Profesionalización del servidor público

Building maintenance can be defined as “work undertaken in order to keep, restore, or

improve every part of a building, its services, and surrounds, to a currently accepted standard and to sustain the utility and value of the building” (Seeley 1997, p.2)

British Standard BS3811:84 defines maintenance as “the combination of all technical and

associated administrative actions intended to retain an item in, or restore it to, a state in which it can perform its required function”

58

According to Wordsworth (2001) the definition of what constitutes building maintenance may seem at first sight self-evident, though on investigation, it can be seen that there are several areas requiring closer attention; for example, the boundaries between maintenance and improvement, or the question of whether maintenance applies to an object or to a function.

According to Thomas (2008), the Chartered Institute of Housing defines social housing maintenance as ‘a combination of any actions carried out to retain a property in, or restore it

to, an acceptable economic and habitable condition’. The actions referred to in the above

definition are associated with initiation, organisation and implementation. There are two processes envisaged: ‘retaining’, that is to say, works carried out in anticipation of failure, and ‘restoring’, that is to say, work carried out after failure. The former is usually referred to as ‘preventive maintenance’ and the latter as ‘corrective maintenance’ (Horner et al. 1997; Milne 1985; Wordsworth 2001). There is also the concept of an ‘acceptable decent

standard’ (DETR 2000). This may be construed as acceptable to the landlord paying for the

work, to the person receiving the benefit (tenant/resident) or to some outside body with responsibility for enforcing minimum standards. It can also be construed more widely as acceptability to the public at large or to specific sections of the public. Clearly, there are no absolute maintenance standards which are equally acceptable to every social resident, or which would remain acceptable to the same group of tenants over a period of time (Shabha 2003).

“

Wordsworth (2001) suggests that the standards accepted at the time of undertaking the work may vary depending upon the initial design standards. In many cases the standard deemed acceptable is higher than that originally provided and the work would include an element of improvement. Wordsworth further argues that this interpretation is inconsistent with the phrase ‘to retain or restore’, in that this would suggest the initial standard as the proper basis. However, buildings are often subjected to modifications over their life span to meet the ever changing user requirements and hence it becomes almost unrealistic to imagine in terms of

keeping or restoring the initial standards.

In recognising the desirability of including a reasonable element of improvement, the CIOB (1990, p.7) offers the following definition: ‘Work undertaken in order to keep, restore or

59

standard, determined by the balance between need and available resources’. This concept

introduces an ‘agreed standard’ which, from the general tenor of the definition, is assumed to be higher than the initial standard. In reality, however, there may be instances where building usage is lower and conversely lower standards may be acceptable. Within the definition there is reference also made to ‘the balance between need and available resources’, which is an important factor to take into account when fixing an acceptable standard. The effects on both the value in use and the value on sale or letting should be considered. There are difficulties in relating the value on sale to the standard of maintenance, in that the market value of property is determined by many factors other than a physical condition (Allan 1993; Wordsworth 2001; CIH 2002).

The resources component is extremely important and suggests that a sum of money is allocated for maintenance purposes that cannot be exceeded, even though to achieve an acceptable standard would involve greater expenditure. Hence the standard is determined by the allocated funds rather than as a result of assessing the benefits obtained from maintaining the building to a particular state. A more functional definition has been proposed by Allan (1993, p.7), ‘maintenance is synonymous with controlling the condition of a building so that

its pattern lies within specified regions’. The word ‘control’ suggests a positive activity

which is planned so as to achieve a defined end result (Aris 2006). The term ‘specified

regions’ seems to have a similar meaning to ‘an agreed standard’ and would be determined

in a similar way. An interesting aspect of this definition is that it envisages a range of acceptability, with upper and lower limits between which the condition of the building must be maintained. Furthermore, the ranges of standards are defined as much by the use of the building as its physical state. The concept of a well-maintained building as an entity in its own right is then meaningless: a building is only well-maintained in terms of its current use and occupation (Allan 1993). If this changes over time, or through a change in ownership, the parameters of the acceptable level of maintenance will change in tandem.

However, there may be instances where a building is too well-maintained and remains in a better physical state than required. It could be construed as a waste if, following excessive expenditure, the buildings are under utilised. With this in mind many organisations, adopting a planned maintenance strategy, are beginning to suspect that their buildings are “over-

maintained” to the detriment of funds for the core business activity. The key issue relates to

60

expectations, use patterns and resources of the controlling organisation (Chanter & Swallow 2007, p.19; HATC 2010). Maintenance should be regarded as a service provision directed towards the user rather than the attainment of a particular physical state of being in the building. Thus representing a balance rather than an absolute ideal (Wordsworth 2001).

ODPM (2003) states that the ‘function’ of a local authority dwelling (the ‘building’) is to help ensure that all sections of society have ‘the opportunity of a decent home’ and to assist in delivering improvements in quality across all types of housing. This is a commitment set down by the Government in Quality and Choice: A decent home for all – The way forward for housing (DETR 2000). The role of social housing maintenance and management is to support this function and therefore it’s important to appreciate the International Standards for Organisation standards (ISO) definition and its clear implication for the drawing of a distinction between building maintenance and management. The definition of maintenance can be wide and invariably cover all directly related management tasks.

According to ODPM (2003) there are many tasks that exist:

• As a precursor to any necessary technical activity (e.g. stock condition surveys, routine inspections, and dealing with tenants’ requests for repairs);

• As a consequence of a necessary technical activity (e.g. inspecting completed works, authorising payment, and obtaining tenants’ feedback on works that are carried out to their homes);

• To support the implementation of any necessary technical activity (e.g. keeping and updating building records or preparing the technical aspects of tenants’ handbooks).

From the various definitions, the main objectives of building maintenance are (as summarised by Alner & Fellows, 1990, p.92) to:

• Ensure that buildings and their associated services are in a safe condition;

• Ensure that buildings are fit for use;

• Ensure that the condition of the building meets all statutory requirements;

• The value of the building stock is maintained, and

• Maintain or improve the quality of the building.

In general terms all the above definitions refer to technical and operational aspects of the maintenance function. This research, however, is associated with developing housing maintenance strategy and the places emphasis on RSL adopting a holistic approach when developing maintenance policy.

61 3.4 Legal Responsibility

The owner or the occupier may be liable for any accident resulting from neglecting the safe keeping of the structure and or fittings. Generally, the legal duty of care is regulated by the following:

• Health and Safety at Work Act - a component should be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair;

• Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 – minimum standards / provisions required to be met by all employers regarding their employees and the working environment;

• Occupiers Liability Act 1984;

• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;

• The Environmental Protection Act 1985;

• The Housing Act 1985.

Achieving the stated objectives of the maintenance management process involves an interrelation between both the strategic phase and the operation phases. These will now be discussed. It is, however, worth mentioning at this stage that there is a dearth of literature on the operational aspects of maintenance management, whilst little has been researched on the strategic aspects of maintenance management.