University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the Facilities Organization [APPA 2014]
•
1 like•606 views
Come take a look behind the orange curtain as UTK tells their facilities story. With a new university plan to become a Top 25 Research Institution the facilities organization is faced with the incredible challenge: show that facilities service can lead the University’s drive to top 25. This shifts the discussion about facilities from being a cost center that should be minimized to being a key contributor in creating an outstanding student and faculty experience. With so much change forthcoming where would you start? For the facilities organization it begins with a little introspection. In order to build a house you must begin with a good foundation. Over the last 2 years, the facilities services group at the University of Tennessee has undergone a reorganization designed to achieve 3 core goals: Target resources to shift from a reactive to proactive maintenance department; Align resources to improve customer service; Preserve the strengths of their current facilities service team. A critical step to creating buy in from senior leadership for these changes was to show that facilities service knew where their strengths and opportunities were and that they had a plan. Together with Sightlines, UTK has utilized data and benchmarking to establish a baseline from which they can evaluate their successes and target future areas. University of Tennessee, Knoxville will demonstrate how these baselines were created, what they are, and how they are being used to engage campus leaders to make the case for appropriate resource allocation.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the Facilities Organization [APPA 2014]
Similar to University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the Facilities Organization [APPA 2014] (20)
More from Sightlines
More from Sightlines (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the Facilities Organization [APPA 2014]
- 1. 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 College Xavier University Yeshiva University Youngstown State University 15 May 2013 University of Tennessee Knoxville’s Drive to the Top 25
- 2. “UT Can’t Reach our Top 25 and Masterplan Goals without our FACILITIES GROUP being Top 25.” Chancellor Jimmy Cheek
- 3. “The Plan”
- 4. FACILITIES SERVICES PRIORITIES Embrace And Advance UT Visions And Goals Lead The Drive To Top 25 Position Our Team For Success
- 5. Commitments to UT Facilities Project Investment & Construction $12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013 $11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance $8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities $600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System $2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept. Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus 3 Full Time Training Positions
- 6. Commitments to UT Facilities Project Investment & Construction $12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013 $11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance $8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities $600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System $2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept. Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus 3 Full Time Training Positions
- 7. Sightlines’ involvement With so much change coming, how could UT facilities services manage, track and communicate the progress?
- 8. Space Profile: The hand that you are dealt
- 9. Overall Age Profile Similar to Peers 21% 20% 52% 56% 31% 36% 30% 24% 18% 20% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% UTK Peer Average % of Total Campus GSF Campus Age by Category Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
- 10. Age Profile Impacts Future Capital Strategy 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 10 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 - GSF Constructed Space Since 1880 Cumulative GSF Key Questions: How do you address the backlog of needs? How do you address the ongoing renewal needs? Note: Renewal needs are not exclusive to new buildings. For example, a 20 year old building may have a mechanical system that lasts 40 years, therefore the renewal need would come 20 years from now.
- 11. Construction Vintage at UT Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction 11 UT Construction Vintage 23% 43% 24% 10% Pre War Post War Modern Complex Pre-War • Built before 1951 Post-War • Built between 1951 and 1975 Modern • Built between 1975 and 1990 Complex • Built in 1991 and newer Lower Quality construction
- 12. Construction Vintage at UT Looking at the age of campus based on era of construction 12 UT Construction Vintage 23% 43% 24% 10% Pre War Post War Modern Complex Peers Construction Vintage 33% Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly 23% 12% 32% Pre War Post War Modern Complex
- 13. UT has more space in “low-quality” construction eras 13 UT Construction Vintage 24% 23% 53% 44% Pre War Post War Modern Complex Peers Construction Vintage Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly 23% 33% Pre War Post War Modern Complex
- 14. Capital Investment & Backlog: The impact of history
- 15. Outspending Peers in Recent Years Recent increase in capital matches growing needs in Post-war & Modern Buildings Increased capital commitment starting to show up in FY12 and FY13.
- 16. Increased investment “stabilizing backlog” $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 Decreasing Backlog Stabilizing Backlog Increasing Backlog 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Millions Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Equilibrium Need
- 17. Despite the progress more is needed • Recent increases in capital investments have meant that UT exceeds peer investment levels. • Despite the increase, UT is just reaching the annual investment target require to “Stabilize” the backlog • Low historical investment levels have left UT with a greater backlog than peers and a “pent up” capital demand.
- 18. A dual approach to addressing DM $90.0 $80.0 $70.0 $60.0 $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Millions Total Capital Investment by Type Existing Space Spending New Space Spending • Existing space investments targeting key systematic deferred maintenance issues • New space being used to build new buildings to replace older facilities with significant deferred maintenance needs • Replacing smaller buildings with larger (Operational efficiencies) • Replace aging programmatic space with modern facilities.
- 19. Operational Effectiveness: Positioning the team for success
- 20. Some key operational Initiatives • Separate “maintenance” from “projects” • Bring Custodial operations back in-house to improve service levels • Implement a new work order system, improve PM tracking and Service delivery • Grounds performance – Big issue for the Vice Chancellor
- 21. Bringing custodial staffing in-house Cleanliness Score UT FY12 4.21 UT FY13 4.37
- 22. Expanding the Grounds comparison SEC, ACC, and Big 10 institutions 4.0 UT FY12 UT FY12 UT FY13 4.2 Peer Average 4.0 Less Staff Less Materials Less Supervision
- 23. Conclusion With Facilities leading the “drive to 25” and the Institutional commitments to facilities at UT, the need for managing, tracking and communicating facilities progress was of upmost importance. • Validate the need for change. The campus profile and historical investment had left a substantial “pent up” capital demand, require additional capital investment. • Shift the culture from reactive to proactive. The chancellors commitment to on-going deferred maintenance funding of approximately $8M / yr. will continue to improve and already improving capital position. • Targeting operational resources to improve service. Significant commitments have been made to operations, with performance beginning to show improvement.
- 24. Presenter Profile 15 May 2013 Location: Knoxville, TN Founded: 1794 Students: Over 27,000 Acreage: 560 GSF: Over 14 Million Location: Guilford, CT Founded: 2000 Member Campuses: Over 450
- 25. Presenter Profile Dave Irvin Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services University of Tennessee Knoxville Email: Irvin@utk.edu Peter Reeves Associate Director – Member Operations Sightlines LLC Email: Preeves@sightlines.edu
- 26. More info
Editor's Notes
- Dave
- Dave
- Dave
- Dave
- Dave
- The first step, understand and communicate the challenge inherent in the campus profile. While your campus profile is the “hand that your dealt”, understanding and anticipating what pressures and options exist allow facilities to proactively utilize their space profile as a catalyst to change and improvement, rather than an impediment.
- Peter – the campus age profile gives insights to the risk profile that campus facilities organizations must manage. [Explain the chart] While the data shows similar profiles to peers, analysis of other areas of facilities, including capital, operational, and service levels, as well as anecdotal evidence and sightlines on campus experience, were indicating greater stressors from the age profile, than the initial data was leading on. Further investigation was warranted.
- Peter – The construction curve of any campus tells an incredibly important story of the current and future capital and backlog needs. I encourage each one of your to plot your campus construction curve and look at the history and story it tells. Nationwide we have seen two major peaks of construction, the 1950-1970 period and the 1990s to early 2000s. With both of these construction booms being associated with significant challenges. UT’s profile shows the major campus growth period is in the post war 1950 – 1975 period.
- Peter – As mentioned before, we can analyze construction periods in 4 major buckets. When doing that, what we find is that the Post war and modern vintage buildings are typcially of lower quality construction and in many cases are reaching critical building lifecycles early and more often that the older pre war buildings. Complex building, built more recently, while higher quality construction, will cost more over their life due to the complex nature of the buildings. It became evident at UT, that the majority of space, 53% was constructed during these troublesome construction eras. Further complicating matters, many of these buildings are key academic/research facilities, iconic buildings or housing flagship programs. It was clear that initially, the age profile was understating some of the challenges that UT faced.
- Peter – In adding some additional peer perspective, while peers have similar amounts of modern and Pre war facilities, they have fewer buildings built during the post war, and more facilities recently. This would indicate that peers will have greater upcoming capital renewal and investment needs, while UT is facing a greater “pent – up” demand for current investment to mitigate growing backlogs and immediate renewal needs.
- Peter with Dave adding commentary at the end. - Given the differences and challenges UT faced with the current profile, a multi faceted, multi year plan was needed. This plan needed to include a combination of major renovations(Ayers hall), ongoing deferred maintenance funding(Chancellors funding) and finally new construction to replace aging/troublesome facilities.
- Knowing the additional challenges created by the campus profile, the history of capital investment plays a significant role in communicating the challenges going forward at UT. Being able to document the need for additional capital funding, while also being able to show the impact of any increased investment as it comes.
- Peter – Historically, UT capital investment is the tale of two periods. Early on in our date, and before, investment levels were low and significantly below peers. Understanding the impact of that lower historical investment, coupled with the higher needs for investment, an increase commitment from the Chancellor resulted in much higher levels of capital funding.
- Peter – While there has been an overall increase in investment, the current increased amount is only beginning to stabilize the historically growing backlog of need. In addition to the overall funding increase, higher levels of “recurring” funding is beginning to show up in the data. The duel approach of increased investment, as well as ongoing “recurring funding” is having a positive impact.
- Peter – While there has been a significant improvement in the capital investment approach, the backlog of needs, or pent up demand for capital investment remains above peers and one of the highest in the peer group. It will require a coordinated approach, both with more investment, but a new approach/plan for getting the most out of all investments.
- Peter with Dave adding commentary – Both investment into existing space and New construction can act to mitigate DM, as long as it is done.
- Dave
- Peter
- Peter
- Peter with Dave adding commentary