IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i14p6639-d1706118.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ayşe Pınar Özyılmaz

    (Hayat Kimya Sanayi A.Ş., Istanbul 34662, Turkey)

  • Fehmi Samet Demirci

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpaşa Caddesi, Istanbul 34220, Turkey)

  • Ozan Okudan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpaşa Caddesi, Istanbul 34220, Turkey)

  • Zeynep Işık

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Davutpaşa Caddesi, Istanbul 34220, Turkey)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayşe Pınar Özyılmaz & Fehmi Samet Demirci & Ozan Okudan & Zeynep Işık, 2025. "Developing Performance Measurement Framework for Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) in Office Buildings Using Bayesian Best Worst Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-26, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6639-:d:1706118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6639/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6639/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Opoku & Jeoung Yul Lee, 2022. "The Future of Facilities Management: Managing Facilities for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-5, February.
    2. Halit Serdar Saner & Melih Yucesan & Muhammet Gul, 2022. "A Bayesian BWM and VIKOR-based model for assessing hospital preparedness in the face of disasters," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(2), pages 1603-1635, March.
    3. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Zhuola Zhang & Shiyuan Lin & Yingjin Ye & Zhao Xu & Yihang Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Jingqi Sun, 2022. "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, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Andrew Dainty & Mei-I Cheng & David Moore, 2003. "Redefining performance measures for construction project managers: an empirical evaluation," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 209-218.
    7. Cynthia (Huiying) Hou & Hilde Remøy & Tuuli Jylhä & Herman Vande Putte, 2021. "An Investigation on Office-Based Workplace Modification During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands," Springer Books, in: Xinhai Lu & Zuo Zhang & Weisheng Lu & Yi Peng (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, pages 845-855, Springer.
    8. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Shahabaddin & Firoozabadi, Bahar, 2025. "Photovoltaic plant site selection considering dust soiling effects: A novel hybrid framework based on uncertainty and reliability with optimum cleaning schedule," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 382(C).
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Lingzhi Li & Jingfeng Yuan & Kathy O. Roper & Zhipeng Zhou, 2017. "A Multi-Stakeholder Delphi Study to Determine Key Space Management Components for Elderly Facilities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. Göçmen Polat, Elifcan & Yücesan, Melih & Gül, Muhammet, 2023. "A comparative framework for criticality assessment of strategic raw materials in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. Karadag, Mehmet & Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih & Ortiz-Barrios, Miguel & Ishizaka, Alessio & Khan, Jehangir, 2025. "Evaluation of Green Deal compliance performance with a hybrid comparative multi-attribute decision model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Eleni Aretoulaki & Athanasios Rentizelas & Kostas Florios & Efthymios Simos, 2026. "A Comprehensive Framework for Circular Economy, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Indicators in Manufacturing," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1-36, April.
    7. Jettarat Janmontree & Aditya Shinde & Hartmut Zadek & Sebastian Trojahn & Kasin Ransikarbum, 2025. "A Strategic Hydrogen Supplier Assessment Using a Hybrid MCDA Framework with a Game Theory-Driven Criteria Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-27, July.
    8. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. Yang, Hua & Xu, Yong & Zhou, Kan & Li, Jiuyi, 2024. "Mapping development potential and priority zones for utility-scale photovoltaic on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(PA).
    11. Changzheng Gao & Xiuna Wang & Dongwei Li & Chao Han & Weiyang You & Yihang Zhao, 2023. "A Novel Hybrid Power-Grid Investment Optimization Model with Collaborative Consideration of Risk and Benefit," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    13. Lin, Xueshan & Huang, Tao & Bompard, Ettore & Wang, Beibei & Zheng, Yaxian, 2023. "Ex-ante market power evaluation and mitigation in day-ahead electricity market considering market maturity levels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    14. Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Patrik Juhász & Sergii V. Kadenko & Vitaliy Tsyganok, 2023. "Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices based on graphs with average degree approximately 3," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 783-807, July.
    15. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    16. Jian Wang & Jin-Chun Huang & Shan-Lin Huang & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Ting Zhu, 2021. "Improvement Path for Resource-Constrained Cities Identified Using an Environmental Co-Governance Assessment Framework Based on BWM-mV Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-30, May.
    17. Mohammad Zahirul Khaiyum & Sudipa Sarker & Golam Kabir, 2023. "Evaluation of Carbon Emission Factors in the Cement Industry: An Emerging Economy Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-15, October.
    18. Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    19. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    20. Mangu, Sriram & Kadali, B. Raghuram & Subbarao, Saladi S.V. & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2025. "Evaluation of transit-oriented development based on 9D’s approach in developing countries context," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 138-151.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6639-:d:1706118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.