School Property Management

7/27/2019 School Property Management

1/12

[17]

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS WITHIN MALAYSIANPUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mohd Nurfadzli Mat Nah1, Shardy Abdullah

2, Arman Abdul Razak

3and Mohd Hanizun Hanafi

4

1234School of Housing Building and Planning

Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, [email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]

ABSTRACT:

In the efforts to effectively establish and sustain the property management practice in Malaysia, especially

within public schools, the need to study current problems in implementing property management in these

educational facilities is definitely pertinent. By identifying these implementation problems, a better seriesof solutions may be devised in the attempt to mitigate or prevent these problems from reoccurring in public

school property management practices. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to identify

implementation problems in managing property management within public schools in Malaysia. Towards

this aim, this research was undertaken via a survey using distributed questionnaires. The respondents

involved in this study were those representing public schools (selected based on a random sampling

method) around the state of Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal

component analysis, Cronbachs alpha as well as mean analysis were carried out on the gathered data to

identify the implementation problems of managing property in public schools. The results indicate that

most of the respondents agreed that all 19 implementation problem statements under 3 main problem

groups as addressed in the survey form are significant in order to efficiently and effectively improve

property management, especially for the public schools in Malaysia. These identified main problems are

knowledge and understanding, attitude as well as manpower.

Keywords: Property asset management, problems, public schools, Malaysia

1. INTRODUCTIONProperty such as land and buildings are important

resources in the implementation of activities

(Zaiton et. al, 2008; Zailan and Maziah, 2002;

Maziah, 2001 and Balch, 1994) and are also the

second highest contributor to the operational

expenses of an organization after human resource

(Rezana and Lind, 2006). Establishing property

assets is a must for any organization, whether

private or public, especially in order to ensure that

the activities of the organization can be

implemented to achieve the targeted objectives.Buildings that are provided to be used for public

schools for example, are to ensure that the agenda

and objectives of a nations education policy can

be fully achieved. In Malaysia, the federal

government has spent large sums in producing

various facilities including education facilities

particularly to improve the living standard of the

local communities. In fact, according to the

Malaysian Government (2009), property assets

are a significant instrument in providing public

services, either directly or indirectly.

In the efforts to sustain the implementation of

property management in Malaysia, the need to

study the problems that hinder the execution

should be considered as of paramount importance.

Among the problems previously identified

include lack of information (Zailan, 2001), human

resource (Gibler and Black, 2004) and unclear

objectives (Shahir, 2007). The aim of this study,

therefore, is to identify the problems inimplementing property management within public

schools in Malaysia. The paper starts with a

literature review, focusing on public property

management experiences in other countries as

well as from other research. This is followed by a

section detailing the methodology selected for the

study. A discussion of the findings is then

presented before finally, the paper provides

conclusions derived from the research.

7/27/2019 School Property Management

2/12

[18]

2. REVIEW OF PROPERTYMANAGEMENT

In general, property management can be defined

as a control or monitoring activity over property

interests while considering the owners

ascertained objectives (Scarret, 1983). Apart from

the controlling activity which was also stated and

supported by Sejas (2010), there are also other

activities that have been considered to explain the

true definition of property management. These

activities are decision making (Kaganova et al.,

2006; Micheal, 2007), application and utilization

(Kaganova et al., 2006), procurement (Kaganovaet al., 2006; Sejas, 2010), maintenance and

upgrading (Sejas, 2010), investment (Becker,

2011), as well as disposal activities (Kaganova et

al., 2006; Sejas, 2010).

These various activities within property

management are seen to be a correct

representation of the true aim and need for

property management to be practiced. This is

inline with what previous studies have indicated,

where it was noted that the practice of property

management was developed to suit numerous

main purposes. According to Arnold and John

(1989), the main purpose of property managementis to increase the value of the property. This same

statement is strengthened by the statement posed

by Scarrett (1983) who states that property

management is a management process to

maximize income and capital assets. From the

views presented by both parties, it is found that

there is a need for vital property management

practices to be implemented to ensure that the

value of a property can be upgraded to meet

particular targets that have been determined by

the investors or owners of the property asset

involved. This is compatible with the views

submitted by Epley and Rabianski (1981), whostate that the implementation of management

practices involving property professional

activities help property owners achieve the

respective objectives of investment. Meanwhile,

Ching (1994) has pointed out that for best

performance, property management practices

should be applied in managing properties for an

organization. In this context, the best performance

is meant by covering various aspects that involve

achievement in the form of financial or economicgains, social benefits, user satisfaction,

optimization and other functions. For public

schools, the buildings erected by the government

is not intended to fulfil the purposes of

investment or financial gains, but more towards

the efforts to meet the needs of social welfare.

This is because school buildings are used only for

the purpose of education itself. These kinds of

buildings which serve a certain specific purpose

are often referred to as operational buildings.

According to Abd. Rahman (2004), the

implementation of property management practiceshave been associated with a control management

system that is efficient and not only seeks to

ensure returns from a property but also ensures

maximum protection to the structures of the

property from quickly becoming obsolete. In fact,

Abd. Rahman (2004) also stressed that the

implementation of property management practices

can avoid waste through good management and

maintenance. Based on the views submitted, the

importance of public school management

practices can be referred to the need to establish a

management system that is efficient and effective

for the school buildings, particularly through the

organization and implementation of a systematicmaintenance that is planned and regulated.

Furthermore, from the point of maintenance as

well, the existence of these management practices

will ensure that any maintenance activities are

implemented through proper and safe ways. In

addition to this, according to Zailan (2001), when

real estate management is implemented efficiently

and effectively, it can reduce operating costs,

eliminate excess real estate assets and defer any

other related problems from occurring. According

to Lyons (2004), property management which is

operated efficiently and effectively will increase

the level of service delivery as well as savings.Meanwhile, real estate asset management also can

save money. From this, the importance of

property management practices for public schools

can also be associated with the need to ensure that

school buildings must be managed well so that

the functions to provide education services can

fully succeed without the occurrence of any form

of waste during the use of resources such as

financial, human, equipment and others.

7/27/2019 School Property Management

3/12

[19]

Next, the interests of property management

practices for public schools can also be referred to

the need to establish a method of management for

school buildings that is of quality. According to

Mabel (2002), quality management is essential

and indispensable. Management of quality is

intended to improve security, convenience and

expertise in managing a property asset. In

achieving the specified purposes, the public will

be able to experience a good learning

environment within the schools as well as other

benefits and facilities to the various parties

involved, especially the teachers and students. Ontop of that, these scenarios will also increase

public confidence in the quality of the provision

of education services by the government through

the establishment of these public schools.

Property management will bring a positive impact

in terms of service delivery as Summerell (2005)

discovered that by applying property asset

management processes, local government

agencies were seen to improve the effectiveness

and efficiency of their service delivery. The

University of Leeds (2006) reports that property

management can enhance accountability,

management services, management of safety andeffectiveness in financial management aspects. In

addition, management can also increase the level

of communication and relationship between the

top management and the users as it can improve

the implementation of existing processes and

subsequently negating the demand for new

processes to be introduced. According to Young

(2007), the importance of property management is

to improve operations, financial management,

responsibilities and encourage savings.

Meanwhile, according to Rennison (2007),

management is a method to solve almost any

problem. The benefits of property managementwere also raised by Cox (2008), where according

to him; management will allow users to become

more comfortable within their buildings and save

money in the long term.

Besides these, the importance of property

management practices of public school properties

can also be derived from the various experiences

or opinions given by the governments of

developed countries. The British Government(2002), for example, has stated that property asset

management is intended to meet the needs of

public services and to protect them. The

Australian Government (2003), meanwhile, also

lists a number of benefits that can be obtained

with the establishment of property asset

management practices. Benefits to be gained are a

better coordination of the provision of services,

division of tasks that is more fair and efficient,

improvement in employee satisfaction, increasing

the level of communication, increased

productivity and efficiency, and an increased

level of savings. Referring to these experiences, itis clear proof that the implementation of property

asset management practices is indeed important

for both public and private organizations in order

to utilize their property assets to fulfill their

operational requirements. As such, the same

applies to public schools, where the practice of

property asset management is important and

should be implemented because educational

institutions involve buildings that need to be

managed and maintained properly in order to

achieve each objective or goal that has been

defined in the purpose of helping to meet the

national education objectives as targeted by the

government. Thus, this can help realize theexpectations of society to acquire and receive

learning opportunities that take place in an

environment that is comfortable and adequate.

The importance of property management to public

schools can also be based on other considerations.

The Malaysian Treasury (2009) states that

property assets should be managed efficiently and

effectively because it is an important aspect of

financial management. Meanwhile according to

Yahya (2007), the government is responsible for

ensuring that buildings and public infrastructure

that were built remain in good condition. Based

on all these, it can be concluded that theimplementation of property asset management

can offer many positive effects to organizations

including public school institutions if it is

undertaken efficiently and effectively.

3. PROBLEMS IN PROPERTY ASSETMANAGEMENT

Although there is more public awareness about

the substantial positive effects of property asset

7/27/2019 School Property Management

4/12

[20]

management, the effectiveness and efficiency ofits implementation is still very much

questionable, especially in Malaysia. As

discovered through the literature review,

numerous problems had conspicuously occurred

at the implementation stage particularly in public

schools. In Malaysia, the management of

government property assets such as buildings and

land management is considered as fairly low and

under-performed (Syamilah, 2005) compared to

more developed countries like Australia,

Scotland, United States of America and others.

Furthermore, according to Syamilah (2005), the

management aspects, specifically for publicschool buildings, were virtually unattended to and

almost ignored completely. Reports from the

media have also highlighted numerous instances

of poor maintenance management in government

owned buildings which have led to collapsed

ceilings, vacant and idle buildings, incidences of

fire in school buildings as well as other similar

cases. From those reports, it can be explicitly seen

that there are barriers and difficulties faced by

government agencies in effectively implementing

property asset management practices. In view of

these various problems, the Government of

Malaysia organized the National Facility and

Asset Management conference on 13 and 14August 2007 as a positive step towards rectifying

this poor management of government buildings.

This conference as well as the subsequent

infamous collapse of an under construction state

owned stadium in the east coast in June 2009 and

other fire incidences in public schools have,

directly or indirectly, ignited the desire to adopt

and integrate effective property asset management

practices into the way all government owned

buildings are managed, operated and maintained.

According to Gibler and Black (2004), one of the

problems that cause failure in the effectiveimplementation of property asset management is

the presence of incompetent staff within specific

knowledge areas or work units, which was also

found to be true in Malaysia by Mohd et al.

(2009) and particularly in public school

administration as noted by Syamilah (2005). This

problem has triggered other consequential

problems, such as the failure to employ staff who

have special expertise within the property asset

management field at public schools (Mohd et al.,2009). This issue is similar to the notion put forth

by Syamilah (2005) who emphasises that the

responsibility to manage property assets in public

schools, especially buildings and other facilities,

should definitely be carried out by personnel with

relevant and related academic qualifications.

Shahril (2004) states that another problem faced

in managing property assets at the public school

level are insufficient financial resources. This

financial problem becomes a critical disadvantage

in the efforts to manage property assets efficiently

as Abdul Hamid (2002) concludes that financialresources act as a key facet in determining the

success or failure for organisations in their

respective operations. Martindale (1999) shared a

similar point of view and added that lack of

financial resources creates unwanted tension

within organisations as they strive to develop

better maintenance management via this scarce

resource. This problem may be attributed to the

absence of accessible relevant and vital

information, which is further aggravated by the

fact that information or data storage and capture

related to government property assets in Malaysia

is not regulated under one special department or

body (Zailan, 2001).Another problem which contributes to the

inefficient and ineffective implementation of

property asset management in schools as well as

other academic institutions is the lack or absence

of communication. Mohd et al. (2009) recognised

that communication breakdown exists in Malaysia

due to the very structure of public governance as

there are numerous departments and ministries

that are involved in the day to day operations as

well as the decision making process. This

presence of a fragmented governance structure

has been seen to lead to an apparent

communication gap among these agencies andbodies. Shahir (2007) asserted that this multitude

of departments and ministries had caused the

decision making process to become complicated

and tedious. This scenario will consequently

underpin the attempt to establish the right party to

be responsible whenever a problem occurs (Cox,

2008). Moreover, EPA (2001) mentioned that the

problem of communication even takes place at the

lower level management hierarchy of public

7/27/2019 School Property Management

5/12

[21]

schools, especially between the teachers and thepersonnel in charge of property management and

maintenance.

Rahmad and Mohd Subhi (2001) identified

another additional cause of implementation

failure which concerns the application of

information and communications technology

(ICT) that has not been employed widely in

public schools. This opinion is supported by

Carolyn (2003) who found that most

organisations are unable to optimise or fully

utilise the benefits of communication technology.

Similarly, Noor Khairunisa (2009) concurred withthis finding and further stressed that the present

system still utilizes manual approaches, for

example storage of information through manual

filing methods. There is a clear need to engage

and employ ICT in managing information as

accessibility and traceability of data is vital in

implementing a comprehensive and successful

property management practice.

Apart from these problems, there are several other

problems that can be linked with the

shortcomings of property asset implementation in

public schools. For instance, Li (1997) who

conducted a study on property management in

China, discovered two core problems, i.e., workculture and quality of staff as well as a lack of

mutual understanding between property owners

and clients/end users. Gibson (1994) had also

previously stated that there are four focal

problems in property asset management which are

reactive management, landlord and tenant

objective disputes, poor standard in controlling

the property asset and inadequate related

information.

Sayce and Connellan (1998) discovered that a key

problem is the fact most government agencies do

not undertake or adopt strategic managementpractices. In addition to this, in a research by

Schaaf and Puy (2000) which focused on

portfolio management in government property

assets, they had highlighted that a host of

problems are due to ambiguous management

objectives. Most government agencies are seen to

undertake property asset management simply to

be perceived as doing something beneficial,

especially in terms of transparency (Dow et al.,

2006), but most decisions made are complicatedand vague, thus further leading to a deterioration

in overall governance and management. Shahir

(2007) discovered that most management

objectives, particularly relating to government

property assets in Malaysia, are significantly

unclear. Kaganova (2008), on the other hand,

observed that the main factors that contribute

towards the failure of property asset management

in developed countries are the ambiguous

practices and a lack of integrity, predominantly in

financial dealings and transactions.

Therefore, through the discussion and detailed

explanation about problems in property assetmanagement as gleaned from the literature

review, it can be concluded that there are a few

acute problems that should be looked into and

solved in order to improve the level of

effectiveness in property asset management

especially for public schools.

4. METHODOLOGYThe main objective of this research is to identify

the problems in implementing property

management in Malaysian public schools. This

research was undertaken through the use of a

questionnaire survey form. In order to ensure that

this research tool meets the targeted researchrequirements, a pilot test was conducted as

prescribed by Thabane et al. (2010). There are 2

main sections to the developed questionnaire, the

first being respondent background while the

second part relates to the problems in

implementing property management, specifically

within public schools. This survey form utilized

the likert scale answer range format, where, 1

denotes strongly disagree while 5 refers to

strongly agree. This research was carried out in

Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

The respondent population that was identified as

being relevant to this study were 395 respondentsrepresenting the entire number of public schools

within the state of Pulau Pinang (Pulau Pinang

State Education Department, 2011). As the

respondent population is significantly large and

might hamper the data collection process, this

research employed a simple random sampling

method to facilitate easier data collection.

According to Sekaran (1992), this method is

suitable to be used when the population has

7/27/2019 School Property Management

6/12

[22]

similarities. The selection of sample size is basedon Yamane (1967, as cited in Israel, 1992). It is

explained further with the following equation:

n = N / [1 + N (e 2)]

Where;

n = the sample size

N= the population size

e = the level of precision

With an assumption of 95% confidence level and

5% precision level, the number of population of

public schools (395) was then used as a basis for

the calculation and the sample size obtained was

199 respondents from public schools. However,as much as 230 questionnaires were distributed in

order to counter the possibility of an insufficient

return of the survey forms. In some cases, data

collection was conducted using face-to-face

sessions with selected public schools. As this

study is quantitative in nature, the gathered data

was then analyzed using statistical tests such as

the Cronbachs alpha analysis, factor analysis and

descriptive frequency analysis before discussions

and conclusions on the derived findings were

expounded.

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS

5.1 Profile of Respondents

From a total of 230 survey forms distributed, only

213 forms were returned duly completed and

could be utilized in this research. From this total,151 forms represented primary schools and 62

forms were received from secondary schools.

Table 1 below lists the detailed background of the

respondents that participated in this research.

From Table 1, it can be seen that the majority of

the respondents consist of headmasters and

principals with 86 recorded frequencies while the

second highest respondent group was represented

by senior assistants with 72 frequencies. Other

identified personnel who were also involved in

this research include task designated teachers

(41), administrative assistants (12) and other staff(2). The majority of the respondents had a

Bachelors degree level of education with 97

frequencies, whereas 88 respondents possessed

had a diploma level of education. 26 respondents

were with secondary school certificate

qualification while there was 1 respondent each

with post graduate/PhD and professional

qualifications respectively. Most of the

respondents had been involved in property

management for more than 5 years with 134

frequencies. There were 39 respondents who had

been involved in property management for 1 to 3

years, 21 respondents with 3 to 5 years

experience and 19 respondents with below 1 yearexperience.

Table 1: Respondent profile

Respondent profile Frequencies Rank

Respondent positions

Headmasters/principals 86 1

Senior assistants 72 2

Task designated teachers 41 3

Administrative assistants 12 4

Others 2 5

Types of organization

Primary schools 151 1

Secondary schools 62 2

Highest level of education

Bachelors Degree 97 1

Diploma 88 2

Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) 26 3

Postgraduate degree/PhD. 1 4

Professional Qualification 1 4

Participation/Involvement in property management

7/27/2019 School Property Management

7/12

[23]

>5 years 134 11 - 3 years 39 2

3 - 5 years 21 3

7/27/2019 School Property Management

8/12

[24]

Table 3: Results of factor analysis on problems in implementing property asset management

Implementation problemsFactor Loading

Commonality1 2 3

Problem 1: Knowledge and understanding

No training in applying new technology 0.806 0.835

Insufficient knowledge in property management 0.762 0.743

Building information not updated 0.756 0.718

Incompetent to apply new technologies 0.743 0.763Difficulty in accessing information 0.736 0.730

Skilled manpower shortage 0.734 0.668

Difficulty in determining the correct/specific

authoritative party

0.694 0.714

Overlapping responsibilities 0.690 0.649

Employee has no specific knowledge in

property management

0.624 0.618

Poor management culture 0.520 0.585

Problem 2: Attitude

Building not optimally used 0.728 0.742

Inadequate space for information storage 0.665 0.521

Employees do not want to change 0.663 0.829

New technology is considered too expensive to

be acquired

0.642 0.763

Complacent with present technologies 0.607 0.714

Problem 3: Manpower

Working because they have to 0.865 0.813

Lack of employees 0.588 0.582

Lack of transparency and accountability 0.584 0.636

Communication barrier between top

management and subordinates

0.510 0.659

Eigenvalues 10.999 1.275 1.007

Variance (%) 57.891 6.710 5.299

7. No training in applying new technology 3.67 Agree 78. Lack of transparency and accountability 3.58 Agree 8

9. Incompetent to apply new technologies 3.55 Agree 9

10. Complacent with present technologies 3.53 Agree 10

11. Difficulty in determining the correct/specific authoritative

party

3.45 Agree 11

12. Difficulty in accessing information 3.40 Agree 12

13. Lack of employees 3.38 Agree 13

14. Poor management culture 3.37 Agree 14

15. Working because they have to 3.22 Agree 15

16. Employees do not want to change 3.21 Agree 16

17. Inadequate space for information storage 3.12 Agree 17

18. Communication barrier between top management and

subordinates

2.92 Disagree 18

19. Building not optimally used 2.87 Disagree 19

Average 3.49 Agree

7/27/2019 School Property Management

9/12

[25]

Cumulative variance (%) 57.891 64.602 69.901Alpha Cronbach 0.945 0.861 0.831

6. DISCUSSIONFrom the analyses, it is discovered that there are

three main factors that cause the existence of

problem in implementing property management

in public schools. The following are the

description of the said factors:

i. Knowledge and understanding factor,ii. Attitude factor, and

iii. Manpower factorKnowledge and understanding factorThe research findings have identified the factor

relating to knowledge and understanding as one

of the main problems that cause an ineffective

implementation of property management at the

public schools. This is demonstrated by the fact

that the mean score recorded by all the listed

statements under this factor to be more than 3.00,

which is the minimum value to determine whether

the furnished problems in the questionnaire do

occur at the schools or otherwise. Moreover, these

problems were also identified as being critical

property management implementation issues

based on previous research. For instance,

problems pertaining to a lack of competent

manpower and the difficulty in determining the

correct/specific authoritative party were verified

by Shahir (2007) while the problem of poor

management culture had been identified

previously by Teo and Liu (2007) as well as Fey

and Denison (2003).

Attitude factor

The second factor that hinders the successful

implementation of public school property

management is the attitude factor. This factor

involves five problems and four of these problems

registered a mean value exceeding 3.00, with onlyone remaining problem statement achieving less

than this threshold level. From both the mean and

factor analyses conducted, it can be concluded

that the four problem statements listed under this

factor do take place at the public schools, with the

exception for the problem relating to 'building not

optimally used'. In previous research, these

problems had also been identified before where

Teo and Liu (2007) discovered the existence of

the problem of employees not wanting to change

where as the problems pertaining to the high cost

of acquiring new technology and the problem of

complacency with existing technology were

identified and verified by Sullivan et al. (2002)

and Scarrett (1983) respectively.

Manpower factor

The final factor discovered to cause property

management implementation problems in public

schools is the manpower factor. Through the

undertaken factor analysis, four problems werecategorized within this factor, namely working

because they have to, lack of employees, lack

of transparency and accountability, and

communication barrier between top management

and subordinates. All but one problem

(communication barrier between top management

and subordinates) scored a mean value exceeding

the minimum value of 3.00. This clearly indicates

that almost all of the problems within this factor

are present at the public school level. This finding

is made all the more significant when previous

studies and literature were referred to, where

problems concerning the manpower factor have

been extensively identified as being present in the

efforts to implement an effective property

management practice. Among the previous

studies which highlight this factor are those

undertaken by Kaganova (2008); Cox (2008);

Shahir (2007); Mohd et al. (2009); and Gibler and

Black (2004).

Hence, by comparing the outcome of this research

with previous findings of other researchers, it can

be firmly stressed that these factors should be

significantly considered in order to enhance the

standard of competency as well as effectiveness

of property management in public schools. Atsame time, there were also two problems that did

not extensively occur or were never experienced

in the public schools involved in this research.

These were building not optimally used under

the attitude factor, and 'communication barrier

between top management and subordinates in the

manpower factor.

7. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

7/27/2019 School Property Management

10/12

[26]

In conclusion, this paper describes the results ofthe survey conducted with 213 respondents who

are involved in managing public school property

assets in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. The main

objective of this survey was to identify the

implementation problems in managing the

property asset in public schools. The findings of

the study show that all the problem statements

that were addressed in the questionnaire were

concurred by most of the respondents. From these

19 problem statements, the study also identified

three factors via factor analysis that cause

problems in implementing public school property

management. The derived results havesuccessfully achieved and met the objective of

this study, particularly in identifying problems of

implementing property asset management in

public schools. This study can be utilized as a

basis for further research into this field so that

improvements and suitable enhancements can be

made within the property asset management

practice especially in public schools. At the same

time, this paper can be also used by other

developing countries with similar management

structures and governance in exploring or

implementing property asset management

practices in a more efficient and effective manner.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to express their thanks to

Universiti Sains Malaysia as this research was

made possible through the sponsorship under the

Universiti Sains Malaysia Postgraduate Research

Grant Scheme, account no.:

1001/PPBGN/834026, entitled Government

Property Asset Management in Public School

Buildings.

REFERENCES

Abd. Rahman, M.N. (2004), Pengurusan Harta

Tanah Komersil dan Awam, Leeds Publication,

Petaling Jaya.

Abdul Hamid Mar Iman (2002). An Introduction

to Property Markerting. Johor: Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia.

Arnold L. R. and John R. T. (1989). "The

Acquisition and Disposition of Real Estate by

Corporate Executives: A Survey" Journal of Real

Estate Research, American Real Estate Society,

vol. 4(3), pages 67-80.

Australian Government (2003). Property

Management. Australian National Audit Office.

Audit Report No.19 200304. Business

Support Process Audit. Australia.

Balch, W.F. (1994), The integrated approach to

property and facilities management, Facilities,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 17-22.

Becker, A. (2011). What Is Investment Property?.

Enzinearticles. New Zealand.

http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Is-Investment-

Property?&id=5795209, 17 May 2011, 9.26 P.M.British Government, (2002). Government Service

Delivery Risk Management Accounting

Reporting Guidelines.Capital Asset Management

Framework. British Government.

Carolyn, A.L. (2003). An Interactive

Communication Technology Adoption Model,

Communication Theory, Vol. 13, Iss. 4, pp 345434.

Ching, C.-H. (1994), Property management in

English local authorities: a corporate approach to

the management of operational property,

unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool,

Liverpool.

Cox, H. (2008). The Importance of Property

Management. Enzinearticles. New

Zealand.http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Hele

Cox,23 November 2009, 11.45 A.M.

Dow, P., Gillies, I., Nichols, G. dan Polen, S.

(2006). New Zealand: State Real Property Asset

Management, Kaganova, O. & McKellar, J. (eds)

Managing Government Property Assets:

International Experiences, The Urban

Institute Press, Washington DC, pp. 77-102.

7/27/2019 School Property Management

11/12

[27]

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2001).Chicopee Public Schools. March 2001. United

States of America. EPA-F-00-010D.

Epley, D.R. and Rabianski, J. (1981), Principle of

Real Estate Decisions, Addison-Wesley, Reading,

MA.

Fey, C.F., and Denison, D.R. (2003).

Organizational culture and effectiveness: can

American theory be applied in Russia?

Organization Science, pages 686-706.

Gibler, K. M., & Black, R. T. (2004). Agencyrisks in outsourcing corporate real estate

functions.Journal of Real Estate Research, 26(2),

137-160.

Gibson, V. (1994). Strategic Property

Management How Can Local Authorities

Develop a Property Strategy?. Property

Management. 12(3): pp. 9-14.

Israel, G. D. (1992). Sampling the Evidence of

Extension Program Impact. Program Evaluation

and Organizational Development, IFAS,

University of Florida. PEOD-5. October.

Kaganova, O. (2008), Integrating public property

in the ralm of fiscal transparency and anti-

corruption efforts, in Peteri, G. (Ed.), Finding the

Money: Public Accountability and Service

Efficiency through Fiscal Tranparency, Open

Society Institute, Budapest, pp. 256.

Kaganova, O., McKaller, J. and Peterson, G.

(2006). Managing Government Property Assets,

The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.

Li, L.H. (1997). Property Management In China :

Opportunities And Problem. PropertyManagement. Vol. 15, No. 1, m/s 6-11.

Lyons, M. (2004). Towards Better Management

of Public Sector Assets: A Report to the

Chancellor of the Exchequer. Crown. Norwich.

Dec 2004.

Mabel, C. C. C. (2002). Quality Property

Management and Your Daily Life, First Regional

Conference on Private Building Management.Hong Kong 2002.

Malaysian Government (2009). Dasar pengurusan

aset kerajaan. Malaysia.

Malaysian Treasury (2009).

www.treasury.gov.my, 7 July 2009, 5.21 P.M.

Martindale, N. (1999). Local Authority Non-

Operational PropertyServiceable or Surplus? in

Local Authority Property Management

Initiatives, strategies,re-organisation and reform.

Aldershot: Asgate. pp. 207-247.Maziah, I. (2001). FM practice in Malaysia:

Where are We Heading? Facilities Management

Seminar. Kuala Lumpur. 7 April 2001.

Mohd N.M.N., Shardy, A., Arman A. R.. (2009),

Problems in the Managing of Government

Property Asset in Malaysia, in Seminar ke-8

Annual Conference and Meeting of the

Management in Construction Researchers

Association (MiCRA).Universiti Sains Malaysia.

9-10 June 2009, pp. 190-197.

Noor Kharunisa, O. (2009). Heuristic Design for

E-Government Portal, University TeknologiMalaysia: Master Thesis.

Pallant, J. (2005), A step by step guide to data

analysis using SPSS for windows (Version 12),

SPSS survival manual. 2nd ed. Australia: Allen &

Unwin.

Pulau Pinang State Education Department (2011).

http://www.jpnpenang.edu.my/, 6 July 2011, 5.05

P.M.

Rahmad, S.A.S and Mohd Subhi, M. (2001).

Teknologi Maklumat Dan Komunlkasi DalamPengurusan Sekolah. Faculty of Education.

University Malaya. Kuala Lumpur.

Rennison. B. W. (2007). Historical discourses of

public management in Denmark: Past emergence

and present challenge. Management &

Organizational History. Sage Publications. Vol

2(1): 526.

7/27/2019 School Property Management

12/12

[28]

Rezana, M. and Lind, H. (2006). Real EstateManagement in Swedish Public Sector - Focused

Healthcare Real Estate in Stockholm County

Council,Master of Science Thesis. Royal Institute

of Technology Department of Real Estate and

Construction Management Division of Building

and Real Estate Economics. Sweden

.

Sayce, S. dan Connellan, O. (1998). Implications

of Valuation Methods for the Management of

Property Assets. Journal of Property

ManagementVol. 16, No. 4, pp. 198-207

Scarrett, D. (1983). Pengurusan Harta, DewanBahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, Translation

Ismail Omar (1993).

Schaaf, P.V.D. and Puy, L.D. (2000). CRE

Portfolio Management: Improving the Process,

Journal of Corporate Real Estate. Vol.3 No.2.

Sejas, M. (2010). A Successful Construction

Project Management Training. Enzine articles.

New Zealand.

Sekaran, U. (1992). Research Methods for

Business a Skill Building Approach. 2nd ed. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shahril, B.A. (2004). Pengurusan

penyelenggaraan bangunan kajian kolej

Rahman Putra Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

University Teknologi Malaysia: Bachelors

Thesis.

Shahrir, A.S. (2007). Critical Issues In Managing

Government's Assets & Facilities In Malaysia.

National Asset and Facility Management.

Malaysia.

Sullivan, G.P. Pugh, R., and Melendez, A.P.

(2002). Operations and Maintenance Best

Practices

A Guide to Achieving OperationalEfficiency: Pacific Northwest National Lab.,

Richland, WA (US)

Summerell, R. (2005), Implications of real-

property asset management, The CPA Journal,

Vol. 75 No. 10.

Syamilah, Y. (2005). Maintenance Management

System Through Strategic Planning For Public

School In Malaysia. University TeknologiMalaysia: Master thesis.

Teo, T.S.H., and Liu, J. (2007). Consumer trust in

e-commerce in the United States, Singapore and

China. Omege, 35(1), pages 22-38.

Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila,

A., Rios, L.P., et al. (2010). A tutorial on pilot

studies: the what, why and how. BMC Medical

Research Methodology, 10 (1), 1.

University of Leeds. (2006). Improving Property

Asset Management in the Central CivilGovernment Estate. Version 08. April 2006.

Yahya, A.J. (2007). Budaya Selenggara Aset.

Utusan Malaysia Online-Rencana.htm, 13 August

2007 obtained from

http://www.kkr.gov.my/ms/node/3518, 21

November 2009, 4.13 P.M.

Young, G.T. (2007). Federal Real Property Asset

Management. Corporate Partner Advisory Group

Research. AGA CPAG Research Series. America,

March 2007. No.8.

Zailan Mohd Isa (2001). The Management ofPublic Property in Malaysia. International

Conference FIG Working Week 2001. 6-11 May

2001. Seoul, South Korea.

Zailan, M.I. and Maziah, I. (2002), A review on

performance measurement approaches in property

management, paper presented at the International

Real Estate Research Symposium (IRERS) 2002,

Kuala Lumpur.

Zaiton, A., Stanley, M., Alastair, A. and James R.

W. (2008). Corporate Real Estate Strategy: A

Conceptual Overview. Journal of Real EstateLiterature, 16(1):3-22.