,
Research and Storage Space, and the Administration of
Facility Utilisation for Purposes Other Than Regular
Credit Classes. A second criterion is looking on space
usage planning through addressing types of space for
HEIs. There are academic space, public use space, and
administrative space.
This research will address academic space only. For
academic space, there are several types of spaces. Among
them are lecture halls, classrooms, tutorial rooms,
seminar rooms, computer laboratories, workshops, and
general laboratories and studios.
¢2.2 Performance Measurement of Space Usage
Institutions in the public and private sectors throughout
the world are fighting with their performance
measurement systems (Moullin, 2007). While
performance measures are appreciated, they also invite
considerably much scepticism and thought over why,
how, and when they are used (Parker, 2000). This is
because for every measure, they must be aligned with the
organisation’s policy (Parker, 2000). Performance
measures deliver a crucial feedback-loop in the process
of strategic adjustment (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2000).
Apart from that, the performance measurement also
offers an organisation with insight into its focal
commodities and the cost per product, and also shows
how much a specific part or action of an organisation
delivers to the organisation’s performance (Belcher,
1997).
 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)
In business FM organisations, the key indicators can be
more easily quantified and controlled because the
organisation has a direct economic purpose. In other
words, the inputs and outputs of a FM organisation in a
commercial business and in a public service higher
education institution (HEI) are substantially different
(Amaratunga, 2000). For a higher educational FM
organisation with a social mission, the process of small
incremental enhancements has to be maintained across a
complex range of performance indicators.
The assessment of the performance of buildings of
institutions providing higher educational services has
become a substance of specific concern to governments
seeking to increase the effectiveness of educational
provisions and maximise value for money (Amaratunga
& Baldry, 2000; Belcher, 1997). Building performance
relates specifically to design performance in relation to
the occupants and the owners of the building
(McDougall, Kelly, Hinks & Bititci, 2002). The
university system, as in any other organisation, is trying
to improve its efficiency in the face of rising operating
costs and increasing user expectations (Amaratunga &
Baldry, 1998).
On the other hand, the teaching spaces can contribute
to high quality education. It is the interrelationship
between organisational contexts that provides the catalyst
for improved performance (Amaratunga & Baldry,
1998). A workstation is basically made up of a number of
prearranged zones and workspaces. Space planning, as a
discipline, forms a major part of the facilities manager’s
responsibilities (Steiner, 2005).
Rogers (2002) in her report indicated that albeit the
decade of thoughtfulness being disbursed to space
management in HEIs, progress towards cultivating the
efficiency of their holdings has been slow. She further
added that space management practice is variable and
there have remained only slight advancements in
fostering awareness of the space costs and the possibility
for savings from the improved space management. One
of the criteria in measuring the space performance is
through using space utilisation.
Space utilisation is a measure of whether and how
space is being used. The utilisation rate is a function of a
frequency rate and occupancy rate. The frequency rate
measures the proportion of time that the space is used as
compared to its availability, and the occupancy rate
measures how full the space is compared to its capacity.
(Space Management Group, 2006).
Early researchers found that research in this area was
quite difficult due to the lack of research in this area. The
scarcity of previous literature is balanced by an excess of
technical reports throughout the world. Most of the
references are from the technical reports and internal or
national guidelines in other countries, such as the United
States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK),
Australia and Malaysia (Downie, 2005; Ahmadfauzi,
2005).
The Space Management Group (SMG, 2006) reports
that the origin of this survey was the University of Iowa
(UOI). UOI conducted a space utilisation survey as early
as 1916 yet there has been no record found as to how
they carried it out. In the same guideline, UK has been
stated as the second country to apply this survey for their
www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696
space management in higher education institutions
(HEIs). To date, Russell and Doi are considered to be the
oldest researchers on space utilisation, having a research
paper dated 1957 and entitled Manual for Studies of
Space Utilisation in Colleges and Universities (Russell
and Doi, 1957).
The UK has applied this survey since 1960, and in the
year of 1996, the National Audit Office (NAO)
succeeded in producing early guidelines to perform space
utilisation surveys for their public HEIs (HEFCW, 2002;
Space Management Group, 2006). Although there are
guidelines to conduct the survey, institutions have been
given enough autonomy to conduct the survey as they see
fit. Subsequently, throughout the years, the different
approaches have been employed by HEIs. Some HEIs
use the timetabling method for their survey and others
use inspections. Although there are differences, they try
to achieve the same goal. That is to improve their space
management process. The target is crystal clear: to utilise
space and sustain the resources.
In Malaysia, the early research recorded has been by
Ahmadfauzi (2005). He has conducted a space usage
survey for 154 labs amongst six of Malaysia’s HEIs;
however, the survey only looked into the frequency rate.
Two years later, The Office of Assets and Development,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (OAD, UTM Johor
Bahru), conducted a similar survey (Mohd Shahril Abdul
Rahman, 2007). This survey focused on the teaching and
learning (T&L) rooms for the entire UTM, Johor Bahru
campus.
¢3.0 METHODOLOGY
Based on literature, a space utilisation survey can be
conducted through a survey form, planned classroom
timetabling, direct surveys, and data acquisition from the
registrar’s office (Downie, 2005; SCHEV, 2004; and
SMG, 2006). Literature has also recorded and suggested
that HEI staffs, cleaning staffs, consultants, researchers
and students conduct the survey.
To analyse the data, a standard formula was found to
be applied in the USA, the UK, Australia and also in
Malaysia. The formula can be simplified as UFO.
¢3.1UFO Space Utilisation Survey
It has been learned that several methods can be applied to
achieve the utilisation rate. However, the basis of that
rate is from UFO. U signifies the utilisation rate which
comes from the result of the frequency (F) rate and the
time occupancy (O) rate. In the USA, the State Council
of Higher Education of Virginia (SCHEV, 2004)
reported on HEIs in Virginia State. Their HEIs must
present their utilisation rate or frequency rate as an
indicator and evidence to apply for new space in capital
budget planning. If they fail to show their space being
fully utilised or over-crowded, there will be no budget
approval for the new spaces. A different scenario
happened in the UK, which was that having a low rate of
space utilisation in HEIs will cause them to pay some
penalties (National Audit Office (NAO), 1996). A clear
understanding of UFO can be gained through Table 1.
 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

Table 1: Space Utilisation Rate Formula lab, studio, and workshop usage timetables. To determine
Frequency!Rate! % !x!Occupancy!Rate!(%)
the trend of the space usage (UFO), MS Excel was used
Space!Utilisation!Rate! U = ! for the data entry and the SPSS software to analyse the
100
data.
Number!of!hours!used!during!week Table 4 gives an example of the calculation of UFO for
Frequency!Rate! F = ! !x!100
Hours!allocated!during!week a room with the capacity of 60 persons per hour. From
Total!student!numbers!during!week
the table, out of the possible 38 hours of meeting per
Occupancy!Rate! O = ! !x!100 week, the room was only being used for 23 hours per
Room!capacity!during!week
week. Given that information, we can derive the
frequency rate by using the formula as in Table 1 (F =
23/38 x 100 = 60.53%). Based on Table 1, we can also
derive the occupancy rate and utilisation. From this
Table 2 shows the interpretation of UFO rates. Based example, the occupancy rate was 46.58% (O = 1062 / (60
on the table, the scores are divided into three different x 38) x 100). The utilisation rate was 28.19% (60.53% x
categories, poor, fair and good. For this research, the 46.58% / 100). The calculation of UFO was then being
allocated number of hours available during the week was calculated for all 256 rooms for the semester December,
capped at 38 hours. This calculation was based on the Session 2008/2009. Table 4 gives an example of the UFO
space usage from Monday to Friday starting at 8.00 a.m.
and finishing at 5.00 p.m. Table 4: An Example of UFO Calculation
Hours Used: 24 Hours Allocated: 38 Total Students: 1112 Capacity per Week: 2180
Table 2: Interpreting the Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time / Day
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00

Monday 55 55 35 35 60 60

Tuesday 40 40 42 42 55 55

Wednesday 38 38 38 38
However, for Friday, the total hours was reduced to 6 Thursday 58 58 58 58
hours to allow flexibility for Friday prayer. These 38
Friday 35 35 42 42
allocated hours of usage per week can be defined as in
Table 3. Utilisation = 63.16 x 51.01
32.22%
Frequency = (24/38) x 100
63.16%
Occupancy = (1112 / 2180) x 100
51.01%

calculation for a Faculty.

Table 3: Time Allocation per Week In order to get the utilisation, frequency, and
Allocation of Time Slot for 38 Hours
occupancy rates (UFO Rates) for all 256 rooms, the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time / Day calculation for the total number of rooms was carried out.
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00
After that, the calculation was based on the type and
Monday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
capacity of the rooms for each faculty and for UTM as a
Tuesday 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
whole. In order to do so, the acquired data was grouped
Wednesday 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
by room capacities and room types. Table 5 shows the
Thursday 25 26 26 28 29 30 31 32
calculation for a Faculty in UTM as an example. The
Friday 33 34 35 36 37 38
calculation was based on 19 rooms (3 Lecture Halls, and
16 Lecture rooms).

To review the problem arising in this research, a ¢4.0 UFO RESULT

research design was identified. Having had the research
issues and objectives, it was important to look at the This section will discuss the result and research findings.
sources of the data. This research used the triangulation The discussion will be based on the objectives it sought
approach. Objective one was on the performance of to resolve. As mentioned earlier, the main objective for
space based on the space type and capacity. Thus, the this research has been to investigate the performance of
review of literature on the performance measurement was space based on the space type and capacity. Apart from
carried out. For gathering the data, interviews were that, this research has also looked at the performance of
carried out. space based on the fields of study. This research has been
For objective two, in order to look at the space limited to the teaching and learning (T&L) rooms only.
performance based on the fields of study, faculties in The data for this research was gathered for semester 2,
UTM have been divided into three main categories as academic session 2008/2009.
being practice by the university. Then, data gathering
through interview and questionnaires distribution for ¢4.1 Space Utilisation Based on the Type of
teaching space at Public HEI will be conducted. The data Classroom
will then be analysed.
The result for the space utilisation has been reviewed
¢3.2Data Acquisition and Analysis based on the classroom type. The types are lecture room,
To achieve the first objective, T&L room’s timetable and tutorial room, lecture hall, computer laboratory,
list of total student number per subject were collected. laboratory, workshop, and lastly studio room. The
The data were gathered from faculties/department in utilisation rate, frequency and occupancy rate will be
UTM for semester 2, 2008/2009 Session. It comprised discussed based on Table 5 until Table 11. The
the lecture hall, lecture room, tutorial room, computer discussion will be based on the faculties in UTM. For

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

anonymity purposes, the faculties’ names have been
changed to Faculty A until Faculty L. Table 6 shows the
performance of the teaching and learning spaces at UTM
by looking at the utilisation, frequency, and occupancy
rates (UFO Rates).
For universities in Virginia State, the targeted utilisation
rate was 36%, considering the targeted frequency and
occupancy of 60%. However, for the United Kingdom,
the National Audit Office (NAO) in 1996 divided the
utilisation rate into three different scores.

Table 5: An Example of UFO Rates Calculation for a Faculty

Capacity Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Rooms Hours Used Occupied Capacity
(hour) Available Rate Rate Rate

Lecture Room 1 100 10 38 3177 3800 22.00% 26.32% 83.61%

Lecture Room 2 110 32 38 3291 4180 66.30% 84.21% 78.73%
Lecture Room 3 100 34 38 3530 3800 83.12% 89.47% 92.89%
Lecture Room 4 100 35 38 3320 3800 80.47% 92.11% 87.37%
Lecture Room 5 100 33 38 2896 3800 66.18% 86.84% 76.21%
Lecture Room 6 60 24 38 1254 2280 34.74% 63.16% 55.00%
Lecture Room 7 100 34 38 2903 3800 68.35% 89.47% 76.39%
Lecture Room 8 100 34 38 3020 3800 71.11% 89.47% 79.47%
Lecture Room 9 100 33 38 2121 3800 48.47% 86.84% 55.82%
Lecture Room 10 100 34 38 3366 3800 79.25% 89.47% 88.58%
Lecture Room 11 100 34 38 2983 3800 70.24% 89.47% 78.50%
Lecture Room 12 60 23 38 850 2280 22.56% 60.53% 37.28%
Lecture Room 13 60 24 38 777 2280 21.52% 63.16% 34.08%
Lecture Room 14 100 34 38 2968 3800 69.88% 89.47% 78.11%
Lecture Room 15 100 34 38 3310 3800 77.94% 89.47% 87.11%
Lecture Room 16 70 31 38 1860 2660 57.04% 81.58% 69.92%
Lecture Hall 1 120 31 38 3120 4560 55.82% 81.58% 68.42%
Lecture Hall 2 120 26 38 1440 4560 21.61% 68.42% 31.58%
Lecture Hall 3 120 30 38 3000 4560 51.94% 78.95% 65.79%
Faculty F 1820 570 722 49186 69160 56.15% 78.95% 71.12%

Table 5 shows that faculty A had the most
workstations per week at 117800. The frequency rate for
the 15 rooms was very high, at 85.44% while the
occupancy rate was just at 31.74%. By multiplying these
numbers, it gave the utilisation rate of 27.12%. Faculty J
had the highest utilisation rate of 52.70% due to the high
frequency and occupancy rates of 95.91% and 54.94,
respectively. While, the lowest utilisation rate was held
by Faculty I at only 9.11%. The overall utilisation rate
for UTM was at 20.25%. This rate was considered low as
compared with Australia and the United States. For
These scores were poor, fair and good. The utilisation
of 25% and less was considered poor, while 25% - 35%
was considered as fair. To be considered as good, the rate
had to be 36% and above. Comparing the results of the
utilisation, frequency, and occupancy rates in Table 5
with the US, the UK, and Australia, it seems that few of
the faculties exceeded the US and the UK, and none
achieved Australia’s standards. Only one (1) faculty
exceeded the US standard and about five (5) faculties
exceeded the fair utilisation rate. In order to get a clear
understanding, the analysis was being undertaken by

Table 6: UFO Results for the Faculties in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) – All Rooms

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. A 15 423 570 63334 122360 38.41% 74.21% 51.76%

Fac. B 12 290 456 16771 32300 33.02% 63.60% 51.92%
Fac. C 5 150 190 12607 17480 56.94% 78.95% 72.12%
Fac. D 28 616 1064 47055 91960 29.62% 57.89% 51.17%
Fac. E 23 614 874 48050 72200 46.75% 70.25% 66.55%
Fac. F 19 570 722 49186 69160 56.15% 78.95% 71.12%
Fac. G 29 717 1102 40795 67640 39.24% 65.06% 60.31%
Fac. H 21 430 798 22846 52820 23.31% 53.88% 43.25%
Fac. I 36 686 1368 34517 74670 23.18% 50.15% 46.23%
Fac. J 13 313 494 18180 32680 35.25% 63.36% 55.63%
Fac. K 13 381 494 26027 42560 47.17% 77.13% 61.15%
Fac. L 19 512 722 30208 58140 36.85% 70.91% 51.96%
UTM 233 5702 8854 409576 733970 35.94% 64.40% 55.80%

Australia, the targeted utilisation rate for classrooms was looking at classroom type. Table 6 shows the UFO result
56.25%, by considering the targeted rate for frequency for lecture rooms.
and occupancy at 75% each. While for the United States, Based on Table 6, about four (4) faculties could be
the targeted utilisation rate was different for each state. considered as achieving the fair utilisation rate and three

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

(3) had good space usage based on the utilisation rate. per week. Table 6 also shows that for the frequency rate,
However, for UTM as a whole, the utilisation rate was at only two (2) faculties were below the targeted figure.
only 23.83%. Based on the frequency rate, UTM had They were Faculties B and L, having frequencies at
achieved the targeted rate of 60% based on the UK and 45.53% and 55.98%, respectively. While for the

Table 7: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Lecture Rooms

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. A 6 197 228 18448 27360 58.26% 86.40% 67.43%

Fac. B 7 154 266 8749 15580 32.51% 57.89% 56.16%
Fac. C 5 150 190 12607 17480 56.94% 78.95% 72.12%
Fac. D 19 466 722 35401 63840 35.79% 64.54% 55.45%
Fac. E 19 520 722 39670 57380 49.79% 72.02% 69.14%
Fac. F 16 483 608 41626 55480 59.60% 79.44% 75.03%
Fac. G 14 405 532 28456 39900 54.29% 76.13% 71.32%
Fac. H 11 296 418 15988 30020 37.71% 70.81% 53.26%
Fac. I 19 470 722 27305 49400 35.98% 65.10% 55.27%
Fac. J 12 303 456 17615 30400 38.50% 66.45% 57.94%
Fac. K 6 170 228 11448 19000 44.93% 74.56% 60.25%
Fac. L 7 197 266 13701 31920 31.79% 74.06% 42.92%
UTM 141 3811 5358 271014 437760 44.03% 71.13% 61.91%

the US standards. However, the utilisation rate was still occupancy rate, all were below the targeted rate of 60%.
poor due to the occupancy rate of only 35.19%. The Lecture rooms consisted of 150 rooms and this figure
highest room usage was for Faculty J, at 52.70% for all was at about 58.59% out of all of the rooms in UTM
nine (9) rooms. totalling 256. In order to increase the space performance,

Table 8: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Tutorial Rooms

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. E 2 42 76 3442 5700 33.37% 55.26% 60.39%

Fac. G 6 128 228 3727 6840 30.59% 56.14% 54.49%
Fac. K 4 129 152 7038 9120 65.49% 84.87% 77.17%
UTM 12 299 456 14207 21660 43.01% 65.57% 65.59%

room capacity needs to be addressed properly.

Compared with the number of rooms for Faculty J
based on Table 5 and Table 6, it shows that this faculty
only has one type of classroom, i.e., lecture rooms. The
frequency of usage for this faculty was at 95.91% while
the occupancy was just at 54.94%. This happened due to
the capacity of the faculty being only 26980 workstations
Table 7 shows the UFO rates for tutorial rooms. The
number of tutorial rooms in UTM is 18, or 7.03% of all
of the classrooms. Only five (5) faculties had this type of
room. Based on the table, the highest utilisation rate was
Faculty B. Based on only one tutorial room; the
utilisation rate was 70.91%, and 84.21% for the

Table 9: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Lecture Halls

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. A 9 226 342 44886 95000 31.22% 66.08% 47.25%

Fac. B 5 136 190 8022 16720 34.34% 71.58% 47.98%
Fac. D 2 52 76 5605 9120 42.05% 68.42% 61.46%
Fac. E 2 52 76 4938 9120 37.05% 68.42% 54.14%
Fac. F 3 87 114 7560 13680 42.17% 76.32% 55.26%
Fac. G 2 38 76 4220 9120 23.14% 50.00% 46.27%
Fac. H 2 50 76 3216 6840 30.93% 65.79% 47.02%
Fac. I 2 40 76 1588 4560 18.33% 52.63% 34.82%
Fac. K 3 82 114 7541 14440 37.56% 71.93% 52.22%
UTM 30 763 1140 87576 178600 32.82% 66.93% 49.03%

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

frequency and occupancy rates. The lowest was Faculty
D, having only one room; the utilisation rate was
15.27%, and 55.26% and 27.63% for the frequency and
occupancy rates, respectively.
same also applies to laboratories and studio rooms as
shown in Tables 10 and 11, respectively.
Faculty L showed the lowest utilisation rate of only
0.05%. Out of a possible 2280 workstations per week,

Table 10: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Computer Labs.

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. D 2 40 76 2544 4940 27.10% 52.63% 51.50%

Fac. G 3 39 114 1166 6840 5.83% 34.21% 17.05%
Fac. H 8 84 304 3642 15960 6.31% 27.63% 22.82%
Fac. I 4 33 152 1021 6460 3.43% 21.71% 15.80%
Fac. J 1 10 38 565 2280 6.52% 26.32% 24.78%
Fac. L 12 315 456 16507 26220 43.49% 69.08% 62.96%
UTM 30 521 1140 25445 62700 18.55% 45.70% 40.58%

Table 7 also revealed that the utilisation rate for the
tutorial room for UTM was at 42.31% for the usage of all
18 rooms. All 5 of the faculties exceeded all targeted
rates of utilisation, frequency, and occupancy, but one;
Faculty D did not achieve the targeted rates.
Table 8 presents the UFO result for the lecture hall.
only 20 students used this workshop for two hours out of
possible 38 hours of meeting time.
Table 11 also shows the same pattern of space
utilisation for the UTM classrooms. The result for Table
5 shows how much the faculties were being utilised

Table 11: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Laboratories / Workshops

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. I 10 124 380 3938 12920 9.95% 32.63% 30.48%

UTM 10 124 380 3938 12920 9.95% 32.63% 30.48%

Based on Table 8, the highest utilised faculty was
Faculty K, attaining a 35.57% of utilisation rate due to
having the highest frequency rate at 94.74%. The
occupancy rate for this faculty, however, was only at
28.53%.
Table 8 also revealed that nearly all of the faculties
achieved the targeted frequency rate, save one, Faculty E,
having just short of less than 1% to be at par with the
target rate. For UTM, the UFO rate for the lecture hall
was at 21.69%, with the frequency rate of 76.02% but
only 28.53% for the occupancy rate. Table 9 shows the
UFO rates for computer labs.
Based on Table 9, the lowest utilisation rate was 1.64%
and the highest was 18.23%. Based on the frequency and
occupancy rates, all of the faculties could be considered
underutilised based on the UK targeted UFO rates. The
without looking at the type of rooms that were owned by
the faculties. Whereas, Table 6 until Table 11, only show
the results based on the room type without looking at the
room capacity. Looking at the occupancy rate in those
tables, we can assume that the capacity of those rooms
also affected the utilisation rate. In order to acknowledge
that, the next discussion looks at the room capacity for
the lecture rooms. All other room types are not discussed
as they contributed only 41% of the classrooms. Due to
the size of the data, for each of the faculties, being quite
small, the discussion will combine those into three
different fields of study and one centralised area.
¢4.1 UFO Rate Analysis for Lecture Rooms Based
on Room Capacity
Table 12 until Table 19 discuss the UFO rates for 150

Table 12: UFO Results for Faculties in UTM – Studio Rooms

No. of Meeting Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Faculty Frequency Occupancy Capacity
Rooms Time Rate Rate Rate

Fac. D 5 58 190 3505 14060 7.61% 30.53% 24.93%

Fac. G 4 107 152 3226 4940 45.97% 70.39% 65.30%
Fac. I 1 19 38 665 1330 25.00% 50.00% 50.00%
UTM 9 184 380 7396 20330 17.62% 48.42% 36.38%

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

lectures rooms across three fields of study and one based on the UK and the US standards. The field of
centralised room. Table 12 shows that the lecture rooms Science and Technology had the most rooms, at nine
in UTM were being utilised at 23.83% with a frequency units, with a score of only 8.86% for its space being
rate of 67.70% and occupancy rate of 35.19%. utilised. This score was due to the poor performance in

Table 13: UFO Results for UTM based on Fields of Study – Lecture Rooms
No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate
Centralised Rooms 6 197 228 18448 27360 58.26% 86.40% 67.43%
Engineering 68 1874 2584 145153 216600 48.60% 72.52% 67.01%
Science and Technology 36 967 1368 62493 114000 38.75% 70.69% 54.82%
Social Science 31 773 1178 44920 79800 36.94% 65.62% 56.29%
UTM 141 3811 5358 271014 437760 44.03% 71.13% 61.91%
the frequency and occupancy rates. While for the room
Table 12 also revealed that the centralised lecture room capacity of 60 persons as in Table 14, it can be seen that
was more utilised as compared to the others at a the UFO results were 28.06% for UTM.
utilisation rate of 39.30% with an 80.26% frequency rate
and 48.97% occupancy rate. The frequency rate for all of Based on Table 14, the overall frequency rate for UTM
the lecture rooms across all fields of study was above the was 66.24% while the occupancy rate was just 42.36%.

Table 14: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 50 Persons

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate

Engineering 1 32 38 960 1140 70.91% 84.21% 84.21%

Science and Technology 6 100 228 3237 8360 16.98% 43.86% 38.72%
Social Science 7 135 342 4240 9880 16.94% 39.47% 42.91%
UTM 14 267 608 8437 19380 19.12% 43.91% 43.53%

targeted value of 60% as set by universities in the UK
and the US. However, for the occupancy rate, the UTM
rate was about half of the targeted value of 60%. Table
13 discusses the UFO result based on the room capacity
of 50 persons and below.
This resulted in the utilisation rate for the lecture rooms
with a room capacity of 60 students managing to score
only 28.06%. Based on the UK standard, the
performance of this type of room can be considered as
fair. In order to utilise this room, we need to increase the

Table 15: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 60 Persons

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate

Engineering 33 903 1254 50929 75240 48.74% 72.01% 67.69%

Science and Technology 5 147 190 7260 11400 49.27% 77.37% 63.68%
Social Science 4 128 152 6537 9120 60.36% 84.21% 71.68%
UTM 42 1178 1596 64726 95760 49.89% 73.81% 67.59%

Based on Table 13 above, only 12 out of a possible 150
rooms fell into this category. The lowest utilisation rate
was for the field of Social Science, by having utilised the
space at only 0.73%, while the highest was for the field
of Engineering, for having the utilisation rate of 46.88%.
This was the only room out of twelve rooms, which had
the utilisation rate higher than the targeted rate of 36% as
occupancy rate by at least 17% in order to get a score of
good or achieving the targeted utilisation rate. The field
of Engineering scored 31.15%, achieving the highest
utilisation rate. However, the field of Social Science only
utilised 16.09% of it space due to lower frequency and
occupancy rates.

Table 16: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 70 Persons

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate

Engineering 3 74 114 4141 7980 33.68% 64.91% 51.89%

Social Science 6 185 228 10667 15960 54.23% 81.14% 66.84%
UTM 9 259 342 14808 23940 46.84% 75.73% 61.85%

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

While the result in Table 15 shows the UFO for lecture tallies the frequency and occupancy rates. Having a score
rooms with the capacity of 50 students. Based on the of 22.85%, it is evident that the capacity of space is in
result, the field of Science and Technology scored the oversupply. Table 18 also shows that in order to manage

Table 17: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 80 Persons

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate

Engineering 1 24 38 1753 3040 36.42% 63.16% 57.66%

Science and Technology 9 258 342 15906 27360 43.86% 75.44% 58.14%
Social Science 5 152 190 9686 15200 50.98% 80.00% 63.72%
UTM 15 434 570 27345 45600 45.66% 76.14% 59.97%

highest utilisation rate of 62.86%, exceeding the targeted rooms of this size, the usage and management of the
value of 36%. However, this was only for one room. space should be centralised under the UTM
Considering all seven rooms with this capacity, we just administration rather than per faculty of per field of
get the figure of 22.44% in terms of space utilisation. study. Having the highest scores of 39.30% for the

Table 18: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 90 Persons

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate

Engineering 3 86 114 7422 10260 54.57% 75.44% 72.34%

Social Science 2 59 76 3911 6840 44.39% 77.63% 57.18%
UTM 5 145 190 11333 17100 50.58% 76.32% 66.27%

Table 16 shows the UFO result based on 80 students utilisation rate as opposed to other fields and studies and
for the room capacity. others room capacities, shows that space usage is better
accessed centrally rather than de-centrally.

Table 19: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 100 and Above

No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy

Fields of Study Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate
Centralised Rooms 6 197 228 18448 27360 58.26% 86.40% 67.43%
Engineering 27 755 1026 79948 118940 49.46% 73.59% 67.22%
Science and Technology 16 462 608 36090 66880 41.00% 75.99% 53.96%
Social Science 5 114 190 9879 22800 26.00% 60.00% 43.33%
UTM 54 1528 2052 144365 235980 45.55% 74.46% 61.18%

Based on the table, in terms of the frequency of usage,

UTM has achieved the targeted value of 60%. But again,
in terms of room occupancy it is still far behind the
targeted value of 60%. It only managed to score 38.23%
for the occupancy rate. This has caused the utilisation
rate to be capped at only 26.83%.
Table 17 also shows a similar scenario; as it only
managed to score 28.82% for the utilisation rate for the
room capacity of 90 students as compared to 26.83% for
the room capacity of 80 students. In term of the
frequency rate, both room capacities of 80 and 90 being
fully used had more than 70%, yet it usage was below the
real capacity of the space.
Table 18 shows the result of the lecture rooms with the
capacity of 100 students. With the most rooms
numbering 57, it is very crucial to address the usage of
these rooms properly. As discussed above, the result
¢5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Tables above, the tutorial rooms had the
utilisation rate of 42.31%. This shows the highest scores
as compared to laboratories / workshops at only 6.01%.
However, for the lecture rooms, the utilisation score was
only 23.83%. Due to the total number of rooms, 150, for
the lecture rooms, out of a possible 256 total number of
room, it has dragged the overall utilisation for UTM
down to only 20.25%.
Looking at the frequency and occupancy rates, we can
find that the occupancy rate scored lower than the
frequency rate for all of the room types. Tables 6 until
Table11 show the occupancy the rate for the tutorial
rooms. They were shown to have the highest rate at
62.11%. Yet, due to having only 15 rooms, it did not
affect the overall occupancy rate for the UTM score at
32.98%. In order to analyse the real issue of occupancy,
we need to address room size rather than room type. Due

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

to the nature of the room inventory of lecture rooms
having 150 out of 256 rooms, it is crucial to study the
capacity of the lecture rooms in contrast to the other
rooms.
The discussion regarding room capacity above as
shown from Table 12 until Table 18 was based on the
field of study rather than faculties. Table 19 summarises
the findings for room capacity ranging from 50 persons
per room to more than 100 per room.
space standards due to the differences of the teaching and
learning modes. This marks the need of research in the
area of OBE and its relationship with space utilisation.
As a conclusion, existing space resources must be
utilised. The utilisation must also address new ways of
teaching and learning in higher education institutes. It is
recommend that further research in that area needs to be
addressed straightaway.

Table 20: UFO Results – Room Capacity of 50 until 100 and Above
No. of Hours Utilisation Frequency Occupancy
Room Capacity Hours Used Occupied Capacity
Rooms Available Rate Rate Rate
50 and Below 16 267 608 8437 19380 19.12% 43.91% 43.53%
60 42 1178 1596 64726 95760 49.89% 73.81% 67.59%
70 9 259 342 14808 23940 46.84% 75.73% 61.85%
80 15 434 570 27345 45600 45.66% 76.14% 59.97%
90 5 145 190 11333 17100 50.58% 76.32% 66.27%
100 and Above 54 1528 2052 144365 235980 45.55% 74.46% 61.18%
UTM 141 3811 5358 271014 437760 44.03% 71.13% 61.91%

Based on Table 19 above, the result shows that the
utilisation rate for the room capacity of 90 showed the
highest utilisation score of 28.82%. This is followed by
the utilisation rate for the room capacity of 60, which
shows the score of 28.06%. Due to the number of rooms
for the room capacity of 60 being 47 out of 150 for the
overall lecture rooms for UTM, it is crucial to study the
space with the room capacity of 60, extensively.
Table 14 shows the full result of UFO based on the
field of study. Based on that table, the UFO for the field
of Engineering scored the highest at 32.15%. This rate
was based on the frequency of 69.49% and occupancy
rate of 46.27%. Centred on the discussion above, the
utilisation rate was influenced by the frequency of usage
and also the room occupancy during the usage time.
Constructed from the data gathered, it showed that the
occupancy rate was lower as compared to the frequency
rate. In other words, in order to increase the utilisation
rate, we must address, critically, the factors affecting the
occupancy rate.
Managing the teaching and learning spaces for higher
education institutes requires the facility manager to
address the students’ usage of the academic space. Apart
from the usage, they also need to look at the occupancy
rate. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the
measurements of any facility is through productivity.
Space productivity can be measured through space
utilisation. Based on the results and discussions, the
overall space utilisation for UTM was at 20.25%. In
order to increase the score, the problems with occupancy
and space capacity need to be addressed properly. One
way to address this is by looking at implementing
outcome-based education (OBE) into the curriculum. To
do so, the arrangement of the classrooms needs to be
accessed, as now it is more lecturers oriented rather than
student oriented.
Even though this study has addressed the utilisation in
terms of space capacity and types, it has not addressed
the space standards. In order to look at this issue clearly,
researchers need to address the space standard for
academic space. Nevertheless, the introduction of OBE,
to be implemented by all lecturers by 2015 by MOHE,
has sparked the demand for the study of new ways of
¢6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express our appreciation to our
funding body, the Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE), for supporting us financially and technically in
finishing this research paper.
REFERENCES
Ahmadfauzi A Wahab. (2005). Pengurusan Sumber
Fizikal IPT: Pengurusan Ruang. Jurnal Teknologi E,
43(E), 15 - 28.
Amaratunga, D. (2000). Assessment of Facilities
Management Performance. Property Management, 18(4),
258-266.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (1998). Appraising the
Total Performance of Higher Education Buildings: A
Participatory Approach Towards a Knowledge-Base
System. COBRA ’98. London: RICS Research.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2000). Assessment of
Facilities Management Performance in Higher Education
Properties. Facilities, 18(7/8), 293-301.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2002). Moving from
Performance Measurement to Performance Management.
Facilities, 20(5/6), 217-223.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., & Sarshar, M. (2000).
Assessment of Facilities Management Performance -
What Next? Facilities, 18(1/2), 66-75.
Belcher, R. G. (1997). Corporate Objectives, Facilities,
Measurement and Use: A University Model.
COBRA ’97. London: RICS Research.
Downie, M. L. (2005). Efficiency Outcomes from Space
Charging in UK Higher Education Estates. Property
Management, 23(1), 33-42.
HEFCW. (2002). Space Management: A Good Practice
Guide. Swansea: University of Wales.
McDougall, G., Kelly, J. R., Hinks, J., & Bititci, U. S.
(2002). A Review of the Leading Performance
Measurement Tools for Assessing Buildings. Journal of
Facilities Management, 1(2), 142-153.
Minior, S., Hanafin, N., & Bringhurst, F. R. (2004).
Research Space Management-A Dynamic Process for

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

 Shahabudin Abdullah et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Social Sciences)

Optimal Space Utilization and Strategic Planning.

Massachusetts General Hospital.
Mohd Shahril Abdul Rahman. (2007, August 14). Audit
Ruang: Langkah Awal Pengurusan Aset. Berita Harian,
p. 10. Juala Lumpur.
Moullin, M. (2007). Performance Measurement
Definitions: Linking Performance Measurement and
Organisational Excellence. International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, 20(3), 181–183.
NAO. (1996). Space Management in Higher Education:
A Good Practice Guide. London: National Audit Office.
Parker, C. (2000). Performance Measurement. Work
Study, 49, 63-66.
Pursglove, J., & Simpson, M. (2007). Benchmarking the
performance of English universities. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 14, 102-122.
Rogers, C. (2002). Space Management in Higher
Education: Report of the Findings of the Newcastle
University Space Management Project, Jointly Funded
by the HEFCE Good Management Practice Programme
and the University (pp. 1-88). Newcastle: University of
Newcastle.
Rourke, F. E., & Brooks, G. E. (1966). The Managerial
Revolution in Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
Russell, J. D., & Doi, J. I. (1957). Manual for Studies of
Space Utilization in Colleges and Universities. American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers.
SCHEV. (2004). Space Utilization and Comparison
Report. Richmond: State Council of Higher Education
for Virginia.
Space Management Group. (2006). Space Utilisation:
Practice, Performace and Guidelines. London.
Steiner, J. (2005). The Art of Space Management:
Planning Flexible Workspaces for People. Journal of
Facilities Management, 4(1), 6-22.
Varcoe, B. J. (1996). Facilities Performance
Measurement. Facilities, 14(10/11), 46-51.

www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 | ISSN 0127–9696

View publication stats