university of tennessee knoxville facilities exposed - the story behind the facilities organization...
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
Virginia State UniversityWagner College
Washburn UniversityWellesley College
Wesleyan UniversityWest Chester University of
PennsylvaniaWest Virginia Health Sciences Center
West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University
Western Oregon UniversityWestfield State University
Wheaton College (MA)Whitworth University
Widener UniversityWilliams College
Williston Northampton SchoolWorcester State College
Xavier UniversityYeshiva University
Youngstown State University
University of TennesseeKnoxville’s Drive to the Top 25
15 May 2013
“UT Can’t Reach our Top 25 and Masterplan Goals without our
FACILITIES GROUP being Top 25.”Chancellor Jimmy Cheek
“The Plan”
FACILITIES SERVICES PRIORITIES
Embrace And Advance UT Visions And Goals
Lead The Drive To Top 25
Position Our Team For Success
Commitments to UT FacilitiesProject Investment & Construction
$12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013
$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance
$8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects
Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking
Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities
$600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System
$2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.
Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial
Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial
positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above
overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus
3 Full Time Training Positions
Commitments to UT FacilitiesProject Investment & Construction
$12.5M Crisis Maintenance Projects in 2013
$11M/Yr. Continuing Funding for Deferred Maintenance
$8.0M Research Renovations Record >$650M in Capital Projects
Currently including: $167M Student Union $60M Residence Hall $115M Strong Hall $95M Research Lab $110M Classroom Building $100M Engineering Building $250M Housing Redevelopment $100M Housing/Parking
Chancellor’s Commitments to Facilities
$600,000 For New Facilities IT/Communications System
$2M Additional One Time Funding $7M+ increase/Yr. Facilities Dept.
Funding including: $800,000/Yr. To In-Source All Custodial
Services Includes 100+ new In house custodial
positions $50,000/Yr. for Facilities IT Support $307,000/Yr. Salary Increases (above
overall University increases) 52 additional new Positions 5% Budget Increase for Training plus
3 Full Time Training Positions
Sightlines’ involvement
With so much change coming, how could UT
facilities services manage, track and
communicate the progress?
Space Profile: The hand that you are dealt
Overall Age Profile Similar to Peers
18% 20%
30% 24%
31% 36%
21% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
UTK Peer Average
% o
f Tot
al C
ampu
s G
SF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
52% 56%
Age Profile Impacts Future Capital Strategy
10
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
GSF
Constructed Space Since 1880
Cumulative GSF
Key Questions: How do you address the
backlog of needs? How do you address the
ongoing renewal needs?
Note: Renewal needs are not exclusive to new buildings. For example, a 20 year old building may have a mechanical system that lasts 40 years, therefore the renewal need would come 20 years from now.
Construction Vintage at UTLooking at the age of campus based on era of construction
11
23%
43%
10%
24%
UT Construction Vintage
Pre War Post War Modern Complex
Pre-War• Built before 1951
Post-War
• Built between 1951 and 1975
Modern
• Built between 1975 and 1990
Complex• Built in 1991 and newer
Low
er Q
ualit
y co
nstr
uctio
nLo
wer
Qua
lity
cons
truc
tion
Construction Vintage at UTLooking at the age of campus based on era of construction
12
23%
43%
10%
24%
UT Construction Vintage
Pre War Post War Modern Complex
Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly
23%
32%12%
33%
Peers Construction Vintage
Pre War Post War Modern Complex
UT has more space in “low-quality” construction eras
13
23%24%
UT Construction Vintage
Pre War Post War Modern Complex
Based on Construction Vintage, 53% of UT’s campus was constructed during low-quality construction periods versus 44% for peers, facing life-cycles more rapidly
23%33%
Peers Construction Vintage
Pre War Post War Modern Complex
53% 44%
Capital Investment & Backlog:The impact of history
Outspending Peers in Recent YearsRecent increase in capital matches growing needs in Post-war & Modern Buildings
Increased capital commitment starting to show up in FY12 and
FY13.
Increased investment “stabilizing backlog”
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Mill
ions
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Target Need Equilibrium Need
Decreasing Backlog
Stabilizing Backlog
Increasing Backlog
Despite the progress more is needed
• Recent increases in capital investments have meant that UT exceeds peer investment levels.
• Despite the increase, UT is just reaching the annual investment target require to “Stabilize” the backlog
• Low historical investment levels have left UT with a greater backlog than peers and a “pent up” capital demand.
A dual approach to addressing DM
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
$90.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Mill
ions
Total Capital Investment by Type
Existing Space Spending New Space Spending
• Existing space investments targeting key systematic deferred maintenance issues
• New space being used to build new buildings to replace older facilities with significant deferred maintenance needs
• Replacing smaller buildings with larger (Operational efficiencies)
• Replace aging programmatic space with modern facilities.
Operational Effectiveness:Positioning the team for success
Some key operational Initiatives
• Separate “maintenance” from “projects”
• Bring Custodial operations back in-house to improve service levels
• Implement a new work order system, improve PM tracking and Service delivery
• Grounds performance – Big issue for the Vice Chancellor
Bringing custodial staffing in-house
4.37UT FY13
4.21UT FY12
Cleanliness Score
Expanding the Grounds comparisonSEC, ACC, and Big 10 institutions
4.0
4.0Peer Average
UT FY12
4.2UT FY13
4.0UT FY12
Less Staff
Less Materials
Less Supervision
Conclusion
With Facilities leading the “drive to 25” and the Institutional commitments to facilities at UT, the need for managing, tracking and communicating facilities progress was of upmost importance.
• Validate the need for change. The campus profile and historical investment had left a substantial “pent up” capital demand, require additional capital investment.
• Shift the culture from reactive to proactive. The chancellors commitment to on-going deferred maintenance funding of approximately $8M / yr. will continue to improve and already improving capital position.
• Targeting operational resources to improve service. Significant commitments have been made to operations, with performance beginning to show improvement.
Presenter Profile15 May 2013
Location: Knoxville, TNFounded: 1794Students: Over 27,000Acreage: 560GSF: Over 14 Million
Location: Guilford, CTFounded: 2000Member Campuses: Over 450
Presenter Profile
Dave IrvinAssociate Vice Chancellor for Facilities ServicesUniversity of Tennessee KnoxvilleEmail: [email protected]
Peter ReevesAssociate Director – Member OperationsSightlines LLCEmail: [email protected]
More info
Questions & Comment