A Model for Managing the Performance of CMMS Deployment in High-Rise Office Buildings: A View from Lagos, Nigeria
Table 3
Direct relationship for hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis
Relationship
Std. beta
Std. error
t-value ^
Decision
f2
q2
value
5% CI UL
95% CI UL
H1
Execution procedure -> maintenance implementation
0.286
0.103
2.659
Supported
0.050
0.025
0.008
0.038
0.555
H2
Maintenance ID -> maintenance policy
0.066
0.110
0.533
Not supported
0.001
0.000
0.594
−0.224
0.357
H3
Maintenance implementation -> backlog control
0.367
0.074
4.835
Supported
0.279
0.125
0.000
0.174
0.549
H4
Maintenance implementation -> CMMS performance
0.301
0.103
2.826∗∗
Supported
2.521
1.309
0.005
0.042
0.557
H5
Maintenance policy -> CMMS performance
0.509
0.100
5.220
Supported
2.521
1.309
0.000
0.216
0.712
H6
Maintenance review -> CMMS performance
0.018
0.065
0.116
Not supported
0.000
0.000
0.908
−0.164
0.193
H7
Personnel attitude -> CMMS performance
−0.106
0.089
1.296
Not supported
0.018
0.007
0.195
−0.319
0.141
H8
Personnel attitude -> execution procedure
0.720
0.057
12.59
Supported
1.088
0.623
0.000
0.548
0.838
H9
Personnel attitude -> maintenance policy
0.200
0.130
1.524
Not supported
0.025
0.017
0.128
−0.124
0.562
H10
Personnel attitude -> SOP
0.787
0.031
25.646
Supported
1.604
0.802
0.000
0.693
0.852
H11
SLA -> CMMS performance
0.271
0.078
3.606
Supported
0.141
0.079
0.000
0.054
0.451
H12
SLA -> maintenance policy
0.369
0.130
2.818
Supported
0.091
0.059
0.005
0.06
0.704
H13
SOP -> maintenance implementation
0.304
0.111
2.777
Supported
0.067
0.030
0.006
−0.003
0.569
H14
Strategic plan -> maintenance policy
0.000
0.098
0.112
Not supported
0.000
0.000
0.911
−0.293
0.213
Author’s compilation: . (i) Effect size and impact indicators are according to Cohen [157]; f2 values: 0.35 (large), 0.15 (medium), and 0.02 (small). (ii) q2 predictive relevance (Q2) of predictor exogenous latent variables as according to Henseler et al. [158]; q2 values: 0.35 (large), 0.15 (medium), and 0.02 (small).
