Innovative VS. traditional: A framework to assess the sustainable trade-off of maintenance strategies
Open accessAbstract
The European Union has the objective to make Europe the first zero-impact continent by 2050. The Green Deal has been issued specifically to encourage sustainable targets in the Architecture-Engineering-Construction-Operation (AECO) industry. Meanwhile, only 25% of the existing European building stock complies with the latest sustainability regulations. The environmental impact of real estate over the whole buildings' life cycle highly depends on the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) phase. Sustainable performance can be highly improved thanks to appropriate facility management (FM). Thus, it is urgent to introduce more effective sustainable practices by FM organizations, which may be possible with innovative maintenance, namely through the aid of digital technologies such as PropTech (property-technology) solutions. However, punctual assessments of the degree to which PropTech increases the sustainability performance of O&M are still missing. The present study aims to overcome this gap by outlining a framework of sustainability performance indicators for maintenance activities. This will allow future assessment of the impact of traditional maintenance practices compared to innovative ones, therefore boosting the adoption of supportive technology. After defining the meaning of traditional and innovative building maintenance, the authors analysed the existing literature to collect a number of indicators suitable to assess the sustainable performance of maintenance activities. These indicators have been systematized based on the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) assessment approach. A framework of 37 indicators was created, divided into five categories: environmental, social, economic, governance, and technical. A preliminary test for applicability of this conceptual framework to the activities included in the O&M phase was undertaken through discussion with an FM professional. The paper concludes by commenting on the future possible applications of this framework to evaluate the degree to which PropTech increases the sustainability of O&M, and, therefore, proves convenient to be adopted by FM companies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An intelligent Building Management System integrated with IoT and AI led to an approximately 15% reduction in energy consumption across 14 commercial buildings after one year of operation.
“Pom è et al. [35] demonstrated that an intelligent Building Management System (BMS) integrated with the Internet of Things (IoT) and AI led to an approximately 15% reduction in energy consumption across 14 commercial buildings after one year of operation, while also enabling predictive maintenance, which is not feasible without AI and continuous data collection.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
Section 2 (PropTech in the AECO industry) reports that an intelligent BMS connected to an IoT network and AI/ML platform reduced energy consumption in 14 commercial buildings by 15% after one year. It also says predictive maintenance depends on technology, but credits the energy result to another study, [49], rather than demonstrating it itself; it does not specifically establish that AI and continuous data collection are both necessary. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Feth, M.; Gruneberg, H. PropTech-The Real Estate Industry in Transition 2018. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Proptech-The-Real- Estate-Industry-in-Transition-Feth- Gruneberg/031f93fbe1043e5bd343db3e15ff6c1230b85e5a, accessed 10 May 2023
- G. Mattarocci, X. Scimone (2022). The New Era of Real Estate. An Analysis of Business Models in the Proptech Industry. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-16731- 7_2 accessed 10 May 2023 8.1. Journal articles · DOI
- Chiang, Y.H., Li, J., Zhou, L., Wong, F.K.W., Lam, P.T.I. The nexus among employment opportunities, life- cycle costs, and carbon emissions: a case study of sustainable building maintenance in Hong Kong, J. Clean. Prod., 2015, 109, pp. 326-335
- Larsen, T.. Implementing ESG in Private Real Estate Portfolios: The Case of U.S. and Pan-Europe Core Fund Managers. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 2010, 2(1): p. 249-267.
- Baum, A., Saull, A., Braessemann, F.PropTech 2020: The Future of Real Estate, University of Oxford, Said Business School, 2020.
- Lecomte, P. iSpace: Principles for a phenomenology of space user in smart real estate. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 38(4), 271-290, 2020
- Chanter, B., Swallow, P. Building Maintenance Management, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
- Nur'afini D., Noor N.S., Izni S.I., Nur I.A., Fadzil M.Y., Nik Z.N.A. Review on maintenance issues toward building maintenance management best practices, Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 2021
- Ferreira, C., Silva, A., de Brito, J., Dias, I.S., Flores- Colen I. The impact of imperfect maintenance actions on the degradation of buildings' envelope components, Journal of Building Engineering, 33, 2021
- Swanson, L. Linking maintenance strategies to performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 70, 2001
- Hauashdh, A., Jailani, J., Rahman I.A., AL-fadhali, N. Strategic approaches towards achieving sustainable and effective building maintenance practices in maintenance- managed buildings: A combination of expert interviews and a literature review. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021
- Sexton, M. and P. Barrett. Performancebased building and innovation: balancing client and industry needs. Building Research & Information Vol. 33 (2), 2005. pp. 142-148
- Lützkendorf, T., T.M.Speer. Alleviating asymmetrical information . Building Reasearch & Information Vol. 33 (2), 2004, pp. 182-195
- Hattis, D. B., Becker, R. Comparison of the Systems Approach and the Nordic Model and their Melded Application in the Development of Performance Based Building Codes and Standards. Journal of Testing and Evaluation. Vol. 29, No. 4, 2001, pp. 413-422.
- Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A., Dixit, M.K. KPIs for facility's performance assessment, Part I: identification and categorization of core indicators, Facilities 32, 2014a, pp. 256-274
- Lavy, S., Garcia, J.A., Dixit, M.K. KPIs for facility's performance assessment, Part II: identification of variables and deriving expressions for core indicators, Facilities 32, 2014b, pp. 75-294
- Lützkendorf, T., Speer, T., Szigeti, F., Davis, G., le Roux, P., Kato, A., Tsunekawa, K. A comparison of international classifications for performance requirements and building performance categories used in evaluation methods, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Association of Finnish Civil Engineers, Helsinki, Finland, 2005, pp. 61- 80
- Kylili A, Fokaides P. A., Lopez Jimenez P. A. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) approach in buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 56, 2016, pp. 906-915
- Marquez, A.C., Sánchez Heguedas A. Models for maintenance optimization: a study for repairable systems and finite time periods. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 75, 3, 2002, pp.367-377
- Marquez, A.C., Gupta, N.D. Contemporary maintenance management: Process, framework and supporting pillars. Omega 34, 3, 2006, pp. 313-326
- Muchiri P., Printelon L., Martin H., De Mayer A. Empirical analysis of maintenance performance measurement in Belgian industries, International Journal of Production Research, 2010
- Muchiri P., Pintelon L., Gelders L., Martin H. Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and indicators. International Journal of Production Economics, 131, 2011, pp. 295-302
- Kutucuoglu K.Y., Hamali J., Irani Z., Sharp J.M. A framework for managing maintenance using performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21, 2001, pp. 173-94
- Pati D., Park C. S., Augenbroe G. Facility maintenance performance perspective to target strategic organizational objectives. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 24(2), 2010, pp. 180-187
- Yasamis F., Arditi D., Mohammadi J. Assessing contractor quality performance. Constr. Manage. Econom., 20(3), 2002, pp. 211-223
- Parida A., Chattopadhyay G. Development of a multi- criteria hierarchical framework for maintenance performance measurement (MPM). Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 13, 2007, pp. 241-258
- Sari E., Shaharoun A.M, Ma'aram A., Yazid A. M. Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measures: A Pilot Survey in Malaysian Automotive Companies, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, 2015, pp. 443-448 8.2. Conference Paper
- Pomè, A.P., Tagliaro, C., Celani, A., Ciaramella, G. 'Is Digitalization Worth the Hassle? Two cases of Innovation Building Operation and Maintenance'. OP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Trondheim, Norway, May 2023.
- Siniak N., Kauko T., Shavrov S., Marina N. The impact of PropTech on real estate industry growth. IOP Conf. Ser.:Mater. Sci. Eng., 2020
- Nikolai Siniak et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 869 062041, 2020
- Pomè, A.P., Signorini, M. Real time facility management: assessing the effectiveness of Digital Twin in the Operation and Maintenance phase of building life cycle. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Trondheim, Norway, May 2023 8.3. Standard
- BS 3811: 'Maintenance Strategy and Planning', 1993 8.4. Book, book chapter and manual
- Langston, C., Lauge-Kristensen, R.: 'Strategic Maintenance of Built Facilities' (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1st edn. 2002)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Urbanovič, M., & Holubčík, M. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14030245 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pomè, A. P., Orlandini, G., & Tagliaro, C.
- Affiliations
- Politecnico di Milano (IT)
- Venue
- IET Conference Proceedings
- Published
- 2023-10-24
- Volume
- 2023
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 90-99
- ISSN
- 2732-4494 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388544105
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- IET conference proceedings. (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Life Cycle Costing Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › BIM and Construction Integration
- Keywords
- building maintenance, facility management, operation and maintenance, sustainability performance indicators, ESG frameworks, PropTech, sustainable construction, building life cycle, green building certification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
