 |
| Illustration by Ai |
A research team from Manado State Polytechnics developed a new conceptual framework in June 2026 that integrates physical building conditions with urgent maintenance risks to optimize educational facilities. The study, conducted by Geertje Efraty Kandiyoh, Sandri Linna Sengkey, Reiner W. Tampi, and Sherley Runtunuwu, addresses a critical issue in asset management: how school administrators can accurately prioritize limited repair budgets. By combining visual damage assessments with the real-world consequences of delayed action, this new framework aims to prevent structural failures, ensure student safety, and safeguard institutional resources.
Background: The Pitfalls of Reactive School Maintenance
Educational institutions worldwide face a persistent challenge regarding infrastructure maintenance. Traditional approaches often rely heavily on the Facility Condition Index (FCI), which measures repair costs against the total replacement value of a building. While financially informative, this index frequently ignores critical non-financial impacts, such as immediate user safety, classroom comfort, and environmental health.
In many schools and vocational campuses, maintenance activities remain purely reactive. Facility managers typically fix problems only after receiving complaints or when structural deterioration becomes undeniable. This method fails because not all visible defects present the same level of urgency. For instance, a cracked wall aesthetic issue requires far less immediate attention than exposed electrical cables or blocked emergency evacuation routes. As budgets tighten and campus populations grow, educational institutions require a proactive, standardized system that balances physical degradation with operational risk.
Methodology: Blending Physical Auditing with Risk Scoring
To resolve these industrial limitations, the research team from Manado State Polytechnics performed a comprehensive conceptual review and thematic synthesis of established literature spanning from 2015 to 2025. The researchers analyzed 22 primary academic sources and official building maintenance regulations to build an adaptable evaluation model.
The analytical approach categorized campus building components into structured groups, including architecture, roofs, drainage, sanitation, safety equipment, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. The team then mapped these components against two primary operational axes: the physical condition indicator (the severity of visible damage) and the maintenance risk indicator (the potential negative impact of postponing the repair).
Key Findings: The Condition-Risk Priority Equation
The framework establishes a practical math-based scoring system where the priority level of any repair is calculated using a straightforward formula:
{Priority Score} = {Condition Score} x {Risk Score}
Both condition and risk are evaluated on a standardized scale from 1 to 5. The matrix categorizes the resulting priority scores into five clear action tiers to guide facility managers:
Critical (Scores 21–25): Demands immediate emergency intervention or advanced technical evaluation due to direct safety hazards or core functional failures.
Very High (Scores 16–20): Requires urgent mitigation, immediate repair, and strict operational monitoring.
High (Scores 11–15): Placed directly onto the upcoming scheduled maintenance program for near-term repair.
Moderate (Scores 6–10) Needs ongoing monitoring and routine repairs scheduled according to available resources.
Low (Scores 1–5): Characterized by minor damage with negligible impacts, manageable via basic routine maintenance.
The findings highlight that roofs, electrical systems, toilets, drainage networks, and fire safety systems carry the highest operational risk factors in school environments. While cosmetic issues like peeling wall paint receive lower priority scores, an obstructed evacuation pathway or an unstable ceiling panel automatically triggers a critical status due to the high risk to human life.
Implications and Real-World Impact
This structural framework directly bridges the gap between engineering inspections and administrative decision-making. For policymakers and educational boards, the model offers a transparent, data-driven justification for annual budget allocations. Instead of distributing funds based on subjective impressions or user complaints, schools can allocate money exactly where data proves the risk is highest.
Furthermore, the model aligns closely with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which promotes safe, inclusive, and effective learning environments. Implementing priority-based maintenance reduces resource waste, extends the lifespan of public assets, and ensures that laboratories, classrooms, and vocational workshops remain safe and fully functional for students and staff.
"Integrating condition and risk
indicators results in a conceptual matrix that indicates maintenance decisions
should not be based solely on the level of physical deterioration, but should
also consider the consequences that may arise if intervention is delayed,"
noted the research team from Manado State Polytechnics.
Source Section
Article Title: A Conceptual Framework for Condition and Maintenance Risk Indicators for Educational Buildings
Journal Name: Jurnal Multidisplini Madani (MUDIMA)
Publication Year: 2026
DOI /URL:[https://doi.org/10.55927/mudima.v6i6.75]
(https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.55927/mudima.v6i6.75)
0 Komentar