Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Cover of the book

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

A Simplified Toolbox for the Operability Assessment of the Built Environment in Middle School Buildings

Author : Giancarlo Paganin

Published in: Renewing Middle School Facilities

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The paper aims to propose a simplified set of tools to support the “ex ante” operability review of the built environment within the framework of new educational projects for the middle schools. The starting hypothesis is that the educational projects should be developed in close connection with a forecast of the characteristics and performances that will be required for the built environment in order to optimally achieve the educational objectives. In order to identify a set of possible tools to be adopted for the above-mentioned process, the paper develops an analysis of the available models that are used in different areas such as, for instance, quality planning and value analysis. Two methods are investigated in detail in the paper and described as possible tools for the operability review: the QFD model (quality function deployment) and the FBS technique (function breakdown structures). A proposal is put forward in the paper in order to define key concepts and parameters to be used for adopting the QFD and FBS techniques within the scope of middle school educational projects. The proposed tools are also tested in a case study developed within a middle school based in Milano with the aim of assessing the usability of the proposed tools by the teachers engaged in the set up of the new educational projects and educational proposal of the school.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
Akao, Y., King, B., & Mazur, G. H. (1990). Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into product design (Vol. 21). Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Atta, N., Paganin, G., & Talamo, C. (2016). Maintenance planning and breakdown structure techniques. In Proposal of a “building breakdown structure” Methodology. Euro Maintenance 2016 Conference Proceedings (pp. 101–108), Athens.
Baidak, N., De Coster, I., & Godenir, A. (2004). Evaluation of schools providing compulsory education in Europe. Eurydice. Available from: EU Bookshop.
Baidya, R., Dey, P. K., Ghosh, S. K., & Petridis, K. (2018). Strategic maintenance technique selection using combined quality function deployment, the analytic hierarchy process and the benefit of doubt approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94, 31–44.
Bologna Process Committee (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education convened in Bologna on 19 June 1999. (The Bologna Declaration).
Cariaga, I., El-Diraby, T., & Osman, H. (2007). Integrating value analysis and quality function deployment for evaluating design alternatives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), 761–770.
Chan, L., & Wu, M. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(2002), 463–497.CrossRef
Dale, B. G., & McQuater, R. (1998). Managing business improvement & quality: Implementing key tools and techniques. Oxford: Blackwell Business.
DeHoff, B., Levack D. J. H., & Rhodes R. E. (2009). The functional breakdown structure (FBS) and its relationship to life cycle cost. NASA Kennedy Space Center.
Dell’Isola, A. (1982). Value engineering in the construction industry (3rd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold Company Inc.
Eldin, N., Asce, M., & Hikle, V. (2003). Pilot study of quality function deployment in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(3), 314–329.
EN 1325-1:1996. Value management, value analysis, functional analysis vocabulary part 1. Value analysis and functional analysis.
ENQA report on Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2005, Helsinki.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Flynn, E. J. (1999). World class manufacturing: An investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright’s foundation. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1999), 249–269.CrossRef
Geijsel, F. P., Krüger, M. L., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Data feedback for school improvement: The role of researchers and school leaders. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 59–75.CrossRef
Hashim, A. M., & Dawal, S. Z. M. (2012). Kano model and QFD integration approach for ergonomic design improvement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57(2012), 22–32.CrossRef
ISO 21511:2018. Work breakdown structures for project and programme management.
Koç, E. (2015, March). Evaluation of the students’ expectations for an educational institution using quality function deployment method. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, III(3).
Mazur, G. H. (1996). The application of quality function deployment (QFD) to design a course in total quality management (TQM) at the University of Michigan College of Engineering. In Proceedings of International Conference on Quality-1996 Yokohama, JUSE (pp. 1–7).
McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 173–179.CrossRef
Moghimia, V., Mohd Jusana, M. B., Izadpanahib, P., & Mahdinejadc, J. (2017). Incorporating user values into housing design through indirect user participation using MEC-QFD model. Journal of Building Engineering, 9(2017), 76–83.CrossRef
Morris P., Pinto J. K. (2010). The wiley guide to project organization and project management competencies, Wiley.
Norton, B. R., & McElligott, W. C. (1995). Value management in construction: A practical guide. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.CrossRef
Prasad, B. (1998). Review of QFD and related deployment techniques. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 17(3), 1998.CrossRef
Prisacariu, A. (2015). New perspectives of quality assurance in European higher education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180(2015), 119–126.CrossRef
Raharjo, H., Xie, M., & Brombacher, A. C. (2011). A systematic methodology to deal with the dynamics of customer needs in quality function deployment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2011), 3653–3662.CrossRef
Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & Karunes, S. (2006, March). An integrated framework for quality in education: Application of quality function deployment, interpretive structural modelling and path analysis. Total Quality Management, 17(2), 265–285.
Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2008). Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of Operations Management, 26(2008), 536–554.CrossRef
Shen, Q., & Liu, G. (2003). Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), 485–491.CrossRef
Sivasamy, K., Arumugam, C., Devadasan, S. R., Murugesh, R., & Thilak, V. M. M. (2016). Advanced models of quality function deployment: A literature review. Qual Quant, 50, 1399–1414.
Standards Australia. (2007). Value Management Standard AS4183-2007.
Tan, K. C., & Shen, X. X. (2000). Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Journal of Total Quality Management, 11(8).
Tarì, J. J., & Sabater, V. (2004). Quality tools and techniques: Are they necessary for quality management? International Journal of Production Economics, 92(2004), 267–280.CrossRef
Thiry, M. (1997). Value management practice. Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute.
Van der Bij, T., Geijsel, F. P., & ten Dam, G. T. M. (2016). Improving the quality of education through self-evaluation in Dutch secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49(2016), 42–50.
Metadata
Title
A Simplified Toolbox for the Operability Assessment of the Built Environment in Middle School Buildings
Author
Giancarlo Paganin
Copyright Year
2020
Book
Renewing Middle School Facilities

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19628-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-19629-5

Copyright Year: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19629-5_9