y y 
University of Missouri - St. Louis 
University of Nebraska at Kearney 
University of New Hampshire 
University of New...
Jay Pearlman 
Associate Vice-President 
jpearlman@sightlines.com 
Presenters 
Karen Gumin 
Regional Account Executive 
kgu...
Who Partners with Sightlines? 
Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems 
Serving t...
A Disconnect between Finance and Facilities
Creating Alignment Between 
Finance and Facilities: 
Trends Affecting Higher Education
Challenges Facing Higher Education 
Federal and state funding levels for higher education have fallen to historic 
lows wi...
The Sustainability of Higher Education is in Question 
“Approximately one-third of 
all colleges and universities 
have fi...
Your Largest Asset 
Balance Sheets Understate Importance of Physical Assets 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
S...
Commentary Does Not Fairly Represent Facilities 
“Book value” does not represent replacement or market value of 
facilitie...
$/ Gross Sq. Ft. Capital Budgets Have Not Recovered 
Substantive Difference Between Public & Private Annual Capital Budget...
Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise 
Current Capital, At +/-$5 per GSF, is Not Slowing Backlog Growth 
$77 $79 $80 $82 $8...
Waves of Construction Hitting Major Life Cycles 
First wave of buildings are now 50 years old; second wave nears 20 years ...
Changing the Conversation 
13
We Need to Change the Conversation 
Language that Drives Effective Policies for… 
Space 
Release The 
Hidden Value in 
Bal...
We Need to Change the Conversation 
Language that Drives Effective Policies 
We need a conversation regarding facilities t...
Create Engagement on Campus 
Adopt a 
Common 
Vocabulary 
16 
Create 
Alignment 
Influence 
Institutional 
Policy 
Make 
L...
An Effective Common Vocabulary 
Use Terms that Engage - Repeat 
The annual 
investment needed 
to ensure buildings 
will p...
Now that You Speak the Same Language… 
Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 
18 
Data 
Information 
Knowledge 
Act...
Now that You Speak the Same Language… 
Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 
19 
Data 
Information 
Knowledge 
Act...
Now that You Speak the Same Language… 
Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 
160,000 
140,000 
120,000 
100,000 
8...
Now that You Speak the Same Language… 
Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 
21 
Data 
Information 
Knowledge 
Act...
Three Different Scenarios of Engagement 
22 
Create Support for a New Direction 
Changing Support for an Already 
Accepted...
Creating Support for a New Direction 
Reexamining Building Policies 
23
Example 1: Daily Service Costs 
Increasing Daily Service Costs – Budget Cuts Lead to Reduced Service
From Data to Knowledge 
Daily Service Costs Significantly Higher than Peers
A Multitude of Small Buildings 
26 
400 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Over 50,000 GSF 15000-50,000 GSF 0-15,000 GS...
Significantly More Small Buildings
The Real Culprit Number of smaller & older buildings on campus affecting PSU’s daily service spending 
28 
$3.20 
Labor Co...
New Policy through Engagement 
> Recommend Board set policy to drive 
building intensity down approximately 
25% to just a...
Changing Support for an Already 
Accepted Direction 
Construction of New Building 
30
Example #2: Insufficient Classroom Space 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
% 
Room Utilization – Gen...
Proposed Solution 
> Estimated need of 22 general 
use classrooms 
> Add 50,000 GSF classroom 
building 
> Building to cos...
From Data to Knowledge 
Misaligned Quantity and Size 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
33 
% 
Room a...
A Need for Smaller Rooms 
34 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
Room Size 
Under 30 31-45 46-80 Over 80 
# of Classrooms 
...
Conversation Focused on Benefits 
Faculty, Facilities & IT Engaged to Create New Policies 
> Avoidance of over $10M in 
ca...
Engagement Creates New Policies 
Room Size Current 
Rooms 
Laptop Policy Renovating 
Current Rooms 
Schedule 
Limited Room...
Create Confidence in a New Paradigm 
Capital Planning and Budgeting 
37
Why Institutions Complete an FCA? 
 Validates fiscal needs 
 Supports budget preparation 
 Provides data for short term...
What Now? 
How do I best move my FCA data to action? 
> Get “buy-in” from institutional 
facilities and trades staff 
> Bu...
Building Portfolio Process 
40
• Repair/Maintain 
• Modernization 
• Infrastructure 
Define Work 
Classification 
• Reliability 
• Asset Preservation 
• ...
Building Portfolios 
Total Needs 
New 
Construction 
??? 
Grounds 
Infrastructure 
Utility 
Infrastructure Building 
Acade...
Talk About Outcomes – Not Inputs 
43 
Investment Strategy 
100%- 
85% 
85%- 
70% 
70%- 
50% 
Below 
50% 
Capital Upkeep St...
Planning Options Summary 
$9 
$8 
$7 
$6 
$5 
$4 
$3 
$2 
$1 
$- 
44 
Academic / 
Admin 
Student 
Life Repair Infrastructu...
Planning Options Detailed 
Economic Operations 
45 
Academic / 
Admin 
Student 
Life Repair Infrastructure Renovation Hous...
Talk Strategy – Not Projects 
46 
Full Inventory 
of Projects 
Apply 
Building Portfolio 
& Timeframe 
Apply 
Investment 
...
Do it Again 
47
Questions & Discussion 
Adopt a 
Common 
Vocabulary 
48 
Create 
Alignment 
Influence 
Institutional 
Policy 
Make 
Lastin...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management - A Step Towards Total Campus Engagement (PPM Workshop)

322 views

Published on

As a result of increasing demands for capital renewal investments at a time when resources are limited, we need a new conversation around facilities at our campuses. This conversation needs to engage stakeholders and force a dialogue regarding institutional priorities and facilities initiatives that support them. An institution-wide understanding of space priorities and capital needs must drive operating changes that stick.

Facilities leaders need to use a language that creates alignment throughout the institution and drives effective policies. They need to create constituency for a multi-year capital plan. They need to communicate results to drive credibility and maintain support. During this presentation, participants will learn different strategies for engaging with various constituencies on campus in order to create facilities plans that are technically sound and tie to mission and finance. Working together, we can create a dialogue that resonates from the board room to the boiler room.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
322
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
46
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thank you for requesting more information about Sightlines. We really appreciate your participation. As John has communicated in the past, we are actively exploring the K-12 and preparatory school market. We really think our core concepts apply just as they do in the world of higher education and we would welcome a partnership with ABOPS. Key point: We are owners and not sales people.
  • We are very proud of the institutions we work with.Sightlines works with 450 colleges, universities and K-12 institutions as well as numerous state systems.Over 300 are ROPA members including many of the country’s top institutions.Of key importance is that over 93% of members renew each year and we added 56 new members in 2013.
  • One key factor was the absence of a common vocabulary for facilities management. How can we unite operators and business officers to achieve and communicate common goals?
  • Many experts agree – There are significant challenges facing higher education administrators…and the industry is under microscopeThere are a number of issues that are converging at the same time.Government aid for education has fallen drastically.Enrollments are declining in many regions.Pressures are significant on both operating and capital budgets.
  • One recent white paper laid it out very clearly when they said that “Approximately one-third of all colleges and universities have financial statements that are significantly weaker than they were several years ago.” They are dubbing it a liquidity crises – or a critical lack of expendable resources.
  • However, our college and university balance sheets do not appropriately represent their impact.When we look at financial statements across a number of Sightlines members, PPE (Property, Plant, & Equipment) make up between 15 and 50% of wealth.But when you look at the real value of these assets (replacement value minus backlog) their share is actually much higher.To us, this should enhance the concerns over liquidity.Our depreciation accounting leads to under representation of facilities values and therefore potentially an under representation of investment requirements and the impact of opportunitites.
  • The problem has the potential to get worse before it gets better.Capital Investments into existing buildings at both Public and Private institutions have not recovered to pre-recession levels.Of further concern is that public universities have substantially lower annual capital budgets and therefore a far higher dependency on variable one time resources.
  • With diminished investment, backlogs are growing.Capital spending at approximately at $5 / square foot +/- 6% of the backlog – we cannot “catch up.”
  • And more lifecycle needs are coming due.Two waves of construction are both approaching major lifecycles thresholds.Without a change in funding nationwide, these backlog trends will continue.
  • That vocabulary will lead to the alignment of strategies across the institution and will lead to more effective policies.Over the last several years, institutions have focused on cutting operations first.However, this has not addressed the fundamental structure of the business and some of the root causes of our problems.First, we need good policies about space and capital allocations.Some of those include:Releasing hidden value from facilitiesIncrease utilization ratesImprove Scale (Bldg Density)Monetize Assets – Sell Parking, Power Plants, HousingAligning building and institutional prioritiesMultiyear Investment StrategiesBuilding Portfolios and Investment CriteriaFinancial AlignmentModernization / Repair / New Construction CoordinationThen we can talk about how to improve the operating organization to serve the “new institution.”
  • We need a new conversation around facilities at our colleges and universitiesWe need a language that creates alignment and drives effective policies.This new discourse should:Treat facilities like a core business and not an auxiliary.Use the concepts of endowment management to discuss investment.Align physical plant decisions with institutional mission and financesUse predictive analysis to look into the future.How do you do this? You start with a common vocabulary that can use from boiler room to board room.
  • PSU University Park campus has a multitude of small buildings in every age category. New construction includes a mix of both small and large buildings. 78% of small buildings are over 25 years of age.
  • Define work– the type of work of the project Define Project – define the impact the project Project priority – define the importance of eachWhat we do different – we go further by defining not only the work, but also project classification
  • Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management - A Step Towards Total Campus Engagement (PPM Workshop)

    1. 1. y y University of Missouri - St. Louis University of Nebraska at Kearney University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Texas at Dallas University of the Pacific University of Toledo University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College Vassar College Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services 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 April 8, 2014 Changing the Conversation around Facilities Management… A Step Towards Total Campus Engagement
    2. 2. Jay Pearlman Associate Vice-President jpearlman@sightlines.com Presenters Karen Gumin Regional Account Executive kgumin@sightlines.com
    3. 3. Who Partners with Sightlines? Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions: • 19 of the Top 25 Colleges* • 17 of the Top 25 Universities* • 42 Flagship State Universities • 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions • 12 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions • 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges * U.S. News 2014 Rankings 3 Sightlines is proud to announce that: • 450 colleges, universities and K-12 institutions are Sightlines clients including over 300 ROPA members. • 93% of ROPA members renewed in 2013 • We have clients in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Canada • 56 new institutions became Sightlines members in 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in: • Alaska • California • Connecticut • Hawaii • Maine • Massachusetts • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York: CUNY and SUNY • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Texas
    4. 4. A Disconnect between Finance and Facilities
    5. 5. Creating Alignment Between Finance and Facilities: Trends Affecting Higher Education
    6. 6. Challenges Facing Higher Education Federal and state funding levels for higher education have fallen to historic lows with no nearterm vision for recovery. Demographic shifts have led to level or declining enrollments in traditional students Affordability of education has expanded student debt, capped tuition growth, and increased dependency on Pell Grants. Tuition dependency has grown, operating margins have fallen, and balance sheets have weakened. Administrative and support costs have grown compared to education costs.
    7. 7. The Sustainability of Higher Education is in Question “Approximately one-third of all colleges and universities have financial statements that are significantly weaker than they were several years ago.” Denneen & Dretler, The Financially Sustainable University
    8. 8. Your Largest Asset Balance Sheets Understate Importance of Physical Assets 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Selective Liberal Arts Private Large Univ. Comprehensive Univ. Public Univ. % PPE % Net Asset Value
    9. 9. Commentary Does Not Fairly Represent Facilities “Book value” does not represent replacement or market value of facilities assets Deprecation accounting does not fairly represent financial (“backlog”) or program risk Capital Pressures on Colleges and Universities are Often Understated
    10. 10. $/ Gross Sq. Ft. Capital Budgets Have Not Recovered Substantive Difference Between Public & Private Annual Capital Budgets $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 Public Average Private Average 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    11. 11. Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise Current Capital, At +/-$5 per GSF, is Not Slowing Backlog Growth $77 $79 $80 $82 $84 $87 $90 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $/GSF Backlog $/GSF Backlog/GSF Percentage Change of Backlog
    12. 12. Waves of Construction Hitting Major Life Cycles First wave of buildings are now 50 years old; second wave nears 20 years old 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Total GSF of Database (Millions) Constructed Space Sightlines Database (1880-Present) = 1.3 billion GSF GSF Constructed (5 Year Cohorts) 12 Pre-War Built before 1951 Durable construction Older but typically lasts longer Post-War Built between 1951 and 1975 Lower-quality construction Already needing more repairs and renovations Modern Built between 1975 and 1990 Quick-flash construction Low-quality building components Complex Built in 1991 and newer Technically complex spaces Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair
    13. 13. Changing the Conversation 13
    14. 14. We Need to Change the Conversation Language that Drives Effective Policies for… Space Release The Hidden Value in Balance Sheets Capital $ Multiyear Plans that Align to Mission, & Risk Operations Improve Effectiveness & Lower Facilities Overhead Impact
    15. 15. We Need to Change the Conversation Language that Drives Effective Policies We need a conversation regarding facilities that: > Treats physical plant like a core business and not an auxiliary; > Uses concepts of endowment management to contextualize investment decisions; > Aligns facilities operations and capital investment with institutional mission and finance; > Focuses on outcomes and not inputs. How to make this change? Create common vocabulary for facilities management that can be articulated from the boiler room to the board room.
    16. 16. Create Engagement on Campus Adopt a Common Vocabulary 16 Create Alignment Influence Institutional Policy Make Lasting Change
    17. 17. An Effective Common Vocabulary Use Terms that Engage - Repeat 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 Asset Value Change 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 Operations Success 17
    18. 18. Now that You Speak the Same Language… Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 18 Data Information Knowledge Action
    19. 19. Now that You Speak the Same Language… Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 19 Data Information Knowledge Action Data Having the Right Numbers
    20. 20. Now that You Speak the Same Language… Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - BTU/GSF Energy Consumption 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 kWh/GSF Electric Consumption 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 BTU/GSF Fossil Consumption Information Having the Numbers Right 20 Data Information Knowledge Action
    21. 21. Now that You Speak the Same Language… Arm Yourself with Knowledge to Create Change 21 Data Information Knowledge Action
    22. 22. Three Different Scenarios of Engagement 22 Create Support for a New Direction Changing Support for an Already Accepted Direction Create Confidence in a New Paradigm
    23. 23. Creating Support for a New Direction Reexamining Building Policies 23
    24. 24. Example 1: Daily Service Costs Increasing Daily Service Costs – Budget Cuts Lead to Reduced Service
    25. 25. From Data to Knowledge Daily Service Costs Significantly Higher than Peers
    26. 26. A Multitude of Small Buildings 26 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Over 50,000 GSF 15000-50,000 GSF 0-15,000 GSF Count Of Buildings Building Count By Size & Age 0-10 Years Of Age 10-25 Years Of Age 25-50 Years Of Age 50+ Years Of Age
    27. 27. Significantly More Small Buildings
    28. 28. The Real Culprit Number of smaller & older buildings on campus affecting PSU’s daily service spending 28 $3.20 Labor Cost by GSF Category $1.18 $1.30 $0.99 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Under 10K 10K - 25K 25K - 50K 50K and above $/GSF GSF Category
    29. 29. New Policy through Engagement > Recommend Board set policy to drive building intensity down approximately 25% to just above pear averages > Raise many small buildings through “attrition” and replace with larger new modern spaces (Reduce 265 Bldgs ~ 820 +/- GSF) > Recommended policy to reduce operating expenses by between $1.75M and $2M. > Recycle savings to annual stewardship funding to slow rate of deferral and avoid estimated $10M in project deferral
    30. 30. Changing Support for an Already Accepted Direction Construction of New Building 30
    31. 31. Example #2: Insufficient Classroom Space 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Room Utilization – General Classrooms Room Utilization Difficult Scheduling During Most of Day
    32. 32. Proposed Solution > Estimated need of 22 general use classrooms > Add 50,000 GSF classroom building > Building to cost $15M to $20M > Estimated daily service expenses of $500k annually
    33. 33. From Data to Knowledge Misaligned Quantity and Size 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 33 % Room and Position Utilization Room Utilization Position Utilization
    34. 34. A Need for Smaller Rooms 34 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Room Size Under 30 31-45 46-80 Over 80 # of Classrooms Room Size Design Capacity Actual Enrollment
    35. 35. Conversation Focused on Benefits Faculty, Facilities & IT Engaged to Create New Policies > Avoidance of over $10M in capital costs > Investment of $1M annually to slow rate of deferral in existing classroom buildings > Creation of small project fund for faculty appropriation > Advancement of technology infrastructure 35
    36. 36. Engagement Creates New Policies Room Size Current Rooms Laptop Policy Renovating Current Rooms Schedule Limited Rooms Schedule Dept Controlled Rooms Total Free up 4 out of 6 Computer Labs (approximately 2,400 students) Convert 8 ’31-45’ rooms to 12 ‘Under 30 rooms’ (approximately 8,000 S.F.) Add 6 rooms by changing scheduling policy Allow for 8 out of 11 Dept Controlled Rooms to be scheduled by changing the scheduling policy Under 30 10 +4 +12 +1 +6 33 31-45 20 -8 +1 +1 14 46-80 3 +1 4 Over 80 1 +3 +1 5 Cumulative Total 34 38 42 48 56 56 Cost $800/Student = $2.5M $150/Square Foot = $1.5 m $0 $0 +/- $4M
    37. 37. Create Confidence in a New Paradigm Capital Planning and Budgeting 37
    38. 38. Why Institutions Complete an FCA?  Validates fiscal needs  Supports budget preparation  Provides data for short term planning (prioritize immediate maintenance issues)  Provides data for long term strategic planning  Facilitates forecasting of scenarios for different investment strategies  Establishes confidence in the budgeting and planning phases of the work  Launches a baseline for a strategic plan 38
    39. 39. What Now? How do I best move my FCA data to action? > Get “buy-in” from institutional facilities and trades staff > Build constituency by tying project list to institutional mission and priorities > Create flexible and affordable financial plan > Build credibility by tracking success to obtain subsequent appropriations
    40. 40. Building Portfolio Process 40
    41. 41. • Repair/Maintain • Modernization • Infrastructure Define Work Classification • Reliability • Asset Preservation • Space Improvement • Economic Operations • Safety / Code Define Project Classifications • A: 1 - 3 years • B: 4 - 6 years • C: 7+ years Define Project Priority What is the Work? What is the Impact? What is the Priority? Adding Value to Each Project
    42. 42. Building Portfolios Total Needs New Construction ??? Grounds Infrastructure Utility Infrastructure Building Academic 1.5 M GSF 21 Buildings Science Research 0.3 M GSF 3 Buildings Residence & Student Life 0.8 M GSF 10 Buildings Athletics 0.2 M GSF 2 Buildings Administrative 0.4 M GSF 5 Buildings • Option 1: Functional Assumes investment is dictated by building function (ie. academic, administrative) and prioritization of investment can be determined by associated use. 42
    43. 43. Talk About Outcomes – Not Inputs 43 Investment Strategy 100%- 85% 85%- 70% 70%- 50% Below 50% Capital Upkeep Stage: Primarily new or recently renovated buildings with sporadic building repair & life cycle needs; “You pick the projects” Repair and Maintain Stage: Buildings are beginning to show their age and may require more significant investment on a case-by-case basis Systemic Renovation Stage: Buildings may require more significant repairs; large capital infusions; “The projects pick you” Transitional/Gut Renovation/Demo Stage: Major buildings components are in jeopardy of failure. Reliability issues are widespread throughout the building. NAV of Index (Replacement Value-Building Needs) NAV Index = Replacement Value X 100 Example NAV Peer NAV Group NAV
    44. 44. Planning Options Summary $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $- 44 Academic / Admin Student Life Repair Infrastructure Renovation Houses $20M Plan $ 2,118,600 $ 4,891,000 $ 7,555,600 $ 1,384,700 $ - $ 271,514 $25M Plan $ 3,368,600 $ 6,540,600 $ 8,055,600 $ 1,734,700 $ - $ 319,094 $30M Plan $ 3,497,100 $ 7,754,900 $ 7,555,600 $ 2,055,800 $ 3,405,555 $ 819,094 $(1) Academic / Admin Student Life Repair Infrastructure Renovation Houses Millions $20M Plan $25M Plan $30M Plan
    45. 45. Planning Options Detailed Economic Operations 45 Academic / Admin Student Life Repair Infrastructure Renovation Houses $20M Plan $ 2,118,600 $ 4,891,000 $ 7,555,600 $ 1,384,700 $ - $ 271,514 $25M Plan $ 3,368,600 $ 6,540,600 $ 8,055,600 $ 1,734,700 $ - $ 319,094 $30M Plan $ 3,497,100 $ 7,754,900 $ 7,555,600 $ 2,055,800 $ 3,405,555 $ 819,094 Economic Operations Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability Student Life Repair Infrastructure Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability Economic Operations Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability Economic Operations Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability Economic Operations Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability Economic Operations Safety/Code Space Improvement Asset Preservation Reliability $(1) $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 Millions $20M Plan $25M Plan $30M Plan Acad/Admin Renovation Houses
    46. 46. Talk Strategy – Not Projects 46 Full Inventory of Projects Apply Building Portfolio & Timeframe Apply Investment Criteria & Timeframe Multi- Year Project Plan Full Inventory of Projects Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC, Mechanical, Exterior, Interior, Safety… ? How Do You Target Projects Proposed Solution Current Challenge Integrate Modernization, Infrastructure, & New Space Pick Projects
    47. 47. Do it Again 47
    48. 48. Questions & Discussion Adopt a Common Vocabulary 48 Create Alignment Influence Institutional Policy Make Lasting Change

    ×