A multi-criteria framework for office tenants’ preferences at office buildings

International Journal of Strategic Property Management

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 271-282

  Adnan, Yasmin Mohd ^a   Daud, Md Nasir ^a   Razali, Muhammad Najib ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process; Kuala Lumpur; Office buildings; Preference; Tenants

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944248777     PISSN: 1648715X     EISSN: 16489179     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3846/1648715X.2015.1052586     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abel, J. 1994. What tenants want and what they will not compromise on when looking for new premises:considerations influencing relocation, Property Management 12(1): 28–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637479410052299
2. Adnan, Y. M.; Daud, M. N.; Razali, M. N. 2012. Property specific criteria for office occupation by tenants of purpose built office buildings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Property Management 30(2): 114–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471211213389
3. Adnan, Y. M.; Daud, M. N. 2010. Factors influencing office building occupation decision by tenants in Kuala Lumpur city centre – a Delphi Study, Journal of Design and Built Environment 6: 63–82.
4. Anderson, D.; Sweeney, D. J.; Williams, T. A. 2005. An introduction to management science. Quantitative approaches to decision making. South Western Ohio: Thomson.
5. Argote, L.; Greve, H. R. 2007. A behavioral theory of the firm – 40 years and counting: Introduction and impact, Organization Science 18(3): 337–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0280
6. Babcock, R. R. 2003. The tenant/workplace equation I, Buildings 91(1): 50–52.
7. Bollinger, R. C.; Ihlandfeldt, K. R.; Bowes, R. D. 1998. Spatial variation in office rents within Atlanta region, Urban Studies 35(7): 1097–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098984501
8. Cheng, E. W.; Li, H. 2002. Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: quantitative investigation, Journal of Management in Engineering 18(4): 194–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:4(194)
9. Chua, Y. P. 2006. Kaedah dan statistik penyelidikan asas statistik penyelidikan buku 2. s.l. McGraw-Hill (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
10. Coffey, W.; Shearmur, R. 2002. Agglomeration and dispersion of high order service employment in the Montreal metropolitan region, 1981– 96, Urban Studies 39: 359–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980220112739
11. Dent, P.; White, A. 1998. Corporate real estate: changing office occupier needs – a case study, Facilities 16(9/10): 262–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632779810229084
12. Dow, J. M.; Porter, G. A. 2004. Restructuring and renewing existing leases in today’s commercial office market: guidelines for tenants to evaluate options and negotiate terms, Journal of Corporate Real Estate 6(3): 237–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630010410812360
13. Dunse, N.; Jones, C. 1998. A hedonic price model of office rents, Journal of Property Valuation and Investment 16(3): 297–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635789810221760
14. D unse, N. A.; Jones, C. 2002. The existence of office submarkets in cities, Journal of Property Research 19(2): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09599910210125214
15. Dunse, N. A.; Leishman, C.; Watkins, C. 2001. Classifying office submarkets, Journal of Property Investments Investments & Finance 19(3): 236–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780110387592
16. Forman, E. H.; Gass, S. I. 2001. The analytic hierarchy process: an exposition, Operations Research 49(4): 469–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231
17. Forman, E. H.; Selly, M. A. 2000. Decision by objectives. Pittsburg, USA: Expert Choice Inc.
18. Gibson, V.; Lizieri, C. 2001. Friction and inertia: business change, corporate real estate portfolios and the UK office market, Journal of Real Estate Research 22(1): 29–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770010315715
19. Gibson, V. 2000. Property portfolio dynamics: the flexible management of the unflexible assets, Facilities 18(3/4): 150–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02632770010315715
20. Helm, R.; Scholl, A.; Manthey, L.; Steiner, M. 2004. Measuring customer preferences in new product development: comparing compositional and decompositional methods, International Journal of Product Development 1(1): 12–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2004.004888
21. Helm, R.; Steiner, M.; Scholl, A.; Manthey, L. 2008. A comparative empirical study on common methods for measuring preferences, International Journal of Management and Decision Making 9(3): 242–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2004.004888
22. Ho, D.; Newell, G.; Walker, A. 2005. The importance of property-specific attributes in assessing CBD office building quality, Journal of Property Investment & Finance 23(5): 424–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780510616025
23. Kauko, T. 2003. Residential property value and location externalities, Journal of Property Investment and Finance 21(3): 250–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-006-9040-y
24. Kauko, T. 2006. What makes a location attractive for housing consumer? Preliminary findings from Metropolitan Helsinki and Randstad, Holland, using analytical hierarchy process, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 21(2): 159–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-006-9040-y
25. Kauko, T. 2007. An analysis of housing location attributes in the inner city of Budapest, Hungary, using expert judgements, International Journal of Strategic Property Management 11(4): 209–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1648715X.2007.9637570
26. Koo, H. Y.; Koo, L. C. 2010. Empirical examination of AHP and Conjoint Analysis on casino attributes in Macau, in Proceedings of International Conference on Public Welfare and Gaming Industry, 9–11 December 2010, Beijing, 327–350.
27. Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020. (n.d.). Kuala Lumpur City Hall. Available at: http://www.dbkl.gov.my/pskl2020 [accessed 30 January 2011]
28. Leishman, C.; Allison, O.; Giuseppe, P. 2012. The impact of carbon emission reducing design features on office occupiers’ choice of premises, Urban Studies 49(11): 2419–2437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098011427189
29. Leishman, C.; Watkins, C. 2004. The decision making behavior of office occupiers, Journal of Property Investment and Finance 22(4): 307–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780410550876
30. Li, L. H. 2009. Community attachment and housing choice in Hong Kong, Property Management 27(1): 42–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637470910932665
31. Malaysia Standard Industrial Classification (MSIC). 2008. Malaysia: Statistics Department.
32. March, J. G.; Simon, H. G. 1958. Organisations. New York: Wiley. Mills, E. S. 1992. Office rent determinants in the Chicago area, Real Estate Economics 20(2): 273–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.00584
33. NAPIC. 2013. Property market report quarter 2012. Malaysia: Department of Valuation & Property Services, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.
34. Newell, G.; Seabrook, R. 2006. Factors influencing hotel investment decision making, Journal of Property Investment and Finance 24(4): 279–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780610674499
35. Niemi, J.; Lindholm, A. L. 2010. Methods for evaluating office occupier’s needs and preference, Journal of Corporate Real Estate 12(1): 33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14630011011025906
36. Olawande, O. A. 2011. Harnessing real estate investment through proper tenant selection in Nigeria, Property Management 29(4): 383–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471111154827
37. Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Saaty, T. L. 1990. How to make a decision, the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Operational Research 48: 9–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
39. Saaty, T. L. 1994. How to make a decision, the analytic hierarchy process, Interfaces 24(6): 19–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19
40. Saaty, T. L.; Vargas, L. G. 2012. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, 175. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6
41. Sing, T. F. 2005. Impact of information and communication technology on real estate space: perspective of office occupiers, Journal of Property Investment & Finance 23(6): 494–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780510626538
42. Sing, T. F.; Ooi, J. T. L.; Lum, A. L. 2004. Influence of occupiers’ characteristics in office space decision, Research working paper. Available at: www.rst.edu.sg/research/working paper/2005-004 [accessed 20 September 2008]
43. Sing, T. F.; Ooi, J. T. L.; Wong, A. L.; Lum, P. L. L. 2006. Network connectivity and office occupiers’ space decision: the case of Suntec city, Journal of Property Investment and Finance 24(3): 221–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635780610659937
44. WTW Property Market Report. 2011. CH Williams Talhar Wong Sdn Bhd. Kuala Lumpur.
45. Wu, F. 2010. Housing environment preference of young consumers in Guangzhou, China: using the analytic hierarchy process, Property Management 28(3): 174– 192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02637471011051318