University of Washington

University of West Florida

Vanderbilt University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Department of General

Services

Wake Forest University

Washburn University

Washington University in St. Louis

Wellesley College

Wesleyan University

West Chester University

West Liberty University

West Virginia Health Science Center

West Virginia Institute of Technology

West Virginia School of Osteopathic

Medicine

West Virginia State University

West Virginia University

Western Connecticut State University

Western Oregon University

Westfield State University

Widener University

Williams College

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester State University

Xavier University

Yale University

Return on Physical Assets – ROPA+

Sightlines’ Facilities Intelligence Solution

Feel Free to Start a Dialogue with Our Presenter

Enter questions in the box at any time

Enter questions

here at any

point during the

webinar

Presentation slides

and webinar

recording will be

sent to each

attendee following

today’s session

2

Today’s Desired Outcome

Why We Do What We Do…

What Industry Challenges are Affecting You?

Sightlines and ROPA+ Overview

Questions and Discussion

33

Do You Have the Right Tools?

The

average

endowment

The average

building

replacement value

4

Your Independent Strategic Facilities Advisor

• Accurately quantify facilities performance

• Separate fact from fiction on mission-critical

issues

• Document trends, provide consistent

measurement, credible benchmarking, predict

future risks and opportunities and track progress

to goals.

Rigorous analytical toolkit to manage your largest asset

5

Optimize capital

investments and

improve operational

effectiveness

Outcome

Who We Serve

Robust membership and growing database provides experience and perspective

Partners to the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

• 14 of the Top 20 Colleges*

• 15 of the Top 20 Universities*

• 34 Flagship State Universities

• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions

• 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions

• 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges

Serving state systems in:

• Alaska

• California

• Connecticut

• Hawaii

• Maine

• Massachusetts

• Minnesota

• Missouri

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• Oregon

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

• West Virginia

6

Challenges in Facilities

Management

“One side effect of this rapid growth has been the creation of an increasingly large obligation for the future renewal and replacement of the physical plant.”

Rick Biedenwig – 1980

Founder, Pacific Partners Consulting Group

Source: Before the Roof Caves In II: Published with assistance from APPA and Stanford University

“Before the Roof Caves In”

8

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

% o

f C

on

str

ucte

d S

pac

e

Constructed Space 1880-2015

Sightlines Database

Act Your Era – Not Your Age

9

Pre

-Wa

r

Built before 1951

Durable construction

Older but typically lasts longer P

os

t-W

ar Built between 1951 and

1975

Lower-quality construction

Already needing more repairs and renovations

Mo

de

rn Built between 1975 and 1990

Quick-flash construction

Low-quality building components\

Co

mp

lex

Built in 1991 and newer

Technically complex spaces

Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

9

Today’s Options are More Limited

Number of high school graduates are

declining in many states.

Decline in the availability of

external resources (state support, debt,

donors).

Tuition increases have exceeded

inflation since 1985.

New wave of construction

compounds risk…

10

Facilities Backlogs Continue to Rise

Backlog $/GSF

Public Average Private Average

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

$/G

SF

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Capital investment not enough to keep backlogs from growing

Avg. CAUBO backlog Avg. CAUBO backlog

1111

How Do You Prevent the Prediction From Becoming Your Reality?

1512

13

Sightlines Drives a New Conversation

Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space,

capital and operating policies

A new conversation around facilities management…

• Treats physical plant like a core business

• Uses concepts of endowment management to contextualize investment decisions;

• Aligns facilities operations and capital investment with institutional mission and finance;

• Uses predictive analysis to focus on outcomes and not inputs.

• Lets you tell your “facilities story” as effective as possible.

Return on Physical Assets

– ROPA+

15

Three Phases for Continuous Improvement

Return on Physical Assets – ROPA+

A Vocabulary for Facilities Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis

Asset Value Change

The annual

investment needed

to ensure buildings

will properly

perform and reach

their useful life

“Keep-Up Costs”

Annual

Stewardship

The accumulation

of repair and

modernization

needs and the

definition of

resource capacity

to correct them

“Catch-Up Costs”

Asset

Reinvestment

The effectiveness

of the facilities

operating budget,

staffing,

supervision, and

energy

management

Operational

Effectiveness

The measure of

service process,

the maintenance

quality of space

and systems, and

the customers

opinion of service

delivery

Service

Operations Success

16

17

The ROPA+ Process

Disciplined Methodology + Past Performance = Facilities Intelligence

• Sightlines collects and assembles data on campus to quantify, verify, and qualify facility performance.Measure

• Through the benchmarking process, institutions have the capability to create custom comparisons that help them understand context and performance.

Benchmark

• Sightlines synthesizes an institution's verified data to provide expert insight and perspective and develop strategic directions for change.

Analyze &

Interpret

• Sightlines continues to support each campus through our Member Portal, national thought leadership, Insights Summit, educational webinars, and ongoing campus consultation.

Membership

Why is Sightlines Different?

18

• As a colleague, not a vendor, Sightlines’ core

business is the strategic assessment of

facilities.

• We do not seek to sell equipment, provide

design services, or outsource operations.

• We do not rely on surveys or self-reported

data. Sightlines’ professionals collect base

data on site alongside your team.

• With our proprietary QVQ (Qualify, Verify,

Qualify) gives you confidence that our

conclusions are based on the most accurate

data in the industry.

• Sightlines presents a compelling story to

“make-the-case” for change to senior

leadership.

Sightlines Member Portal

It’s time to get more from your data…24/7/365

19

Member Support

Informed with live

notification to your data

Customized Access

Create customized

dashboard featuring

the metrics most

important to you

Seamlessly benchmark

against 300 member

institutions

Perspective and Context

My Story feature

presents Sightlines key

findings as an easy to

digest narrative

19

State of Facilities in Higher Education

2015 Benchmarks, Best Practices & Trends

Sightlines’ annual commentary on the

most important issues facing facilities

professionals…

• Analysis of benchmarks and trends

from over 450 Sightlines clients

• Best practices showing how

institutions have successfully

addressed the root causes of cost

increases.

Download the 2015 State of

Facilities at www.sightlines.com

2020

Insights Summit ’15

The Hyatt Regency Newport, RI

November 9 - 11, 2015

2121

ROPA+ Discovery

22

23

ROPA+ Data Collection Snapshot

Building Information Building Construction Date

Dates of Major Building Renovations

Building Function (Resident Hall, Academic, Athletic, …)

Building Gross Square Footage, Land Acres

Locations Served by Central Systems – Heating, Cooling, Electrical

Deferred Maintenance Deferred Maintenance Assessment (in-house or contracted)

Capital & Operating Project List Completed Projects both Operating and Capital Funds

New Construction Costs

Ca

mp

us

Pro

file

Staffing Table Department Organizational Chart

Distribution of Trades, Cust. and Grounds Staff by Shop Including Super.

Work Order Report Total Number of Requested and Completed

Completed Work Orders by Shop and Type (Repair, PM, Project, etc.)

Energy Profile Monthly Utility Cost and Consumption by Fuel Type (Gas, Oil, Electric)

Primary Generation Equipment Profile Including Hours of Operation

Op

era

tio

ns

Institutional Financial Statement Balance Sheet and Operating Budget

Facilities Operating Budget Operating Budget and Actual by department and line item.

Capital Budget Recurring Capital budget (Plant fund, R&R account) and Capital

Fin

an

ce

Selecting Peer Institutions: Start with Size, Program, Location

Impacts• Operating Costs

• Energy Consumption

• Capital Needs

• Skill Mix of Staff

Impacts• Custodial Demands

• Maintenance Demands

• Wear & Tear of Facilities

24

Impacts• Grounds Staffing Demands

Peer Group #1: Operations Benchmark Group Peer Group #2: Grounds Benchmark Group

There is NO limit to the number of

benchmark groups you can create.

Examples include;1. Capital & Operations Benchmark Group

2. Energy Benchmark group

3. Grounds Benchmark Group

4. Aspirant Benchmark Group

You must select at least seven institutions to create a peer group

24

We Determine…

> Age profile

> Functional profile

> Technical complexity

> Density analysis

Space Profile

What we collect and why…

25

We Collect…

> Square footage

> Construction dates

> Renovation history

> Functional descriptions

> Utility connections

We Answer…

• How does my age profile impact facilities risk?

• How does my space profile affect daily service

operations?

• Do I have the right mix of space to fulfill my

mission?

• Do I have too much or too little square footage?

• Can I afford the space I currently have?

• How do the above findings compare to peers?

Where on the Curve Do You Fall?

26

Pre

-Wa

r

Built before 1951

Durable construction

Older but typically lasts longer P

os

t-W

ar

Built from 1951 to 1975

Lower-quality construction

Already needing more repairs and renovations

Mo

de

rn Built from 1976 to 1990

Quick-flash construction

Low-quality building components Co

mp

lex Built in 1991 and newer

Technically complex spaces

Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

f S

pa

ce

Sightlines Database- Construction Age Sightlines Database- Renovation Age CSUCI - Aux

26

20%12%

13%34%

45%25%

22%29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Demonstration Peer Average

% o

f To

tal C

am

pu

s G

SF

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

High Cost & Risk Age Profile Compared to Peers

Understanding the Impact of Age on Capital & Operations

High RiskHigh Risk

Buildings Under 10

Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25

Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.

Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50

Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due. Functional obsolescence prevalent.

Higher Risk

Buildings over 50

Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are

missed.

Highest risk

27

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% C

ha

ng

e s

inc

e 2

00

6

Percent Change in Space and Students vs. Peers

Demonstration GSF Peer Avg's GSF Demonstration Student FTE Peer Student FTE

Adding Space Faster than Students

Lowering Density

2828

More Space & Smaller Buildings = Savings Opportunity

29

We Determine…

> Target investment level

> Annual funding to target

> Maintenance deferral rate

> Capital investment profile

Capital Profile

What we collect and why…

30

We Collect…

> Historical project spending

> Deferred maintenance assessment

> R&R project list

> Campus master plan

> New building construction costs

We Answer…

• How much “should” I invest each year?

• Does my past investment align with needs?

• What are conditions on my campus?

• Am I gaining or losing ground with respect to

backlog?

• How do the above findings compare to peers?

$39.4

$14.2$10.6

$17.3

$8.7

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

$45.00

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

$ in

Mil

lio

ns

FY14 Annual Investment Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

Defining an Annual Investment Target

31

Functional obsolescence drives

investment prior to life cycles &

discounts the annual target

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mil

lio

ns

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Includes only the investment in existing facilities

Increasing Backlog & Risk

32

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mil

lio

ns

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Includes only the investment in existing facilities

Increasing Backlog & Risk

33

Increasing Net Asset Value

Lowering Risk Profile

34

Total Capital Investment Overtime

Demonstration Campus Peer Averages

• This includes stewardship (recurring

funding) & One-Time Capital

Funding (Bonds, Gifts, Grants)

Peer Averages

35

Mix of Total Capital Investment Overtime

Demonstration Campus

Connecting Annual Stewardship & Asset Reinvestment

36

The more you’ll have to “Catch-Up”The Less you “Keep-Up”

Peer AveragesDemonstration Campus

We Determine…

> Daily service/PM costs

> Staffing profile

> Supervisor coverage

> Work order performance

> Customer service profile

> Utility cost and consumption

Operations Profile

What we collect and why…

37

We Collect…

> Facilities budgets

> Staffing and org chart

> Trade distribution

> Work order reporting

> Utility invoices/history

We Answer…

• Is my facilities budget allocated appropriately?

• Is there effective planned or preventative

maintenance?

• Do I have sufficient staffing resources?

• Are my team members supervised effectively?

• Are there savings opportunities?

• How well served does the community feel?

• How do the above findings compare to peers?

Facilities Operating Expenditures

38

Demonstration Campus Peer Averages

• Strong PM compared to

peers, but limited capital and

the high risk age profile

continues to increase daily

service operating costs.

A Family of Operational Metrics Providing Context

Maintenance Performance

39

All benchmarks are in order of Technical Complexity

• Covering a lot of space given

the age profile and level of

backlog

• Productive team, but

question the sustainability

A Family of Operational Metrics Providing Context

Custodial Performance

40

All benchmarks are in order of Density

• Similar coverage,

supervision and materials

resources compare to peers.

• Similar level of output with

cleanliness inspection

Work Order Production Analysis

41

Work Orders per FTE Per Year = 460

Peer Average = 660

Difference is 30%

Key Factors: Age, backlog, building size

Daily Service, 20,000 ,

67%

Prev. Mntce, 7,000 , 23%

Other, 3,000 , 10%

30,000 Work Orders

Demonstration Campus

Energy Consumption vs. Peers

42

• Older facilities & new

technically complex space

is driving up energy

consumption

• Older facilities should be

targeted for renovation to

reduce consumption

• Savings should be

redirected back into annual

stewardship

Peer Averages

• Peers strong investment into

infrastructure & building

systems have helps level off

energy consumption.

Multiple Perspectives on Quality of Service

Service Process, Campus Inspection, and Customer Survey

0 1 2 3 4 5

Performance…

Work Requests

Organization

Scheduling Process

Centralization

Service Process

0 1 2 3 4 5

Grounds

Exterior

Mechanical Spaces

General…

Cleanliness

Campus Inspection

Customer Survey

13%

50%

32%

5%

Far Exceeds Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Below Expectations

How are requests made?

Who can make requests?

Who schedules the work?

Is there a timeline/completion date given?

Are customers made aware of request

status?

Sightlines completes a building and

grounds inspection rating the general

repair, cleanliness, exterior condition,

and mechanical systems spaces in a 3

hour tour

1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00

Wo

rk P

erfo

rm

an

ce

Communication & Process

ExcellentPerformance

PoorPerformance

ExcellentPerformance

Best practice range

Separate report with all the

results & feedback

43

ROPA+ Prediction

44

Mitigating risk and eliminating the unknown

by identifying future capital investment needs

and setting future operational targets

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

To

tal D

oll

ars

(M

illi

on

s)

Current Need Renewal Need

Modernization & Infrastructure Projected Investment

Align Investment Capacity with Needs

$65

$172

$250

$155

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

AssetReinvestment

Need

ProjectedInvestment

To

tal D

oll

ars

(M

illi

on

s)

45

Asset Reinvestment

Need

10 Year Capital Forecast

• While the needs are substantial, there is

enough funding to address the high risk

current needs and the renewal needs over the

next 10 years.

45

$12

$185$220

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 YearNeed

ProjectedInvestmentCapacity

To

tal D

oll

ars

Th

ou

sa

nd

s (

00

0’s

)

Total Capital Need & Capacity

Deferred Maintenance Renewal Needs

Model the Impact of Capital Investments

46

$12

$36

$21

$6

$18

$4

$21

$15

$21

$30

$14

78%

75% 75%77%

79% 80% 80% 80% 79% 80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Ne

t A

ss

et

Va

lue

(N

AV

)

To

tal D

oll

ars

Th

ou

sa

nd

s (

00

0’s

)

Upcoming Total Capital Need by Year

Deferred Maintenance Renewal Needs Projected Investment Capacity NAV

46

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Total 10 YearNeed

To

tal D

oll

ars

Th

ou

sa

nd

s (

00

0’s

)

Total Capital Need & Capacity

Built-In Equipment

Interiors

Elevators

Plumbing

Envelope

Roofing

Safety/Code

Electrical

HVAC

Highlighting the Investment Risk Profile

47

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

To

tal D

oll

ars

Th

ou

sa

nd

s (

00

0’s

)

Upcoming Total Capital Need by Year

High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

Source of data is from FRRM 2014 annual update

Low Risk

Medium

Risk

High Risk

47

Forecasting Future Backlog

Planned renovations will reduce backlog to $113 Million in FY18

48

$44

$29

$76

$27

$20

$36

$76

$20

$17

$51

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

Total ExistingNeeds

Building MRenovation

Building FRenovation

Building ARenovation

EstimatedBacklog 2018

3 Year Add'lNeeds

Mil

lio

ns

Estimated Backlog With Planned Renovations

$142/GSF $120/GSF $85/GSF

$93

* Year Add’l Deferred: estimated using FY11-15 average deferral

rate x projected targets FY25-27 (Not ROPA+)

** Future infrastructure needs not included in backlog projection

$113

Modernization Needs

Know the COST Before You Build

Sightlines’ new COST Forecaster

49

The only tool that uses your own validated

ROPA+ data to:

• Model the impact of new construction on

ongoing capital and operations

requirements

• Generate multiple building/demolition

scenarios

• Use peer and best practice data to make

sure you are not falling behind

• Proactively make the case the for new

funding to senior leadership BEFORE new

buildings are opened

ROPA+ Performance

50

Tracking and measuring success by integrating the

data collected from Discovery and Prediction with

external and internal campus changes, creating the

Sightlines Performance Dashboard

Identify Goals & Track Progress

51

Track Performance

Discuss Future

Goals & Areas of

Focus

Set Targets to

Achieve Goals

Identify Best in

Class Institutions

My Campus

Peers

Best in Class

Capital Investment

Operating Budget

Staffing

Energy

Service

Work Order

Space Management

Falling short of

peers and Best in

Class Institutions.

51

Facilities Operating Expenditures

52

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

Total Daily Service Costs

Maintenance Custodial Grounds

Daily Service Breakout

Area of

Focus

Defining Work Order Frequency Focuses the Analysis

Plotting demand work orders to buildings helps to understand productivity profile

53

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000

W.O

. C

ou

nt

Average Cost ($)/ W.O.

High Cost, Low FrequencyLow Cost, Low Frequency

Low Cost, High FrequencyHigh Cost, High Frequency

(Targeted Buildings)

Savings potential with

capital investment

54

Bringing it All Together

The Most Accurate Data = 360° View of

Finance and Facilities

Analysis - Insight, Benchmarking and Best Practices or

“Facilities Intelligence”

Data-Driven Decisions Leveraging

Disciplined Data Analytics

Make-the-case for Balanced Policies on

Space, Capital and Operations

Continually Improve the campus by

aligning with Mission & Strategy

Sightlines Drives Results

55

Upcoming Sightlines Events

Webinar on planned maintenance best practices w/ Penn State & Brown

Plan More, React Less:

Building & Expanding Your

Planned Maintenance

Program

Presented by:

Steve Maruszewski – Associate Vice

President of Physical Plant at Penn State

University

Paul Armas – Director of Maintenance

Operations at Brown University

Kevan Will – Manager of Operations at

Sightlines

Wednesday, April 27 @ 1PM

56

Questions and Discussion

57