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

  • Giancarlo PaganinEmail author
Part of the Research for Development book series (REDE)


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.


  1. Akao, Y., King, B., & Mazur, G. H. (1990). Quality function deployment: Integrating customer requirements into product design (Vol. 21). Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Baidak, N., De Coster, I., & Godenir, A. (2004). Evaluation of schools providing compulsory education in Europe. Eurydice. Available from: EU Bookshop.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Bologna Process Committee (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education convened in Bologna on 19 June 1999. (The Bologna Declaration).Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Chan, L., & Wu, M. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(2002), 463–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale, B. G., & McQuater, R. (1998). Managing business improvement & quality: Implementing key tools and techniques. Oxford: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Dell’Isola, A. (1982). Value engineering in the construction industry (3rd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold Company Inc.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. EN 1325-1:1996. Value management, value analysis, functional analysis vocabulary part 1. Value analysis and functional analysis.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 21511:2018. Work breakdown structures for project and programme management.Google Scholar
  18. 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).Google Scholar
  19. 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).Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris P., Pinto J. K. (2010). The wiley guide to project organization and project management competencies, Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Norton, B. R., & McElligott, W. C. (1995). Value management in construction: A practical guide. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prasad, B. (1998). Review of QFD and related deployment techniques. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 17(3), 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prisacariu, A. (2015). New perspectives of quality assurance in European higher education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180(2015), 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shen, Q., & Liu, G. (2003). Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(5), 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Standards Australia. (2007). Value Management Standard AS4183-2007.Google Scholar
  32. 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).Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thiry, M. (1997). Value management practice. Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Urban StudiesPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations