JCBM (2019) 3(2). 26-34
Maintenance Performance of Prison Facilities in Southwestern Nigeria
O. O. Ajayi1, H. A. Koleoso2, O. M. Ajayi3, J. O. Faremi4
1 & 4 Department of Building, University of Lagoa, Nigeria; 2 Department of Estate Management, University of Lagoa,
Nigeria; 3 Department of Quantity Surveying, University of Lagoa, Nigeria.
Received 8 May 2018; received in revised form 5 August 2018, 28 December 2018; accepted 25 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.15641/jcbm.3.2.584
Abstract
Maintenance performance measurement aims to assess and improve the value created after maintenance efforts, as it
determines the impact of maintenance on the performance of a system or facility and its business process. As objects of
maintenance, prison facilities ought to provide a safe and decent environment for prison staff and prisoners to work and live
in, as well as for all others who interact with the facilities. This study evaluates the satisfaction ratings of maintenance
performance of prison facilities in Southwestern, Nigeria. A survey approach was adopted to collect data from the relevant
Nigerian prison staff population of 2,187 prison workers, excluding staff in the maintenance unit within a specific period.
Stratified sampling technique was used to generate a sample of 1,094, which is representative of the entire population across
the prisons. Three hundred and eighty (35%) out of the one thousand and ninety-four copies of the questionnaire were
completed and returned. Data collected were analysed using the SPSS package. The study found that prison staff showed
satisfaction with the level of cleanliness in the prison environment, quality of water and control of ventilation employing a
window, as well as partial satisfaction with the twenty-nine other criterion assessed. Overall, the study indicated partial
satisfaction for performance on prison facilities and established a significant agreement among prison staff regarding the
perception of the performance of prison facilities. The research, therefore, suggests continuous evaluation of maintained
prison facilities to ascertain their condition and performance levels.
Keywords: Maintenance Performance Criteria; Prison Facilities; Prison Staff; Satisfaction Ratings
1. Introduction
In the maintenance management of facilities, the
planning, directing, organising and controlling of
maintenance activities and services are mandatory
(Zawawi, Kamaruzzaman, Ithnin, & Zulkarnain 2011).
Also crucial are measures for evaluating the performance
of the facilities to obtain maximum returns on investment.
Abd Rani, Basharun, Akbar & Nawawi (2015) observe
that maintenance management involves improving and
sustaining facility functions, services and surrounding
areas. Maintenance management adopts a systematic
approach involving standard regulations to be
implemented by competent personnel.
Prison facilities are expected to be fit for purpose, safe
from attack, help in rehabilitating inmates before their
discharge, and compliant with the current legal
framework while meeting standard requirements
1 Corresponding Author.
Email address: ofarinloye@unilag.edu.ng
regarding health, ventilation, floor space, heat and
lighting (Consoli 2005; Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights [OHCHR] 2008; United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime [UNODC] 2014). Many Nigerian
prison facilities have maintenance-related challenges,
such as facility decadence, sick building syndrome (itchy
skin, headaches, stuffy nose etc.), poor ventilation, poor
standard of cleanliness and lack of repairs in the cell
blocks (Health and Safety Executive [HSE] 2000). It is
mostly the case that maintenance of facilities is not done
in line with actual maintenance needs, owing to
inadequate funding by the relevant authorities
(www.budgetoffice.gov.ng). These problems are
primarily attributed to the reactive maintenance approach
syndrome.
In recent times, studies on assessment of hostel
facilities (Adewunmi, Omirin, Famuyiwa, & Farinloye
2010), banking buildings (Faremi 2012), the performance
University of Cape Town
Journal of Construction Business and Management
http://journals.uct.ac.za/index.php/jcbm
https://doi.org/10.15641/jcbm---------
https://doi.org/10.15641/jcbm---------
mailto:ofarinloye@unilag.edu.ng
mailto:ofarinloye@unilag.edu.ng
O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2). 26-34 27
of hospital buildings (Adenuga 2008) and tenants'
satisfaction in housing (Oladapo 2006) have emerged.
There have also been studies on how well those buildings
or facilities match users' needs and on ways to improve
design, performance and fitness for purpose. While these
previous studies offer useful insights that might be applied
in the context of Nigerian prison facilities, an in-depth
evaluation of prison facilities is necessary owing to their
peculiarity and intensity of use (Oladapo 2005) as well as
the basic standards expected from the usage of prison
facilities lighting (UNODC 2014).
Consequently, the performance evaluation of prison
facilities will involve systematic evaluation of opinions
about facilities in use, especially from the viewpoint of
the people who use them. Such critical appraisal enables
facility owners, maintenance managers and designers to
benchmark the quality of services ranging from
maintenance and cleaning to the provision of office
furniture (Wauter 2005). Critical appraisals also allow the
provision of recommendations for improving facilities
services (Adewunmi et al. 2011). This is likely to benefit
the prison organisation and users of the prison facilities
by extending the life span of prison facilities and the
satisfaction derived from the quality of maintenance
activities (Abd Rani et al. 2015). It is therefore imperative
to have a structured programme which is capable of
maintaining prison facilities to required standards,
ensuring their availability and enhancing their
performance (Her Majesty's Prison Service 2005).
Against this backdrop, this study researches into the
maintenance performance appraisal of prison facilities by
assessing the perception of prison staff on their
satisfaction ratings based on articulated maintenance
performance criteria.
2. Literature Review
The maintenance objectives and activities of the prison
maintenance unit must align with the overall prison
reformative, corrective and rehabilitative functions
(Parida & Chattopadhyay 2007). In Nigeria, the state
headquarters of the prison service handles the
management and administration of maintenance activities
and decisions, while individual prisons control the
deployment of maintenance staff. This type of
administrative system is known as semi-centralised
(Williams, 2004).
Maintenance management is an orderly and
systematic approach to planning, organising, monitoring,
and evaluating maintenance activities and their costs
(Technical Information Document 2000). It also involves
controlling and executing maintenance activities which
ensure optimum levels of availability of facilities and
overall performance of plants, buildings or facilities
(Davies & Greenough 2001). The process involves clear
maintenance policies and techniques which could be
adopted to keep facilities serviceable while minimising
cases of breakdown (Shohet, Lavy-Leibovich & Bar-On
2003; Abd Rani et al. 2015).
Technically speaking, the scope of maintenance
management covers every stage in the life cycle of a
system (i.e. plant, equipment or facility), as well as
processes of acquisition, planning, operation,
performance evaluation, replacement and disposal
(Murray et al. cited in Tsang, Jardine & Kolodny, 1999).
This implies that maintenance management ideas for
prison facilities should be conceived right from the
acquisition of the facilities and run through the stages of
evaluating the performance of facilities to replacing of
facilities due to wear and tear and disposing of obsolete
prison facilities (Ajayi 2016). Consequently, having an
effective maintenance management structure with
competent maintenance staff will improve quality and
extend the life span of prison facilities, while also
enhancing the health, comfort and safety of occupants
(Technical Information Document 2000; Abd Rani et al.
2015).
2.1 Maintenance efficiency
Efficiency is defined as a function of value and
productivity. Karlof (cited in Then, 1995) described
efficiency as "value created in relation to productivity."
Value could be described as the relationship between
utility and price, while productivity may be viewed as the
relationship between the number of units, products or
services produced and cost. In the context of this study,
value is perceived as customer (prison staff or inmates)
satisfaction while productivity is the number of
maintenance services undertaken on prison facilities (Pun,
Chin, Chow, & Lau 2002).
According to the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlement [UNCH] (2003), efficiency is the amount of
input resource, usually in monetary terms, per unit of
maintenance service delivered. This might as well be
described as all inputted maintenance resources such as
human resource, equipment/plant/tools/spare parts and
finances per unit of quality of maintenance activities
provided by the maintenance unit of the Nigerian Prison
Service. These resources are imputed to meet up with the
prison staff requirements and expectations (Bleul 2004).
2.2 Maintenance performance measurement
Maintenance performance focuses on the condition of
facilities in relation to customer service; it allows for duly
recognising the impact of maintenance on the
performance of a system and business (Murthy, Atrens, &
Eccleston 2002). Maintenance Performance Indicators
(MPIs) are sets of measures used for measurement of
maintenance impact on the process. They are sets of
metrics used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness
of maintenance actions (Parida & Uday 2009). These
measures are equipped with baselines and realistic targets
to facilitate prognostic and diagnostic processes and
justify associated decisions and subsequent actions at
appropriate levels in the organisation to create value in the
business process (Liyanage & Kumar 2002).
Several performance indices on reliability, availability
and productivity are widely used in relation to production
plant/equipment and service industries. Overall system
effectiveness measures whole organisations while
individual system effectiveness measures
items/components. Evaluating the performance of entire
organisations or any items/components/facilities reveals
whether there are substantial achievements in individual
systems or there is a success in continuous improvement.
Where a particular system/facility degrades rapidly,
28 O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2).26-34
overall system effectiveness deviates accordingly.
Consequently, such deviation hastens organisations to
implement correction (Pun et al. 2002). MPIs helps
organisations to recognise what maintenance is doing, that
is, the effect of maintenance on business (reformatory)
performance and reliability of buildings/equipment
/facilities within the organisation (Wardhaugh 2004). In
essence, MPIs measure and identify performance gaps
between current and desired performance, thereby
providing improvement to close up the identified gaps.
In the literature, performance indicators which are
suitable for measuring the performance of the business
process and facilities of the organisation have been
developed. Ellingsen, Kumar, Hamre, Waldeland, Nilsen,
Dragesaet and Liyanage (2002) suggest a performance
measurement framework for the Norwegian oil and gas
industry which is based on a balanced scorecard model to
include financial indicators, customer perspective,
infrastructure and innovation. Hagerby and Johansson
(2002) developed Key Performance Indicators, which
were evaluated and benchmarked among six process
industries in Norway and Sweden. These KPIs include
total effective equipment productivity, the direct cost of
maintenance, redundancy, customer satisfaction index of
the maintenance service, rework direct cost due to
maintenance, and health safety environment cost due to
maintenance. Their study investigated the companies'
strategies and processes as well as their influence on the
indicators. The study confirmed difficulties in
benchmarking maintenance organisations due to the poor
and inconsistent classification of data as well as the
diversity of operating conditions.
A study on practice of maintenance operations in six
large-scale steel, public utility, transportation, and process
industries in Hong Kong and Canada found that the most
frequently used measures for performance are financial
indicators such as operation cost, maintenance cost,
equipment availability, labour productivity, and number
of incidents caused by in-service failures (Tsang et al.
1999). These measures are primarily used for operational
control purposes, and they reflect short-term performance
outcomes. Further, the study also reveals the unawareness
of organisation/management of the fact that measurement
systems could achieve vertical alignment of goals and
horizontal integration of activities. According to
Wardhaugh (2004), the study identifies useful indicators
for maintenance to include the reliability of equipment,
quality and speed of execution/responses, maintenance
costs, and prediction of failure. The study concludes that
KPIs should drive a proactive maintenance performance
that will fuse into the organisation's business. Parida and
Chattopadhyay (2007) opine that performance
measurement involves monitoring maintenance and
employee satisfaction against a list of maintenance
performance indicators. Among the list are equipment-
related indicators, maintenance task-related indicators,
cost-related indicators and impact on customer
satisfaction. Other indicators affirmed by the study are
learning and growth, health, safety, security and the
environment (HSSE) as well as employee satisfaction.
Furthermore, studies by Kotze and Visser (2012) on
the South African mining industry identified the extent of
use of 32 maintenance performance indicators in
maintenance organisations. The most frequently used
indicators include safety audits score, reliability,
frequency of breakdown, equipment utilisation, lost time
frequency rate, cost per unit, total downtime, meantime
repair, and schedule compliance. The least-used
indicators include total productive maintenance,
percentage of maintenance tasks done by operations,
continuous improvement and customer satisfaction.
Oladapo (2005; 2006) identifies some concepts in staff
housing maintenance performance, such as customer
satisfaction measures, reliability of building services,
number of tenant complaints, and responsiveness of the
maintenance unit to tenant's needs. Based on the overall
maintenance of the staff house, the study established that
31.1% of the respondents rated their satisfaction below
average, while 28.4% rated it above average. A more
balanced approach to maintenance performance
measurement emphasises the level of occurrences on
maintenance performance measures. The most utilised
measures include technical, economic and safety measure
as well as human resources while the least used measures
include training/learning, skills/competencies, work
incentives, process performance, customer satisfaction
and employee satisfaction (Simoes, Gomes & Yasin
2011).
Without doubt, the condition of buildings or facilities
is a measurement maker and a typical way to measure and
predict the performance of facilities (Wahida, Milton,
Norazela, Nik Mohd & Abdul Hakim 2012). This
suggests that for the maintenance management process to
be completed in systems or facilities, the performance of
such a system must be evaluated to ascertain its condition.
In essence, assessing the performance of prison facilities
will help in evaluating the impact of maintenance
activities on the value of the facilities (Al-Najjar 1996;
Parida & Uday 2009). Considering that the current study
focuses on the performance of prison facilities, it is
essential to categorise their performance variables for
adaptability within the Nigerian prison context. The
relevant variables are quality of space, response to
complaints, maintenance-task related indicators, and cost-
related indicators.
3. Research Method
This section explains the method of collecting data and
the procedures taken to outline the steps addressing the
study. The study adopts a survey approach for assessing
the perception of prison staff on the satisfaction derived
from maintenance performance of prison facilities. The
population comprises prison staff in Southwestern
Nigeria, while the sample frame includes prison staff with
the exclusion of staff in the maintenance unit. As a
relatively new area of interest within a prison context, the
study examined customer satisfaction based on the
consumer's perspective and the maintenance impact on
the customer's business process, which means that the
value generated for the customer is assessed and not the
view of the maintenance service provider. The stratified
sampling technique was used to determine the sample size
(Columbia Centre for New Media and Teaching
[CNMTL] 2012). The population of prison staff (non-
maintenance) in Lagos (Ikoyi, Badagry, Maximum,
O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2). 26-34 29
Minimum and Female prisons, Kirikiri), Ogun (Old
Abeokuta, New Abeokuta, Ijebu-Ode, Ilaro and Shagamu
prisons), Oyo (Oyo and Agbodi prisons), Osun (Ile-Ife
and Ilesha), Ondo (Akure, Ondo male, Ondo Female,
Owo, Okitipupa prisons) and Ekiti prison was
investigated to determine the researchable sample at a
95% confidence level and a 0.05 precision level (Israel
2013). Data for the study was collected through copies of
the questionnaire and analysis of the study data was done
with the SPSS statistical package.
4. Discussion of Findings
Table 1: Sample size for prison non-maintenance staff in
southwestern Nigeria
Prison (strata) Population size Sample size
Lagos prisons 624 244
Ogun prisons 331 181
Oyo prisons 338 183
Osun prisons 307 174
Ondo prisons 453 212
Ekiti Prison 134 100
Total 2187 1094
Source: www.gov.ng/prison-info
The minimum sample sizes needed for the study was 244,
181, 183, 174, 212 and 100, respectively (see Table 1).
For this study, the accuracy of ±5% was desired; hence,
the sample size of one thousand and ninety-four (1,094)
was generated.
Table 2 describes the number of returned copies of the
structured questionnaire from each prison locations. A
total of 380 copies of the questionnaire (35%) were
returned out of the 1,094 copies administered.
Table 2: Survey returns of copies of questionnaire
Prisons Prison staff (Non-maintenance)
Sample
size
Number
returned
Response
rate %
Lagos 244 93 38.11
Ogun 181 86 47.51
Oyo 183 46 25.41
Osun 174 38 21.83
Ondo 212 87 41.03
Ekiti 100 30 30
Total 1094 380 34.73
Table 3 presents information on the educational
background of the prison staff. Results revealed that
ninety-six (25%) members of the prison staff had the
Ordinary National Diploma certificate. Seventy-two
(19%) had Higher the National Diploma certificate and
one hundred and one (27%) had first degree certificates.
Furthermore, twenty-eight (7%) members of staff and one
(less than 1%) member of staff had master's degrees and
PhD qualifications respectively. The figures suggest that
the data from the copies of the structured questionnaire
would be useful and reliable to some extent. Also, Table
3 shows that two hundred and eight (55%) respondents
had a length of service of fewer than ten years. One
hundred and fifty-six (41%) respondents had a length of
service between ten (10) years and twenty-nine (29) years,
while eight (2%) respondents had been in service for more
than thirty (30) years. This implies the availability of a
reasonable number of respondents from whom data can be
retrieved on the survey.
Table 3: Demographic profile of respondents
Demographic profile Options Frequency Percentage
Educational qualification OND 96 25
HND 72 19
B.Sc./ B.Tech 101 27
M.Sc. 28 7
PhD 1 1
Others 74 19
Missing 8 2
Length of service Less than 10 years 208 55
10 – 19 years 104 27
20 – 29 years 52 14
30 years and above 8 2
Missing 8 2
Total 380 100
4.1 Prison staff satisfaction level in Southwestern
Nigeria
The performance of prison facilities was assessed based
on prison staff satisfaction ratings using maintenance
performance criteria (Adewunmi et al., 2010) on a Likert
scale. The finding were interpreted on a graduated scale
of 1– 5: 1.00 ≤ MS < 1.49 means high dissatisfaction, 1.50
≤ MS < 2.49 means dissatisfaction, 2.50 ≤ MS < 3.49
means partial satisfaction, 3.50 ≤ MS < 4.49 means
satisfaction and 4.50 ≤ MS ≤ 5.00 means high satisfaction.
Some common variables were extracted from the
literature and simplified for adaptation within the context
of Nigerian prisons. The satisfaction survey instrument is
a simple 32-item questionnaire. The questions relate to
financials (money spent on reporting faults, spare parts),
equipment efficiency (security, communication, fire
safety gadget), labour productivity (maintenance unit
response to complaints, quality of work done by
maintenance staff), and infrastructure (vehicular access,
adequacy of car park, meeting space, exterior and interior
of buildings, quality of water). These also involve
indicators related to maintenance tasks, such as quality
and speed of execution, the responsiveness of workforce,
as well as asset inventory and indicators related to
maintenance costs (Oladapo, 2005; Adewunmi et al.,
2010).
http://www.gov.ng/prison-info
http://www.gov.ng/prison-info
30 O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2).26-34
Table 4 presents the frequency count and the mean
score of the level of satisfaction for each performance
criterion. The mean scores for each criterion ranged from
3.82 to 2.66.
The results in Table 4 suggest satisfaction among the
prison staff on some criteria. The aspects of the prison
environs deemed as providing satisfaction to prison staff
are highlighted as follows:
• Level of cleanliness in prison environment (3.82
mean score; 24.8 per cent highly satisfied and 46.4 per
cent satisfied)
• Quality of water (3.57 mean score; 2.1 per cent
highly satisfied and 39.1 per cent satisfied)
• Control of ventilation using windows (3.55 mean
score; 17.8 per cent highly satisfied and 39.5 per cent
satisfied)
Also, Table 4 suggests partial satisfaction among the
prison staff on the following criteria:
• Quality of work done by maintenance staff (3.42
mean score; 15.7 per cent highly satisfied; 33.3 per cent
satisfied and 33.3 per cent partially satisfied)
• Adequacy of the car park (3.41 mean score; 19.2
percent highly satisfied; 32.8 percent satisfied and 26.4
percent partially satisfied)
• Space for meetings (3.39 mean score; 17.2 percent
highly satisfied; 35.5 percent satisfied and 24.5 percent
partially satisfied)
• Waste removal (3.37 mean score; 13.7 percent highly
satisfied; 38.3 percent satisfied and 25.6 percent partially
satisfied)
• Adequacy of artificial and natural lighting (3.37
mean score; 12.2 percent highly satisfied; 35.6 percent
satisfied and 34.5 percent partially satisfied)
• (3.37 mean score; 13.7 percent highly satisfied; 38.3
percent satisfied and 25.6 percent partially satisfied)
• Quality of building exterior (3.34 mean score; 13.2
percent highly satisfied; 33 percent satisfied and 32.4
percent partially satisfied)
• Quality of building interior (3.33 mean score; 15.3
percent highly satisfied; 27.8 percent satisfied and 35.1
percent partially satisfied)
• Vehicular access (3.31 mean score; 14.2 percent
highly satisfied; 33.1 percent satisfied and 31.5 percent
partially satisfied).
Furthermore, Table 4 lists the aspects of the prison
environs which are deemed to provide the least partial
satisfaction to prison staff:
• Security (CCTV, alarm system, digital video
recorder etc.) (2.66 mean score; 14.2 percent highly
satisfied; 33.1 percent satisfied and 31.5 percent partially
satisfied)
• Ease of communication (telephone, internet
facilities, voice speakers' etc.) (2.70 mean score; 11.4
percent highly satisfied; 22.7 percent satisfied and 18.3
percent partially satisfied)
• Fire safety (2.97 mean score; 10.9 percent highly
satisfied; 25.4 percent satisfied and 29.3 percent partially
satisfied)
• Exit route (2.98 mean score; 14.2 percent highly
satisfied; 27.2 percent satisfied and 19.1 percent partially
satisfied)
• Level of maintenance backlog (2.98 mean score; 8.4
percent highly satisfied; 25 percent satisfied and 31.8
percent partially satisfied).
In general, only three performance criteria recorded
mean scores ranging from 3.82 to 3.55, while the
remaining 29 criteria had scores ranging from 3.44 to
2.66. This implies that members of the prison staff are
partially satisfied with the performance of prison
facilities. This suggests the low performance of prison
facilities and could be a cogent reason why Nigerian
prison facilities are perceived as places of punishment
("Prison of Horror," 2000; Nyakaisiki, 2008).
Table 5 also presents the mean scores of the level of
satisfaction for each performance criterion on a state by
state level. In Lagos prisons, the mean scores for each
criterion ranged from 3.75 to 2.64. Prison staff showed
satisfaction with the level of cleanliness at a mean score
of 3.75 and partial satisfaction with all other criteria
including ventilation 3.45, meeting space 3.38, quality of
water 3.37, quality of buildings 3.36, lighting 3.27, ability
to perform routine maintenance 3.24, waste removal 3.23,
car park 3.22, level of maintenance backlog 2.80, money
spent on purchasing minor parts 2.79, ease of
communication 2.77, and security at mean score of 2.64.
In Ogun prisons, mean scores for each criterion ranged
from 3.92 to 2.61. Prison staff were satisfied with the level
of cleanliness of the environment at a mean score of 3.92,
control of ventilation through Windows 3.62 and quality
of water 3.51. The prison staff were partially satisfied with
all other criteria including the adequacy of car park 3.49,
the odour of environs 3.48, quality of work done 3.42,
lighting 3.39, waste removal 3.34, money spent on
reporting faults 3.30, ability to prioritise maintenance
works 3.26, and cost of transporting maintenance staff
3.26.
In Oyo prisons, mean scores for each criterion ranged
from 3.77 to 2.51. Prison staff showed satisfaction with
the quality of water 3.77, level of cleanliness of prison
environment 3.73, waste removal 3.62, and quality of
maintenance works 3.52. They also showed partial
satisfaction with all other criteria including vehicular
access 3.43, cost of transporting maintenance staff 3.41,
routine maintenance 3.40, the behaviour of staff 3.37,
communication 2.51 and dissatisfaction with security
gadgets 2.40. Mean scores for each criterion in Osun
prisons ranged from 4.03 to 2.59. Prison staff showed
satisfaction with level of cleanliness in the prison environs
at a mean score of 4.03, quality of water 3.83, ventilation
3.74, quality of work done 3.72, meeting space 3.71,
behaviour of maintenance staff 3.69, adequacy of car park
3.67, exterior of building 3.67, odour 3.63, comfort level
3.63, waste removal 3.54 and partial satisfaction with
money spent reporting faults 3.46, routine maintenance
3.45, ability to prioritise maintenance works 3.39,
reporting of defect 3.14, level of nuisance 3.40, level of
backlog 3.14, sound 3.12, speed of work 3.03, security
2.79, and ease of communication 2.59.
The mean scores of criteria in Ondo prisons ranged
from 3.91 to 2.87. Staff showed satisfaction with level of
cleanliness 3.91, quality of water 3.70, ventilation 3.69,
quality of work done by maintenance staff 3.66, interior
of buildings 3.62, lighting 3.55, adequacy of car park
3.54, meeting space 3.52, comfort level 3.50 and partial
O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2). 26-34 31
satisfaction with waste removal 3.48, vehicular access
3.47, money spent on reporting faults 3.46, routine
maintenance 3.45, behaviour of maintenance staff 3.44,
fire safety 3.30, sound 3.30, money spent on purchasing
minor parts 3.27, maintenance backlog 3.24, response
time 3.14, ease of communication 2.88, and security 2.87.
In Ekiti prisons, mean scores for each criterion ranged
from 3.37 to 2.41. Prison staff showed partial satisfaction
with most criteria including lighting at a mean score of
3.37, ventilation 3.37, level of cleanliness 3.33, adequacy
of car park 2.90, quality of water 3.21, meeting space
3.20, speed of work 3.10, quality of work done 3.07,
comfort level 3.03, response time 3.00, interior of
building 2.96, ease of communication 2.67, sound 2.63,
odour of environs 2.60, money spent on purchasing minor
parts 2.50, and dissatisfaction with cost of transporting
maintenance staff 2.41.
Table 4: Prison staff perception on maintenance performance of prison facilities
No Performance criteria
Prison staff responses % MS
HS S PS D HD
Quality of space
1 Level of cleanliness in the prison environment 24.8 46.4 19.7 3.7 5.3 3.82
2 Waste removal 13.7 38.3 25.6 16.2 6.2 3.37
3 Adequacy of artificial and natural lighting 12.2 35.6 34.5 12 5.7 3.37
4 Control of ventilation by means of windows 17.8 39.5 28.1 9.5 5.1 3.55
5 Odour of environment 13.7 32.8 27.7 15.6 10.2 3.24
6 Comfort level in building 11.3 29.6 36.3 19.1 3.8 3.26
7 Space for meeting with visitors 17.2 35.5 24.5 14.8 8.1 3.39
8 Sound insulation 6.7 33.5 29.1 16.8 14 3.02
9 Furniture arrangement 7.6 29 32.8 19.5 11.1 3.02
10 Quality of exterior of building 13.2 33 32.4 17 4.3 3.34
11 Quality of interior of building 15.3 27.8 35.1 18.3 3.5 3.33
12 Quality of water 2.1 39.1 22.4 10.4 7.1 3.57
13 Fire safety 10.9 25.4 29.3 19 15.4 2.97
14 Security (CCTV, alarm system, digital video recorder etc.) 9.7 21.4 21.7 19.4 27.8 2.66
15 Ease of communication (telephone, internet facilities, voice
speakers’ etc.)
11.4 22.7 18.3 19.9 27.7 2.70
16 Exit route in case of emergency 14.2 27.2 19.1 21.3 18.3 2.98
17 Vehicular access 14.2 33.1 31.5 12.3 8.9 3.31
18 Adequacy of car park 19.2 32.8 26.4 12.8 8.9 3.41
Response to complaints/repairs
19 Procedure for reporting defects and getting work done 10.3 34 29.1 19 7.6 3.20
20 Time taken by maintenance unit to respond to complaints 8.4 28 30.5 21.6 11.6 3.00
21 Behaviour of maintenance unit staff 11.4 32.2 33.8 16.8 5.9 3.26
22 Level of maintenance backlog (i.e. defect you have reported but
yet to be done)
8.4 25 31.8 25.3 9.5 2.98
23 Level of nuisance (i.e. disturbance and interference with your
privacy by maintenance staff)
6.4 32.6 37.8 17.4 5.8 3.16
Maintenance task related indicators
24 Asset inventory ( i.e. the way maintenance staff identify
physical features that require maintenance
8.7 31.4 35 19.5 5.4 3.18
25 Ability of maintenance department to prioritise maintenance
needs with available resources
10.6 31.2 33.6 18.2 6.5 3.21
26 Speed of work ( i.e. repairs time) 11.1 27.8 33.7 20.8 6.7 3.16
27 Quality of work done by maintenance staff 15.7 33.3 33.3 13.8 3.8 3.43
28 Ability to react to emergency maintenance 12.2 28.5 30.4 19.5 9.5 3.14
29 Ability to perform routine maintenance 15 26 36.3 16.6 6.1 3.27
Cost related indicators
30 Money spent reporting faults 11.7 31.9 31.1 19.1 6.3 3.24
31 Cost of transporting maintenance staff 10.6 29.6 35.9 17.8 6 3.21
32 Money spent on purchasing minor parts 8.5 26.8 33.3 22 9 3.03
Grand mean 3.21
Where: MS=mean score
HS = highly satisfied, 5; S = satisfied, 4; P = partially satisfied, 3; D = dissatisfied, 2; HD = highly dissatisfied, 1.
Interpretation scale: 1.00 ≤ MS < 1.49 means high dissatisfaction, 1.50 ≤ MS < 2.49 means dissatisfaction, 2.50 ≤ MS <
3.49 means partial satisfaction, 3.50 ≤ MS < 4.49 means satisfaction and 4.50 ≤ MS ≤ 5.0 means high satisfaction.
32 O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2).26-34
Table5: Prison staff perception on maintenance performance of prison facilities based on prisons state
Where: HS = highly satisfied, 5; S = satisfied, 4; P = partially satisfied, 3; D = dissatisfied, 2; HD = highly dissatisfied, 1.
Interpretation scale: 1.00 ≤ MS < 1.49 means high dissatisfaction, 1.50 ≤ MS < 2.49 means dissatisfaction, 2.50 ≤ MS <
3.49 means partial satisfaction, 3.50 ≤ MS < 4.49 means satisfaction and 4.50 ≤ MS ≤ 5.0 means high satisfaction.
No Performance criteria
Prison staff responses
Pooled
mean
score
Lagos
prisons
Ms
Ogun
prisons
Ms
Oyo
prisons
Ms
Osun
prisons
Ms
Ondo
prisons
Ms
Ekiti
prison
Ms
Quality of space
1 Level of cleanliness in the prison
environment
3.75 3.92 3.73 4.03 3.91 3.33 3.82
2 Waste removal 3.23 3.34 3.62 3.54 3.48 3.00 3.37
3 Adequacy of artificial and natural lighting 3.27 3.39 3.18 3.37 3.55 3.37 3.37
4 Control of ventilation by means of
windows
3.45 3.62 3.33 3.74 3.69 3.37 3.55
5 Odour of environment 3.12 3.48 2.96 3.63 3.34 2.60 3.24
6 Comfort level in building 3.13 3.10 3.16 3.63 3.50 3.03 3.26
7 Space for meeting with visitors 3.38 3.21 3.33 3.71 3.52 3.20 3.39
8 Sound insulation 3.01 2.87 2.98 3.12 3.30 2.63 3.02
9 Furniture arrangement 3.05 2.76 2.88 3.16 3.35 2.80 3.02
10 Quality of exterior of building 3.36 3.18 3.11 3.67 3.59 2.90 3.34
11 Quality of interior of building 3.31 3.24 3.14 3.42 3.62 2.96 3.33
12 Quality of water 3.37 3.54 3.77 3.83 3.70 3.21 3.57
13 Fire safety 2.84 2.70 2.91 3.35 3.30 2.83 2.97
14 Security (CCTV, alarm system, digital
video recorder etc.)
2.64 2.51 2.40 2.79 2.87 2.76 2.66
15 Ease of communication (telephone, internet
facilities, voice speakers’ etc.)
2.77 2.61 2.51 2.59 2.88 2.67 2.70
16 Exit route in case of emergency 2.92 2.75 2.80 3.23 3.32 2.80 2.98
17 Vehicular access 3.20 3.24 3.43 3.61 2.90 3.31 3.31
18 Adequacy of car park 3.22 3.49 3.22 3.67 3.23 3.44 3.41
Response to complaints/repairs
19 Procedure for reporting defects and getting
work done
2.98 3.26 3.27 3.38 2.83 3.20 3.20
20 Time taken by maintenance unit to
responds to complaints
2.90 2.87 2.95 3.28 3.00 3.00 3.00
21 Behaviour of maintenance unit staff 3.03 3.20 3.37 3.69 3.44 2.93 3.26
Response to complaints/repairs
22 Level of maintenance backlog (i.e. defect
you have reported but yet to be done)
2.80 2.96 2.88 3.14 3.24 2.87 2.98
23 Level of nuisance (i.e. disturbance and
interference with your privacy by
maintenance staff)
3.06 3.00 3.32 3.29 3.40 2.93 3.16
Maintenance task related indicators
24 Asset inventory ( i.e. the way maintenance
staff identify physical features that require
maintenance
3.02 3.14 3.30 3.24 3.40 2.79 3.18
25 Ability of maintenance department to
prioritize maintenance needs with available
resources
3.02 3.26 3.19 3.39 3.44 3.10 3.21
26 Speed of work ( i.e. repairs time) 3.01 3.12 3.20 3.03 3.40 3.07 3.16
27 Quality of work done by maintenance staff 3.19 3.42 3.52 3.72 3.66 2.80 3.43
28 Ability to react to emergency maintenance 3.06 3.08 3.16 3.29 3.34 2.90 3.14
29 Ability to perform routine maintenance 3.24 3.12 3.40 3.42 3.45 3.27
Cost related indicators
30 Money spent reporting faults 3.05 3.30 3.20 3.43 3.46 2.73 3.24
31 Cost of transporting maintenance staff 3.10 3.26 3.41 3.32 3.39 2.41 3.21
32 Money spent on purchasing minor parts 2.79 3.01 3.25 3.19 3.27 2.50 3.03
Grand mean 3.09 3.15 3.18 3.40 3.41 2.91 3.21
O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2). 26-34 33
Comparing prison staff satisfaction among the state
prisons, Osun prisons staff showed satisfaction with the
highest number (12) of assessed performance criteria,
ranging from 4.03 to 3.54. Ondo prisons showed
satisfaction with ten performance criteria, ranging from
3.91 to 3.5. Oyo prisons showed satisfaction with four
performance criteria, ranging from 3.77 to 3.52. Ogun
prisons showed satisfaction with three performance
criteria, ranging from 3.92 to 3.54. Lagos prisons showed
satisfaction with only one (1) performance criterion, while
Ekiti showed no satisfaction with any of the assessed
performance criteria. Largely, Ekiti prison showed partial
satisfaction with the highest number (31) of performance
criteria, ranging from 3.37 to 2.50. Lagos prisons showed
partial satisfaction with 30 performance criteria, ranging
from 3.45 to 2.64 and Ogun prisons showed partial
satisfaction with 28 performance criteria, ranging from
3.49 to 2.40. While Oyo prison staff were partially
satisfied with 27 performance criteria, ranging from 3.43
to 2.51, Osun and Ondo prison staff were partially
satisfied with 20, and ten performance criteria,
respectively. Also, Oyo prisons and Ekiti prisons showed
dissatisfaction with only one (1) criterion each, with mean
scores of 2.40 and 2.41, respectively.
4.2 Hypothesis testing
To affirm staff satisfaction as an index for measuring the
maintenance performance of prison facilities, there is a
need to confirm the significance of agreement in their
assessment of various maintenance performance criteria.
For this reason, the study, therefore, postulates the
following hypothesis.
Null Hypothesis: There is no agreement among prison
staff (non-maintenance) on satisfaction ratings of prison
facilities in Southwestern Nigeria.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is agreement among
prison staff (non-maintenance) on satisfaction ratings of
prison facilities in Southwestern, Nigeria.
Table 6: Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance Test for
Prison Staff Satisfaction with Maintenance Performance
of Prison Facilities
Cases Kendall’s W Chi-square Df P-value
255 0.75 596.115 31 0.001
A non-parametric Kendall's coefficient of concordance
test for satisfaction ratings of prison facilities based on
identified performance criteria was conducted. The result
indicated that there was agreement among prison staff on
the perception of maintenance performance of prison
facilities at P < 0.05 levels; hence, the null hypothesis was
rejected. This result is in agreement with findings on staff
housing maintenance performance (Oladapo, 2006), the
slight difference being the type of facility studied and the
scale of measurements.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The study measured the impact of maintenance on prison
facilities and value generated in terms of satisfaction from
the use of facilities based on the performance criteria
evaluated. The study revealed the satisfaction level for
each assessed performance criterion. The study also
showed partial satisfaction with maintenance
performance of prison facilities and significant agreement
among prison staff satisfaction ratings on the maintenance
performance of prison facilities.
The study recommends continuous evaluation of
maintained prison facilities to ascertain the condition and
performance of facilities. The continuous assessment of
prison facilities is a joint responsibility of the Nigerian
Prison Service, Prison Works and Logistics Department,
Maintenance Unit and users of prison facilities.
References
Abd Rani, NA, Basharun, MR, Akbar, ARN, &
Nawawi, AbH 2015, ‘Perception of maintenance
management strategy on healthcare facilities’, Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 170, pp. 272-281.
Abdullah Sani, SI, Mohammed, AH, Misnan, MS &
Awang, M 2012, ‘Determinant factors in development of
maintenance culture in managing public asset and
facilities’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol.
65, pp. 827-832.
Adenuga, OA 2008, ‘Evaluation of maintenance
management practice in public hospital buildings in
South-West, Nigeria’, PhD thesis, Department of
Building, University of Lagos, Lagos state, Nigeria.
Ajayi, OO 2016, ‘Maintenance management of prison
facilities in South-West, Nigeria’, PhD thesis, Department
of Building, University of Lagos, Lagos state, Nigeria.
Adewunmi, Y, Omirin, M, Famuyiwa, F & Farinloye,
O 2011, ‘Post-occupancy evaluation of postgraduate
hostel facilities. Facilities, vol. 29, no. 3/4, pp. 149-168.
Al-Najjar, B 1996, ‘Total quality maintenance: An
approach for continuous reduction in cost of quality
products’, Journal of Quality Maintenance in
Engineering, vol. 2, no.3, pp. 4-20.
Bruce, WT & Brian, EH 2012, Conducting educational
research, Rowman and Littlefield publishers, Lanham,
Maryland.
Columbia center for new teaching and learning
[CNMTL] 2012, ‘Quantitative methods in social
sciences’,
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/qmss/samples_and_s
ampling/types_of_sampling.ht ml
Consoli, GS 2005, ‘The evaluation of private prison
design and construction submissions in Australia prison
operators’ responses’ Facilities, vol. 22, no. 5/6, pp. 114-
119.
Davies, C & Greenough, R M 2001, ‘Maintenance
survey – identification of lean thinking within
maintenance’, Paper presented at the 17th National
conference on manufacturing research: Advances in
manufacturing technology, Cardiff, United Kingdom, pp.
37– 42
Ellingsen, H P, Kumar, U, Liyanage, J, Nerhus, O,
Hamre, R, Waldeland, R, Martinus Nilsen, N &
Dragesaet, K, 2002, ‘Management of assets, resources
and maintenance by using a balanced scorecard based
performance framework’, Proceedings of the 16th
34 O. O. Ajayi, et. al. / Journal of Construction Business and Management (2019) 3(2).26-34
European maintenance congress: Euromaintenance,
Helsinki, Finland, pp. 203-211.
Faremi, JO & Adenuga, OA 2012, ‘Evaluation of
maintenance management practice in banking industry in
Lagos state, Nigeria’, Journal of the Sustainable
Construction Engineering and Technology, vol. 3, no.1,
pp. 45-53.
Hagerby, M & Johansson, M 2002, ‘Maintenance
performance assessment – Strategies and Indicators’
Master thesis, Department of Production Economics,
Linkoping Institute of Technology, Sweden.
HSE 2000, ‘How to Deal with Sick Building Syndrome
(SBS): Guidance for Employers’, Building Owners and
Building Manager, www.hse.gov.uk
Israel GD 2013, ‘Determining sample size’, Published
by Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida, Gainesville, http://www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Kotze, RLM & Visser, J K 2012, ‘An analysis of
maintenance performance systems in the South African
Mining Industry’, South African Journal of Industrial
Engineering, vol. 23, no.3, pp. 13-29.
Liyanage, JP & Kumar, U 2003, ‘Towards a value
based view on operations and maintenance performance
management’, Journal of Quality Maintenance in
Engineering, vol.19, no.4, pp. 333-350.
Minnesota office of the legislative Auditor 1998, ‘State
building maintenance. A program evaluation report,
www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/gr00239.xm
Murthy, DNP, Atrens, A, & Eccleston, JA 2002,
‘Strategic maintenance management’, Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering, vol.8, no.4, pp. 287-305.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right
2008, Standard minimum rules for the treatment of
prisoners. Adopted by the first United Nations congress
on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders,
held at Geneva in 1955 and approved by the Economic
and social council by its resolution 663 C (xxiv) of 31 July
1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 may 1977,
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/memu3/b/h_comp34.htm (1
of 19).
Oladapo, A A 2005, ‘An evaluation of the maintenance
management of the staff estates in selected first generation
Universities in Southwestern Nigeria ‘, PhD thesis,
Department of Building, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-ife, Osun state, Nigeria.
Oladapo, A A 2006, ‘A study of tenants’ maintenance
awareness, responsibility and satisfaction in institutional
housing in Nigeria’, International Journal of Strategic
Property Management, vol.10, pp. 217-231.
Parida, A & Chattopadhyay, G 2007, ‘Development of
a multi-criteria hierarchical framework for maintenance
performance measurement (MPM)’, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, vol.13, no.3, pp. 241-258.
Parida, A & Uday, K 2009, ‘Maintenance performance
measurement-methods, tools and application’,
Maintworld, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 50-53.
Pun, k F, Chin, K S, Chow, M F, & Lau, HCW 2002,
‘An effectiveness- center approach to maintenance
management. A case study’, Journal of Quality
Maintenance in Engineering, vol.8, no.4, pp. 346-368.
Silva, CN 2010, Ex post facto study. In N. J. Salkind
(ed.), Encyclopedia of research Design, Sage
publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Simoes, JM, Gomes, CF, & Yasin, MM. 2011, ‘A
literature review of maintenance performance
measurement: A conceptual framework and directions for
future research’, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, vol. 17, no.2, pp. 116-137.
Shohet, IM, Lavy-Leibovich, S & Bar-On, D 2003,
‘Integrated maintenance monitoring of hospital
buildings’, Construction Management and Economics,
vol. 21, pp. 219-228.
Technical information document 2000, ‘Maintenance
management systems’, TID – AM – 01.
Then, DS 1995, Trends in built assets maintenance
management – Implication on management and service
delivery. Proceedings of RICS Construction and Building
Research Conference, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Tsang, AHC, Jardine, AK S, & Kolodny, H 1999,
‘Measuring maintenance performance: A holistic
approach’, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 691- 715.
Ellingsen, H P, Kumar, U, Liyanage, J, Nerhus, O,
Hamre, R, Waldeland, R, Martinus Nilsen, N &
Dragesaet, K, 2002, ‘Management of assets, resources
and maintenance by using a balanced scorecard based
performance framework’, Proceedings of the 16th
European maintenance congress: Euromaintenance,
Helsinki, Finland, pp. 203-211.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement [Habitat]
2003, ‘Maintenance of infrastructure and its financing and
cost recovery in developing countries’,
http://www.unchs.org/english/maiten/2.htm.
Wardhaugh, J 2004, ‘Useful key performance
indicators for maintenance’, Paper presented at the
Singapore IQPC Reliability and Maintenance Congress:
Maintenance – the best Practices, www.lifetime-
reliability.com.
Wahida, NR, Milton, G, Norazela, H, Nik Mohd,
LBNL, & Abdul Hakim, M 2012, ‘Building condition
assessment imperative and process’, Procedia-Social and
Bahavioral Sciences, vol. 65, pp. 775-780.
Wauter, B 2005, ‘The added value of facilities
management: benchmarking work processes’, Facilities,
vol. 23, no. 3/4, pp.142-151.
William, GS 1994, ‘The design, development and
maintenance of executive information systems for
corrections, probation and parole’, Paper presented at the
Symposium on Criminal Justice Information Systems and
Technology: Building the Infrastructure,
www.bop.gov/resources/..../oresaylor1.pdf
Zawawi, EMA, Kamaruzzaman, SN, Ithnin, Z &
Zulkarnain, SH 2011, ‘A framework for describing CSF
of building maintenance managements’, Procedia
Engineering, vol. 20, pp. 110-117.