Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

Determining the Criteria for the Classification of Purpose Built Office Buildings in Malaysia

Author/s: Yasmin Mohd Adnan, M D Nasir Daud, Ibrahim Mohd @ Ahmad, Aniza A B D Aziz

Date Published: 1/01/2009

Published in: Volume 15 - 2009 Issue 2 (pages 225 - 243)

Abstract

The Malaysia property market is deficient of key indicators to make an objective assessment of the market situations. In the effort to monitor the commercial property market performance, it would be useful to develop an indicator that will be useful for the construction of property indices. As such, to develop such indices for commercial properties, it is necessary to assess the performance of each office building through a classification framework. This paper highlights the identification of the criteria to be adopted in the classification of the purpose built office buildings in Malaysia. Through the investigation of the local and international practices as well as the literature on office building classification, a set of criteria was selected for local adoption. In arriving at the final set of criteria, a series of expert panel group discussions were held. This paper highlights the findings of the initial investigation of the identified criteria and the expert panel discussions held in an attempt to arrive at the final classification framework.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2009.11104279.pdf 14445921.2009.11104279.pdf (188kB)

Keywords

Classification Framework - Criteria - Office Buildings

References

  • Babcock, R. R. (2003). The Tenant/Workplace Equation Part 1, Buildings, Jan 2003, 91.1, pp. 50-52.
  • Ball, J. & Srinivasan, V. (1994). “Using the analytic hierarchy process in house selection”. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9, pp. 69-85.
  • Bender, A., Din, A., Hoesli, M. & Brocher, S. (2000). “Environmental preferences of homeowners: further evidence using the AHP method”. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 18 (4), pp.445-455.
  • Bender, A., Din, A., Hoesli, M. & Laakso, J. (1999). “Environmental quality perceptions of urban commercial real estate”. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 17 (3), pp. 280-296.
  • Bender, A., Hoesli, M. & Laakso, J. (1999). “Environmental quality perceptions of urban commercial real estate”. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 17(1).
  • BOMA Chicago. (2007). Market Summary Update - end 2006.
  • Bottom,C., McGreal, S. & Heaney, G. (1998). “The suitability of premises for business use: an evaluation of supply/demand variations”. Property Management, 16 (3), pp. 134-144.
  • City Hall of Kuala Lumpur. (1990). Guidelines for Classification of Office Buildings in Kuala Lumpur. Building and Planning Control Department, City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur.
  • Colliers International. (2007). Singapore Office Property Market Overview. Singapore: Colliers International Research & Consultancy.
  • Hamelink, F., Hoesli, M., Lizieri, C. & B. MacGregor. (2000). “Homogeneous commercial property market groupings and portfolio construction in the United Kingdom”. Environmental and Planning, 33, pp.323-344.
  • Hansen, K. (1996). “Less opulence more options: what commercial tenants really want”. Journal of Property Management, 61(6), pp. 28-32.
  • Hemphill, L., McGreal, S. & Berry, J. (2002). “An aggregated weighting system for evaluating sustainable urban regeneration”. Journal of Property Research, 19 (4), pp. 353-373.
  • Henry Butcher. (2001). How the Buildings are Graded, City and Country, The Edge Publications.
  • Ho, D., Newell, G. & Walker, A. (2005). “The importance of property-specific attributes in assessing CBD office building quality”. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 23 (5), pp. 424-444.
  • Hoffman, J., Schniederjans, M. & Sirmans, G. (1990). “A multi-criteria model for corporate property evaluation”. Journal of Real Estate Research, 5, pp. 285-299.
  • Hsieh, C.I. (1997). “A note on corporate overseas investment decision priorities of Taiwanese direct real estate investors”. Journal of Real Estate Research, 13, pp. 359-68.
  • Jackson, C. & White, M. (2005). “Challenging traditional real estate market classifications for investment diversification”. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 11, pp.307-321.
  • Jones Lang Wootton. (2001). Overview of the Klang Valley Property Sector as at 1st Quarter-4th Quarter 2001, Jones Lang Wootton, Kuala Lumpur.
  • Kang, M. &Stam, A. (1994). “PAHAP: a pairwise aggregated hierarchical analysis of ratio-scale preferences”. Decision Sciences, 25 (4), 21-35.
  • Kauko, T. (2003). “Residential property values and locational externalities”. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 21, pp. 250-70.
  • Kitzinger, J. (1994). “The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants”. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16 (1), pp. 103-121.
  • Leifer, D. (1998). “Evaluating user satisfaction: case studies in Australasia”. Facilities, 15(5/6), pp. 138-142.
  • Leishman, C. and Watkins, C. (2004). “The decision-making behaviour of office occupiers”. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 22(4), pp. 307-319.
  • Morgan L. D. (ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  • Munroe, L. K. (2003). The tenant/workplace equation part II. Buildings, 91 (1), pp. 50-52.
  • NAPIC. (2006). Property Market Report Quarter 4 2006. NAPIC, Kuala Lumpur.
  • Ong, S.E. & Chew, T.I. (1996). “Singapore residential market: an expert judgemental forecast incorporating the analytical hierarchy process”. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 14 (1), pp. 50-66.
  • Rahim & Co Research. (1993). The Klang Valley Office Market - An indication of Trends 1993-2008, Rahim & Co., Kuala Lumpur.
  • RICS. (2005). RICS Tenant Satisfaction Index: Tune in to tenants. RICS, London.
  • Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Saaty, T. (1996). Multicriteria Decision Making - The Analytical Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Schniederjans, M., Hoffman, J. & Sirmans, G. (1995). “Using goal programming and the analytical hierarchy process in house selection”. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 11, pp. 167-76.
  • Sinou, M. & Kyvelou, S. (2006). “Present and future building performance assessment tools”. Journal of Management of Environmental Quality, 17, pp. 570-586.
  • Sullivan, E. (2006). “Satisfied customers”. Building Operating Management, 53(12), pp.21-26.
  • The Knowledge: Market Overview October 2007, Colliers International Hong Kong.
  • Tokyo City Profile Autumn 2007, DTZ Debenham Tie Leung Consulting and Research.
  • Wang, M. & Yang, J. (1998). “A multi-criteria experimental comparison of three multi-attribute weight measurement methods”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 7, pp. 340-350.
  • Wilkinson, S.J. & Reed, R.G. (2006). Office building and the environment - the increasing importance of ESD. 12th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference, University of Auckland, NZ 22-25 Jan 06.
  • Yang, J. & Lee, H. (1997). “An AHP decision model for facility location selection”, Facilities, 15(9), 241-54.