Development of the Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index for Resin Flooring

Abstract

Resin flooring selection and performance assessment require the integrated consideration of engineering suitability, functional performance, durability, environmental sustainability, life-cycle economics, and installation quality. However, these dimensions are frequently evaluated independently, limiting cross-project comparability, weakening evidence traceability, and creating the risk that favourable aggregate assessments may conceal critical technical deficiencies. Addressing this methodological gap, this study introduces the Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index (HRI), developed by Hoysala and Sai Gowrav A., as a proposed evidence-based framework for the structured assessment and rating of resin flooring proposals and installed systems. HRI comprises six weighted assessment dimensions totalling 1,000 potential points: mechanical performance (25%), functional performance (20%), durability and service life (20%), sustainability (15%), economic efficiency (10%), and workmanship and quality control (10%). Its checklist-based architecture uses four response classifications—Pass, Fail, Not Applicable, and Not Checked—to distinguish demonstrated compliance, non-compliance, irrelevant criteria, and unverified requirements. Supporting evidence, explicit scoring rules, and critical-failure safeguards are intended to improve assessment transparency, reproducibility, and technical accountability. A central contribution of this study is the conceptual integration of HRI with two complementary research frameworks developed by Sai Gowrav A.: the Sustainable Construction Chemicals Adoption Framework (SCCAF), co-developed with Shampa Nandi, and the Weighted Resin Flooring Index (WRI). The three frameworks address complementary but analytically distinct decision-making functions. SCCAF examines behavioural, institutional, stakeholder, and market determinants of sustainable construction-chemical adoption; WRI supports project-specific technical evaluation and comparative selection of resin flooring systems; and HRI provides a structured mechanism for evidence-based assessment, quality appraisal, and composite rating. Their proposed relationship follows a decision-support pathway from adoption determinants (SCCAF), through technical suitability and system selection (WRI), to documented assessment and rating (HRI). Assessment findings may subsequently inform specification refinement, procurement decisions, installation controls, and future adoption strategies. This relationship is conceptual and requires empirical testing before the combined architecture can be considered validated. A preliminary HRI assessment certificate for a nominal 4 mm polyurethane flooring system reports a rating of 7.13/10, classified as “Qualified Finish.” Because the associated checklist was incomplete, this rating is treated as provisional; its calculation has not been independently verified, and it is not presented as evidence of HRI validity or accredited certification. In the absence of an independent validation dataset, the present study establishes a conceptual and methodological foundation rather than claiming demonstrated predictive accuracy or established measurement reliability. A staged validation protocol is therefore proposed, incorporating expert content assessment, pilot application across diverse flooring environments, inter-rater reliability testing, sensitivity analysis of weighting and missing-data rules, evaluation of critical-failure safeguards, and comparison with independent laboratory results and documented field performance. By distinguishing adoption determinants, technical selection, and evidence-based assessment within a connected research architecture, this study provides a foundation for developing a more transparent, reproducible, and sustainability-oriented approach to resin flooring decision-making.

Introduction

1. Introduction

Resin flooring is widely used in industrial, commercial, healthcare, pharmaceutical, food-processing, and other facilities because it provides protective, durable, and functional floor surfaces.

Selecting a suitable resin flooring system requires considering several factors, including mechanical strength, chemical resistance, abrasion resistance, slip resistance, durability, environmental impact, installation quality, and cost.

Traditional flooring selection often focuses on material type and initial installation cost. However, proper resin flooring selection requires evaluating the complete system, its expected service conditions, maintenance requirements, and long-term performance.

The proposed study introduces the Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index (HRI), developed by Hoysala and Sai Gowrav A., as a multidimensional framework for evaluating resin flooring systems based on technical performance, sustainability, economic efficiency, and workmanship.

2. Problem Statement and Motivation

Resin flooring projects involve different technical documents, such as product data sheets, safety data sheets, laboratory test reports, substrate inspection reports, installation procedures, and quality-control records.

Evaluating these documents separately can create difficulties in comparing different flooring systems and making consistent acceptance decisions.

The major problems include:

• Lack of a unified assessment system.

• Difficulty in comparing different resin flooring products.

• Incomplete technical documentation and evidence.

• Inconsistent evaluation of performance criteria.

• Insufficient consideration of long-term durability and maintenance costs.

• Risk of accepting unsuitable flooring systems based on high overall scores despite critical technical failures.

Therefore, a transparent and systematic assessment framework is required to evaluate resin flooring systems using measurable criteria and supporting evidence.

3. Theoretical Foundation and Related Frameworks

The proposed HRI framework is conceptually connected to two other research frameworks:

A. Sustainable Construction Chemicals Adoption Framework (SCCAF)

SCCAF evaluates the factors influencing the adoption of sustainable construction chemicals. It considers behavioural, technological, institutional, market-related, and stakeholder factors that affect the acceptance of sustainable construction materials.

B. Weighted Resin Flooring Index (WRI)

WRI focuses on the technical suitability and selection of resin flooring systems according to project-specific requirements, including substrate conditions, moisture, adhesion, mechanical loading, chemical exposure, thermal conditions, and maintenance.

C. Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index (HRI)

HRI provides a structured method for assessing resin flooring proposals and installed systems by integrating technical performance, functionality, durability, sustainability, economic efficiency, and workmanship.

The relationship between the three frameworks can be expressed as:

• SCCAF – Evaluates sustainable construction-chemical adoption.

• WRI – Evaluates technical suitability and flooring system selection.

• HRI – Evaluates flooring performance, quality, and supporting evidence through a composite rating.

Together, these frameworks provide a proposed decision-support approach covering adoption, technical selection, and performance assessment.

4. Research Gap

Existing standards and research provide methods for evaluating individual flooring properties, environmental impacts, and composite indicators. However, there is no established, validated framework integrating all six proposed HRI dimensions specifically for resin flooring assessment.

The study identifies four major research gaps:

1. Multidimensional integration: Combining mechanical, functional, durability, sustainability, economic, and workmanship criteria.

2. Evidence traceability: Connecting every assessment result with relevant documents, test results, and acceptance requirements.

3. Critical-failure protection: Preventing high scores in some categories from compensating for failures in mandatory safety or technical requirements.

4. Measurement validity: Establishing consistency, reliability, and accuracy across different flooring applications and assessors.

5. Research Aim

The main aim of the study is to develop and specify the Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index (HRI) as a transparent, evidence-based, and multidimensional assessment framework for resin flooring systems.

It also aims to establish the conceptual relationship between SCCAF, WRI, and HRI and identify the requirements for validating the proposed framework.

6. Objectives of the Study

The main objectives are:

1. To develop a six-dimensional assessment framework for resin flooring systems.

2. To establish assessment criteria, supporting evidence, checklist classifications, and scoring procedures.

3. To identify the relationship between SCCAF, WRI, and HRI.

4. To evaluate scoring consistency, weighting sensitivity, and incomplete assessment evidence.

5. To propose validation through expert reviews, pilot testing, and reliability assessments.

6. To explore the application of HRI in procurement, installation quality assurance, and post-installation performance evaluation.

Conclusion

This paper has specified the conceptual architecture of the Hoysalas SG Composite Rating Index as a proposed evidence-oriented framework for resin flooring assessment. Its six weighted dimensions bring together mechanical performance, functional suitability, durability, sustainability, economic efficiency and workmanship/quality control. Its intended relationship to the author’s related work is complementary: SCCAF addresses adoption drivers, WRI supports project-specific technical selection, and HRI is designed to structure multi-dimensional assessment and reporting. The source certificate reports a provisional score of 7.13/10 for a nominal 4 mm polyurethane system, classified as “Qualified Finish.” Because the checklist was incomplete and the underlying category calculations and evidence were not provided, this score must remain provisional. The current study therefore establishes a framework and research agenda, not a validated rating standard. HRI’s next development stage should focus on formula verification, expert content review, pilot testing, inter-rater reliability, sensitivity analysis and comparison with independent field outcomes. Until that work is completed, HRI should be used as a structured decision-support and documentation aid—not as accredited certification or a replacement for mandatory technical acceptance.

References

[1] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [2] ASTM International. (2022). Standard test method for pull-off strength of coatings on concrete using portable pull-off adhesion testers (ASTM D7234-22). https://doi.org/10.1520/D7234-22 [3] Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [4] Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957 [5] DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [6] International Organization for Standardization. (2006a). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html [7] International Organization for Standardization. (2006b). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006). https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html [8] International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Quality management systems—Requirements (ISO 9001:2015). https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html [9] International Organization for Standardization. (2017). Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning—Part 5: Life-cycle costing (ISO 15686-5:2017). [10] Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [11] Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. [12] McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 [13] Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 [14] Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 [15] OECD, European Union, & European Commission, Joint Research Centre. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en [16] Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [17] Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147 [18] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. [19] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill. [20] Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307–323. [21] Sai Gowrav, A. (2026). An AI-driven sustainable construction chemicals adoption framework for liquid-applied waterproofing systems: Integrating engineering reliability, VOC impact, lifecycle cost, and stakeholder adoption behaviour. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 13(2), 1–159. http://www.ijrar.org/IJRARTH00388 [22] Sai Gowrav, A. (2026). SCCAF–WRI–SEM integrated multi-index framework for sustainable resin flooring selection: Field QA/QC validation, engineering performance, VOC-health impact, lifecycle cost, behavioural adoption and AI-ready optimisation. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 13(2), 839–993. http://www.ijrar.org/IJRARTH00387 [23] Sai Gowrav, A., & Nandi, S. (2026). From intention to implementation: A system-level theory-integrated mathematical ESG framework for sustainable construction chemicals adoption in civil infrastructure projects (SCCAF). International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 13(2), 1–131. https://doi.org/10.56975/ijrar.v13i2.332870 [24] Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. John Wiley & Sons. [25] Steyerberg, E. W. (2019). Clinical prediction models: A practical approach to development, validation, and updating (2nd ed.). Springer. [26] Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 [27] Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 [28] United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda [29] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Kishore Hoysal S., Sai Gowrav A.. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.