## 5 Discussion
However, neither indoor air quality nor space-occupancy-related FM KPIs were considered by [PERSON] et al. [139] and [PERSON] et al. [39]. Against the China case [139], cleaning satisfaction, catering satisfaction, and security satisfaction have moderate impact on the evaluation of healthcare FM performance in Turkey. However, the difference can be related to the consideration of limited FM KPIs for environmental aspects in their study. \"Number of accidents per year (S2)\" was found to be the most important FM KPI for emergency and safety management in healthcare facilities. This KPI was also found to be the most important KPI in the study of [PERSON] et al. [39] in its category. Normally, [PERSON] et al. [38] considered and ranked all FM KPIs together. In other words, they ordered FM KPIs without considering categories of FM KPIs. However, it can be seen from the study that this KPI is the most important KPI in the \"Safety\" category. \"Number of lost work days per year (S4)\" was found to be the most important second FM KPI for the Turkey case. This healthcare FM KPI was also considered by [PERSON] et al. [182]. However, this indicator was eliminated during the focus group meeting. Moreover, this indicator was not considered by [PERSON] et al. [139]. \"Number of health and safety complaints per year (S3)\" indicator was not considered by [PERSON] et al. [140] and [PERSON] et al. [39]. Therefore, the findings from Turkey show differences from the China and Hong Kong cases. In the study of [PERSON] et al. [182], statutory-related orders were found to be important for the evaluation of healthcare FM performance. However, the relative importance was found to be very low against other FM KPIs, since the authors ordered FM KPIs without categorization. However, in the Turkey case, these KPIs were not shortlisted. \"Identification of the number of alarm activation depending on emergency situation within the facility (S5)\" indicator was found to have a low impact on the evaluation of healthcare FM performance. Similar indicators that took place in studies of [PERSON] et al. [139] and [PERSON] et al. [39] had low rank. \"Preventive maintenance ratio (M6)\" is calculated by dividing man hours used for maintenance works by man hours used for corrective maintenance [140]. This indicator was found to be the most important FM KPI for maintenance and repair in healthcare facilities for the Turkey case. The second most important KPI was found to be \"Schedule compliance (M13)\", which is calculated by dividing the completed number of work orders by the total number of work orders [140]. The third most important KPI was found to be \"Manpower efficiency (M4)\", which is calculated by dividing man hours allocated by man hours used [140]. However, these KPIs were not considered in the studies of [PERSON] et al. [139] and [PERSON] et al. [39]. \"Average response time for maintenance\", \"percentage of preventive maintenance\" [139], \"work order request response rate\", and \"number of completed work orders per staff\" [39] FM KPIs had lower importance levels compared to the China and Hong Kong cases. \"Condition index (P5)\" was found to be the most important FM KPI for Turkish healthcare facilities under the physical aspect group. Moreover, identification of the condition index also helps to figure out the annual FM budget [183]. However, while this indicator was found to be the most important indicator for Turkey, it was found to be one of the least important healthcare FM KPIs for Hong Kong [39]. \"System-equipment availability (including lift, and fire services system) (P1)\" was found to be the second most important FM KPI for the Turkey case. Similarly, this indicator was found to be the most important FM KPI for the Hong Kong case [39]. However, these two indicators were not considered in the study of [PERSON] et al. [139].