Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.
WACUBO 2012 Presentation: How the Oregon University System is Attacking Defer...Sightlines
Viewers will learn how Oregon University System (OUS) made the case for a 500% capital budget increase from 2001-03 to 2009-11 to attack deferred maintenance. Representatives from OUS, Portland State University (PSU) and Sightlines will discuss they used performance measurement and analysis, developed a political strategy for securing resources, and are implementing a plan for rapidly enacting capital projects at the campus level.
Additionally, Portland State University (PSU) will provide an excellent case study on the impact of the new funding. With a very densely populated urban campus, one of the oldest space profiles in the system, and the largest backlog of deferred projects, the additional funding significantly impacted PSU. PSU will discuss their strategic selection of renovation projects, which both greatly benefited academic programs and improved the overall condition and appearance of campus.
Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy at the University of North Tex...Sightlines
All higher education facilities management professionals have a story to tell campus leadership. This story focuses on facility needs in both physical asset management and facilities operational management, and it can be crucial to an institution’s future. How can facilities managers tell their story to have the most influence on key decision makers and gain their support?
This presentation, entitled "Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy," featured the University of North Texas (UNT) and highlighted how they have effectively used metrics to tell their facilities story. Armed with third-party verified data and associated metrics, facilities leaders were able to help senior decision makers better understand the campus’ facilities. Specifically, UNT was able to accurately inform their leadership of their space profile and financial challenges making the case for additional funds to reduce their backlog. They were also able to gain support from the UNT Board of Regents for a system-wide application of the data gathering and management model. Going forward, UNT is considering ways metrics can be used to help improve their current space utilization on campus.
Taming Deferred Maintenance Before the Roof Caves In (2016 Sightlines NACUBO ...Sightlines
This document provides an overview of facilities trends in higher education based on data from 377 institutions in the Sightlines State of Facilities Database. Some key findings include:
- Space is growing faster than enrollment, with the exception of some research institutions. 67% of campus space was built between 1955-1975 or 1995-2015.
- Despite increases in capital investment, deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise as investment has not been enough to address aging campuses.
- After years of flat funding, facilities operating budgets saw modest increases in 2014-2015.
- Case studies of Rutgers University and Chapman University show strategies they are employing to address challenges like older building stock and inadequate capital investment through policies around space utilization and
Exploring the State of Facilities - Your Chance to "Ask Sightlines"Sightlines
How does a campus turn back the clock on their facilities? How do we address growing backlog needs with limited or shrinking funds? What energy projects can reduce consumption and boost our bottom-line?
These are a few of the questions answered by Sightlines experts in this informative and engaging webinar as we offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Additionally, this interactive presentation:
- Explores the analysis that serves as the basis for our industry-leading database and the report it informs
- Shows data that goes beyond the broad trends
- Offers strategies for success and case studies showing innovative solutions to common facilities challenges
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsEric Nolan
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
How UMass is reducing its deferred maintenance backlogSightlines
With enrollment swelling over 70,000 students, facilities and finance leaders at the University of Massachusetts system and its individual campuses knew they must implement a plan to address this growth while properly maintaining their facilities. Using a comprehensive strategy, the University of Massachusetts system is on track to reduce its deferred maintenance backlog by nearly 30% over the next three years. One representative from the UMass system discussed the benefits of a system-wide approach for handling deferred maintenance, and how Sightlines’ data helped provide the necessary tools.
The State of Facilities at cIcu InstitutionsSightlines
cIcu institutions are not immune to the issues facing finance and facilities leaders across higher education, including: constrained capital and operating budgets; aging campus buildings; and growing backlogs. However, there are strategies that can allow institutions to survive and thrive despite these challenges.
In this exclusive hour-long webinar for cIcu institutions, Sightlines:
- Explores current national trends,
- Shows how our cIcu clients have been affected, and
- Discuss the proven strategies for success
From Boiler Room to Board Room: Creating Alignment with Non-Facilities Profes...Sightlines
Learn how Lebanon Valley College and the University of Georgia are creating alignment from the boiler room to the board room using Sightlines' third-party data and analysis.
WACUBO 2012 Presentation: How the Oregon University System is Attacking Defer...Sightlines
Viewers will learn how Oregon University System (OUS) made the case for a 500% capital budget increase from 2001-03 to 2009-11 to attack deferred maintenance. Representatives from OUS, Portland State University (PSU) and Sightlines will discuss they used performance measurement and analysis, developed a political strategy for securing resources, and are implementing a plan for rapidly enacting capital projects at the campus level.
Additionally, Portland State University (PSU) will provide an excellent case study on the impact of the new funding. With a very densely populated urban campus, one of the oldest space profiles in the system, and the largest backlog of deferred projects, the additional funding significantly impacted PSU. PSU will discuss their strategic selection of renovation projects, which both greatly benefited academic programs and improved the overall condition and appearance of campus.
Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy at the University of North Tex...Sightlines
All higher education facilities management professionals have a story to tell campus leadership. This story focuses on facility needs in both physical asset management and facilities operational management, and it can be crucial to an institution’s future. How can facilities managers tell their story to have the most influence on key decision makers and gain their support?
This presentation, entitled "Using Metrics for Facilities Resource Advocacy," featured the University of North Texas (UNT) and highlighted how they have effectively used metrics to tell their facilities story. Armed with third-party verified data and associated metrics, facilities leaders were able to help senior decision makers better understand the campus’ facilities. Specifically, UNT was able to accurately inform their leadership of their space profile and financial challenges making the case for additional funds to reduce their backlog. They were also able to gain support from the UNT Board of Regents for a system-wide application of the data gathering and management model. Going forward, UNT is considering ways metrics can be used to help improve their current space utilization on campus.
Taming Deferred Maintenance Before the Roof Caves In (2016 Sightlines NACUBO ...Sightlines
This document provides an overview of facilities trends in higher education based on data from 377 institutions in the Sightlines State of Facilities Database. Some key findings include:
- Space is growing faster than enrollment, with the exception of some research institutions. 67% of campus space was built between 1955-1975 or 1995-2015.
- Despite increases in capital investment, deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise as investment has not been enough to address aging campuses.
- After years of flat funding, facilities operating budgets saw modest increases in 2014-2015.
- Case studies of Rutgers University and Chapman University show strategies they are employing to address challenges like older building stock and inadequate capital investment through policies around space utilization and
Exploring the State of Facilities - Your Chance to "Ask Sightlines"Sightlines
How does a campus turn back the clock on their facilities? How do we address growing backlog needs with limited or shrinking funds? What energy projects can reduce consumption and boost our bottom-line?
These are a few of the questions answered by Sightlines experts in this informative and engaging webinar as we offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Additionally, this interactive presentation:
- Explores the analysis that serves as the basis for our industry-leading database and the report it informs
- Shows data that goes beyond the broad trends
- Offers strategies for success and case studies showing innovative solutions to common facilities challenges
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsEric Nolan
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
How UMass is reducing its deferred maintenance backlogSightlines
With enrollment swelling over 70,000 students, facilities and finance leaders at the University of Massachusetts system and its individual campuses knew they must implement a plan to address this growth while properly maintaining their facilities. Using a comprehensive strategy, the University of Massachusetts system is on track to reduce its deferred maintenance backlog by nearly 30% over the next three years. One representative from the UMass system discussed the benefits of a system-wide approach for handling deferred maintenance, and how Sightlines’ data helped provide the necessary tools.
The State of Facilities at cIcu InstitutionsSightlines
cIcu institutions are not immune to the issues facing finance and facilities leaders across higher education, including: constrained capital and operating budgets; aging campus buildings; and growing backlogs. However, there are strategies that can allow institutions to survive and thrive despite these challenges.
In this exclusive hour-long webinar for cIcu institutions, Sightlines:
- Explores current national trends,
- Shows how our cIcu clients have been affected, and
- Discuss the proven strategies for success
From Boiler Room to Board Room: Creating Alignment with Non-Facilities Profes...Sightlines
Learn how Lebanon Valley College and the University of Georgia are creating alignment from the boiler room to the board room using Sightlines' third-party data and analysis.
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by SightlinesSightlines
National and Regional Trends for Facilities: What They Mean for Your Campus - learn about key national and northeast college and university data trends with regard to age profile, backlog of deferred maintenance, operating costs, and energy costs. And, with the partnership of Sightlines, how these campuses are responding to the trends and challenges from both a public and private campus perspective.
New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012Sightlines
Learn how national data trends show campus buildings are aging and campus backlogs are growing. And, that these trends will accelerate over the next ten years as building constructed in the 1960's turn 50 years old and capital funding from all sources continue to be limited.
Furthermore, learn how the partnership between Sightlines, LLC and University of Massachusetts - Amherst that began in 2005 resulted in more refined documented building conditions, creation of portfolios of projects, and engaged campus leadership in a priority setting process to reach consensus on a multi-year capital plan through the Integrated Facilities Planning process.
Making the Case for Funding Deferred Maintenance Before it's Too Late - Sight...Sightlines
This session provides both a system and campus level perspective as well as a finance and facilities outlook on the problems of deferred maintenance and the strategies to make the case for funding. We will also provide the latest national and regional data on the growing problem of deferred maintenance and the operational implications of not addressing the problem.
Challenges to the Physical Campus: How to Change the Conversation about Facil...Sightlines
This document summarizes a panel discussion on challenges facing physical campuses. The panel discusses trends of slower campus space growth compared to enrollment growth. They address how aging buildings and growing maintenance backlogs are being managed with limited funding. Strategies proposed to address these issues include building strategically to support plans, reducing underutilized space, prioritizing investments over 5 years, maintaining buildings annually, and incentivizing savings to increase capital budgets. The panelists from University of Vermont and Bentley University discuss how they are implementing these strategies and securing support.
Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelli...Sightlines
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.
Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance - NACUBO 2015Sightlines
Sightlines latest conference presentation, Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance, offers four perspectives (the national view, a university system, a campus CFO, and campus facility operations) on how to employ data, analysis, and focused communications to strategically plan for success.
This presentation demonstrates how to:
- Use data to document and package deferred maintenance projects and set priorities to fund projects that support the institutional mission and strategic focus.
- Review actual facility metrics, data, and presentations used with leadership, boards, and external constituents to prioritize projects that remove deferred maintenance.
- Communicate the payoffs of deferred maintenance projects (reduced energy consumption, lowered operating costs, improved programs, etc.) versus the additional costs of waiting to fund projects.
The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Tre...Sightlines
In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges.
In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.
Show Me the Money: Changing the Conversation About Deferred Maintenance and F...Sightlines
This document summarizes a panel discussion on challenges facing higher education facilities. The panel discussed trends of declining enrollment and flat operating budgets putting pressure on aging infrastructure. Specifically, they addressed how institutions are prioritizing programs and investments amid enrollment challenges, balancing new and existing building needs, managing operations across campuses with limited funding, and strategies for gaining support for facilities investments. The panel was composed of facilities leaders from Rutgers University, Penn State University, and University of Hartford who shared their experiences addressing these issues.
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsSightlines
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
The president shared positive news about improving student retention and achievement rates despite economic challenges. However, state budget shortfalls mean the university faces recurring cuts of 7.3% to its state appropriations. To address a $2.6 million shortfall, the university eliminated positions, graduate tuition waivers, and delayed equipment purchases. A mid-year cut of $0.9 million required additional one-time reductions. The final academic audit report recommends eliminating or reconfiguring some programs to improve strategic alignment under tight budgets.
Sightlines National Trends - Current State of Higher Education FacilitiesSightlines
This document discusses challenges related to aging campus facilities and budgets for repairs and renovations. It provides the following key points:
- Over 1.2 billion square feet of campus space is tracked across more than 380 institutions, with 55% being public and 45% private. Nearly half of total space is over 25 years old.
- Capital budgets for repairs were cut more at private institutions after 2009 but recovered quicker, while public institution budgets have remained flat or increased slightly.
- Despite preventative maintenance and capital investments, the repair backlog has continued to rise an average of 16% each year across institutions.
- Campuses have shifted investments more toward durable renovations of building envelopes and mechanical systems rather
In 1980, Rick Biedenweg and Robert Hutson's article Before the Roof Caves In shouted a warning that more effective planning approaches were needed to address higher education's looming facilities challenges. Many industry leaders used their research to make predictions of imminent system failures in order to compel action.
However, the reality is that over these last 35 years, funding has remained well below estimated needs but the widespread failures that have been publicized have not occurred. This leads us to the question "why?" Why hasn't the roof caved in?
There are several contributing factors; some are systemic, and others are the result of resourceful facilities operators. This presentations outlines the root causes of compounding capital needs, the reasons we do not see crumbling facilities, and some simple strategies that are used to avoid program interruption on higher education campuses.
University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the F...Sightlines
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.
7 Essential Questions Highly Effective Facilities Leaders Must Answer_SRAPPA ...Sightlines
This session focuses on how Louisiana State University was able to answer the most essential questions surrounding Facilities Services on their campus. Attendees learned how a campus space profile can drive both capital needs and daily operations, in addition to exploring the tool LSU is using to predict their building needs for the next 10 years, the future indicators they’ll be choosing from to track operational performance, and how to engage financial leadership in the discussion.
Unleash the Power of Prediction with ROPA+Sightlines
With today's capital and operating budget pressures, effectively communicating past success is important, but to continue to thrive, you must be able to look into the future.
What if you had the tools to...
Forecast life cycles, capital needs, and facilities risks?
Create operational and investment goals and continually track performance?
Re-balance your facility strategy and make mid-course corrections to become a "Best in Class" performer?
To give you these tools, Sightlines proudly introduces the next evolution of our facilities benchmarking and analysis service: ROPA+
University of Denver Case Study - Deferred Maintenance Can Be ManagedSightlines
The University of Denver implemented strategies to address a $145.5 million backlog of deferred facility projects. It identified the backlog by building portfolio and priority. A 5-year, $64 million funding plan was created to address the highest priority projects. Performance was tracked relative to the $12.8 million annual benchmark. Over time, funding increased and the backlog was reduced through steady investment rather than deferral.
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Eric Nolan
The May 2014 report Deferred Maintenance at Canadian Universities: An Update, produced by CAUBO in collaboration with Sightlines, states that “it appears that the majority of Canadian universities are still not able to put sufficient resources into capital renewal and that, as a whole, the maintenance backlog in system is increasing.” In fact, the data shows that since 2000 the magnitude of the problem appears to have doubled. If left unchecked, this problem can have far-ranging negative impacts upon the university’s mission and can lead to major system failures.
However, while the report highlights a number of areas for concern, we are not seeing systems degrade to the point of program interruption or crumbling facilities; this is a consistent observation across all of higher education. For the most part, catastrophic failures have not come to pass despite decades of dire predictions, and while there will never be enough funding to eliminate the entire backlog of need on campuses, strategies to manage the problem have emerged across the higher education landscape.
This session explores those strategies, in addition to discussing more about:
• The broad trends affecting facilities across the higher education landscape in North America and the root causes of the compounding facilities issues,
• The four key factors determining why the roof hasn’t caved in despite dire predictions,
• How savvy facilities leaders are preventing major breakdowns, and
• Strategies for driving action on campus by making facilities challenges more manageable
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Sightlines
This document summarizes a webinar presentation on facilities trends in higher education and why major failures have been avoided despite growing challenges. The presentation reviewed data showing aging campus buildings, growing deferred maintenance backlogs, and insufficient capital funding increases to address needs. However, campuses have managed risks through better data to prioritize critical repairs, lower cost repairs extending asset life, risk diversification across building portfolios, and investments driven by space upgrades. Examples showed targeting oldest buildings, increasing preventative maintenance, and aligning long-term renewal plans with funding. This proactive management has helped higher education facilities avoid predicted failures while continuing to address growing reinvestment demands.
Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management - A Step Towards Total Cam...Sightlines
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.
State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2017Sightlines
Join Sightlines and the UNH Sustainability Institute as we analyze campus efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, provide an update on higher education's progress with energy efficiency, and introduce new data and discussion surrounding space management and mechanical upgrades.
2017 State of Facilities in Higher EducationSightlines
Join Sightlines as we shine a spotlight on the trends and best practices that dominated 2017 and will continue to influence campus facilities nationwide in 2018.
More Related Content
Similar to Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
ERAPPA Webinar on Facilities Trends and Challenges - Co-hosted by SightlinesSightlines
National and Regional Trends for Facilities: What They Mean for Your Campus - learn about key national and northeast college and university data trends with regard to age profile, backlog of deferred maintenance, operating costs, and energy costs. And, with the partnership of Sightlines, how these campuses are responding to the trends and challenges from both a public and private campus perspective.
New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012Sightlines
Learn how national data trends show campus buildings are aging and campus backlogs are growing. And, that these trends will accelerate over the next ten years as building constructed in the 1960's turn 50 years old and capital funding from all sources continue to be limited.
Furthermore, learn how the partnership between Sightlines, LLC and University of Massachusetts - Amherst that began in 2005 resulted in more refined documented building conditions, creation of portfolios of projects, and engaged campus leadership in a priority setting process to reach consensus on a multi-year capital plan through the Integrated Facilities Planning process.
Making the Case for Funding Deferred Maintenance Before it's Too Late - Sight...Sightlines
This session provides both a system and campus level perspective as well as a finance and facilities outlook on the problems of deferred maintenance and the strategies to make the case for funding. We will also provide the latest national and regional data on the growing problem of deferred maintenance and the operational implications of not addressing the problem.
Challenges to the Physical Campus: How to Change the Conversation about Facil...Sightlines
This document summarizes a panel discussion on challenges facing physical campuses. The panel discusses trends of slower campus space growth compared to enrollment growth. They address how aging buildings and growing maintenance backlogs are being managed with limited funding. Strategies proposed to address these issues include building strategically to support plans, reducing underutilized space, prioritizing investments over 5 years, maintaining buildings annually, and incentivizing savings to increase capital budgets. The panelists from University of Vermont and Bentley University discuss how they are implementing these strategies and securing support.
Is Your Facilities Data Fact, Fiction, or Crap? - Creating Facilities Intelli...Sightlines
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.
Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance - NACUBO 2015Sightlines
Sightlines latest conference presentation, Change the Conversation to Address Deferred Maintenance, offers four perspectives (the national view, a university system, a campus CFO, and campus facility operations) on how to employ data, analysis, and focused communications to strategically plan for success.
This presentation demonstrates how to:
- Use data to document and package deferred maintenance projects and set priorities to fund projects that support the institutional mission and strategic focus.
- Review actual facility metrics, data, and presentations used with leadership, boards, and external constituents to prioritize projects that remove deferred maintenance.
- Communicate the payoffs of deferred maintenance projects (reduced energy consumption, lowered operating costs, improved programs, etc.) versus the additional costs of waiting to fund projects.
The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Tre...Sightlines
In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges.
In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.
Show Me the Money: Changing the Conversation About Deferred Maintenance and F...Sightlines
This document summarizes a panel discussion on challenges facing higher education facilities. The panel discussed trends of declining enrollment and flat operating budgets putting pressure on aging infrastructure. Specifically, they addressed how institutions are prioritizing programs and investments amid enrollment challenges, balancing new and existing building needs, managing operations across campuses with limited funding, and strategies for gaining support for facilities investments. The panel was composed of facilities leaders from Rutgers University, Penn State University, and University of Hartford who shared their experiences addressing these issues.
Out with the Old - Creating a New Paradigm Around the Fate of Your BuildingsSightlines
Does your campus maintain too many small or outdated buildings? Have a growing backlog due to limited resources? Deal with a strained operations budget? You might also be struggling to make key decisions about when to renovate, replace, or knock down buildings on your campus. Thankfully, you're not alone, and there are solutions.
Rutgers University has been there too. Yet, with proper planning and data support, they were able to make major policy changes that have improved their situation.
In this webinar, Jim Kadamus of Sightlines and Tony Calcado of Rutgers University discuss:
- Why facilities must secure a seat at the table to engage campus leadership in a new, more focused conversation about space allocation
- What data made the case that a paradigm shift was needed and how it affected institutional policies
- How strategic divestment decisions can have a broad impact on campus and what it means for the future.
The president shared positive news about improving student retention and achievement rates despite economic challenges. However, state budget shortfalls mean the university faces recurring cuts of 7.3% to its state appropriations. To address a $2.6 million shortfall, the university eliminated positions, graduate tuition waivers, and delayed equipment purchases. A mid-year cut of $0.9 million required additional one-time reductions. The final academic audit report recommends eliminating or reconfiguring some programs to improve strategic alignment under tight budgets.
Sightlines National Trends - Current State of Higher Education FacilitiesSightlines
This document discusses challenges related to aging campus facilities and budgets for repairs and renovations. It provides the following key points:
- Over 1.2 billion square feet of campus space is tracked across more than 380 institutions, with 55% being public and 45% private. Nearly half of total space is over 25 years old.
- Capital budgets for repairs were cut more at private institutions after 2009 but recovered quicker, while public institution budgets have remained flat or increased slightly.
- Despite preventative maintenance and capital investments, the repair backlog has continued to rise an average of 16% each year across institutions.
- Campuses have shifted investments more toward durable renovations of building envelopes and mechanical systems rather
In 1980, Rick Biedenweg and Robert Hutson's article Before the Roof Caves In shouted a warning that more effective planning approaches were needed to address higher education's looming facilities challenges. Many industry leaders used their research to make predictions of imminent system failures in order to compel action.
However, the reality is that over these last 35 years, funding has remained well below estimated needs but the widespread failures that have been publicized have not occurred. This leads us to the question "why?" Why hasn't the roof caved in?
There are several contributing factors; some are systemic, and others are the result of resourceful facilities operators. This presentations outlines the root causes of compounding capital needs, the reasons we do not see crumbling facilities, and some simple strategies that are used to avoid program interruption on higher education campuses.
University of Tennessee Knoxville Facilities Exposed - The Story Behind the F...Sightlines
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.
7 Essential Questions Highly Effective Facilities Leaders Must Answer_SRAPPA ...Sightlines
This session focuses on how Louisiana State University was able to answer the most essential questions surrounding Facilities Services on their campus. Attendees learned how a campus space profile can drive both capital needs and daily operations, in addition to exploring the tool LSU is using to predict their building needs for the next 10 years, the future indicators they’ll be choosing from to track operational performance, and how to engage financial leadership in the discussion.
Unleash the Power of Prediction with ROPA+Sightlines
With today's capital and operating budget pressures, effectively communicating past success is important, but to continue to thrive, you must be able to look into the future.
What if you had the tools to...
Forecast life cycles, capital needs, and facilities risks?
Create operational and investment goals and continually track performance?
Re-balance your facility strategy and make mid-course corrections to become a "Best in Class" performer?
To give you these tools, Sightlines proudly introduces the next evolution of our facilities benchmarking and analysis service: ROPA+
University of Denver Case Study - Deferred Maintenance Can Be ManagedSightlines
The University of Denver implemented strategies to address a $145.5 million backlog of deferred facility projects. It identified the backlog by building portfolio and priority. A 5-year, $64 million funding plan was created to address the highest priority projects. Performance was tracked relative to the $12.8 million annual benchmark. Over time, funding increased and the backlog was reduced through steady investment rather than deferral.
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Eric Nolan
The May 2014 report Deferred Maintenance at Canadian Universities: An Update, produced by CAUBO in collaboration with Sightlines, states that “it appears that the majority of Canadian universities are still not able to put sufficient resources into capital renewal and that, as a whole, the maintenance backlog in system is increasing.” In fact, the data shows that since 2000 the magnitude of the problem appears to have doubled. If left unchecked, this problem can have far-ranging negative impacts upon the university’s mission and can lead to major system failures.
However, while the report highlights a number of areas for concern, we are not seeing systems degrade to the point of program interruption or crumbling facilities; this is a consistent observation across all of higher education. For the most part, catastrophic failures have not come to pass despite decades of dire predictions, and while there will never be enough funding to eliminate the entire backlog of need on campuses, strategies to manage the problem have emerged across the higher education landscape.
This session explores those strategies, in addition to discussing more about:
• The broad trends affecting facilities across the higher education landscape in North America and the root causes of the compounding facilities issues,
• The four key factors determining why the roof hasn’t caved in despite dire predictions,
• How savvy facilities leaders are preventing major breakdowns, and
• Strategies for driving action on campus by making facilities challenges more manageable
Why the Roof Hasn't Caved In [Sightlines_CAUBO Webinar]Sightlines
This document summarizes a webinar presentation on facilities trends in higher education and why major failures have been avoided despite growing challenges. The presentation reviewed data showing aging campus buildings, growing deferred maintenance backlogs, and insufficient capital funding increases to address needs. However, campuses have managed risks through better data to prioritize critical repairs, lower cost repairs extending asset life, risk diversification across building portfolios, and investments driven by space upgrades. Examples showed targeting oldest buildings, increasing preventative maintenance, and aligning long-term renewal plans with funding. This proactive management has helped higher education facilities avoid predicted failures while continuing to address growing reinvestment demands.
Changing the Conversation in Facilities Management - A Step Towards Total Cam...Sightlines
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.
Similar to Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands (20)
State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2017Sightlines
Join Sightlines and the UNH Sustainability Institute as we analyze campus efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, provide an update on higher education's progress with energy efficiency, and introduce new data and discussion surrounding space management and mechanical upgrades.
2017 State of Facilities in Higher EducationSightlines
Join Sightlines as we shine a spotlight on the trends and best practices that dominated 2017 and will continue to influence campus facilities nationwide in 2018.
Put Your Facilities Data to Work: 5 Steps for Strengthening Your Case on CampusSightlines
When it comes to obtaining funding, nothing generates greater impact than clearly visible benefits. The data is at your fingertips…but how do you create the compelling context needed to secure that much-needed funding?
Join Sightlines for a revealing look at the power of benchmarking data and how to harness five key components to accurately convey the value that Facilities brings to your institution and make a stronger case for affecting change on campus.
Developing the Capital Plan is Only Half the Battle [ERAPPA 2017]Sightlines
Discover the latest facilities trends in higher education and how Penn State was able to develop a capital plan utilizing advanced "facilities intelligence."
More with Less: Five Strategies for Facilities Success [MAPPA-CAPPA 2017]Sightlines
This document provides an overview of a presentation about five strategies for facilities success at the University of North Texas. It introduces the presenters and their backgrounds and experience. It then discusses national trends in higher education facilities including aging infrastructure, growing space needs exceeding enrollment growth, and constrained budgets. The presentation focuses on how UNT has addressed these challenges through five strategies: looking ahead at future enrollment, building strategically to meet needs, pursuing efficiency through right-sizing space, prioritizing maintenance to "keep up", and rewarding cost savings. It provides examples of how UNT utilizes tools like annual assessments, classroom utilization analysis, and job order contracting to implement these strategies.
Doing More with Less: Solutions for Managing Facilities on a Limited BudgetSightlines
The document provides an overview of a webinar presented by Sightlines on managing facilities on a limited budget. It discusses common challenges faced by institutions like declining enrollment, aging infrastructure, and unpredictable capital funding. It then presents three proven practices for facilities management: optimizing the use of existing space, offsetting capital costs with reduction projects, and reorganizing facilities operations to eliminate deferred maintenance. Attendees are encouraged to ask questions during the webinar.
Making the Case for Campus SustainabilitySightlines
Sightlines looks at the interplay between enrollment trends, financial success metrics, and operational success metrics to help build the business case that sustainability is an integral component to a successful facilities operation.
Planning for the Future: Adapting Facilities to Tomorrow's NeedsSightlines
Facilities plays a key role in managing campus growth in ways that support the institution’s overall mission without over-extending available resources. Being able to prepare for the best while planning for the worst, while no easy feat, is essential in today’s rapidly changing marketplace. In this webinar, Sightlines outlines how using data-driven planning to create and communicate a clear vision of your campus facilities can ensure approval for the maintenance and capital projects required to set your campus ahead.
What you'll learn:
- How to better prioritize projects by using a portfolio framework
- A new approach for performing facility assessments that institution stakeholders can act on with confidence
- How to plan to meet future workforce challenges
- Strategies for creating long-term facility plans that account for market volatility
The State of Facilities: Preventing Your Biggest Asset from Becoming Your Big...Sightlines
This document lists several university and college names. It then discusses a company called Sightlines that provides facilities intelligence and tools for strategic planning, analysis, benchmarking, capital planning, space management, and sustainability to higher education institutions. The company works with over 70% of top 20 colleges and universities. It collects data on over 52,000 buildings in the U.S. and Canada.
Exploring the State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2016Sightlines
This presentation explores the latest trends and achievements in higher education sustainability and features a review of the 2016 findings by highlighting each stage of the building life cycle.
2016 State of Facilities in Higher EducationSightlines
The document summarizes the key findings from the 2016 State of Facilities in Higher Education report. It finds that deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise significantly across institution types due to aging building stock constructed during a period of rapid, poor quality construction that has received insufficient capital funding for renovations. Space is growing faster than enrollment, especially at public institutions, contributing to lower campus density. Capital investment in existing space is increasing steadily but annual amounts remain below the growing deferred maintenance need. Operations budgets have increased modestly while energy usage and costs are declining modestly through fuel switching.
When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It: Rutgers & Sightlines ERAPPA 201...Sightlines
In this presentation, Rutgers University discussed their process for establishing best practice policies during the largest merger in Higher Education’s history.
On July 1, 2013, the largest merger in the history of U.S. higher education occurred when Rutgers University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) created a super-sized Rutgers with 67,000 students, 27 million gross square feet of space and 1,100 additional employees. The merger was only the beginning. In addition to the UMDNJ integration, the facilities departments for housing and satellite campuses were restructured under one facilities umbrella as a unified organization.
As Yogi Berra, a long time New Jersey resident, once said: “When you come to a fork in the road – take it.” Faced with having to manage and deploy over 1,700 people, an annual facilities operating budget of $227 million, and a capital budget of $150 million, consolidation brought Rutgers leadership to that fork in the road.
Since the merger, Rutgers facilities leaders have been navigating in a climate of change and closely examining every aspect of their facilities across multiple campuses, using data-driven, comparative metrics and analysis provided by Sightlines. An expert panel will discuss the process used to engage stakeholders (including administration, faculty, students and staff) and change the philosophy about managing space, operations and capital planning.
Attendees will learn:
How to engage campus leadership and facilities staff about using data and analysis during a time of major change;
How to standardize policies and procedure to maximize quality of services within budgetary constraints;
How to change and manage expectations of the campus community about levels of service for maintenance, custodial and grounds;
How data and analysis can lead to changes in campus philosophy regarding use and interaction of space, capital planning and operations to improve capital investments and facilities operations in significant ways.
Prepping for the President: Planning Rutgers' 250th CommencementSightlines
Imagine the President of the United States chooses to make a commencement address at your institution. It’s a big deal, right? What if this ceremony also marked your institution’s 250th anniversary, and you expect more than 50,000 attendees, rain or shine? Then it’s a huge deal. And what if your commencement task force had less than a month to finalize plans? Talk about a perfect storm.
This was situation that Rutgers University faced this spring, when they learned on April 14 that President Obama had decided to make a speech during commencement on May 15.
This presentation explores the historic visit and the massive preparation effort involved in its execution from Tony Calcado, Senior Vice President, Institutional Planning and Operations, who served as chair of the commencement task force. Hear about logistics challenges including transportation, public safety and off-site locations.
The State of Facilities at Midwestern InstitutionsSightlines
The document lists various universities and their facilities data. It then provides a summary of key trends in facilities for Midwestern universities:
- Over 60% of space is over 25 years old, posing reliability risks as components age past their lifecycles.
- Enrollment has remained flat while space has increased, resulting in a 22% decline in student density and raising questions about space management.
- Capital funding recovered in 2013 after cuts in 2010 but remains below inflation-adjusted levels, forcing campuses to do more with less in operations and maintenance.
- Shifting investments to building envelopes and systems over space upgrades extends the lifespan of renovations. However, backlogs continue rising due to limited funding
Sightlines Membership Update - The Value of Integration with GordianSightlines
This presentation explores recent Sightlines membership updates and the value of our integration with Gordian. As part of a new, larger organization, Sightlines is now able to offer enhancements and added value to those with whom we work. Examples include:
- Improvements to our current Facilities Intelligence Solutions leveraging RSMeans cost estimation data and technical expertise
- Enhanced strategic reviews of capital project management processes
- Integration with Gordian's offerings across the full lifecycle of construction including Job Order Contracting procurement solutions.
Data & Sustainability: How the Right Data Creates SuccessSightlines
Many sustainability officers are stretched thin by their duties, which includes a heavy workload of measuring and reporting data, both internally and externally. Despite this potential drawback, data is not the enemy of sustainability leaders. In fact, data and sustainability can go hand-in-hand as you build your case and outline opportunities for future improvements.
In this presentation, you'll learn:
- How data can help you overcome industry trends and make a difference on campus
- Ways data can build constituency around sustainability goals
- The value of verified data & peer context
- How reporting burdens can be eased
Creating Alignment with Non-Facilities Professionals - APPA 2016Sightlines
How does the facilities manager create alignment with non-facilities professionals and up the reporting ladder? How do you assure yourself a seat at the table where you can communicate past successes and future investment requirements to drive the institution forward and deliver best-in-class service? You can use data, like many facilities leaders nationwide, who are arming themselves with validated longitudinal data, peer comparisons, and predictive analytics. By creating a common vocabulary that can be understood and communicated from the boiler room to the boardroom, you become a better partner to all constituents at your institution.
Presenters:
Ralph Johnson, AVP, Facilities Management Division, University of Georgia
Don Santostefano, Senior Director, Facilities Management, Lebanon Valley College
Kevan Will, Account Manager, Sightlines
Don't Leave Your Facilities Needs to Chance: From Game Plan to Master PlanSightlines
This presentation explores what facilities leaders can do when rolling the dice doesn't work regarding the management of deferred maintenance. You'll also learn how to:
- Maximize the value of a deferred maintenance assessment
- Integrate deferred maintenance data with a master plan
- Optimize institutional resources to mitigate risk
- Be a partner in program success rather than a follower
The State of Facilities at Eastern Region Institutions JUNE16Sightlines
The document discusses facilities challenges facing universities in the Eastern region of the United States. It notes that 58% of campus space is over 25 years old, and the percentage over 50 years old continues to rise, compounding renovation needs. Campus density in the region is also higher than other regions, increasing strain on building maintenance. Capital funding recovered slowly after cuts in 2010, but annual capital spending has risen as universities rely more on their own funding. The mix of capital projects has shifted toward high priority needs like building envelopes and systems. Facilities operating budgets and staffing levels are also rising slowly. As a result of slow funding growth, facilities backlogs have increased 23% since 2008. The document recommends strategies like understanding building port
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities Demands
1. Diverse Perspectives on
Managing Facilities Demands
• National and Regional Facilities Trends and
Challenges – Jim Kadamus
• Case Study – Iowa State, Pam Elliott Cain
• Case Study –Washburn U, Rick Anderson
• Case Study – College of St. Benedict, Sue Palmer
Date: September 29th, 2013
2. National and Regional Facilities
Trends and Challenges
Speaker: Jim Kadamus, Vice President
Institution: Sightlines
Date: September 29, 2013
3. Introducing the Comparative
Institutions
Sightlines Facts:
• Over 1.2 Billion GSF in
database
• Over 90% Retention Rate
• 380+ campuses included
into database
• 22 Private institutions &
38 Public Institutions in
the CACUBO Region
• CACUBO represents over
200 million GSF & over
600,000 student FTEs
4. National Campus Age
Despite new space dollars, 57% of space is over 25 years of age
18% 18% 18% 19% 20% 21%
41% 40% 39% 39% 38% 36%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
% of Space
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
5. CACUBO Campus Age
Campuses continue to see space cross into the over 50 year age bracket
Public Private
18% 18% 19% 21% 23% 27%
19% 18% 19% 19% 20% 25%
43% 43% 42% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 38% 36% 34% 30%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
% of Space
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old
(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
6. National Campus Investment
Campuses still have not seen a full recovery from the recession
$3.1
$3.9 $4.1
$3.2
$3.4 $3.4
$1.2 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3 $1.5 $1.7
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
7. CACUBO Campus Investment
Both private and public campuses have seen increase since 2010
Public Private
$1.9
$2.1
$2.5
$2.2
$2.8 $2.6 $2.2
$2.9
$3.0
$2.1
$2.9 $3.0
$1.0 $1.1 $1.4 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.5 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
12. National Utility Costs
Fuel switching and efficiency projects has helped decrease utility costs
$2.30 $2.47 $2.50
$2.27 $2.32 $2.22
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Facilities Operating Costs
13. CACUBO Utility Costs
Public and private campuses utility costs below national average
$2.08 $2.20 $2.28
$1.98 $1.97 $1.90
$1.63
$1.95 $2.01 $1.87 $1.99 $1.89
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Average Utility Costs
Public Private
14. CACUBO Final Comments
Physical and Institutional Profile
•Age profiles of institutions indicate that both public and private institutions face growing
deferred maintenance needs and overdue life cycles
•Public institutions have a higher portion of space over 25 years of age, which will require
additional capital investment and can begin to have an impact on daily operations
Capital Budget Profile
•Both public and private campuses have seen increased capital funding since the decline in 2009
•The amount of capital invested into facilities has not been enough to keep campuses from
hitting the life cycles associated with buildings over 25 years of age
•As a result, backlog at CACUBO campuses has risen substantially to over 20% within the past 6
years
Operating Budget Profile
•More demand placed upon maintenance staff means level of attention to older buildings may
falter
•Stable operating costs paired with increasing backlog makes it difficult for facilities to keep pace
with facilities’ demands.
•Significant reduction in energy consumption and unit cost have led to gains in utility operations
15. Iowa State University
Speaker: Pam Elliott Cain
Institution: Iowa State University
Date: September 29, 2013
16. Iowa State Campus Profile
Iowa State University is a large,
public land‐grant and space‐grant
institution
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1858
• Located: Ames, IA
• 174 buildings*
• 6.6 Million Gross Square Feet*
• 32,000 FTE students
• Created nations first Public Veterinary
Medicine school in 1879
• Leader in agriculture and engineering
• High demand campus
• Large, technically complex campus that
houses many students and programs
*Included in Sightlines’ analysis
Someone’s always got a problem
17. More space on campus is high risk
47% of buildings are 25‐50 years old ‐ creates unbalanced age profile
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life‐cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
24%
47%
18%
36%
31%
19%
11% 14%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ISU Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
18. Breakout of space 25‐50 years old
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Average Building Size
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings built between 25 and 50 years ago
are, on average, much bigger than those
built in other time periods.
• Aging building systems (E.g. HVAC)
• Harder to maintain
• Bigger, more complicated systems
• Need more specialized staff
31%
3% 7%
59%
Acad/admin
Science research
Student life
Support
GSF
Function of 25‐50 year old buildings
Majority of buildings built between 25 and 50
years ago are science research buildings.
• Technically complex systems
• Require specially‐trained maintenance
staff
• Expensive equipment
• High replacement and modernization
costs
19. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
Determining the “right” level of annual funding
FY12 Stewardship Need
$31.6
ISU FY12 Replacement Value = $2.7 Billion
Life cycle is discounted for the
coordination of modernization and
renovation.
$23.7
$42.5
$14.9
$81.4
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need
$ in Millions
Envelope/Mech Space/Program
Depreciation
Model
$74.1 M
Life Cycle
Model
$38.6 M
Functional
Obsolescence
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations
Note: Chart is for state‐supported, Ames campus space only
20. Total project spending
One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10
$100.0
$90.0
$80.0
$70.0
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
Decreasing Backlog
Fiscal Year Project Name Actual Spent
2012 Util‐Vet Med Steam Supply Improvements $ 4,031,107
2012 Vet Med, Col Of‐Lar Hvac Stabilizing Backlog
Improvements $ 3,587,498
2008 Util‐College Of Vet Med Chilled Water Plant $ 2,622,564
2010 Replace heating system $ 1,808,384
2009 Vmri Building #40‐Renovate Hvac System $ 1,413,947
2010 Refrigeration system Increasing replacement Backlog
$ 1,375,846
2012 Util‐Applied Science Center Chiller Improvements $ 1,034,466
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$ in Millions
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Budgeted Capital Dollars One‐Time Capital Dollars
(State capital, Bonding, Grants,
Gifts, College Funding)
5 year project spending on
existing buildings
13%
28%
12%
42%
5%
Envelope Building Systems
Infrastructure Space Renewal
Safety/Code
21. Total asset reinvestment backlog
Historic investment has managed the backlog
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$‐
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AR Backlog $/GSF
Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers
ISU’s backlog increased by 17%
between 2008‐2012, but is
significantly lower than peers
Peers’ backlog increased by 18%
between 2008‐2012
22. Facilities operating budget
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$‐
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Operating Budget $/GSF
Facilities Operating Budget vs. Peers
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
ISU
Operating with fewer resources than peers; using resource management model
Peers
23. Custodial coverage
Custodial is operating efficiently and providing high value across campus
Cleanliness Inspection Scores:
ISU
Peers
DB
3.9
4.2
4.2
24. Total energy consumption
Consuming 40k fewer BTU/GSF than peers in FY12
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
Peers ISU
Consuming less energy than
peers. Campus users paying for
utilities has made a difference.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Fossil Electric
Future projects include transition from coal
to natural gas for four primary boilers
25. What’s the plan for the future?
• Resource Management Model
• Working with colleges
• Long term master planning
• 20‐year outlook
• Exploring alternative capital financing
sources
• Creating flexible space
• Example: Troxel Hall
• Eliminating high backlog buildings
26. Washburn University
Speaker: Rick Anderson, Vice President
Institution: Washburn University
Date: September 29, 2013
27. Washburn Campus Profile
Washburn University is a mid‐sized
comprehensive urban public university
in Topeka, Kansas
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1865
• Located: Topeka, KS
• 44 buildings
• 1.35 Million Gross Square Feet*
• 7,300 student headcount ‐> 5,500 student FTE
• Consistently ranked among top Midwestern
universities as an independent public institution
• Top rated school of law
• High demand campus
• Large, technically complex campus that
houses a high number of students
*Included in Sightlines’ analysis
28. More space on campus is high risk
66% of space is over 25 years old – campus is older than peers
24% 23%
42%
14%
33%
21%
21% 23%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Washburn Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life‐cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
29. Breakout of space over 25 years old
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Average Building Size
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
GSF
Buildings built more than 25 years ago are,
on average, much bigger than those built in
other time periods.
• Lower quality construction
• Harder to maintain
• Bigger, more complicated systems
• Need more specialized staff
The majority of high tech space (tech rating
4‐5) is over 25 years old (57%).
• More complex systems within aging
structures
• Energy intensive
• Costly to maintain
• Demanding of staff
Distribution of High Tech Buildings
39%
4%
16%
41%
Under 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
Over 50
30. Density factor presents challenges for WU
Washburn is much busier than similar comprehensive universities
Database Distribution
Peers
Liberal Arts Comprehensive University Urban/City School Community College
Database
avg = 348
Roughly 1,500 more people on
campus than at peer institutions
Users/100K GSF
Washburn
Density Factor
Database Distribution
Users/100K GSF
31. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
$13.2
$5.3
$4.0
$6.1
$2.1
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need
(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence
(Target)
$ in Millions
FY2012 Stewardship Targets
Washburn U Replacement Value = $440M
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations
32. Total project spending
One‐time funding kept facilities investment closer to target until FY10
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Decreasing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Annual Capital One‐Time Capital
$ in Millions
Increasing Backlog
(Keep up funding) (One‐time catch up funding)
33. Total asset reinvestment backlog
Lack of historical investment has led to an increasing backlog
$100.00
$90.00
$80.00
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$‐
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
AR Backlog $/GSF
Total Asset Reinvestment Backlog vs. Peers
Peers’ backlog grew 19% between
2008‐2012
WU’s backlog grew 29% between
2008‐2012
35. Total energy consumption
Consuming considerably less energy than peers
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
‐
Peers WU
Complete HVAC upgrade to Morgan Hall (admin)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption vs. Peers
Fossil Electric
‐$750,000 in 2012
Campus‐wide HVAC system upgrade
‐$1.4 mil in 2010
36. What’s the plan for the future?
• Recently completed a comprehensive campus master planning effort
including a classroom capacity study.
• Mid‐way thru implementation of a $12.3 million dollar performance energy
contract with Trane Corp. Will reduce our annual energy consumption by
27%.
• Hail insurance proceeds will allow for 10‐15 roof replacements in the next
two years
• Our main 1950’s classroom and administrative building will be transformed
into a student success center and Iconic campus “front door” by Spring
2015.
• Will build a forensic science lab facility in conjunction with the Kansas Bureau
of Investigation by January 2015.
• Complete a demand study for additional on‐campus housing by December
2013.
• Target capital improvement funds to address the highest priority deferred
maintenance issues on campus.
37. College of Saint Benedict
Speaker: Susan Palmer, Vice President
Institution: College of Saint Benedict
Date: September 29, 2013
38. College of Saint Benedict Campus Profile
A nationally ranked private liberal arts
college in St. Joseph, MN, known as
St. Bens
Fast Facts:
• Founded: 1913
• Located: St. Joseph, MN
• 39 buildings
• 1.23M Gross Square Feet
• 2,059 students
• Highest ranked Catholic college for women in
the country
• Academically integrated with Saint John’s
University
• Relatively young campus, but moving to an
older age profile
• Limited capital investment historically
39. Campus facing higher risk age profile
Buildings are aging on this still relatively young campus
49% 53% 63%
10% 16%
39%
39%
37%
32%
31%
40% 25%
12% 7% 12%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
St. Ben's 2010 St. Ben's 2012 Peer Average
% of Total Campus GSF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
Buildings over 50
Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.
Highest risk
Buildings 25 to 50
Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come
due.
Higher Risk
Buildings 10 to 25
Short life‐cycle needs; primarily space
renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings Under 10
Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
40. Investing mainly in new space
Future investment will focus on existing space
St. Ben’s: FY07‐12 Capital
Investment by Type
28%
7%
65%
St. Ben’s has spent
significantly more into new
construction over the last six
years than into existing space.
New space keeps the average
age down and makes the
campus more competitive;
but existing space becoming
more high risk.
Peers: FY07‐12 Capital
Investment by Type
Existing Space New Space Non‐Facilities
63%
33%
4%
41. Annual Stewardship (cost of keeping up)
Determining the “right” level of annual funding
FY12 Stewardship Need
$4.7
St. Bens FY12 Replacement Value = $413M
Life cycle is discounted for the
coordination of modernization and
renovation.
$3.5
$5.6
$2.8
$12.4
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
3% Replacement Value Total Need Target Need
$ in Millions
Envelope/Mech Space/Program
Depreciation
Model
$10.3 M
Life Cycle
Model
$6.3 M
Functional
Obsolescence
Industry Standard Sightlines Recommendations
42. Total project spending vs. targets
Backlog has built up over years; 2012 increase in annual capital is by design
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Millions of $
Capital Spending vs. Target Need
Decreasing Backlog
Sustaining Backlog
Increasing Backlog
Total deferral to
target over 6 years:
$25.2 M
Annual Capital One‐Time Funds
43. Total project spending
On average, investing $2.67/GSF less than peers annually
CSB
Total Project Spending by Annual Capital and One‐Time Funds
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$5.00
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
Peers
Would need to invest an
additional $3.3 M annually to
invest at peer average.
Annual Capital One‐Time Funds
45. Total energy consumption
On average, consuming over 40,000 BTU/GSF less than peers annually
140,000
Peers WU
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/GSF
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BTU/GSF
Energy Consumption
Consuming 49,000 fewer
MMBTUs annually ‐ yields a
savings of more than $550,000.
46. What’s the plan for the future?
Development of a long‐term capital plan to steward our facilities which
includes a multi‐pronged funding approach:
• Capital campaign funding to construct a new academic building and a
significant renovation and expansion of the existing student center
• Strategic use of debt to update infrastructure needs on campus
• Budget plan to increase annual amount allocated for capital
• Year end surpluses allocated to capital reserve accounts
Editor's Notes
KB – why astrics?
A lot of space concentrated in one age category means that a lot of need is coming due at once. In 20 years, half of campus will be due for renovation.
The plan to grow stewardship funding (budgeted capital dollars) is very important.
The plan to grow stewardship funding (budgeted capital dollars) is very important.
Daily Service = People Costs + Expenses, Planned Maintenance = planned & preventative work done in the operating budget to extend the useful life of building systems and components. Resource management model is key to success and operating at lower levels.
Why high demand campus? Technical, large campus, lots of students, programs – drive demand
Rick – How have you pushed stewardship up over the last 3 years?
Rick – how are you getting by with under $3/GSF for daily service?
Take away – CSB is a relatively young campus compared to peers, but its buildings are aging. If the trend continues, buildings will move into higher risk age categories.
Take away – campus is aging because CSB is investing in building new buildings (adding GSF) instead of investing in renovating/modernizing old space and resetting the buildings’ life cycles.
Take away – because CSB spends so little on AS and AR, its backlog has been increasing. CSB will need to increase spending on AR to catch up on the backlog and deferred maintenance costs. It will need to increase AS to prevent future increases in backlog, especially as campus buildings age.
Take away – CSB invests very little in both keep up and catch up costs compared to its peer group
KB – want to show budget or actuals? The above is budgetTake away – CSB spends comparatively very little on operating its facilities but achieves comparable inspection scores
Take away – Capital investment aimed to decrease energy consumption and a focus on energy management has successfully allowed CSB to be one of the top performers in the Sightlines database.