PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS WITHIN MALAYSIAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mohd Nurfadzli Mat Nah1, Shardy Abdullah2, Arman

Abdul Razak3 and Mohd Hanizun Hanafi4 1234 School of Housing Building and Planning Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia 1 fazli1903@yahoo.co.uk ;2shardy@usm.my; 3arm_raz@usm.my; 4hanizun@usm.my

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 series of 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. INTRODUCTION Property 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 in implementing 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.

[17]

2.

REVIEW OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 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 (Kaganova et 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 management is 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), who state 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 economic gains, 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 practices have 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 systematic maintenance 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.

[18]

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. On top 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 and effectiveness 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 management were 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, it is 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 the expectations 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 the implementation 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 ASSET MANAGEMENT Although there is more public awareness about the substantial positive effects of property asset

[19]

management, the effectiveness and efficiency of its 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 public school 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 14 August 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 effective implementation 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 financial resources 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 and bodies. 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

[20]

schools, especially between the teachers and the personnel 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 with this 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., work culture 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 management practices. 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 complicated and 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 asset management 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. METHODOLOGY The 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 research requirements, 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 respondents representing 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

[21]

similarities. The selection of sample size is based on Yamane (1967, as cited in Israel, 1992). It is explained further with the following equation: n = N / [1 + N (e2)] 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

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 year experience.

5.1 Profile of Respondents From a total of 230 survey forms distributed, only 213 forms were returned duly completed and Table 1: Respondent profile Respondent profile Frequencies Respondent positions Headmasters/principals 86 Senior assistants 72 Task designated teachers 41 Administrative assistants 12 Others 2 Types of organization Primary schools 151 Secondary schools 62 Highest level of education Bachelors Degree 97 Diploma 88 Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) 26 Postgraduate degree/PhD. 1 Professional Qualification 1 Participation/Involvement in property management

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 4

[22]

>5 years 1 - 3 years 3 - 5 years <1 year 5.2 Property Management Implementation Problems (frequency and factor analyses) Table 2 shows the results related to problems in implementing property management in the public schools. The analysis showed that the majority of the respondents agree that the problems listed within the research questionnaire occur in their schools. Noticeably, the main problem occurring in the studied public schools is skilled manpower shortage which recorded a mean value of x=4.05. However, from this table, it can also be noted that there are two problems which scored a mean value lower than x=3.00; which indicates that the respondents disagree with the listed problems of communication barrier between top management and subordinates (x=2.92) and building not optimally used (x=2.89). The total average mean for Table 2 is x=3.49.

134 39 21 19

1 2 3 4

As shown in Table 3, the first factor of knowledge and understanding suggested that no training in applying new technology, insufficient knowledge in property management, building information not updated, incompetent to apply new technologies, difficulty in accessing information, skilled manpower shortage, difficulty in determining the correct/specific authoritative party, overlapping responsibilities, employee has no specific knowledge in property management, and poor management culture are all within similar trend. This situation implies that knowledge and understanding factors that cause the occurrence of problems in implementing property asset management in public school do exist. The second factor of attitude was loaded with five statements; building not optimally used, inadequate space for information storage, employees do not want to change, new technology is considered too expensive to be acquired, and complacent with present technologies, while the last factor of manpower was integrated with these four statements; working because they have to, lack of employees, lack of transparency and accountability, and communication barrier between top management and subordinates.

The 19 problems in implementing property asset management in public schools were then subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis. The factor analysis was carried out to identify the main problems in implementing property asset management in public schools. Barletts Test of Sphericity showed a statistical significance with a Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin value of 0.905, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 to conduct factor analysis (Pallant, 2005). Principal component analysis revealed the presence of three main problems with Eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 57.891%, 6.710% and 5.299% of the variance respectively (Table 3). Table 2: Mean analysis on the problems in implementing property management No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Problems Skilled manpower shortage Employee has no specific knowledge in management Building information not updated Insufficient knowledge in property management property

X
4.05 3.98 3.76 3.75 3.74 3.71

Scale Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

Overlapping responsibilities New technology is considered too expensive to be acquired

[23]

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

No training in applying new technology Lack of transparency and accountability Incompetent to apply new technologies Complacent with present technologies Difficulty in determining the correct/specific authoritative party Difficulty in accessing information Lack of employees Poor management culture

3.67 3.58 3.55 3.53 3.45 3.40 3.38 3.37 3.22 3.21 3.12 2.92 2.87 3.49

Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Working because they have to Employees do not want to change Inadequate space for information storage Communication barrier between top management and subordinates 19. Building not optimally used Average

Table 3: Results of factor analysis on problems in implementing property asset management Factor Loading Implementation problems Commonality 1 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 0.763 Difficulty in accessing information 0.736 0.730 Skilled manpower shortage 0.734 0.668 Difficulty in determining the correct/specific 0.694 0.714 authoritative party Overlapping responsibilities 0.690 0.649 Employee has no specific knowledge in 0.624 0.618 property management 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 0.642 0.763 be acquired 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 0.510 0.659 management and subordinates Eigenvalues 10.999 1.275 1.007 Variance (%) 57.891 6.710 5.299

[24]

Cumulative variance (%) Alpha Cronbach 6. DISCUSSION From 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 factor Knowledge and understanding factor The 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 only one 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

57.891 64.602 69.901 0.945 0.861 0.831 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 were categorized 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. At same 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

[25]

In conclusion, this paper describes the results of the 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 have successfully 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.

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-InvestmentProperty?&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 345 434. 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.

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.

[26]

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). Agency risks 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 anticorruption 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. Property Management. 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 NonOperational Property Serviceable 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 Teknologi Malaysia: 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 Dalam Pengurusan 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.

[27]

Rezana, M. and Lind, H. (2006). Real Estate Management 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 Management Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 198-207 Scarrett, D. (1983). Pengurusan Harta, Dewan Bahasa 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 PracticesA Guide to Achieving Operational Efficiency: Pacific Northwest National Lab., Richland, WA (US) Summerell, R. (2005), Implications of realproperty asset management, The CPA Journal, Vol. 75 No. 10. Syamilah, Y. (2005). Maintenance Management System Through Strategic Planning For Public

School In Malaysia. Malaysia: Master thesis.

University

Teknologi

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 Civil Government 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 of Public 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 Estate Literature, 16(1):3-22.

[28]