Next Article in Journal
Smart City: Information-Analytical Developing Model (The Case of the Visegrad Region)
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence in Digital Marketing: Enhancing Consumer Engagement and Supporting Sustainable Behavior Through Social and Mobile Networks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146639
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method

by
Ayşe Pınar Özyılmaz
1,
Fehmi Samet Demirci
2,
Ozan Okudan
2 and
Zeynep Işık
2,*
1
Hayat Kimya Sanayi A.Ş., Istanbul 34662, Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpaşa Caddesi, Istanbul 34220, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6639; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146639
Submission received: 31 May 2025 / Revised: 9 July 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 21 July 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The confluence of financial constraints, climate change mitigation efforts, and evolving user expectations has significantly transformed the concept of facility management (FM). Traditional FM has now evolved to enhance sustainability in the built environment. Sustainable facility management (SFM) can add value to companies, organizations, and governments by balancing the financial, environmental, and social outcomes of the FM processes. The systematic literature review revealed a limited number of studies developing a performance measurement framework for SFM in office buildings and/or other building types in the literature. Given that the lack of this theoretical basis inhibits the effective deployment of SFM practices, this study aims to fill this gap by developing a performance measurement framework for SFM in office buildings. Accordingly, an in-depth literature review was initially conducted to synthesize sustainable performance measurement factors. Next, a series of focus group discussion (FGD) sessions were organized to refine and verify the factors and develop a novel performance measurement framework for SFM. Lastly, consistency analysis, the Bayesian best worst method (BBWM), and sensitivity analysis were implemented to determine the priorities of the factors. What the proposed framework introduces is the combined use of two performance measurement mechanisms, such as continuous performance measurement and comprehensive performance measurement. The continuous performance measurement is conducted using high-priority factors. On the other hand, the comprehensive performance measurement is conducted with all the factors proposed in this study. Also, the BBWM results showed that “Energy-efficient material usage”, “Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumption”, and “Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions” are the top three factors, with scores of 0.0741, 0.0598, and 0.0555, respectively. Moreover, experts should also pay the utmost attention to factors related to waste management, indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and H&S measures. In addition to its theoretical contributions, the paper makes practical contributions by enabling decision makers to measure the SFM performance of office buildings and test the outcomes of their managerial processes in terms of performance.

1. Introduction

Due to globalization, technological advancement, and the growing demand for improved quality of life, efforts to manage facilities and properties in the built environment have significantly increased [1]. In this context, facility management (FM) is a multidisciplinary form of asset management that integrates people, place, process, and technology to ensure the comfort, functionality, safety, and efficiency of the built environment [2]. The global FM market surpassed USD 39.9 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach USD 119.4 billion in 2030 [3]. COVID-19, remote working, and outsourcing have contributed to the growth trend in the FM market [4]. As a key component of services such as the operation and maintenance of the built environment, the FM plays an essential role in helping organizations and stakeholders meet their responsibilities and address environmental challenges [5]. FM balances human resources, work activities and resources, and the work environment [6]. In this respect, FM is an essential opportunity for managing buildings and enhancing sustainable practices [7].
Applying sustainability practices in FM has led to the SFM concept [7]. The SFM concept is an advanced process that provides an opportunity for structural, architectural, and operational changes to minimize the detrimental impact of buildings on occupants and the environment [8]. The SFM contributes to sustainable development by encompassing various principles, such as waste management, water and energy efficiency, indoor air quality, user orientation, and financial aspects [9]. In other words, the SFM concept integrates FM and sustainable development by considering the social, economic, and environmental implications of business decisions [10]. Maximizing economic values while minimizing the environmental impact of workspaces is one of the key objectives of SFM [4]. Integrating sustainability practices into facility management has contributed to a 13.8% reduction in carbon emissions, saving GBP 13 million in energy bills for 3000 public buildings in the UK [7,11]. In addition to its environmental and economic contributions, SFM also has social impacts that can improve building conditions to satisfy building occupants [10]. Even though SFM is seen as a convenient concept to achieve sustainable development goals, there is a need to develop knowledge and skills for sustainability integration into the strategy and operation phases of FM processes [10,12,13]. Within this perspective, disruptive solutions are needed to increase the applicability of SFM.
Office buildings are indispensable parts of daily life that contribute to economic development [14]. They are place-dependent structures where staff carry out administrative and operational work to provide quality service to customers [15]. To survive in a dynamic environment that changes frequently due to factors such as economic and political reasons, owners and/or companies need to provide a suitable environment for both their employees and customers [16]. Thus, there is a thriving interest in FM in office buildings to meet the expectations of owners, employees, and customers [17]. In an ideal FM for office buildings, sustainability principles should be considered to enhance sustainable development and protect occupants and the natural environment [18]. In this context, it is crucial to implement SFM in office buildings [5]. By implementing SFM in office buildings, organizations can become more compliant with their environmental, social, and governance goals, which helps ensure a positive image for customers, occupants, and organizations [4]. In addition, using SFM in office buildings provides a significant advantage in protecting employees’ health [5]. Moreover, office buildings consume significantly more energy than other building types. Offices and wholesale facilities consume more than 60% of the electricity in the EU [19]. Similarly, a study by Juan et al. [20] pinpointed that office buildings account for a significant portion of total energy consumption in other countries, such as the US, the UK, and Japan. Given the information provided, it is necessary to develop novel solutions to successfully and effectively implement and monitor SFM practices in office buildings. Otherwise, sustainable development goals can hardly be achieved.
Poor FM leads to inadequate facilities, cost inefficiencies, and facilities not being utilized according to their needs [21]. One of the reasons for poor management in FM is that facility managers lack information about management performance [22]. Performance measurement is vital for monitoring current and past situations, successfully executing processes, and developing future strategies [23]. A wide range of studies in the literature have addressed the issue of performance measurement in traditional FM [21,22,24,25,26]. Although the significance of SFM has been emphasized for office buildings [4,5], there is no existing performance measurement framework study for SFM in office buildings in the literature. Furthermore, the existing literature does not provide a performance management framework for SFM in other building types. In other words, the question of which factors should be used for performance measurements for SFM in office buildings remains unanswered. Lastly, a study by Alfalah and Zayed [8] revealed that existing SFM domain studies often overlook user perspectives, thereby neglecting the social pillar of sustainability. The lack of this theoretical basis inhibits the effective deployment of SFM practices, since it is vague how the SFM practices can actually be deployed and monitored in an office building. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study provides a performance measurement framework to measure the effectiveness of SFM in office buildings, understand the current conditions of the facility from the perspective of SFM, and achieve the desired sustainable development goals. Accordingly, the following research questions are examined in this research:
RQ1: What are the performance measurement factors that can be utilized to measure the performance of SFM practices in office buildings?
RQ2: What are the performance measurement factors that existing studies in the literature have not yet identified?
RQ3: How can more advanced techniques for factor evaluation be adopted, such as the BBWM method?
Accordingly, the proposed framework includes factors to consider in performance measurement for SFM in office buildings. This study also examines how these factors can be utilized during SFM in office buildings. In this perspective, the researchers identified the performance measurement factors for SFM in office buildings through a comprehensive literature review. A series of focus group discussion (FGD) sessions were conducted with experts with different backgrounds in FM and sustainability to improve and revise the identified factors and propose new factors. This section is valuable for bridging the practical knowledge from experts with the theoretical knowledge provided by researchers. Finally, the Bayesian best worst method (BBWM) was implemented to determine the weights of the factors.
This study has substantial theoretical and practical contributions. Firstly, this study is one of the first attempts to examine the performance measurement factors for SFM in office buildings. In addition, the SFM performance measurement framework for other buildings has not yet been explored. Moreover, this study utilizes the BBWM, a robust pairwise comparison method, as a guideline for further studies that can be applied to other types of buildings. Furthermore, this study makes significant contributions to engineering practice. The study provides a comprehensive overview of factors to consider when facility managers measure performance for SFM processes in office buildings. In this way, the proposed framework provides a clear picture of the level and development of SFM practices for a particular office building, simplifying decisions that may cause complexity during performance measurement. Last but not least, thanks to this study, managers can improve SFM processes and increase occupant, customer, and owner satisfaction.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the research background. The methodology adopted in this study is detailed in Section 3, while the results and discussion of the findings are presented in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 is dedicated to conclusions and recommendations for future research.

2. Theoretical Background and Research Gap Analysis

The integration of sustainability into facility management has been the subject of research in the literature for many organizations and structures. For example, Gunduz et al. (2023) [27] integrated the sustainability factor in campus facility management into facility management factors. Nazeer et al. (2022) [28] mentioned the importance of SFM in health care organizations. In campus facility management, the focus is on student satisfaction and a productive learning environment, while in hospital buildings, the focus is on patient health and the prevention of harm to human health from medical waste. When it comes to office buildings, facility management is important to promote workforce well-being and productivity and to attract talent in a competitive business environment [29]. By integrating sustainability into office facility management, environmental damage can be minimized, while the quality of the interior space, which can positively affect the performance and satisfaction of users, and factors from the employee perspective can be provided.
SFM plays a vital role in managing corporate sustainability activities to achieve the vision and mission by starting with strategic planning and implementing it in governance, implementation, improvement, operation, and maintenance processes [30]. Performance measurement is an integral part of FM organizations due to complex requirements, such as the coordination of FM processes, use of various resources for various purposes, compliance with government regulations, maintenance of facilities, and their essential role in ensuring sustainability [31]. Performance measurement can potentially monitor energy, water, and waste consumption to help implement SFM practices that align with environmental targets [32]. In addition, performance measurement of initiatives in SFM processes can be beneficial to ensure a satisfactory environment for occupants [29]. Providing SFM in office buildings—one of the most critical structures where organizations continue their working life—is crucial for sustainability, social life, economy, and building performance [33]. Therefore, implementing SFM processes in office buildings will be more inclusive in achieving sustainable development goals by going beyond traditional FM processes [4]. A sound performance measurement system for SFM in office buildings could also provide an indispensable ground for successfully fulfilling sustainable development goals.
Therefore, it is crucial to develop a framework for identifying and evaluating performance measurement criteria for SFM in office buildings. To clarify the bridged research gaps addressed by this study, it would be useful to examine the existing body of knowledge in the literature and analyze its shortcomings. This study identified research gaps by focusing on SFM, FM, and performance measurement in FM. In accordance, the literature review was conducted through Scopus by typing the following statement in the “Advance Search” area: “TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainable facilities management”)” and “(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“office building”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“key performance indicator”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“performance measurement”))”. The search results were then limited to journal articles and those related to environmental and engineering subjects. This search initially retrieved 250 research and review articles. The articles were then screened by reading their titles and abstracts. At this step, studies that were not directly related to SFM or FM were eliminated. Next, studies that did not propose performance measurement factors were also eliminated. Nineteen studies passed the initial screening, and these studies were then examined in depth in terms of methods, results, and findings. It was, however, observed that a limited set of performance measurement factors were proposed in these studies. In other words, it seemed quite difficult to determine a clear set of factors solely based on these studies. Therefore, the review was further extended using the snowballing approach. The snowballing approach refers to using the reference list of a paper to identify additional papers. This approach provides substantial benefits when it is complemented with a systematic literature review [34]. Based on the snowballing approach, 4 more research articles were reviewed, resulting in 23 papers. Table 1 shows the results of research gap analysis. It should be noted that the following four research gaps were detected and bridged in this study. Firstly, although the concept of sustainability is highly beneficial to enhancing the effectiveness of FM practices, very limited efforts have been devoted to integrating the sustainability concept into FM processes. Secondly, the vast majority of existing studies do not investigate how to measure the effectiveness/performance of FM or SFM. Thirdly, the existing studies were deemed highly generic, overlooking the inherent needs of specific building types and their decision makers. Last but not least, very few studies utilized more advanced methods, such as MCDM methods.
Consequently, the literature review presented above revealed that there is an evident need to develop a performance measurement framework that enables decision makers to measure and monitor SFM performance in office buildings.

3. Methodology

The research methodology in this study comprises two phases: framework development and refinement and analysis of performance factors for SFM in office buildings. Accordingly, Figure 1 depicts the methodology implemented in this study. In the framework development and refinement phase, an in-depth literature review was conducted to gain knowledge about SFM and office buildings and identify key performance factors. A series of FGD sessions with experts from diverse backgrounds in sustainable FM and office buildings followed the literature review. During the FGD sessions, the factors were thoroughly examined and verified. Experts were also provided with an opportunity to suggest factors that have not been proposed in the existing body of knowledge. Lastly, a novel framework for performance measurement and monitoring was also developed during the sessions. In this manner, the proposed framework was created in a sound collaboration with experts, enhancing its theoretical and practical implications. Next, the BBWM, a novel method for analyzing factors, was implemented. Furthermore, consistency and sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the reliability of the data.

3.1. Framework Development and Refinement

In this phase, the initial version of the framework was developed. During this literature review, considerable knowledge about office buildings and the nature of SFM was acquired to identify SFM performance measurement factors. As this study is one of the first attempts to focus on performance measurement in SFM, the factors were identified by synthesizing this vital knowledge rather than merely compiling literature findings. There are two broad approaches to identifying suitable articles in an in-depth literature review. The first approach is based on identifying articles from the most prestigious journals [52]. The other approach does not include journal-based article identification [53]. Journal-based reviews were not utilized in this study, since the scope of the sources where studies on SFM and office buildings are published is broad. Accordingly, Scopus was used in the literature search due to its accuracy and effectiveness [54,55]. Moreover, a snowballing approach was used to extend the literature review [34]. As a result, 28 performance factors were identified based on the literature review and presented in Table 2.
Following the literature review, FGD sessions were organized to verify the factors extracted from the literature review, identify the factors not found in the literature, and classify the final list of factors based on their similarities. The FGD is a quantitative technique used to gather information on a particular topic [56]. The FGD method differs from other methods, since experts are able to exchange their ideas and experiences. Owing to this engagement, subjects are discussed and debated from various perspectives [57]. Moreover, Nyumba et al. [58] emphasized that the use of the FGD technique has increased in recent years. Although the number of experts participating in FGD sessions is a significant determinant, a precise number of participants has not been suggested in the literature [56,58]. Studies indicate that the number of participants should be between 3 and 21 [58]. Thus, a systematic approach was adopted to select experts who fulfill the requirements of this study. By doing so, data quality was maximized. Figure 2 presents the systematic selection of experts. Accordingly, experts were evaluated based on four criteria, and experts who satisfied the minimum conditions for each criterion were invited to FGD sessions. Experts’ education level was the first criterion. Experts were required to have at least a bachelor’s degree to ensure that they had a sufficient educational background. Next, experts were required to have at least 5 years of experience in the construction industry, including a minimum of 2 years in SFM practices. Owing to these criteria, authors aimed to obtain deep and context-aware insights into both sustainable and conventional FM practices. Having managerial experience was the last criterion. This criterion is vital for the effectiveness of FGD sessions because facility management requires managerial experience in dynamics, constraints, and workflows. Accordingly, FGD sessions were organized with 19 participants, and Table 3 shows their demographics. It is important to note that the sample size of 19 was sufficient in the literature [59,60]. Table 3 also indicates that the majority of experts have significantly more experience than the minimum requirements, maximizing the reliability of the outputs.
In the first FGD session, experts were provided with theoretical knowledge about SFM and office buildings. Through the theoretical knowledge provided by the authors and the practical knowledge provided by the experts, a bridge between theoretical and practical knowledge was constructed. All participants agreed that FM processes in office buildings should be reconstructed using the sustainability concept. They also emphasized that it is vital to identify factors and develop a framework to monitor SFM performance in office buildings. Otherwise, the benefits of the SFM concept can hardly be materialized.
Next, experts evaluated the validity of SFM performance factors in office buildings that were synthesized from the literature. The Likert scale, a widely used questionnaire response scale, was used in the evaluations [61]. The Likert scale intervals were (1) not valid, (2) partially valid, (3) valid, (4) very valid, and (5) the most valid. Accordingly, the average values of the performance factors were calculated, and values with a score of 3 or above were considered appropriate [62]. In line with the responses obtained from experts, all factors synthesized by the literature were found suitable. Afterward, experts were requested to propose factors that were not included in the literature. This step is crucial to ensure that the factors provide maximum theoretical and practical benefits. Accordingly, five additional factors were collected from experts, and their validity was discussed. The validity of the proposed factors was assessed by consensus or majority vote. Consequently, five new performance measurement factors were proposed in the FGD sessions. Given the comprehensiveness of the literature review and saturation in the FM literature, the new factors were deemed a valuable contribution of the FGD sessions to the present study. Finally, experts categorized the final factor list according to factor similarities. Table 2 presents the final list of the factors.
Table 2. SFM performance measurement factors for office buildings.
Table 2. SFM performance measurement factors for office buildings.
Main CriteriaIDSFM Performance Measurement FactorsABCDEFGHIJKLM
Energy, Water, and Waste ManagementEW1Effectiveness of waste management XX X
EW2Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumptionX XX X
EW3Reduction in energy consumption through user behaviorX X XX X
EW4Reduction in water consumption through user behaviorX X X
EW5On-time leak detection X
EW6Efficiency of HVAC systems X X X X
EW7Gray water usage X
Indoor Environmental Quality ManagementIE1Thermal comfort satisfaction X X XX X
IE2Soundproofing satisfaction X
IE3Water insulation satisfaction X
IE4Level of indoor air qualityXX X
IE5Level of indoor water qualityXX X
IE6Effectiveness of lighting optimization X X X
IE7Level of visual comfort satisfaction X
IE8Overall hygiene comfort satisfaction *
IE9Effective use of space XXX XXX
Organizational and ManagerialOM1User satisfaction with workplace catering *
OM2Acquisition of professional consultations to generate innovative solutions for SFM X X X
OM3Effectiveness of security measures X
OM4Effectiveness of H&S measures X
OM5Facility management team’s qualifications regarding the concept of SFM XXX
OM6Training of facility management team for SFM XX
OM7Training of occupants for SFM X
OM8Accreditation with sustainability certificates *
OM9Effectiveness of implementing innovative technologies in SFM XXX
Material and Resource ManagementMR1Percentage of material reused during the maintenanceX X
MR2Energy-efficient material usageX X X
MR3Use of water-efficient equipment *
MR4Use of environmentally friendly products and services during O&MX X X
Location and Transportation ManagementLT1Supporting alternative transportation modes for occupants X
LT2Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions *
LT3Providing recreational areas for occupants X
LT4Easing handicapped accessibility XXX
Note: The “*” sign indicates the new performance measurement factor identified during the FGD sessions presented in Section 3.1. A: [63], B: [21], C: [41], D: [42], E: [64], F: [1], G: [43], H: [44], I: [45], J: [65], K: [46], L: [66], M: [20]. The “X” indicates the source of the corresponding performance measurement factor.
Table 3. Demographics of the participants.
Table 3. Demographics of the participants.
IDPersonal ProfessionProficiencyEducation LevelExperience (Year)
E1Project ManagerCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 25, SFM: 11, M: 20.
E2Assistant SpecialistCivil EngineerB.Sc.CI: 5, SFM: 3, M: 3.
E3Budget and Planning ManagerCivil EngineerPhD.CI: 12, SFM: 7, M: 4.
E4Assistant SpecialistCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 7, SFM: 3, M: 2.
E5Construction ManagerCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 10, SFM: 7, M: 5.
E6ManagerCivil EngineerB.Sc.CI: 10, SFM: 3, M: 5.
E7Technical Office EngineerCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 10, SFM: 4, M: 5.
E8Country DirectorArchitectB.Sc.CI: 17, SFM: 8, M: 11.
E9DirectorCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 30, SFM: 12, M: 20.
E10DirectorCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 14, SFM: 7, M: 4.
E11Budget and Planning ManagerCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 13, SFM: 6, M: 4.
E12Project SpecialistCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 6, SFM: 3, M: 2.
E13ManagerArchitectM.Sc.CI: 24, SFM: 9, M: 15.
E14Technical Office ChiefCivil EngineerB.Sc.CI: 23, SFM: 7, M: 10.
E15Technical Office ManagerCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 20, SFM: 8, M: 10.
E16SpecialistCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 5, SFM: 2, M: 2.
E17Tender SpecialistCivil EngineerM.Sc.CI: 8, SFM: 4, M: 6.
E18Project SpecialistCivil EngineerPhD.CI: 11, SFM: 3, M: 6.
E19Project SpecialistCivil EngineerPhD.CI: 7, SFM: 3, M: 5.
Note: CI: Construction industry, SFM: Sustainability and/or facility management, M: Managerial.
In the second session of the FGD, the SFM performance measurement framework was developed based on expert suggestions. The performance measurement framework indicated how factors could be utilized during sustainable facility management. In other words, the framework was designed to fill the gap between the performance measurement factors and SFM practices in office buildings. Accordingly, experts were asked to determine the frequency of performance measurement. Since preventing an epidemic is always better than finding a cure for it, all experts agreed that performance measurement for the SFM practices should be performed continuously. Continuous performance measurement necessitates that SFM factors be regularly measured, analyzed, reported, and stored inside the organization [67]. Compared to less frequent performance measurements, such as quarterly, semi-annual, and annual, the continuous performance measurement enables decision makers to generate proactive solutions to resolve SFM performance-related issues. However, experts stated that continuous performance measurement cannot be conducted with a wide range of factors due to the time and cost limitations of the organizations. Thus, the most significant factors should be measured, analyzed, reported, and stored continuously. Last but not least, experts emphasized that all factors introduced in this study provide fertile ground for evaluating a wide range of aspects of SFM practices, so that a comprehensive analysis could be conducted less frequently using all factors.
Based on these ideas, some recommendations proposed to develop PMS for BOT projects in this study were adopted to establish an SFM performance measurement framework. It is important to note that experts reviewed and validated Figure 3, which is the final version of the framework.

3.2. Analysis of Performance Factors for SFM in Office Buildings

The relative importance of performance factors for SFM in office buildings is essential for performance measurement, since continuous measurement of all factors is difficult and time-consuming. Various MCDM methods, such as AHP, ANP, VIKOR, and BWM, are used to weigh and rank factors relatively. BWM is a decision-making method based on pairwise comparison developed by Rezaei (2015) [68]. This method is used to find the optimal weights of the criteria and consists of two vectors [68]. While Rezaei (2015) [68] presented a non-linear solution method, a linear solution method was developed by Rezaei (2016) [69]. The BWM method was initially developed for a single decision maker. Based on this phenomenon, Mohammadi and Rezaei [70] developed BBWM to be applied to group decision-making problems. The BBWM is an improved version of BWM for group decision making. This method is also based on a pairwise comparison mechanism, and factor weights are calculated by probabilistically combining expert perceptions [71]. BBWM has advantages over other pairwise comparison methods, such as AHP and ANP. Firstly, the BBWM has fewer pairwise comparisons than the AHP and ANP methods. For instance, the AHP method requires n.(n-1)/2 comparisons for “n” factors [72]. On the other hand, the BBWM requires only 2n-3 comparisons, contributing to more consistent and reliable results [70]. Also, unlike traditional BWM, BBWM minimizes information loss in group decision-making processes [73]. Last but not least, since BBWM uses a probabilistic perspective, it is an effective method for finding factor weights by aggregating the decisions of decision makers [71]. BBWM was used to determine factor weights in this study based on all the aforementioned features and advantages. The implementation steps of BBWM are given as follows [74,75].
  • Data Collection (Step 1–5, same as BWM)
The BBWM method applies the same data collection procedures as the BWM method [68]. To increase the method’s reliability and consistency of the experts, the data collection process was carried out through face-to-face and online interviews. In addition, the expert backgrounds were deeply investigated and presented in Table 3. Based on this, 19 experts were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey. According to various studies in the literature, the number 19 is sufficient [76,77,78,79,80,81].
Step 1. Identification of factors. Identify the evaluation factors (f1, f2, f3, …, fn).
Step 2. Determination of the best  ( f B k )  and worst  ( f W k )  factors by decision maker k. According to the decision maker, the best (most preferred, important) factor and the worst (less preferred, relatively least important) factor are selected.
Step 3. Pairwise comparison of the best factor with all factors. Decision makers evaluate the importance of the best factor over other factors using a scale of 1–9. The comparison result is the best to others vector ( A B k ) .
A B k = a B 1 k , a B 2 k , a B 3 k ,   … ,   a B n k ,   k = 1 ,   2 ,   3 ,   … . ,   K
where a B j k indicates the preference of the best factor ( f B k ) over another factor ( f j ).
Step 4. Pairwise comparison of other factors (F) with the worst factor. Decision makers evaluate the importance of the other factors over the worst factor using a scale of 1–9. As a result of the comparison, the others to the worst vector ( A W k ) is obtained.
Step 5. Measuring the consistency of experts. The analysis was conducted with the Excel program using the consistency measurement method developed by Liang et al. (2020) [70]. All experts involved in the assessment are consistent.
Step 6. Obtain aggregated weights  w * = ( w 1 * , w 2 * , w 3 * , … , w n * )  using a probabilistic model. The weight of each decision maker  w k , k = 1, 2, 3, …, K, is based on the following probabilistic perspective:
A B k | w k   ~   m u l t i n o m i n a l ( 1 / w k ) ,   ∀ k = 1 ,   2 ,   … ,   K  
A W k | w k   ~   m u l t i n o m i n a l ( w k ) ,   ∀ k = 1 ,   2 ,   … ,   K  
w k | w * ~   D i r ( γ × w * )   ,   ∀ k = 1 ,   2 ,   … ,   K  
γ   ~   g a m m a 0.01 ,   0.01   ,
w * ~   D i r ( 1 )
where m u l t i n o m i n a l is the multinominal distribution; D i r is the Dirichlet distribution; and γ   ~   g a m m a 0.01 ,   0.01 is the gamma distribution. Since this model has no closed-form solution, Markov-chain Monte Carlo should be used [75]. Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) and MATLAB R2021b software were utilized in this context. As a result, factor weights were calculated using the steps described in this section. The results are given in Table 4.

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is a technique that reveals the change in output parameters in response to changes in input parameters [82]. In this study, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by changing the hyperparameter γ of the gamma distribution in the BBWM model. This parameter indicates the closeness of the weights of each decision maker around the aggregated weight vector [71]. In this study, sensitivity analysis was performed for gamma (0.001, 0.001), gamma (0.01, 0.01), gamma (0.1, 0.1), gamma (1, 1), gamma (10, 10), and gamma (100, 100).

4. Results and Discussion of Results

4.1. The Proposed Framework

The SFM performance monitoring framework—which was designed and developed in a robust collaboration with the practitioners—is presented in Figure 3. The proposed framework presented in Figure 3 includes performance measurement factors and performance measurement mechanisms to satisfy the sustainability principles. Accordingly, the framework recommends that performance measures should be implemented continuously throughout the year for office buildings. The focus group participants validated this recommendation, jointly stating that continuous performance measurement is necessary to monitor the effectiveness of SFM practices. In the absence of constant performance measurement, proactive solutions for the problems can barely be generated [83,84]. However, they proposed that since some performance measurement factors are more important than others to enhance the applicability of the proposed system, the most crucial factors should be evaluated continuously. The rationale is that performance measurement necessitates significant data collection and analysis processes, as seen in Figure 3. Thus, focusing on all these factors could require substantial financial and non-financial resources.
On the other hand, all factors were identified through a literature review and approved by experts. Since they were developed and validated scientifically, all factors can provide valuable information about the sustainability performance of office buildings. Thus, a comprehensive performance measurement with all factors has the potential to provide crucial information about the effectiveness of SFM practices from a broader perspective. It is important to note that the experts stated that comprehensive performance measurement should be implemented every quarter. Thus, the proposed framework was designed to include four nodes of comprehensive performance measurement.
The other key results of the study—which were derived from a Bayesian BWM—are presented in Table 4. Accordingly, Table 4 introduces the weights and priorities of the SFM performance measurement factors. The results suggested that the experts gave the vast majority of the main criteria a similar priority. Accordingly, the weights of the “Energy, Water, and Waste Management”, “Indoor Environmental Quality Management”, “Organizational and Managerial”, “Material and Resource Management”, and “Location and Transportation Management” were assigned as “0.2786”, “0.1777”, “0.1862”, “0.1932”, and “0.1643”. The nature of the sustainability concept is the main reason behind this result. In essence, the sustainability concept focuses on an organization’s economic, environmental, and social aspects, so that all elements of SFM should be in full accordance with sustainability principles [8]. In other words, in contrast to traditional FM, the performance of the SFM should be assessed holistically [21].
The analysis results revealed that “Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumption (EW2)” obtained the highest score in the “Energy, Water, and Waste Management” main criterion. The result pinpoints the significance of renewable energy adoption when implementing SFM. As previously indicated by Rousselot and Pinto Da Rocha [19] and Juan et al. [20], energy consumption in office buildings typically accounts for a substantial portion of operational environmental impacts. By focusing on increasing the share of on-site or procured renewable energy sources, facility managers can directly maximize the performance of SFM practices. By doing so, diversification of energy sources and decarbonization can also be satisfied. Secondly, renewable energy sources could reduce operational costs, especially in the long term [85]. Thus, decision makers are advised to focus on investing in renewable energy resources to maximize the performance of SFM practices.
“Effectiveness of waste management (EW1)” was deemed the second most critical performance measurement factor in the “Energy, Water, and Waste Management” main criterion. A growing number of landfill sites resulting from population explosion, unsustainable consumption, and production pose an immense threat to health and the environment [86]. Landfill sites have many adverse effects on the surrounding environment and people living nearby. Loss of terrain, heavy traffic load, dust clouds, fumes, emission of methane to the atmosphere, and potential leaching of hazardous materials into the groundwaters are considered among the adverse effects of landfill sites [87,88]. Furthermore, landfill sites have social consequences, since they are primarily located in rural areas, where more disadvantaged or minority groups reside [89,90]. Thus, reducing the waste generated in office buildings becomes key to satisfying sustainable FM. Otherwise, waste streams to landfills could pose devastating impacts on both the environment and society.
In the “Indoor Environmental Quality Management” main criterion, user-related criteria such as “Level of indoor air quality (IE4)” and “Thermal comfort satisfaction (IE1)” were obtained with relatively higher scores. Alfalah and Zayed [8] also elaborated that existing studies have overlooked user satisfaction. Therefore, this study was designed to identify the special needs of users. The results again verified that occupant-centered performance plays a significant role in SFM practices. In other words, unlike traditional FM, SFM should be designed and implemented to encompass human health, well-being, and productivity. The high score for indoor air quality indicates that experts prioritize maintaining a healthy indoor atmosphere, particularly in office buildings where occupants spend extended periods indoors. The significance of indoor air quality becomes even more critical in the post-COVID-19 era [91]. Experts also placed a similar emphasis on thermal comfort satisfaction. Thermal comfort satisfaction also plays a critical role in satisfying sustainability needs, since inadequate thermal conditions can significantly diminish concentration, satisfaction, and productivity. Thus, decision makers should maximize the effectiveness of air quality and thermal comfort for the occupants. Accordingly, the proposed framework recommends continuously monitoring these factors by conducting surveys and interviews with the occupants.
“Effectiveness of H&S measures (OM4)” obtained the highest score in the “Organizational and Managerial” main criterion. This finding also aligns with the principles of the sustainability concept. A sustainable work environment should protect the environment and be economically viable while supporting the social well-being of the occupants and personnel [8]. Also, legal and regulatory obligations force decision makers to pay the utmost attention to H&S measures. Otherwise, fines and judicial processes can jeopardize SFM practices [92,93]. Moreover, facility management operations in the post-COVID-19 era have evolved to encompass infection control measures and hygiene protocols, maximizing the criticality and extensiveness of H&S measures [94].
Next, “Energy-efficient material usage (MR2)” and “Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions (LT2)” were deemed the most significant factors in the “Material and Resource Management” and “Location and Transportation Management” main criteria, necessitating the utmost attention from the decision makers. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the working preferences of office occupants have changed. Shen et al. [38] emphasized that the number of daily office occupants was lower in the post-pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period. Considering all of this, the fact that the “Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions (LT2)” factor ranks first under the main criterion “Location and Transportation Management” is important for occupants after the pandemic.
Additionally, the results of this study were further compared with the results in the existing studies. Accordingly, Table 5 includes a comparison of the top five factors with the results of the other studies. The comparison revealed that the top five factors in this study are not commonly included in other studies. Among those that are included, there are significant differences between this study and other studies. This demonstrates that the study is unique in terms of its factors and ranking and represents a novel performance measurement framework.
Last but not least, some risks may occur unless decision makers pay the utmost attention to the factors in Table 4. For example, not measuring the “Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions (LT2)” factor may cause long-term use of services such as lighting and air conditioning. This can lead to excessive consumption of energy and resources. Moreover, as users are less likely to use offices after the pandemic [38], a lack of attention to this factor may lead to user dissatisfaction. Failure to consider another factor, “Energy-efficient material usage (MR2)”, can lead to excess energy use and an increase in carbon footprint. By paying attention to this factor, decision makers can contribute to the efficient use of natural resources in both the short and long term [96]. In addition, insufficient attention to the “Effectiveness of waste management (EW1)” factor may lead to deterioration of indoor comfort and dissatisfaction of users. Accordingly, decision makers should be aware that new risks may arise if the factors in Table 4 are not addressed in addition to the factors mentioned above.

4.2. Sensitivity Analysis Results

In this study, a sensitivity analysis was performed to observe the change in weight values depending on the gamma values of the proposed model [97]. To perform the sensitivity analysis, gamma was set to gamma (0.001, 0.001), gamma (0.01, 0.01), gamma (0.1, 0.1), gamma (1, 1), gamma (10, 10), and gamma (100, 100), respectively. Table 6 and Figure 4 show the results.
The results show that the weights of the factors changed minimally with variations in the gamma values, and almost all of the rankings remained unchanged. Exceptionally, it was observed that the ranking of the “OM2” and “OM3” factors changed in the following parameters: gamma (1, 1), gamma (10, 10), and gamma (100, 100). When analyzed as a whole, it can be said that the factors are minimally sensitive to the change in gamma values, and the model is robust [98].

5. Conclusions

The present study proposed an SFM performance measurement framework for office buildings. Accordingly, an in-depth literature review was initially conducted to gain profound insight into the SFM and the nature of office buildings. The knowledge acquired in this literature review was utilized to synthesize sustainable performance factors that can be measured, analyzed, and reported to evaluate the sustainability performance of office buildings. A series of FGD sessions followed this step to refine and validate performance factors and develop a novel performance measurement framework. During the sessions, experts were provided with an opportunity to suggest additional factors that have not been proposed in the existing body of knowledge. In this respect, the research provided fertile ground to capture, formalize, and disseminate the practical knowledge of the experts. Next, the BBWM, a novel method for analyzing factors, was implemented. Lastly, consistency and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test and verify the reliability of the data.
The findings suggested that sustainability performance measurement should be conducted continuously. Continuous performance measurement enables real-time monitoring of critical factors. By doing so, facility managers could identify and resolve inefficiencies promptly. This approach could maximize resource optimization and continuous improvements in the SFM practices. However, continuous monitoring of all factors necessitates significant financial and non-financial resources. Thus, the findings indicated that the most crucial factors should be utilized during the constant performance measurement. In this respect, the practical implications of the proposed framework could be maximized. On the other hand, all aspects were identified through a literature review and approved by the experts. Since they were developed and validated scientifically, all factors can provide valuable information regarding the sustainability performance of office buildings. Thus, the findings revealed that comprehensive performance measurement should be conducted quarterly to picture the SFM performance level from a broader perspective. Lastly, the priorities of performance measurement factors are another remarkable result of this study. The Bayesian BWM analysis revealed that facility managers should pay the utmost attention to the following factors: “Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumption (EW2)”, “Effectiveness of waste management (EW1)”, “Level of indoor air quality (IE4)”, “Thermal comfort satisfaction (IE1)”, “Effectiveness of H&S measures (OM4)”, “Energy-efficient material usage (MR2)”, and “Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions (LT2)”.
This study provides significant contributions to the literature, since the existing studies do not focus on the performance of sustainable facility management. In other words, the merits of measuring and monitoring SFM practices for a particular building type are still vague in the existing body of knowledge. In addition, the proposed framework was designed and developed in such a way that it can be implemented in practice. In practice, decision makers can measure the SFM performance of office buildings and test the outcomes of their managerial processes in terms of performance. Following this, based on the results of the performance measurements, managerial processes and strategies can be revised to ensure that SFM principles are satisfied.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has some noteworthy limitations. Firstly, the proposed performance measurement framework was developed mainly based on the opinions of Turkish experts. In this respect, the proposed framework should be perceived as a generic framework that does not consider inherent differences between the regions and/or countries. Although this issue has a limited effect on its practical implications, since it was developed and refined by internationally experienced experts, the decision makers should be aware that minimal modifications could be necessary throughout its actual implementation in different countries and regions. Secondly, bias might exist in every qualitative research [99], and it could be another limitation of this study. The bias, however, was reduced with the help of advanced methods and techniques, such as systematic expert selection [100] and BBWM [71]. Thirdly, the default MATLAB code developed by Mohammadi and Rezaei (2020) [71] was used in the BBWM analysis. According to the MATLAB code, the saved sample is 300,000; the burn-in is 50,000; and the number of chains is 3. These are important indicators to demonstrate weight stability. However, other important indicators, such as R-hat and ESS values, were not calculated by the original methodology presented by Mohammadi and Rezaei (2020) [71]. Thus, in future studies, calculating the R-hat and ESS values in addition to the default MATLAB code may be useful in measuring the stability of the weights.
Although this study focuses on office buildings, similar approaches could be adopted for other building types. Given the fact that SFM practices in each building type vary based on the inherent needs and characteristics of the buildings and the decision makers, minimal modifications to the performance measurement factors and/or their weights might be necessary when it comes to implementing this framework in other building types. Accordingly, for other building types, a similar research methodology could be reiterated with the participation of experts having diverse expertise in the related domain. Thus, the forthcoming efforts could be devoted to other types of buildings, such as hospitals, hotels, and educational facilities, to meet sustainable development goals. Secondly, this study is believed to maximize the accuracy of performance measurement of SFM practices in office buildings. However, automating the proposed framework by developing an expert system could further improve the efficiency of performance measurement by reducing the effort required for data collection and analysis. Accordingly, future studies may focus on developing an expert system that could automate performance measurement of SFM practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.O., A.P.Ö. and Z.I.; Methodology, O.O. and F.S.D.; Formal analysis, F.S.D.; Data curation, A.P.Ö. and F.S.D.; Writing—Original draft, A.P.Ö., F.S.D. and O.O.; Writing—Review and editing, Z.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review was waived for this study, as the study involved voluntary participation from professionals in the field of facility management. It did not include any medical, psychological, or physical interventions, and no sensitive or personally identifiable data were collected. The participants were not drawn from vulnerable populations, and the data collection was limited to expert opinion through structured questionnaires. Based on the scope content and methodology of the study, it was determined that the research does not require further IRB review or approval under the current institutional and national guidelines by the Institution Committee.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge that this paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree at Yildiz Technical University.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Ayşe Pınar Özyılmaz was employed by the company Hayat Kimya Sanayi A.Ş. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, J.; Han, Y. Status Quo and Future Directions of Facility Management: A Bibliometric-Qualitative Analysis. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2019, 23, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Keskin, E.; Yang, E.; Tanrıvermiş, H.; Salami, M.A. Selection Criteria for Facility Management Practices: Residents’ and Building/Site Managers’ Perspectives in Urban Transformation Projects. Facilities 2024, 42, 641–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allied Market Research. Facility Management Market Statistics. 2030. Available online: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/facility-management-market (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  4. Okoro, C.S. Sustainable Facilities Management in the Built Environment: A Mixed-Method Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tucker, M. Sustainable Facilities Management. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Real Estate; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012; pp. 253–265. ISBN 9781317223962. [Google Scholar]
  6. Potkany, M.; Vetrakova, M.; Babiakova, M. Facility Management and Its Importance in the Analysis of Building Life Cycle. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 26, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nazeer, S.F.; Ramachandra, T.; Gunatilake, S.; Senaratne, S. Emerging Sustainable Facilities Management Practices in Health-Care Sector. J. Facil. Manag. 2020, 18, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alfalah, G.; Zayed, T. A Review of Sustainable Facility Management Research. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 55, 102073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kincaid, D. Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  10. Opoku, A.; Lee, J.Y. The Future of Facilities Management: Managing Facilities for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. CIBSE. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers; CIBSE: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kwawu, W.; Elmualim, A. Sustainability in Facilities Management: A Review of Drivers and Policy Issues. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, Bristol, UK, 5–7 September 2011; Volume 2, pp. 1185–1194. [Google Scholar]
  13. Durmus, D.; Carbonari, A.; Giretti, A.; Turk, Ž. Exploring Current Research Gaps and Opportunities in Facility Management for Construction. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2025, 30, 461–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tannor, O.; Attakora-Amaniampong, E.; Derbile, E.K. Drivers of Facility Management Strategies Used in Multi-Tenanted Office Buildings in Ghana. J. Facil. Manag. 2024, 22, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moreira, J.; Lopes, M.P.; Ávila, P. Shopping Centres Maintenance Management Performance: A Case Study. FME Trans. 2015, 43, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mishra, P.; Shukla, B.; Sujatha, R. Human Resource Management for Organisational Change: Theoretical Formulations; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; ISBN 9781000479652. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shin, H.; Lee, H.-S.; Park, M.; Lee, J.G. Facility Management Process of an Office Building. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2018, 24, 04018017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liang, X. The Design and Development of Sustainable Office Building Base on the Upgraded Target in Shanghai. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 236, 04032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rousselot, M.; Pinto Da Rocha, F. Energy Efficiency Trends in Buildings in the EU. 2021. Available online: https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/policy-brief/buildings-energy-efficiency-trends.html (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  20. Juan, Y.K.; Gao, P.; Wang, J. A Hybrid Decision Support System for Sustainable Office Building Renovation and Energy Performance Improvement. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lavy, S.; Garcia, J.A.; Dixit, M.K. Establishment of KPIs for Facility Performance Measurement: Review of Literature. Facilities 2010, 28, 440–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amos, D. A Practical Framework for Performance Measurement of Facilities Management Services in Developing Countries’ Public Hospitals. J. Facil. Manag. 2022, 20, 713–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.D.; Smith, J.; Matthews, J.; Sing, C.-P. Praxis of Performance Measurement in Public-Private Partnerships: Moving beyond the Iron Triangle. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 04016004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amos, D.; Musa, Z.N.; Au-Yong, C.P. Performance Measurement of Facilities Management Services in Ghana’s Public Hospitals. Build. Res. Inf. 2020, 48, 218–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ikuabe, M.; Aigbavboa, C.; Anumba, C.; Oke, A.; Aghimien, L. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Performance Measurement Indicators Determining the Uptake of CPS for Facilities Management. Buildings 2022, 12, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Re Cecconi, F.; Moretti, N.; Dejaco, M.C. Measuring the Performance of Assets: A Review of the Facility Condition Index. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2019, 23, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gunduz, M.; Naji, K.; Maki, O. A Framework for Evaluating Campus Facility Management Performance in Light of Project Critical Success Factors Using a Multidimensional Fuzzy Logic Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 32, 1715–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nazeer, F.S.; Ramachandra, T.; Gunatilake, S. Sustainable Facilities Management Practice and Its Perception in Health Care Organisations: A Delphi Survey. In Proceedings of the World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 24–26 June 2022; pp. 806–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sriboonjit, J.; Singvejsakul, J.; Yamaka, W.; Thongkairat, S.; Sriboonchitta, S.; Liu, J. Priority Needs for Facilities of Office Buildings in Thailand: A Copula-Based Ordinal Regression Model with Machine Learning Approach. Buildings 2024, 14, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Talib, A.A.A.; Ariff, N.R.M.; Hasim, M.S.; Hanafiah, M.H.; Sivam, A. Sustainable Facilities Management (SFM) Initiatives in Malaysia Hotel Industry. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2023, 14, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mawed, M. Revolutionizing Performance Measures and Criteria for the Facilities Management Industry in the UAE. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2024, 14, 644–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Geerdink, D. Performance Measurement in Facility Management; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Price, S.; Pitt, M.; Tucker, M. Implications of a Sustainability Policy for Facilities Management Organisations. Facilities 2011, 29, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wohlin, C. Guidelines for Snowballing in Systematic Literature Studies and a Replication in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, London, UK, 13–14 May 2014; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, X.; Mahdavi, N.; Sethuvenkatraman, S.; West, S. An Environment-Adaptive SAC-Based HVAC Control of Single-Zone Residential and Office Buildings. Data-Centric Eng. 2025, 6, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alhammadi, A.; Opoku, A. Drivers of Sustainability in Facilities Management within the Abu Dhabi Public Sector. Facilities 2025, 43, 347–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hosamo, H.; Mazzetto, S. Data-Driven Ventilation and Energy Optimization in Smart Office Buildings: Insights from a High-Resolution Occupancy and Indoor Climate Dataset. Sustainability 2025, 17, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shen, G.; Gilbert, J.J.; Mehmani, A. Using PeopleHour for Occupant-Centric Office Building Performance Assessment. Build. Environ. 2025, 269, 112366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Osei Assibey Antwi, A.D.; Afful, A.E.; Ayarkwa, J.; Dodoo, A.; Osei-Tutu, S.; Danso, A.K. Sustainable Facilities Management in the Built Environment: A Bibliometric Review. J. Facil. Manag. 2024, 23, 352–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Omer, M.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Fauzi, M.A.; Almutairi, S. Key Competencies for Identifying Construction Activities That Produce Recyclable Materials: A Competency Gap Analysis. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2024, 15, 699–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pelzeter, A. Sustainability in Facility Management. 2. Intended Guideline. 3. Relation to Existing Systems of Sustainability Assessment. 2013. Available online: https://www.pelzeter.de/fileadmin/user_upload/von_apelzeter/Seite-schreiben/pdf-dokumente/sb13munich_Pelzeter_2013.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  42. Nielsen, S.B.; Service, D.T.U.C.; Jäschke, S.; Zhaw, I.F.M.; Alexander, K.; Manchester, C.F.M. Realizing Sustainability in Facilities Management: A Pilot Study at the Technical University of Denmark. In Proceedings of the 11th EuroFM Research Symposium, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24–25 May 2012; pp. 237–249. [Google Scholar]
  43. Elmualim, A.; Valle, R.; Kwawu, W. Discerning Policy and Drivers for Sustainable Facilities Management Practice. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, S.; Sarpin, N. A Framework for People Capability Enhancement to Support Sustainable Facility Management Practices; Green Building Council: Hong Kong, China, 2014; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  45. Li, L.; Yuan, J.; Roper, K.O.; Zhou, Z. A Multi-Stakeholder Delphi Study to Determine Key Space Management Components for Elderly Facilities in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Støre-Valen, M.; Buser, M. Implementing Sustainable Facility Management: Challenges and Barriers Encountered by Scandinavian FM Practitioners. Facilities 2019, 37, 550–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shin, H.; Son, B.; Park, M. A Balanced Performance Measurement Model for Office Building Facility Management. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2023, 14, 293–316. [Google Scholar]
  48. Koleoso, H.A.; Omirin, M.M.; Adewunmi, Y.A. Performance Measurement Scale for Facilities Management Service in Lagos-Nigeria. J. Facil. Manag. 2017, 15, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Karanasios, K. Sustainable Facilities Management: A Sociotechnical System Perspective and a Review of the Literature. J. Facil. Manag. 2025. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muin, Z.A.; Sapri, M.; Sipan, I.; Jalil, R.A.; Razak, S.M.A. Optimisation of the Sustainable Facilities Management for Preserving Mosque Functionality. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2024, 19, 300–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hassanain, M.A.; Al-Marzooq, A.; Alshibani, A.; Zami, M.S. Factors Influencing IoT Adoption for Sustainable Facilities Management in Saudi Arabia: A Stakeholder Assessment. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2024. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gao, N.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y. Addressing Project Complexity: The Role of Contractual Functions. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Costa, F.; Denis Granja, A.; Fregola, A.; Picchi, F.; Portioli Staudacher, A. Understanding Relative Importance of Barriers to Improving the Customer–Supplier Relationship within Construction Supply Chains Using DEMATEL Technique. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04019002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Graham, P.; Nikolova, N.; Sankaran, S. Tension between Leadership Archetypes: Systematic Review to Inform Construction Research and Practice. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 03119002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Der Sarkissian, R.; Diab, Y.; Vuillet, M. The “Build-Back-Better” Concept for Reconstruction of Critical Infrastructure: A Review. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chan, I.Y.S.; Leung, M.; Yu, S.S.W. Managing the Stress of Hong Kong Expatriate Construction Professionals in Mainland China: Focus Group Study Exploring Individual Coping Strategies and Organizational Support. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1150–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dainty, A.R.J.; Cheng, M.I.; Moore, D.R. Redefining Performance Measures for Construction Project Managers: An Empirical Evaluation. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nyumba, T.O.; Wilson, K.; Derrick, C.J.; Mukherjee, N. The Use of Focus Group Discussion Methodology: Insights from Two Decades of Application in Conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ekmekcioğlu, Ö.; Koc, K.; Özger, M. Towards Flood Risk Mapping Based on Multi-Tiered Decision Making in a Densely Urbanized Metropolitan City of Istanbul. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 80, 103759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yildiran, M.P.; Demirdogen, G. Identification of Off-Site Construction Disputes: Technical, Managerial and External Dispute Causes. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2025. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chyung, S.Y.Y.; Roberts, K.; Swanson, I.; Hankinson, A. Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale. Perform. Improv. 2017, 56, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Budayan, C. Evaluation of Delay Causes for BOT Projects Based on Perceptions of Different Stakeholders in Turkey. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04018057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al Waer, H. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Priority Setting in Using the Multi-Attribute Approach for Intelligent Buildings (IBs). Eng. Environ. Sci. 2010, 45, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kreiner, H.; Passer, A.; Wallbaum, H. A New Systemic Approach to Improve the Sustainability Performance of Office Buildings in the Early Design Stage. Energy Build. 2015, 109, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gelowitz, M.D.C.; McArthur, J.J. Comparison of Type III Environmental Product Declarations for Construction Products: Material Sourcing and Harmonization Evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, P.P.; Chan, E.H.W.; Qian, Q.K. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the Sustainability of Building Energy Efficiency Retrofit (BEER) in Hotel Buildings in China. Facilities 2012, 30, 432–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Parmenter, D. Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 9781118925102. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rezaei, J. Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rezaei, J. Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Some Properties and a Linear Model. Omega 2016, 64, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liang, F.; Brunelli, M.; Rezaei, J. Consistency Issues in the Best Worst Method: Measurements and Thresholds. Omega 2020, 96, 102175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mohammadi, M.; Rezaei, J. Bayesian Best-Worst Method: A Probabilistic Group Decision Making Model. Omega 2020, 96, 102075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making—The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2004, 13, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Debnath, B.; Shakur, M.S.; Bari, A.B.M.M.; Karmaker, C.L. A Bayesian Best–Worst Approach for Assessing the Critical Success Factors in Sustainable Lean Manufacturing. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 6, 100157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Saner, H.S.; Yucesan, M.; Gul, M. A Bayesian BWM and VIKOR-Based Model for Assessing Hospital Preparedness in the Face of Disasters; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 111, ISBN 1106902105108. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mohammadi, M.; Rezaei, J. Evaluating and Comparing Ontology Alignment Systems: An MCDM Approach. J. Web Semant. 2020, 64, 100592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Salvador, C.B.; Arzaghi, E.; Yazdi, M.; Jahromi, H.A.F.; Abbassi, R. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Site Selection of Offshore Wind Farms in Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 224, 106196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Demirci, F.S.; Isik, Z. Developing a Community Responsive Resilient Contractor Selection Model for Post-Disaster Reconstruction Projects: A Build Back Better Approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yalcin Kavus, B.; Ayyildiz, E.; Gulum Tas, P.; Taskin, A. A Hybrid Bayesian BWM and Pythagorean Fuzzy WASPAS-Based Decision-Making Framework for Parcel Locker Location Selection Problem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 90006–90023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhang, Z.; Lin, S.; Ye, Y.; Xu, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, H.; Sun, J. A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating the Market-Oriented Business Regulatory Risk of Power Grid Enterprises Based on the Bayesian Best-Worst Method and MARCOS Approach. Energies 2022, 15, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fu, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Liang, B.; Qian, T.; Ma, H. Assessing the Vulnerability of Urban Public Health System Based on a Hybrid Model. Front. Public Health 2025, 13, 1576214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Hosseini Dehshiri, S.S.; Firoozabadi, B. Photovoltaic Plant Site Selection Considering Dust Soiling Effects: A Novel Hybrid Framework Based on Uncertainty and Reliability with Optimum Cleaning Schedule. Appl. Energy 2025, 382, 125252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Prince Raj, L.; Mohamed Abubacker Siddique, P.M.; Charana, G.S. Sensitivity Analysis for Aerospace Engineering Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; ISBN 9781040009222. [Google Scholar]
  83. Regan, M.; Smith, J.; Love, P.E.D. Impact of the Capital Market Collapse on Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 137, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Liu, H.J.; Love, P.E.E.D.; Smith, J.; Sing, M.C.C.P.; Matthews, J. Evaluation of Public–Private Partnerships: A Life-Cycle Performance Prism for Ensuring Value for Money. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Sp. 2018, 36, 1133–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Solar Emperium Is Renewable Energy Cost-Effective? Available online: https://solaremporium.com.au/is-renewable-energy-cost-effective/#:~:text=Renewable%20sources%20typically%20have%20much,%20more%20frequent%20repairs%20and%20upgrades (accessed on 2 May 2025).
  86. EPA. Reuse and Recycling Opportunities and Demolition. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/large-scale-residential-demolition/reuse-and-recycling-opportunities-and-demolition (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  87. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014. 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed on 30 November 2020).
  88. Andrews, W.J.; Masoner, J.R.; Cozzarelli, I.M. Emerging Contaminants at a Closed and an Operating Landfill in Oklahoma. Ground Water Monit. Remediat. 2012, 32, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Forastiere, F.; Badaloni, C.; De Hoogh, K.; Von Kraus, M.K.; Martuzzi, M.; Mitis, F.; Palkovicova, L.; Porta, D.; Preiss, P.; Ranzi, A.; et al. Health Impact Assessment of Waste Management Facilities in Three European Countries. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2011, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Martuzzi, M.; Mitis, F.; Forastiere, F. Inequalities, Inequities, Environmental Justice in Waste Management and Health. Eur. J. Public Health 2010, 20, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. World Green Building. COVID-19 Brings Indoor Air Quality Monitoring Upfront. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/article/covid-19-brings-indoor-air-quality-monitoring-upfront/ (accessed on 2 May 2025).
  92. Ibbs, W. Thinking about Delay, Disruption, and the Cumulative Impact of Multiple Changes. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2013, 5, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sinha, A.K.; Jha, K.N. Impact of Judicial Overreach on PPP Construction Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2019, 11, 05019006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hou, H.; Remøy, H.; Jylhä, T.; Vande Putte, H. A Study on Office Workplace Modification during the COVID-19 Pandemic in The Netherlands. J. Corp. Real Estate 2021, 23, 186–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dasandara, M.; Dissanayake, P.; Fernando, D.J. Key Performance Indicators for Measuring Performance of Facilities Management Services in Hotel Buildings: A Study from Sri Lanka. Facilities 2022, 40, 316–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ding, G.K.C. Sustainable Construction-The Role of Environmental Assessment Tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Depaoli, S.; Winter, S.D.; Visser, M. The Importance of Prior Sensitivity Analysis in Bayesian Statistics: Demonstrations Using an Interactive Shiny App. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 608045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Zyoud, S.H.; Kaufmann, L.G.; Shaheen, H.; Samhan, S.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D. A Framework for Water Loss Management in Developing Countries under Fuzzy Environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 61, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mackieson, P.; Shlonsky, A.; Connolly, M. Increasing Rigor and Reducing Bias in Qualitative Research: A Document Analysis of Parliamentary Debates Using Applied Thematic Analysis. Qual. Soc. Work 2019, 18, 965–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hallowell, M.R.; Gambatese, J.A. Qualitative Research: Application of the Delphi Method to CEM Research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06639 g001
Figure 1. The research methodology adopted.
Figure 1. The research methodology adopted.
Sustainability 17 06639 g001
Sustainability 17 06639 g002
Figure 2. Systematic procedures for expert selection.
Figure 2. Systematic procedures for expert selection.
Sustainability 17 06639 g002
Sustainability 17 06639 g003
Figure 3. The proposed SFM framework.
Figure 3. The proposed SFM framework.
Sustainability 17 06639 g003
Sustainability 17 06639 g004
Figure 4. Ranking of the factors according to the sensitivity analysis.
Figure 4. Ranking of the factors according to the sensitivity analysis.
Sustainability 17 06639 g004
Table 1. Results of the research gap analysis.
Table 1. Results of the research gap analysis.
ReferenceMethodBuilding TypeSummary of the ResearchGaps
[35]Reinforced learningOffice buildingThis study presents a reinforcement learning-based control strategy for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. According to the study, the strategy is characterized as a robust tool for smart office buildings.(b)
[36]Quantitative surveyPublic sector buildingThis study addresses the user perspective for SFM in public sector buildings. According to users, environmental management and location analysis have an impact on SFM.(b, d)
[37]Holistic analysisOffice buildingsThis study explores innovative approaches to reduce energy consumption in office buildings. This study establishes a new benchmark for renewable energy integration.(b)
[38]PeopleHour performance metricOffice buildingThis study introduces a PeopleHour-based performance metric. It also emphasizes that occupant density had decreased in offices after the pandemic.(b)
[39]Bibliometric analysisNot specifiedThis study conducts a bibliometric analysis to identify hot themes and research gaps in SFM in built environment studies. The study emphasizes that facility managers incorporate sustainability policies into their FM processes.(b, c, d)
[40]Questionnaire surveyNot specifiedThis study focuses on construction activities that produce recyclable materials. One of the most important competencies in defining these activities is knowledge of SFM.(b, c, d)
[13]Systematic literature reviewNot specifiedThis study investigates the current state of FM through a comprehensive literature review. It emphasizes that decision support systems for SFM are an important topic for future research.(b, c, d)
[27]Delphi, fuzzy logicUniversity campusThis study develops a performance evaluation framework for campus facility management. The results highlight that financial management, communications management, sustainability and environmental management, and workforce management are the most important indicators.(d)
[21]Qualitative approachNot specifiedThis study aims to define key performance indicators (KPIs) based on the specific characteristics of facility management for a holistic performance assessment.(a, c, d)
[41]Qualitative approachNot specifiedThis study discusses the development of a guidance process for implementing, managing, and measuring sustainability processes in FM.(b, c, d)
[42]Qualitative approachUniversity campusThis study addresses the challenges of integrating sustainability into FM to improve environmental and social performance. The study identifies integration practices through a pilot study.(b, d)
[1]Bibliometric analysisNot specifiedThis study conducts a bibliometric analysis of FM studies in the literature to provide researchers and practitioners with an overview of FM and to identify future trends.(b, c, d)
[43]Questionnaire surveyNot specifiedThis study administers a survey of 268 facility managers to investigate the strategies and driving forces used to improve their sustainability performance management.(b, c, d)
[44]Questionnaire surveyNot specifiedThis paper discusses ongoing research that aims to develop a framework for enhancing people’s professional skills to ensure sustainability in FM processes.(b, c, d)
[45]DelphiResidential buildingThis study aims to identify the key effective space management components due to the lack of effective space management. The study emphasizes that these components would help implement sustainable space management practices. (a, b, d)
[46]Qualitative mixed methodRetrofitted buildingThis study aims to list the challenges and barriers faced in implementing sustainability into FM processes.(b, d)
[8]Systematic literature reviewNot specifiedThis study provides a comprehensive review of SFM studies in the literature, identifying future trends, research gaps, and limitations. In the study, 232 publications are analyzed.(b, c, d)
[47]DelphiOffice buildingThis study develops a performance measurement model for FM in office buildings, considering the expectations of various stakeholders. A total of 30 KPIs are identified in the study.(a, d)
[48]Factor analysisOffice buildingThis study aims to identify the performance criteria for FM in office buildings in Lagos.(a, d)
[49]Systematic literature reviewNot specifiedThis study aims to increase the understanding of the factors influencing SFM practices by comprehensively reviewing the SFM literature and using a socio-technical systems approach.(b, c, d)
[50]Scientometric, content analysisMosqueThis study explores how SFM can be applied in mosque management processes to improve mosque operational efficiency.(b, d)
[51]Mixed methodNot specifiedThis study examines the factors influencing the use of the internet of things (IoT) for SFM through a literature review, pilot testing, and questionnaire survey.(b, c, d)
[31]FGDNot specifiedThis study aims to develop a performance measurement system for FM.(a, c, d)
This studyFGD, Bayesian best worst methodOffice buildingThis study aims to identify SFM performance measurement factors in office buildings and develop a performance measurement framework accordingly. In this context, the key factors that managers should adopt are identified based on a literature review and FGD sessions. The weights are then determined using the Bayesian best worst method.-
Note: a: The study does not consider the integration of sustainability in FM processes; b: The study does not provide performance measurement criteria for FM or SFM; c: The study does not focus on a specific building type; d: The study does not utilize more advanced methods, such as MCDM methods.
Table 4. Priorities of SFM performance measurement factors.
Table 4. Priorities of SFM performance measurement factors.
Main CriteriaMain Factor WeightIDSFM Performance Measurement FactorsSub-Factor Local WeightLocal RankingGlobal WeightGlobal Ranking
Energy, Water, and Waste Management0.2786EW1Effectiveness of waste management0.182120.05074
EW2Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumption0.214810.05982
EW3Reduction in energy consumption through user behavior0.128540.035810
EW4Reduction in water consumption through user behavior0.116150.032312
EW5On-time leak detection0.101860.028414
EW6Efficiency of HVAC systems 0.16330.04546
EW7Gray water usage0.093770.026116
Indoor Environmental Quality Management0.1777IE1Thermal comfort satisfaction0.145420.025817
IE2Soundproofing satisfaction0.097360.017330
IE3Water insulation satisfaction0.133230.023719
IE4Level of indoor air quality0.15410.027415
IE5Level of indoor water quality0.094670.016831
IE6Effectiveness of lighting optimization0.115450.020525
IE7Level of visual comfort satisfaction0.062690.011133
IE8Overall hygiene comfort satisfaction *0.126740.022521
IE9Effective use of space0.070980.012632
Organizational and Managerial0.1862OM1User satisfaction with workplace catering0.104360.019426
OM2Acquisition of professional consultations to generate innovative solutions for SFM0.098680.018428
OM3Effectiveness of security measures0.118440.022023
OM4Effectiveness of H&S measures0.127410.023718
OM5Facility management team’s qualifications regarding the concept of SFM0.125920.023420
OM6Training of facility management team for SFM0.120130.022422
OM7Training of occupants for SFM0.111450.020724
OM8Accreditation with sustainability certificates * 0.09490.017529
OM9Effectiveness of implementing innovative technologies in SFM0.099770.018627
Material and Resource Management0.1932MR1Percentage of material reused during the maintenance0.171940.033211
MR2Energy-efficient material usage0.383710.07411
MR3Use of water-efficient equipment *0.254920.04925
MR4Use of environmentally friendly products and services during O&M0.189630.03668
Location and Transportation Management0.1643LT1Supporting alternative transportation modes for occupants0.262920.04327
LT2Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions *0.33810.05553
LT3Providing recreational areas for occupants0.181340.029813
LT4Easing handicapped accessibility0.217930.03589
Note: The “*” sign indicates the new performance measurement factor identified during the FGD sessions presented in Section 3.1.
Table 5. Comparison of the top five factors in this study with other studies.
Table 5. Comparison of the top five factors in this study with other studies.
IDTop Five SFM Performance Measurement FactorsGlobal Ranking (This Study)Global Ranking
[47]		Global Ranking
[27]		Global Ranking
[95]
MR2Energy-efficient material usage127-31
EW2Percentage of energy generated from renewable energy resources to total energy consumption2-38-
LT2Promoting hybrid or remote work conditions *3---
EW1Effectiveness of waste management4-21-
MR3Use of water-efficient equipment *5-14-
Note: The “*” sign indicates the new performance measurement factor identified during the FGD sessions presented in Section 3.1.
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis results.
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis results.
Factor IDGamma (0.001, 0.001)Gamma (0.01, 0.01)Gamma (0.1, 0.1)Gamma (1, 1)Gamma (10, 10)Gamma (100, 100)
EW (Main Factor)0.27890.27860.27730.27160.24910.2232
IE (Main Factor)0.17760.17770.17840.18030.1870.1939
OM (Main Factor)0.18630.18620.18640.18740.19130.1959
MR (Main Factor)0.1930.19320.19310.19390.19590.1986
LT (Main Factor)0.16430.16430.16490.16690.17670.1885
EW10.18240.18210.18050.17650.1650.1522
EW20.21580.21480.21310.20620.18470.1595
EW30.12840.12850.12870.13010.13460.1399
EW40.11590.11610.11720.11960.12740.1364
EW50.10120.10180.10280.10660.11830.1324
EW60.16320.1630.16240.16130.15660.1494
EW70.09320.09370.09530.09970.11340.1302
IE10.14540.14540.1450.14240.13250.1194
IE20.09690.09730.0980.09980.10460.109
IE30.13350.13320.13250.12980.12380.1162
IE40.15420.1540.15280.1490.13630.1203
IE50.09470.09460.09510.09660.10150.1076
IE60.11540.11540.11520.11480.11390.1125
IE70.06220.06260.06370.06780.08110.0984
IE80.12690.12670.12580.12410.11970.115
IE90.07070.07090.0720.07570.08670.1016
OM10.10430.10430.10430.10510.10760.11
OM20.09870.09860.09890.10060.10460.1089
OM30.1180.11840.11820.11780.11570.1129
OM40.12740.12740.12710.12530.12060.1143
OM50.1260.12590.12590.12510.12070.1149
OM60.12010.12010.11990.11860.1160.1131
OM70.11130.11140.11150.11140.11110.1111
OM80.09430.0940.09440.09550.10030.1068
OM90.09990.09970.09980.10050.10340.1081
MR10.17210.17190.17380.18110.20260.2237
MR20.38450.38370.37850.36250.32420.2885
MR30.25450.25490.25440.25350.25180.2518
MR40.1890.18960.19340.20280.22130.236
LT10.26280.26290.26260.26110.25840.2551
LT20.33870.3380.33720.32980.3060.2809
LT30.18090.18130.18250.18840.20660.2254
LT40.21750.21790.21770.22070.22890.2385
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Özyılmaz, A.P.; Demirci, F.S.; Okudan, O.; Işık, Z. Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146639

AMA Style

Özyılmaz AP, Demirci FS, Okudan O, Işık Z. Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Özyılmaz, Ayşe Pınar, Fehmi Samet Demirci, Ozan Okudan, and Zeynep Işık. 2025. "Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146639

APA Style

Özyılmaz, A. P., Demirci, F. S., Okudan, O., & Işık, Z. (2025). Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method. Sustainability, 17(14), 6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146639

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop