Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus

on

  • 179 views

In this session, Abilene Christian University, University of Nebraska at Kearney, and New Mexico State University will share with you the steps they have taken to harness vast amounts of facilities ...

In this session, Abilene Christian University, University of Nebraska at Kearney, and New Mexico State University will share with you the steps they have taken to harness vast amounts of facilities and financial data to create facilities intelligence. Additionally, they will share how they have used this knowledge to provide strategic decision making support not only within their respective facilities organizations but also with senior administration and across the broader campus community. In a time of limited resources and competing demands, the value of validated data has never been greater.
Through a process of independent third party validation, benchmarking, and analysis they have been able to position their organizations for success. The creation of a common vocabulary allows information to be communicated effectively from the boiler room to the board room, thus helping their institutions understand both the impact of historic decisions and what the impact of future decisions may be on campus facilities. Much like institutions analyze the ROI of their endowments, this data-driven, fact-based analysis allows campuses to understand the interrelation of annual stewardship, asset reinvestment, operating effectiveness, and customer service; and how decisions in one of these areas can either positively or negatively impact other areas.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
179
Views on SlideShare
159
Embed Views
20

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

2 Embeds 20

http://www.sightlines.com 19
http://www.sightlinesllc.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Nationwide CompanyLargest qualified database of informationTools to manage our information-WebDoing something right-93% retention
  • Over the years our separate databases have grownWe have now been able to integrate those databasesWe are finding cause and affect relationships that impact positive and negative changeThis understanding is driving to the next chapter in our services ROPA+Discovery – the annual data collection process, which provides:A common vocabulary Facilities core base data – most extensive in the industryCapital and operational trendsA valid “apples-to-apples” comparison to peer institutionsPrediction - Prediction is about mitigating risk and eliminating the unknown by identifying future capital investment needs and setting future operational targetsPerformance - Performance is about tracking and measuring success by integrating the data collected from Discovery and Prediction with external and internal campus changes, creating the Sightlines Performance Dashboard
  • Our ProcessVisit every campusAudit and qualify databaseBenchmark with creditability to similar peers to a common vocabulary of metricsThe benchmarking process is used to reduce the hundreds of issues to the top 5-10 areasAnalysis drives into these five to ten areas and find key opportunities
  • Key RelationshipsCatch up vs. keep upProject mix impacts operational dollarsOps value: Effectiveness vs. efficiency Efficiency is doing things right Effectiveness is doing the right things!Our formula: Ops $$ + service quality = value
  • It is important to consider the age of space on campus because age impacts the types of needs a building will have dramatically.At ACU, 63% of space is in a “high risk” stage of the typical building’s lifecycle when major building components are beginning to fail. Not only are 63% of spaces over 25 years old, but 45% are between 25 and 50 years old – a post-war construction era of rapidly erected buildings characterized by inefficient and less durable systems than buildings over 50 years old as well as newer construction.Buildings in the 25-50 age range within Sightlines’ database have consistently been the most expensive spaces for daily service work.
  • Based on the age profile of ACU, we can estimate it’s capital needs.The industry standard for investment is a 3% of replacement value depreciation model. At ACU, this need is $13.4M/year. At Sightlines, we look more closely at the physical attributes of campus and assign a target need based on the life cycle of each building on campus. The life cycle need at ACU in FY12 is $11.0M. This is the total annual investment needed to keep up with the needs of campus as they come due – or to maintain equilibrium of the value of campus. Referring back to slide 11, the life cycle need is represented by the amortization line on the “Average Life Cycle Cost by Age of Space” chart. Although life cycle need is an accurate number to target, it is not the most strategic or financially responsible model to follow. For this reason, life cycle need is discounted and the functional obsolescence target is generated. Functional obsolescence accounts for programmatic shifts, strategic deferral and the churn of space. For example, if there is space on campus that will be demolished in the near future, you would likely not want to invest capital into that space now. At ACU, the functional obsolescence target for capital spending is $6.8M for FY12. The life cycle and functional obsolescence targets are also broken down by type of spending – envelope and mechanical spending and space and programmatic spending. In the functional obsolescence target, space and programmatic spending is discounted more heavily because it is important to spend stewardship dollars in the areas on campus that will have the greatest impact. If you were to spend $1 on new carpet, that $1 investment might last eight years. However, if you were to spend that same $1 on a boiler or roof instead, it might last you 25 years.Because annual stewardship funds at college campuses are typically very limited, it is important to get the most bang for your buck with the dollars that you have, and can rely on year in and year out. Recurring dollars are also the dollars that Facilities Management departments have the most control over. Often times one-time funding is earmarked for specific projects and it is difficult to find donor funding for mechanical systems rather than space renovations.
  • ACU has deferred over $21M to their backlog of maintenance and repair need over the last five years. Maintenance and repair need makes up a portion of the total asset reinvestment backlog, along with modernization need and infrastructure needs (which are estimated based on campus size, function, technical complexity and age). This has grown the backlog to the peer average in FY12 – a backlog that is 40% higher than it was in FY08.It is important to develop a comprehensive backlog of need, especially with limited capital funding available to address those needs. Strategically selecting and prioritizing projects that will have the greatest impact is key to maintaining the value of campus.When comparing annual stewardship spending to peers, it is immediately apparent that ACU has very limited funding – not only to their target but compared to peers as well. Spending to meet 17% of the annual target puts ACU at roughly half of the peer average. The silver lining for ACU when it comes to annual stewardship funding is that limited funding is not a unique characteristic. 50% of schools in Sightlines’ database fund less than 20% of their stewardship target on an annual basis, indicating a nationwide shortfall in stewarding physical assets across college campus.
  • The facilities operating budget is broken into three categories in order to benchmark it accurately against peers as well as capture the different “philosophies” behind operational spending (reactive or proactive).Daily service includes all people costs and expenses. Planned maintenance is calculated through work order reports and reflects all planned and preventative maintenance done on campus. Utilities reflects the total utility budget.Operational resources are broken down between Daily Service and Planned Maintenance to reflect the nature of the work being done. Specifically, it is important to consider the reactive and proactive nature of the DS and PM work being done respectively. At ACU, we can see that in FY12, DS resources are lower than peer levels even though DS funding has grown since FY08. Planned maintenance levels have grown as well, making up 7% of total operating funds in FY12 – up from 5% in FY08. Growth in Planned maintenance however has kept ACU inline with peers in that area and has helped to strengthen an otherwise strained budget.
  • Had lots of data. Not information, validation, how do we use dataClean dataComparisonsWhere do stand?Are we on track, fact v fiction/feeling
  • Energy Peers: Bryn Mawr College, Emerson College, Grinnell College, Lewis & Clark College, Millersville University of PA, Seattle University, Shippensburg University of PA, Southern Oregon University, Eastern Oregon University
  • New Mexico was still a territory when Las Cruces College opened the doors of its two-room building in the fall of 1888. The organizers of Las Cruces College—led by Hiram Hadley, a respected educator from Indiana—had even bigger plans in mind. In 1889, the New Mexico territorial legislature authorized the creation of an agricultural college and experiment station in or near Las Cruces. The institution, which was designated as the land-grant college for New Mexico under the Morrill Act, was named the New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. Las Cruces College merged with N.M.A.&M.A., and the new school opened on January 21, 1890. That first semester there were 35 students in the college level and preparatory classes and six faculty members. Classes met in the old two-room building of Las Cruces College until suitable buildings could be put on the 220-acre campus three miles south of Las Cruces. By 1960, the school had grown greatly, and its name was changed by state constitutional amendment to New Mexico State University. Today New Mexico State University sits on a 900-acre campus and enrolls 16,428 students from all 50 states and from 71 nations. Regular faculty members number 694 and staff, 3,113.
  • Regionally indexed to Boston, MA. Institutions ordered by tech rating. NMSU Composite: 6th of 10.
  • NMSU Peers DatabaseGSF/FTE 89,646 83,481 92,733FTE/Supervisor 15.6 10.5 12.3$/GSF $0.38 $0.19 $0.22General Repair/ Impression 3.2 4.0 3.8Exterior Inspection Score 3.5 4.0 3.8
  • NMSU Peers DatabaseGSF/FTE 36,510 37,510 38,755FTE/Supervisor 24.0 10.4 12.8$/GSF $0.07 $0.10 $0.12Cleanliness Inspection Score 3.6 4.3 4.1
  • NMSU Peers DatabaseAcres/FTE 20.1 28.7 31FTE/Supervisor 5.0 12.0 12.8$/Acre $118 $473.68 $576.48Grounds Inspection Score 3.7 4.2 3.9
  • Talk about energy peer group
  • Continuing the ROI impact looking at the multiplier effect for campuses who implement our recommendations and reinvest savings. Ozanne Analytics discovered that $1 additional invested into planned maintenance equals a $2.73 decrease in annual operating costs. Going back to our “Average” 2.8M GSF Campus that delta represents a cost avoidance or release of $4.76M dollars$1 * 2.8M ($2.8M) -$2.70*2.8M ($7.644M) =$4.844MSimilarly when we look at our Sightlines Facilities database of over 300 campuses it says that $1 invested in stewardship (annual keep up cost, recurring dollars) releases over $3 and in some cases upwards of $4 of future capital . Talk about the cost of failure, emergency service, loss of use, like-kind replacement, etc….Actual Ozanne says $1.00PM increase = $2.73 decrease in Operating Costs (excluding Utilities)…. ( over 3 yrs)$1.00 PM decrease increases Daily service costs by $2.70 average( range from 1.95 to 3.90)
  • And furthermore, now that there is limited $ to address backlog issues, the severity is increasing. So while priority A’s before the bubble burst would’ve been addressed, now A’s move to A primes, B’s move to A’s and so forth. So it’s now a lot more commonplace for customers to be experiencing these failures first hand.
  • Increased stress on our operations. This increase isn’t the result of added staff costs, it’s the result of reacting instead of preventing, of trying to band aid capital issues with operational resources, just to survive.We’ve been to schools where layoffs are happening left and right and yet operating budgets continue to rise. The only answer for that is the COST of ignoring preventative stewardship type work.

Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelligence for Data Driven Decision Making on Campus Presentation Transcript

  • Virginia State University Wagner College Washburn University Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Virginia Health Sciences Center West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College (MA) Whitworth University Widener University Williams College Williston Northampton School Worcester State University Xavier University Yeshiva University Youngstown State University Fact, Fiction, or Crap How is Your Facilities Data?
  • About Sightlines
  • Who Does Sightlines Provide Value To? 400 + College and University campuses, in 44 states rely on Sightlines to improve their facilities management. Context through benchmarking Common facilities vocabulary Consistent analytical methodology
  • Facilities Database 45,000 buildings 1.2 Billion square feet 50,000+ workers 177M MMBTUs of energy Finance Database $17B in annual operating and capital Capital Renewal Database Lifecycle data on 5000 buildings 250M GSF Carbon Database Access to 600+ campus carbon programs Based on Industry-Leading Databases Changing the way higher education looks at facilities
  • • Sightlines collects and assembles data on campus to quantify, verify, and qualify facility performance. Measure • Through the benchmarking process, institutions have the capability to create custom comparisons that help them understand context and performance. Benchmark • Sightlines synthesizes an institution's verified data to develop strategic directions for change.Analyze • Sightlines continues to support each campus through the member website, educational webinars, and ongoing consultation with staff. Membership The Sightlines process
  • Changing the ConversationOperationsSuccess ROPA Radar Chart Annual Stewardship Operating Service Asset Reinvestment Optimal Target Actual Optimal Target Actual Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness Service Target Actual Optimal The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs” Annual Stewardship The accumulated backlog of repair / modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs” Asset Reinvestment The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management Operational Effectiveness The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Service Assetvaluechange
  • An integration of formerly unrelated parts Tracking change over time to identify strengths & opportunities 1. Stewardship falls 2. Failures increase 3. Customer satisfaction decreases 4. Increases operational demand 5. Capital investment driven by customers. Space wins over systems. 6. Backlog increases 1. Increase Stewardship 2. Limit failures 3. Increased customer satisfaction 4. Decrease operational demand 5. Increased PM 6. Reduce backlog
  • Corey Ruff Executive Director, Facilities & Campus Management (325) 674-2665 corey.ruff@acu.edu
  • Campus profile > Type: Private, comprehensive university > Founded: 1906 > Located in: Abilene, TX > Enrollment: 4,600 undergrad/800 grad > Size: 1,966,315 GSF > Mission: To educate students for Christian service and leadership throughout the world > 21st-Century Vision: To become the premier university for the education of Christ- centered, global leaders
  • Challenges > Change in Leadership > New President – 2010 > New Senior Leadership Team > More data driven > Historical Data Spotty > Master Planning Process > Deferred Maintenance/Backlog/Capital Renewal/ Broken Stuff/Honey Do List > New Facilities Leadership
  • Tech rating impacts: • Energy Consumption • Maintenance Staffing • Replacement Values • Stewardship Targets • Operational Demand Determining Peers Density Factor Impacts: • Churn on Campus • Drives Custodial • Maintenance Demand Private, small town or near mid size city, 1-2.5M GSF
  • 12% 13% 25% 26% 45% 45% 18% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACU FY12 Peers %ofTotalCampusGSF Campus Age by Category Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50 Campus age profile – Impacts investment profile 63% of space is considered in high risk for life cycle failures Buildings Under 10 Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Higher Risk Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Highest risk High Risk High Risk
  • How much should we spend? ACU spending well under target $13.4 $5.2 $3.9 $1.1 $5.8 $2.9 $0.1 $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need (Equilibrium) Functional Obsolescence (Target) FY12 Actual Spending $inMillions Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program FY12 Stewardship Targets Replacement Value = $448M Life Cycle need is discounted to account for programmatic shifts and the churn of space Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations ACU Actual Spent
  • Gap Widening = Backlog is increasing $0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target Space/Program Env/Mech $2.3M $3.7M $4.6M $4.9M $5.7M Total 5 year deferral = $21.2M Backlog grew 40% to $147.6M between FY08 and FY13
  • Capital Spending vs. Peers $3.38 Peers 5Y avg. $1.25 ACU 5Y avg. Both ACU & peers are spending less on total projects -70% -44%
  • Capital Spending by Package = Adding credibility 34% 13%27% 22% 4% ACU Spending FY12 FY12 $/GSF Investment $0.82 11% 24% 12% 45% 8% Peers 5Y Spending Average Average $/GSF Investment $3.42 31% 24% 10% 33% 2% ACU 5Y Spending Average Average $/GSF Investment $1.25 74%
  • Facilities Operating Budget = Comparing Resources Daily service lags, planned maintenance is on par with peers
  • Off the Chart Maintenance Coverage Facilities staff delivers superior results with fewer resources Peer: $0.18 DB: $0.21 Institutions ordered by technical complexity ACU: 211,158 ACU: $0.19 Peer: 105,072 DB: 90,040 Peer: 16.5 DB: 11.2 ACU: 20.2 Inspection Score 1-5 ACU: 3.9/5.0 Campus Peers: 3.8/5.0 Distribution of Coverage DB: 90,040 Small private institutions: 90,209 ACU: 211,158
  • Intuition to Fact Data helped support our intuitions > Having a 3rd party collect, quantify, verify, and qualify data validated the feeling and added credibility to the facilities staff > We learned what data is important to measure & monitor > Data presented to the senior budget staff > Increased credibility in facilities. > And…. $7 Million additional in Capital Renewal and funding for FCA
  • Lee McQueen Director of Facilities Management & Planning (308) 865-1700 mcqueenlv@unk.edu
  • Campus profile > Type: Public, Residential, Comprehensive University > Founded: 1905 > Located in: Kearney, NE > Enrollment: 5,442 undergrad/1658 grad > Size: 1,966,315 GSF > Vision: The University of Nebraska at Kearney will achieve national distinction for a high quality, multidimensional learning environment, engagement with community and public interests, and preparation of students to lead responsible and productive lives in a democratic, multicultural society. Key to such improvement will be: clear focus on mission imperatives, fidelity to historic core values, and continuous and rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes.
  • Yesterday….. Questions being asked Issues • Lots of data, limited information. • Non-validated data • How do we use it? • Are we on track? • Is our data fact or fiction Desires • Needed clean data • Validation to separate fact from fiction. • Tools to change the discussion on campus.
  • Physical Profile
  • Age profile for UNK UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 16% 27% 26% 31% 19% 23% 32% 26% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0 - 10 10-25 25-50 50+ %ofGSF Renovation Age of UNK’s Campus UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond 17% 27% 25% 18% 29% 38% 29% 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UNK - Composite Peer Average Campus Age Profile vs. Peers Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years 1.1M GSF 874K GSFSize: Renovation Age: 37.1 years old 34.9 years old
  • Age profile for UNK UNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average 65% Buildings Under 10 Little work .“Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates and initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent. Higher Risk Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UNK - Composite Peer Average Campus Age Profile vs. Peers Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
  • 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $/GSF <10 Years 10 – 25 Years 25-50 Years %ofCampusGSF Campus’ detailed age distribution Young space on campus will soon be aging into a more demanding age range Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age) * Life cycle costs based on the average tech 3 academic space. 17% 25% 29% Amortization State Aided Revenue Bond Over 50 Years 29%
  • Capital Investments
  • Total capital spending Total FY12 spending was $1.9M $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Millions Total Capital Spending State Aided Revenue Bond Non-Facilities/New Space $10,580,036 $17,821,668 $29,899,331 $6,695,813 $3,349,940 $1,913,315 Avg: $11.7M
  • Annual stewardship investment vs. target State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Sustaining NAV 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Space/Program Sustaining NAV Target Need Equilibrium Need Annual Stewardship Funding vs. Target State Aided Revenue Bond Envelope/Mechanical
  • Total project spending by funding source State Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Sustaining NAV 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sustaining NAV Target Need Equilibrium Need Total Funding vs. Annual Stewardship Target State Aided Revenue Bond Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
  • 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 07 08 09 10 11 12 Total funding vs. target compared to peers Peers have funded consistently more than UNK over the last six years Recurring capital Planned maintenance One-time capital %ofTarget Peer Average Avg: 133% UNK – Composite 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 07 08 09 10 11 12 Avg: 53% Decreasing Net Asset Value Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value
  • $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 $2.00 Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code $/GSF $/GSF by type of project FY07-FY12 Avg. UNK - Composite Peer Average Project spending by type Revenue bond has invested a lot into safety, while state aided is more balanced
  • Asset Reinvestment Backlog Failing to reach target spending recently has caused backlog to grow rapidly - 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 Peers UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond $/GSF Total Backlog ($/GSF) 07 070712 1212
  • Operations Overview
  • Facilities operating budget compared to peers
  • Energy consumption remains above peer average Lower unit costs than peers avoided over $550,000 in energy costs in FY12 Stationary FuelElectricity
  • Maintenance operations Space is harder to maintain at a high level due to low capital investment Institutions ordered by technical complexity Peer: 78,864 DB: 86,312 Peer: 14.2 DB: 11.9 Peer: $0.16 DB: $0.17 Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 General Repair Envelope 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.0 UNK Peers
  • Custodial operations Custodians have less personnel but more materials resources to keep campus clean Peer: 34,088 DB: 36,339 Peer: 20 DB: 22.1 Peer: $0.11 DB: $0.11 Institutions ordered by density factor Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness 3.9 4.4 UNK Peers
  • Grounds operations Grounds department is utilizing less resources than peers Peer: 25.5DB: 21.2 Peer: 12.3DB: 7.8 Peer: $311DB: $588 Institutions ordered by grounds intensity Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Grounds 3.7 4.0 UNK Peers
  • UNK Actions Taken and Future Strategy • Reassigned custodial staff to bridge supervision gap • Determined maintenance staffing was appropriate, leveraging work order system to drive more effective completion and communication • Defining expectations. • Leveraging our strengths- outsourcing our weaknesses. • Focusing on being really good at less things. • Providing VP with tools to increase administrative engagement and to make the case for additional funding
  • Glen Haubold Assistant Vice President, Facilities (575) 646-2101 ghaubold@nmsu.edu
  • New Mexico State University 42 > Type: Public, Land Grant, Extensive Doctoral/Research University > Founded: 1888 > Located in: Las Cruces, NM > Enrollment: 17,651 > Size: 5,619,456 GSF > One of only two universities in the nation to reach the platinum (highest) level of service to NASA’s Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program.
  • Good Old Days?
  • Physical Profile
  • Campus Age Profile Composite campus: 4.6M GSF 8% 14% 44% 34% 14% 34% 40% 12% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% < 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 %ofTotalGSF NMSU – Composite Construction vs. Renovation Age Construction Age Renovation Age 65% Buildings Under 10 Little work .“Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Lower cost space renewal updates and initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent. Higher Risk Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk 13 years Taken off NMSU’s age due to major renovations
  • Lifecycle Cost by Age of Space 9% approaching period of increased maintenance need, 4% nearing end of lifecycle $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 $/GSF GSF Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age) 14% 34% 40% 12% Under 10 Over 5025 to 5010 to 25 4% of space will reach end of lifecycle within five years9% of space will age into a higher risk category within five years Amortization
  • Building Intensity Composite Campus Building Intensity is 147 Sutherland Village: 200 buildings Tom Fort Village: 100 buildings Each building = 712 GSF Institutions ordered by density. I&G Housing More small buildings on campus generally means: - More components (e.g. systems, roofs) resulting in additional capital needs - More sites to service increases operational demand
  • Capital Investments
  • $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target Space/Program Env/Mech Annual Stewardship - Composite Deferring an average of $7.9M/year to the backlog Average deferral: $7.9M/year Deferred since FY05: $63.5M
  • $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Millions Total Capital Investment One-time spending has helped to sustain NAV in I&G space 50 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Capital Investment I&G Housing
  • Capital Spending vs. Peers Project spending by GSF is less than peers $4.28 Peers 8Y avg. $2.92 NMSU 8Y avg. NMSU spent $1.36/gsf less than peers. Based on composite campus size, this translates into $6.2M less spent than peers.
  • Project Mix vs. Peers NMSU focused on space, less on envelope & mechanical needs 8% 24% 30% 31% 7% I&G Project Mix FY08-12 30% 13% 6% 50% 1% Housing Project Mix FY08-12 $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code $/GSF $/GSF by Project Type 5-Year Average (FY08-12) NMSU 5Y avg. Peers 5Y avg.
  • Operations Overview
  • Facilities Operating Budget 5Y Daily Service average is $1.87/gsf, below FY12 peer average $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 A B C D NMSU Composite F G H I J Facilities Operating Budget Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
  • Regionally Adjusted Regionally adjusted, NMSU spends closer to peers $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 A B C D NMSU Composite F G H I J Facilities Operating Budget – Regionally Adjusted Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities NMSU original: $3.44 NMSU, regionally adjusted: $3.54 Original peer average: $6.10 Adjusted peer average: $5.46
  • Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted Resources available to NMSU F&S are still scarce vs. peers $3.37 Peers FY12 $1.92 NMSU FY12 $- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted Given NMSU’s composite campus of 4.6M GSF, daily service budget is smaller by $6.7 million.
  • Maintenance Staffing Staffing levels in line with peer average, higher materials per GSF used in FY12 Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating. 0 1 2 3 4 5 General Repair Envelope Inspection Scores: NMSU Peers Database
  • Custodial Staffing Lower supervision level, overall lower cleanliness score Institutions ordered by ascending density. Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness NMSU Peers Database
  • Grounds Staffing Significantly fewer materials available to staff, lower inspection scores Institutions ordered by ascending grounds intensity. Inspection Scores: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Grounds NMSU Peers Database
  • Energy Consumption Reduction in energy use saves NMSU $646k vs. FY11 Saving $646k by consuming less fuel in FY12 vs. FY11 Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating. NMSU composite: 6th of 10.
  • Future…
  • Closing Remarks
  • ROI = The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested Savings Measuring the impact of proactive costs vs. reactive $1 per GSF Invested in Stewardship** …$3 per GSF in Capital Backlog Need Is equal to …$2.73 per GSF in Annual Operating Costs* Is equal to $1 per GSF Invested in Planned Maintenance Another investment impact is.... * Analysis developed by Marq Ozanne, Ph.D. of OZANNE Customer Analytics Group ** Analysis developed by analyzing the Sightlines facility database of project costs
  • If you remember, remember this… • Independent Third Party Verification • Consistent & Credible Collection Methodology • Tie Investments to Outcomes • Track Annual Performance Metrics • Common Vocabulary • Single Platform • Improve Strategic Decision Making Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness Service …Credibility & Perspective to Drive Transformational Change
  • National Trends
  • 66
  • #1 Space Getting Older Both groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space 46% 45% 44% 44% 43% 42% 34% 34% 33% 32% 31% 29% 14% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (%) Square Footage over 25 years old (Renovation Age) 25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age Public Private
  • #2 Privates recovered from recession faster than publics Both private and public campuses commit more annual funding $1.0 $1.2 $1.3 $1.1 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.8 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $4.2 $3.6 $3.7 $3.5 $3.5 $4.0 $4.0 $2.8 $3.0 $3.2 $- $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Capital Investment into Existing Space Annual Capital One-Time Capital PrivatePublic
  • #3 Where Capital Dollars are Spent Both Public and Private Investing More Into Core Building Systems and Components 15% 30% 15% 31% 10% 2007 Public 13% 26% 13% 41% 7% 2007 Private Total Project Spending 16% 32% 16% 28% 8% 2012 Public 16% 25% 16% 37% 7% 2012 Private
  • #4 Publics have high backlog, but slower growth Private institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate $84 $85 $86 $87 $91 $94 $66 $68 $68 $68 $74 $77 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $/GSF Backlog $/GSF Public Private
  • #4b Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection Scores Correlation between Building Age, Backlog and Campus Appearance 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 0-25 26-39 40+ Campus Appearance Average of General RepairImpression Average of Exterior $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 0-25 26-39 40+ $/GSF Deferred Maintenance Backlog Average of Backlog Lump Sum GSF Average of Backlog Maint/Repair/GSF (Scale of 1-5) Backlog of need grows exponentially in older spaces General repair and exterior appearance decline as buildings age and backlog of need increases
  • #5 Public and Private Institutions Have Flat Growth $4.15 $4.35 $4.45 $4.22 $4.33 $4.41 $4.24 $4.41 $4.44 $4.44 $4.50 $4.51 $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $/GSF Daily Service Public Private Daily Service includes: people, costs and expenses for Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Administration
  • #5 Increasing Maintenance Coverage 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GSF/FTE Maintenance Coverage Public Private
  • #5 Increasing Custodial Coverage 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 40,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GSF/FTE Custodial Coverage Public Private
  • 76
  • Questions & Comments Thomas Huberty (203)682-4981 thuberty@sightlines.com Glen Haubold (575) 646-2101 ghaubold@nmsu.edu Corey Ruff (325) 674-2665 corey.ruff@acu.edu Lee McQueen (308) 865-1700 mcqueenlv@unk.edu