Validating a Critical Success Factor Instrument for Digital Facilities Management Implementation in Malaysia Using the Rasch Measurement Model

Digital Facilities Management (DFM) has emerged as a strategic mechanism for improving asset performance, operational coordination, data visibility, and evidence-based decision-making in the built environment. Although previous studies have identified Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for DFM implementation, much of the literature remains focused on conceptual classification, systematic reviews, and theoretical development. Limited empirical research has examined whether DFM CSF indicators form a valid, reliable, and stable measurement instrument, particularly within the Malaysian Facilities Management context. This study addresses that gap by validating a CSF instrument for DFM implementation using the Rasch Measurement Model. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted involving 427 Facilities Management professionals in Malaysia, representing clients, consultants, and contractors. The instrument comprised 41 indicators across eight CSF domains: Maintenance and Technology Integration; Organisational Leadership and Agility; Digital Transformation and Change Management; Sustainability and ESG; Compliance, Governance and Risk; Customer and Stakeholder Focus; Cost Leadership and Resource Optimisation; and Smart Asset and Space Management. Two measurement sets were analysed. Set B measured the perceived importance of each indicator, while Set C assessed implementation status. Rasch diagnostics examined rating scale functioning, item fit, item polarity, dimensionality, reliability, separation, Differential Item Functioning, person fit, and person–item targeting. The findings confirmed that both scales demonstrated measurement validity and reliability. All 41 items were retained. Most items showed productive fit, while several advanced or content-critical indicators displayed elevated or low fit values but retained positive polarity and strong theoretical relevance. Rating categories functioned logically, reliability and separation indices were strong, dimensionality supported dominant Rasch structures, and no significant DIF contrast was identified under the specified WINSTEPS classification. Methodologically, the study confirms the suitability of Rasch analysis for validating CSF instruments in organisational implementation research. Practically, the validated instrument supports DFM readiness assessment, maturity benchmarking, and evidence-based implementation planning within Malaysia’s Facilities Management sector.

Digital Facilities Management; Critical Success Factors; Rasch Measurement Model; Facilities Management; Implementation Readiness; Malaysia; Measurement Validation; Digital Transformation

1. Ashworth, S., & Tucker, M. (2019). Critical success factors for facility management employer’s information requirements (EIR) for BIM. Facilities, 37(1/2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2018-0024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory: Explaining and predicting our digital society (Vol. 1, pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Becerik-Gerber, B., Jazizadeh, F., Li, N., & Calis, G. (2012). Application areas and data requirements for BIM-enabled facilities management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000433 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors (CISR Working Paper No. 69). Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kensek, K. (2014). Building information modeling for facilities management: A literature review and future needs. Journal of Facilities Management, 12(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Linacre, J. M. (2014). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministep Rasch-model computer programs: Program manual 3.81.0. Winsteps. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Love, P. E. D., Matthews, J., Simpson, I., Hill, A., & Olatunji, O. A. (2014). A benefits realization management building information modeling framework for asset owners. Automation in Construction, 37, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Minoli, D., Sohraby, K., & Occhiogrosso, B. (2017). IoT considerations, requirements, and architectures for smart buildings: Energy optimization and next-generation building management systems. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2647881 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Naji, K., Gündüz, M., & Al-Qahtani, A. (2024). Unveiling digital transformation: Analyzing building facility management’s preparedness for transformation using structural equation modeling. Buildings, 14(9), 2794. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Oluleye, I. B., Oyetunji, A. K., & Olukolajo, M. A. (2021). Integrating building information modelling for improving facility management operations: A fuzzy synthetic evaluation of the critical success factors. Journal of Facilities Management, 20(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-06-2021-0066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., Gao, X., Eastman, C., & Self, A. P. (2018). Planning and developing facility management-enabled building information model (FM-enabled BIM). Automation in Construction, 87, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 81–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Silverio-Fernandez, M. A., Renukappa, S., & Suresh, S. (2019). Evaluating critical success factors for implementing smart devices in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(6), 1315–1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-02-2018-0085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Tao, F., Cheng, J., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, H., & Sui, F. (2018). Digital twin-driven product design, manufacturing and service with big data. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94, 3563–3576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0233-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Teicholz, E. (Ed.). (2013). BIM for facility managers. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Villa, V., Naticchia, B., Bruno, G., Aliev, K., Piantanida, P., & Antonelli, D. (2021). IoT open-source architecture for the maintenance of building facilities. Applied Sciences, 11(12), 5374. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125374 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Volk, R., Stengel, J., & Schultmann, F. (2014). Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings: Literature review and future needs. Automation in Construction, 38, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. MESA Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria