## 4 Research Methodology
### Analysis and Results  
FM KPIs were evaluated by ten healthcare facility managers. Respondents have 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 26, and 27 years of experience, respectively. In MCDM methods like AHP, the sample size does not need to be as big as in statistical analysis. Additionally, these methods can be applied even with one respondent if the respondent profile represents a group of representatives [177]. Moreover, this type of method depends on expert judgements. If a large sample size is preferred in studies, it can cause cold-called issues (arbitrary evaluation) in data. Therefore, when the number of respondents is compared with other studies, ten experts are within the acceptable limit [178; 179]. Before analysis of FM KPIs to obtain importance levels, FM KPIs were evaluated by the experts in terms of usability in healthcare FM. As a result of evaluation, FM KPIs that were voted on by over half of the participants were considered in AHP integrated PROMETHEE calculations. Eliminated FM KPIs are given below according to their factor groups. * Environmental Aspect in Healthcare Facilities: After usability analysis with responders, \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to geographical location\", \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to weather condition\", \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to the number of hospital discharges\", \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to user behavior\", \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to occupancy schedule\", \"Resource/Energy consumption in emergency condition\", \"Resource/Energy consumption with respect to user profile\", \"Prediction of Resource/Energy consumption by considering occupant comfort\", \"Resource/Energy optimization ratio by considering occupant comfort\", \"Resource/Energy optimization ratio by considering indoor daylight\", \"Resource/Energy optimization ratio by considering occupancy schedule\", \"Resource/Energy optimization ratio by considering control strategies\", \"Identification of parameters having an impact on system or equipment load\", \"Percentage of the estate with an energy consumption of 410 kWh per area or less\", and \"Measurement of exergy\" were eliminated, since they were not found important. Therefore, thirteen indicators were identified. * User Aspect in Healthcare Facilities: As a result of usability analysis, \"Predictive patient/worker complaint's frequencies\", \"Indoor environmental quality\", \"Temporal distribution of complaints\", \"Aural comfort\", \"Recognition of patient/worker behavior pattern\", \"Utilization index\", \"Predictive space occupancy schedule\", and \"Occupancy/density coefficients\" indicators were eliminated. Therefore, eighteen indicators were used in the analysis. * Emergency and Safety Management in Healthcare Facilities: Usability analysis showed that, \"Number of legal cases per year\", \"Percentage of the estate that is required to take action with the current plan to comply with relevant guidance and statutory requirements\", \"Amount of compensation paid per year\", \"Number of detection of trapped victims\", \"Identification of emergency rate\", \"Number of false fire incidents calls per gross internal area (GIA)\", \"Number of usage of historical data for the solution of health and safety incidents\", \"Overall percentage compliance score from Statutory Compliance Audit and Risk Tool\", and \"Number of compensation cases per year\" are not important for Turkish healthcare facility management. * Maintenance and Repair in Healthcare Facilities: As a result of literature analysis, forty-three indicators were identified.