university of southern maine...university of southern maine overview 1 the criterion that the review...

FacilitiesManagementEvaluationProgram

Confidential

The Facilities Management Program is a service ofAPPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers

November 2008

University ofSouthern Maine

APPA, Leadership in Educational Facilities, is aninternational association dedicated to the development ofleadership and professional management applicable to theplanning, design, construction, maintenance, andoperation of the facilities required for quality teaching,research, and public service.

APPA1643 Prince StreetAlexandria, VA 22314-2818

Copyright ©2008 by APPA.

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved.

The appraisal of the institution is made in relationship to thecriteria and guidelines of APPA’s Facilities ManagementEvaluation Program (FMEP). The evaluation report commentson the strengths of the institution and, when appropriate, offerssuggestions and recommendations for improvements of perfor-mance. The report constitutes no endorsement or denial ofendorsement, of the institution by APPA or by the members ofthe evaluation team. This document was created for the exclu-sive use of the institution named. All contents are confidential.

University of Southern Maine

■

Contents

iii

Overview .......................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................... 9

Executive Summary ..................................................... 15

Evaluation Report and Recommendations ............. 31

1.0 Leadership ............................................................. 31

2.0 Strategic and Operational Planning ................... 41

3.0 Customer Focus .................................................... 48

4.0 Information and Analysis ..................................... 55

5.0 Development and Management ofHuman Resources ................................................. 62

6.0 Process Management ........................................... 70

7.0 Performance Results ............................................. 74

8.0 Other Considerations ........................................... 848.1 Organization Structure ................................. 848.2 Internal Services/Chargebacks ..................... 908.3 Capital Project Construction Contract

Administration ............................................... 928.4 Multiple FM Departments ............................ 93

Conclusion ..................................................................... 95


Overview■

1

The criterion that the review team utilized for this review has evolved significantly

over time to keep pace with changing conditions in the facilities management

profession. The criterion is intended to help facility organizations address a dynamic

environment, focus on strategy-driven performance and align facility departmental

goals with campus goals to assist in making key decisions driving both short-term

success and long-term organizational sustainability. The FMEP criteria have

continually progressed toward a comprehensive integrated system perspective of

overall organizational performance management. The review team prepared this

review using these proven successful practices of facilities management professionals.

University Profile1

This contextual overview of the University of SouthernMaine (USM) campus environment includes anacknowledgement of a challenging facilities managementsetting and describes a number of drivers and trends affect-ing the present and future USM campus. It provides alogical starting point and serves as a backdrop for the workthat was performed by the Facilities Management Evalua-tion Program (FMEP) review team. The report sectionsincluding the Overview, Introduction, Executive Summary,Evaluation Report and Recommendations, and Conclusionrepresent the review team’s collective view of the campusFacilities Management Department.

The criteria that the review team utilized for this reviewhave evolved significantly over time to keep pace withchanging conditions in the facilities management profession.These criteria are intended to help facility organizationsaddress a dynamic environment, focus on strategy-drivenperformance, and align facility departmental goals withcampus goals to assist in making key decisions driving bothshort-term success and long-term organizationalsustainability. The FMEP criteria have continually pro-gressed toward a comprehensive integrated systems per-spective of overall organizational performance management.The review team prepared this review using these provensuccessful practices of facilities management professionals.

University of Southern Maine Mission StatementThe University of Southern Maine, with a rich historyreaching back to 1878, is Maine’s comprehensive metropoli-tan university offering associate, baccalaureate, graduate,

APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program2

and professional degrees within the University of MaineSystem. The University of Southern Maine’s fundamentalmission is teaching, research, and public service for thebenefit of the citizens of Maine and society in general. Inachieving its mission as a university, the USM also serves asa vehicle for linking southern Maine and the state to thenation and the world. The university actively encouragesfaculty, staff, and students to contribute to and participate instate, national, and international academic and professionalcommunities.1

The university’s principal responsibility is to provide a widerange of programs responsive to students diverse in age,background, and experience. Undergraduate education atthe University of Southern Maine provides every studentwith a solid foundation in the liberal arts and the sciences.Master’s, professional, and selected doctoral degrees andresearch programs emphasize the integration of theory andpractice. The University of Southern Maine seeks to assurebroad access to educational opportunities, including lifelonglearning and is committed to providing academic andsupport services essential to the needs of a diverse studentbody. This commitment includes creating a strong sense ofuniversity community and a vibrant, diverse cultural envi-ronment for the university’s students, faculty, staff, and theentire community of southern Maine. In all activities, theuniversity continually strives for excellence in teaching andlearning.

As an essential Maine resource, the university’s programpriorities are driven by the needs of the people and institu-tions of southern Maine in particular, and the state in gen-eral. The university fulfills an historical and special commit-ment to elementary and secondary education through thepreparation of teachers and educational leaders. The Univer-sity of Southern Maine links the teaching, research, andpublic service capabilities of faculty and staff, through bothtraditional and interdisciplinary programs and units, withthe people, organizations, and institutions of the state andregion. As one of seven campuses in the University of MaineSystem, the University of Southern Maine complementsand collaborates with the other six institutions in the systemand the Maine Community College System to fulfill theneeds of public education in the state of Maine.

1. University of Southern Maine Fact Book 2006-2007, University InformationReport #07-1, January 2007.

University of Southern Maine 3

Institutional Profile2

With an enrollment of 10,478, the University of SouthernMaine is the second largest of the seven campuses in theUniversity of Maine System.Created in 1970 by the merger of two state supportedinstitutions under the name University of Maine atPortland-Gorham, and renamed the University of South-ern Maine in 1978. Gorham Teachers College (1945) wasfounded as Western Maine Normal School in 1878, whilethe University of Maine at Portland (1957) was foundedas Portland Junior College in 1933. Lewiston/AuburnCollege (LAC) was created as the third campus of theUniversity of Southern Maine in 1988.USM has three campuses, one in the city of Portland(population 64,249), one in the rural town of Gorham(population 14,141), and one in Lewiston/Auburn (popu-lation Lewiston: 35,690, and Auburn: 23,203).USM has 1,574 regular employees: 398 faculty, 713professional staff, and 463 classified staff. Of the 393 full-time instructional faculty, 63 percent are tenured, 42percent are women, the average age is 52, and the averagelength of service is 14 years.Approximately 1,575 course sections are offered eachsemester to both full-time and part-time students from8:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30p.m. on Saturday, and on Sunday afternoon. There arecourses available to students approximately 350 days peryear.USM’s 2006 fall enrollment of 10,478 accounted for 30percent of all enrollees in the University of Maine system.USM also offers summer and winter sessions; in summer2006, 4,932 students chose from over 650 courses; inwinter 2005/2006, 337 students chose from 22 courses.During 2005-2006, 112,251 persons participated in 3,004public service activities.The education and general (E&G) operating budget for2006-2007 was $102,562,285.The University of Southern Maine is accredited by theNew England Association of Schools and Colleges.

Facilities Management DepartmentFacilities Management Mission Statement

We are committed to providing a safe, healthy, clean, com-fortable, and favorable learning, living, and working envi-

2. University of Southern Maine Fact Book 2006-2007, University InformationReport #07-1, January 2007.


ronment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Our effortsare to be achieved by building an empowered, creative, andsocially responsible workforce, with a culture and philoso-phy to continuously improve the quality and efficiency of ourservices. Facilities management’s goal is the active involve-ment, participation and commitment of all staff members.The end result being that our members of facilities manage-ment and our customers are able to take great pride in ouruniversity.

The executive director has reinforced to the FMEP reviewteam that the principle focus of the facilities management isto make every effort to ensure that the campus buildingsand grounds are maintained is such a way that these facili-ties are able to support the university mission, and provide ahealthful, safe, clean, and comfortable, learning, living, andworking environment. Facilities management’s main serviceis to provide the services required to maintain the facilitiesthat house the academic programs of the university. TheFacilities Management Department executive director hasfurther articulated the primary goal of the department asthe maintenance of facilities, by moving toward a structuredpreventive maintenance program, development of ad-equate resources to maintain existing and new facilities,capital renewal of the academic spaces such as class-rooms, laboratories, building systems, and reducedutility usage.3

The Facilities Management Department consists of fourorganizational units 1) administration and informationsystems; 2) facility maintenance; 3) environmental services;and 4) engineering and architectural services.

Administration and information systems has responsibilityfor many of the department’s business processes and prac-tices, including budgets, financial analysis, purchasing,accounts payable, equipment inventory, departmentalcharge backs, motor pool administration, work orders,payroll, and human resources (HR). Its responsibility forinformation systems is limited to the responsibility fortracking all department telecommunication and computerequipment and for all computer and software purchasesand upgrades in the department. This work unit does nothave information system professionals assigned to it.

3. Facilities Management Department Document, page 82.


Maintenance services include carpentry, the lock shop,painting, plumbing, electrical, refrigeration, HVAC, heatingplant operations, and life safety.

Environmental services consists of housekeeping, grounds,and waste management.

Engineering and architectural services is responsible in largepart for overseeing and managing large capital construction,new construction, renovation, and maintenance projects.The department has grown from a staff of four to seven overthe past eight years. Engineering and architectural servicesalso support the operations and maintenance department inthe following areas: trades’ staff technical assistance, depart-ment regulatory oversight, space accounting, CAD support,signage, engineering design, all computerized system sup-port, energy, building automation systems, and mechanicalsystems.

All employees, with the exception of supervisory positions,are members of a collective bargaining unit. The service andmaintenance employees are represented by the TeamstersUnion, Local 340. Administrative support staff are repre-sented by the Clerical Office Laboratory and Technical StaffUnion (COLT). The nonsupervisory professional staff arerepresented by the University of Maine ProfessionalStaff Unit (UMPSA).

Facilities management uses contractors to perform special-ized services such as:

Elevator maintenanceWater treatment systems maintenanceRefrigeration start-ups and shut-downs and major repairsCleaning of small boilers in wooden structuresMajor painting projectsRoof repairsReplacement of large broken windows

USM Physical PlantThe major academic and residential life facilities are gener-ally constructed of masonry, steel, concrete, and glass. Theuniversity owns 27 wood-framed, structures on the Portlandcampus and 12 wood-framed structures on its Gorhamcampus, as well as a conference center which formerly was aprivate home and is located about 15 miles from campus inFreeport, Maine. Although the academic and residential life


structures are old and have considerable deferred mainte-nance, the wood structures are far more maintenanceintensive and far less efficient to operate than institutionalbuildings. For the most part, they also do not meet Ameri-cans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Most areused for faculty and department offices and are in need ofupgrades, including replacement of boilers, roofs, floorcovering, and painting, etc.

Electrical, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, and controlsystems in the major buildings constructed since the 1950sare original to the building, with some minor modifications.Most systems are beyond their useful life. Fourteen of thebuildings on the Portland and Gorham campuses have roofsthat are over 25 years old, and 27 buildings are over 20 yearsold, with the oldest dating back to 1905 (slate).

The academic facilities—Bailey, Russell, Corthell, LutherBonney, Masterton, Payson Smith Halls, and the sciencecomplex are all very heavily used from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.Monday through Friday by an average of 5,000 students perday during the academic year. Many of the classrooms arealso in use on Saturdays and during breaks. They are alsoheavily used in the summer, making it difficult to accessspaces to address maintenance needs. All classroom work isscheduled through the space and scheduling office, which ispart of the campus registrar’s office.

The review team was informed that there are four separateand distinct facility management operations at USM, in-cluding facilities management, residential life, athletics, andLewiston/Auburn College.

University of Southern Maine Building SummaryE&G Bldgs GrossPortland 45 1,260,098Gorham 34 644,750Lewiston 02 141,510Freeport 01 21,572Total 82 2,067,930

Auxs Bldgs GrossPortland 04 140,331Gorham 10 526,523Total 14 666,854


Leased Bldgs GrossPortland 008 79,397Gorham 001 3,392Augusta 001 18,016Total 010 100,805

Totals Bldgs GrossE&G 082 2,067,930Aux 014 666,854Lease 010 100,805Total 106 2,835,589University-owned land comprises 146 acres.

Deferred MaintenanceFacilities management reports a deferred maintenancebacklog of approximately $60 million without includingcampus infrastructure and soft-costs required to administerthe deferred maintenance projects. A comprehensive facilityaudit has been conducted by in-house personnel and theassessment data has been entered into a system developedby a firm that specializes in facility condition assessments,Vanderweil Facility Advisors (VFA) in Boston, Massachusetts.

Facilities management has taken the facility audit findingsand provided a listing of 13 “high impact” top priorityprojects for the university should funding for deferredmaintenance become available. The estimated total cost ofthese 13 high impact projects for 2008 is $1.3 million.

Facilities Management Operating BudgetThe Facilities Management Department E&G budget forfiscal year 2008, which was shared with the review team, isprojected to be approximately $8.47 million. This totalbudget allows $5.31 million for salaries. Facilities manage-ment has 91 positions identified for the 2008 fiscal yearbudget. The Facilities Management Department leadershiphas identified staffing levels as a major concern. Approxi-mately $600,000 is budgeted for material and supplies.

The review team heard from numerous members of facili-ties management and from other campus stakeholders aperception that facilities management has historically beenunder-funded. Although additional buildings and infra-structure have been added to the campus inventory over thepast several years, facility management stated that no new

APPA Facilities Management Evaluation Program

positions have been added to the maintenance shops for themaintenance of the additional facilities. The director of theFacilities Management Department retired in May 2008,and the assistant director resigned. The review team wasinformed that both of these positions are being eliminatedand that any funds for these positions that remain in thefacilities management budget will be utilized toward operat-ing expenses for newly constructed buildings on the Port-land campus. This new space in Wishcamper and the OsherLibrary expansion will add 79,000 square feet of buildingspace to the facilities maintenance workload.

Major Capital Projects in ProcessCurrent budgeted capital construction projects includethree projects totaling $35.4 million. These projects includeWishcamper, Osher Map Library expansion, and phase 2 ofthe Lewiston/Auburn facility.

Over the past ten years, the USM campus has completed 13major capital projects at a construction cost of approxi-mately $100 million.

8


This report is an evaluation of the Facilities ManagementDepartment of the University of Southern Maine. Theobservations and recommendations are those of a team ofsenior facilities management professionals who visited thecampus on June 15 through June 19, 2008.

The review was conducted at the request of Eduard Dailide,University of Maine System Director of Facilities Manage-ment and Planning.

The review was structured in accordance with the FacilitiesManagement Evaluation Program (FMEP) of APPA-TheAssociation of Higher Education Facilities Officers. In addi-tion to the standard criteria utilized for an FMEP, the reviewteam addressed a number of specific considerations re-quested by the university’s Chief Financial Officer DickCampbell. These considerations are contained in Section8.0: Other Considerations.

Facilities professionals, with specific expertise, were selectedfor the FMEP team. Selections were based on their experi-ence in the management and leadership of comparablefacilities organizations relevant to those of the University ofSouthern Maine.

Members of the review team included the following:Jack Hug, Team LeaderAssistant Vice Chancellor, FacilitiesUniversity of California, San Diego-RetiredAPPA Past President

■

Introduction


Ernest R. HunterDirector Physical Plant/Facilities ServicesUniversity of Texas, Austin-RetiredHunter Consulting & Training

Dan JohnsonVice President for Administration and FinanceCalifornia State University Monterey Bay-RetiredThe Tiburon Group

The review team interviewed staff within the FacilitiesManagement Department and numerous principal campusadministrators, faculty, primary customers, and key con-stituents external to the Facilities Management Department.

Campus administrators interviewed include:Joe Wood, Interim PresidentMark Lapping, Interim ProvostDick Campbell, Chief Financial OfficerJudy Ryan, Vice President, Human ResourcesCraig Hutchinson, Vice President, Student and

University LifeRosa Redonnette, Vice President, Enrollment ManagementBill Wells, Chief Information OfficerStephen Houser, Director IT, Database, and Applications

SupportScott Steinberg, Director, Undergraduate AdmissionsGregg Allen, Director, Business ServicesRobert Casparius, Director, Campus Environment and

SafetyCynthia Quinn, Executive Director, Financial ResourcesBob Caswell, Executive Director, Office of Public AffairsLisa Beecher, Chief of Police and SafetySandra Eustis-Brackett, Parking DirectorCarl Hill, Assistant Director, Facilities Residential

Life/EducationDenise Nelson, Director, Residential Life/EducationAl Bean, Director, Athletics and RecreationNancy Martz, Director, Research Administration

College deans and academic department heads who wereinterviewed include:Devinder Malhotra, Dean, College of Arts and SciencesBetty Lou Whitford, Dean/Professor, College of Education/

Human DevelopmentWilliam Foster, Dean/Professor, Public Policy/Management


Peter Pitegoff, Dean/Professor, Law SchoolJack Kartez, Associate Vice President for Research,

Scholarship, Creative Activity

Campus customers-group meetings included:Chris O’Conner, Woodbury Campus CenterJim O’Brien, Assistant to the PresidentTim Thornton, CECSue Taylor, NursingMike Mullett, Assistant Director, AthleticsAlan Brown, Operations Manager, ResearchTom Wood, Director of Operations, Research

AdministrationMichelle Dustin, Assistant to the Director, Glickman LibraryMark Austin, Crew Leader, Residential LifeJenny Nelson, Director, Gym and Outdoor RecreationNancy Austin, Director, Telecommunications and

Card ServicesBob Smith, Director of Administration, Mailroom

Customers with recent experience with capital projectservices included:Sondra Bogdonoff, Director, Development and PlanningDavid Nutty, Director, Glickman LibraryJohn Wright, Dean/Professor, Applied Sciences,

Engineering/Technology

Individual meetings held with the FacilitiesManagement Department directors, assistant director,and human resources liaison included:David Early, Executive DirectorPaul Kuplinski, Director, Administration and Information

SystemsDana Gray, Director, Engineering and ArchitectureLee Forest, Director, Environmental ServicesWalter Lacombe, Assistant Director, Maintenance, GorhamNicole Leclerc, Human Resources Liaison

Group meetings were conducted with FacilitiesManagement Department supervisors and included:Bob King, Maintenance Supervisor, GorhamDan Warren, Maintenance Supervisor, PortlandRoger Guillerault, Executive Custodian, PortlandSteven Sweeney, Executive Custodian, third shift, PortlandColice Tyson, Executive Custodian, first shift, GorhamJoe Seger, Executive Custodian, third shift, Gorham


Jeff Mckay, Grounds Supervisor IINeil Lyman, Grounds Supervisor, PortlandGreg Kehaya, Crew Leader, GorhamPat Cooper, Crew Leader, PortlandBrett Hallett, Crew Leader, PortlandRich Lundgren, Grounds, Garage, Gorham

Group meetings were also conducted with a number offront-line staff representing the various functional areasof the Facilities Management Department including:Members of the First Shift and Second Shift Custodial StaffJean Marandola, GorhamMarland Wing, PortlandDaoud Ahmed, PortlandMarilyn Kourinos, PortlandLarry Faulkingham, Portland

Facilities Trades/Maintenance ShopsBill Griffiths, Carpenter, PortlandLarry Ricker, Carpenter, GorhamCecil Curtis, General Trades, PortlandChuck Darneille, HVAC PortlandBetty Hilton, Locksmith, GorhamGeorge Pattershall, Life Safety, Gorham

GroundsEric Curry, PortlandGary Heath, GorhamJohn Roberts, Gorham

Engineering and ArchitectureCarol Potter, Building Construction EngineerNancy Theriault, Project CoordinatorMichael Wacker, Building Construction Engineer/Energy

ManagementJohn Gray, Project CoordinatorBrian Labrecque, Building Construction Engineer

Administrative ServicesWendy Chase, Administrative Assistant IIJustine Ray, Administrative Assistant IISusan Holmes, Administrative Assistant IBarbara Hall, Administrative Assistant IJessica Picard, Administrative Assistant I


University of Maine SystemEduard Dailide, System Director of Facilities Management

and Planning

The facility at the Lewiston/Auburn (LA) campus was alsoincluded in the review process and interviews were con-ducted with Randy Estes, director of Maintenance, LACampus, Marvin Drucker, interim dean/professor LACampus, and Pamela Roy, director of Finance, LA Campus.

An extensive campus tour was also included in this reviewprocess, which provided opportunities to enter severalmajor campus facilities on the Portland and Gorham cam-pus. A tour of the Facilities Management Department shops,offices, several mechanical rooms, and other workspaceswas also conducted.

AcknowledgmentThe FMEP review team acknowledges, with deep apprecia-tion, the help and support of the management and staff ofthe Facilities Management Department. Special recognitionis given to Paul Kuplinski, director of Administration andInformation Systems, and to Nicole Leclerc who did a stellarjob in providing the review team workspace, arranginginterviews, and providing logistical support. Paul’s flexibility,patience, and efficient response to our many additionalrequests for information and additional meetings were trulyremarkable. Executive Director David Early, the directors,supervisory staff, and all members of the Facilities Manage-ment Department are acknowledged for their participationand willingness to share information, supporting documen-tation, materials, and valuable insights. Their participationenabled this review to reach a successful conclusion.

The review team wishes to acknowledge the assistance ofthose members of the University of Southern Maine cam-pus administration for sharing their valuable time and fortheir participation in both individual interviews and groupdiscussion. All interviews were conducted at the scheduledtimes, and all those who participated willingly shared theirtime and insights. We are especially grateful for such apositive reception to the review.

We further acknowledge the support of Chief FinancialOfficer Dick Campbell. His willingness to share his time andinsights on several occasions was truly exceptional.


The executive summary of this report provides an extractionof facts and information taken from the overall findings ofthe review team while on campus from June 15 throughJune 19, 2008. The recommendations in this report areoffered to outline a possible roadmap to help facilitiesmanagement (FM) further align its actions with that of theneeds of the University of Southern Maine (USM). Howeffectively facilities management delivers on its mission andmakes a distinctive impact relative to its resources is a majorpart of this review.

The criteria that the review team utilized for this reviewhave evolved significantly over time to keep pace withchanging conditions in the facilities management professionand to help facility organizations address a dynamic envi-ronment, focus on strategy-driven performance, and assessthe alignment of facility departmental goals with campusgoals and key decisions driving both short-term success andlong-term organizational sustainability. The FMEP criteriahave continually progressed toward a comprehensive,integrated systems perspective of overall organizationalperformance management. The review team prepared thisreview using these proven successful practices of facilitiesmanagement professionals.

It is appropriate to emphasize in this part of the report thatthe Facilities Management Department has many outstand-ing staff members who have pride in working at USM andwho expressed a strong desire to improve the appearanceand function of campus facilities. The people in the Facilities

Executive Summary

■


Management Department are truly a most important assetfor the university, and it is incumbent upon management tofully utilize and nurture the capabilities of this most signifi-cant characteristic of the organization. The strength of thestaff and the quality of people within the Facilities Manage-ment Department matter greatly and provide much encour-agement for a successful future.

Although the report that follows is critical in some areas andidentifies a number of challenges, the review team has inevery case provided recommendations to assist in thecontinuous improvement of services that the facilitiesmanagement executive director and the chief financialofficer has expressed. The desire to “make things better forUSM” was expressed on a number of occasions.

Over and over again, we heard that USM is an institution intransition. The report “Transforming USM: 2004-09” pre-sents the challenges that the university faces, provides a planand vision, and identifies the changes necessary for successof the plan. The upgrade and expansion of facilities is in-cluded in the report as one of five essential levers of change.

Facilities management is also in transition; experiencingchange in leadership in two key positions and a shift infocus from managing an active capital construction programto an urgent need to renew its focus and commitment toimprove operation and maintenance of the built environ-ment. Clearly, if the aspirations described in “TransformingUSM: 2004-09” are to become a reality, then the appear-ance, condition, capacity, and functionality of campusfacilities must be improved. This transitional period repre-sents a significant opportunity for FM to align its purpose,its view of the future, values and guiding principles, andstrategic focus with the changes that are taking place. Intimes of institutional transition, transitional management orrepositioning of the organization will be necessary. Alloca-tion of limited resources to ensure a more clear alignment ofbudget, plans, and priorities is likely. For FM, the status-quowill no longer be acceptable. The facilities managementoperating budget allocation, the campus need for addressingfacilities capital renewal and deferred maintenance, and thereview teams findings that the on-going operations andmaintenance services need improvement gives mandate tothe department to have a stronger operations and mainte-nance focus and a solid management direction. To achieve


this, it will be necessary for FM to capture the moment andtake full advantage of the opportunities presented by theinstitutional transition.

LEADERSHIP (LEADERSHIP-TEAM, STRATEGICAND OPERATIONAL PLANNING)

The FMEP review team has applied a “leadership system”definition in making its assessment of the FM leadership.For this purpose, the leadership system is defined as; “howleadership is exercised, formally and informally, throughoutthe organization; it is the basis for the way that decisions aremade, communicated, and carried out. It includes struc-tures for decision making; selection and development ofleaders and managers; and reinforcement of values, direc-tion, and performance expectations. An effective leadershipsystem respects the capabilities and needs of employees. Aneffective leadership system contains mechanisms for theleaders to conduct self-examination, receive feedback, andimprove.4

Although all of the seven FMEP criteria are supportive andcomplementary criteria, we have linked the first threecriteria to emphasize areas that, if improved, can make asignificant and positive difference for the USM FacilitiesManagement Department. This connection includes thecriteria of Leadership, Strategic and Operational Planning,and Customer Focus. In other words, the FM executivedirector and all those who occupy leadership positions(leadership team) should set clear directions, create a cus-tomer focus, have clear and visible values, and high perfor-mance expectations. These directions, values, and expecta-tions should balance the needs of all campus stakeholders.

The key management position vacancies in facilities man-agement (director of Facilities Maintenance and the assistantdirector of Maintenance, Portland), the reduction in capitalproject workload, and the operating budget provide oppor-tunities to restructure the department organization. This isalso an opportunity to design an organization that is mostoptimal and aligned with the context of the institution andof FM financial realities for the next several years. Somevery difficult decisions have to be made, and many of these

4. Insights to Performance Excellence. An inside look at the Baldrige AwardCriteria. Mark L. Blazey 2002. American Society for Quality.


decisions are driven by financial considerations and theneed for FM to continue to strive to find ways to do moreand to provide better services to the campus with the sameamount or with less resources. To face this reality success-fully, facilities management leadership is provided thisroadmap taken from the review findings.

The review team recommends the following:

Build a strong leadership team with an operations andmaintenance focus that is not dependent on any oneindividual and a team that fits the institutional needs forprofessional facilities management.

Review and align the mission, principles, and values inlight of the institutional transitions and the campusfacilities and infrastructure condition and appearancerealities. Employ a style of governance that ensures thatall those in leadership positions behave and make deci-sions consistent with the stated mission and values.

Develop a clear and compelling vision for the future ofthe facilities management organization. FM has notarticulated a vision for the future and consequently hasno strategy or “game plan” for the department. To thisend, FM cannot be content to be simply good stewards offacilities, but must become more fully engaged with theentire campus community. FM needs to be broadlycollaborative and build solid partnerships to be of benefitto the institution. The executive director and the entireleadership team need to be much more visible and ac-tively engaged within FM and throughout the campus.

Complete a thorough analysis of the strengths, weak-nesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT Analysis) usinga systematic model. Analysis of the identified strengthsand weaknesses will be an important factor in develop-ment of a facilities management strategy.

Provide more information to staff members. Although thedirector of the Facilities Management Department meetsmonthly with the maintenance staff on the Portland andGorham campuses for the purpose of updating them ondepartmental issues, during interviews with staff mem-bers, many of them noted that they do not get enoughinformation about what is going on in the department.The director of FM, the assistant director of Maintenance,Portland, and the Portland maintenance supervisor meetwith the Portland campus major departments monthly.


This is not the case on the Gorham campus and has notincluded representatives of environmental services.

Look continually for opportunities to improve the organi-zation, including opportunities for staff learning andgrowth (working together in a better way) and regularassessment of the leadership-team.

Develop and execute a strategic plan with clear andthoughtful goals and objectives linked to the vision.Develop this plan with the use of a planning process thatis practical for the organization.

Design an organizational structure to fit the strategy.Based on the context of the institution and FM realities,an organizational structure that encourages collaboration,cooperation, employee learning and growth, and theefficient use of people and other resources is emphasized.

Develop plans that address all aspects of performance,including financial, customer service process, and em-ployee learning and growth. Set measurable targets foreach measure of performance based on relevant data. TheAPPA-FPI information and data that facilities manage-ment has already captured and that pertains to the Facili-ties Management Department performance should befully utilized for comparisons, trending, and generaldecision support.

Communicate the strategy to all levels of staff so that theyunderstand their role in the organization and how achiev-ing the strategy will help the organization over the nextseveral years. FM does not have a practice of includingsubunit managers in the budget formulation and execu-tion process. While the director of Administration andInformation Systems does distribute an expenditurereport to subunit managers, the reports are not used tomake financial or operational decisions. There appears tobe little connection between the resource needs of sub-units and the budget process. The budget appears to bebased on historical expenditures adjusted by currentbudget constraints, and subunit managers are not manag-ing their operations based on budgeted resources.

LEADERSHIP: CUSTOMER FOCUS

Customer focus is not a core competency of the facilitiesmanagement organization. The review findings in Section3.0: Customer Focus underscore the deficiencies for much


of the FM Department. The lone exception was our findingsfrom customers who have had experience working withengineering and architectural services on capital projects.This is an important leadership responsibility that may beoverlooked because FM enjoys the benefit of an understand-ing customer constituency who seem to have accepted thebelief that FM is seriously under-funded. This understanding ischanging, however, as many of those who participated ininterviews expressed that their department was also under-funded, but that they are still expected to provide services.

The highlights of our findings are presented in the followingrecommendations on customer service and include a needto strengthen elements of organizational structure (organizefor service), the use of technology, people, and servicemanagement.

Facilities management leadership could serve the organiza-tion well if it were to nurture service leadership throughoutthe department and spend time with campus customers. Itis the FM leader’s responsibility to know the customerrequirements and to translate and communicate this toeveryone in the organization. Good customer service doesnot happen by accident and experience has shown thatsuccessful facility management organizations at our collegesand universities have a customer service strategy and anactive customer orientation practiced by service personnel.

The need for improvement in customer service includesthe initiation of a number of basic and fundamentalcustomer service practices including the establishment of animproved work management function with an effectiveprocess for managing customer requests, work orders, andfor responding to customer complaints effectively. There is aneed for the department to work hard on customer relation-ships and to have discipline in its approach to have realdiscussions with customers on a timely basis.

FM needs to measure customer satisfaction and initiateservice improvement based on actionable information.There is a need to use a variety of means to listen to thevoice of the customer including personal contact, focusgroups, discussions with front-line service employees, anda variety of practical methods to determine customersatisfaction.

There is a need for FM to develop a customer informationsystem to help understand the different type and levels of


service needs. There are many different customer require-ments and a “one-size fits all” approach is no longeracceptable to the campus. The desire and interest on thepart of athletics, residential life, and the campus facilitiesmaintenance at LAC to have facilities personnel on theirstaff is partially because FM services have not matchedthe needs and expectations for services.

There is a need to make it easy for customers to getinformation. Interviews with customers revealed thatthere were regular customer meetings being held by thedirector and assistant director of facilities, however, bothof these positions are now vacant and customers ex-pressed concern about what would happen to the cus-tomer meetings.

FM has not developed service level standards that matchbudgeted resources with campus department service needs.Standards for custodial services, building maintenance,grounds maintenance, and service responsiveness areneeded. Little or no service training has been provided andemployees are not rewarded for providing quality service.

Granted, this is a substantial list of leadership requirementsthat cannot be accomplished overnight, but anything lessthan an all out effort to improve the organization’s perfor-mance in these areas will shortchange the quality of facilityservices that a campus desiring to become a nationallyrecognized regional comprehensive university deserves.

MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONALINFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Various aspects of information include facilities inspections,audits, financial expenditure reports, utility data, and otherrelevant performance measures and indicators are an essen-tial part of facilities management. Information and analysisof information should be used to evaluate performance anddrive future performance improvements. Of interest are thetypes of tools used (for example, peer comparative dataclarified and validated through benchmarking), and howinformation technology is used to enhance organizationalperformance.

The review team findings and recommendations for thesecriterion indicate substantial need for improving informationgathering and for improved use of information technology.


The backbone for information accessibility for mostfacilities management organizations is a computerizedmaintenance management system (CMMS) or computerbased work-order system with a customer web-basedself-help interface. FM has no effective CMMS or work-order system that typically is a key element of a goodperformance indicator system since it serves as the reposi-tory of data needed to support performance indicators,review, and analysis. The computer-based work-ordersystem (Infor MP2) is not being used to its advertisedcapacity because is it believed to be too complex and userunfriendly by USM staff members. (See criteria 4.3 and4.7 findings and recommendations).

FM does not have a systematic process in place for identi-fying and prioritizing performance indicators, compara-tive information, and benchmarking studies in most of itsareas of operation. With the exception of engineering andanalysis purposes. The review team commends FM forparticipating in the APPA Facilities Performance IndicatorSurvey (FPI); however, the review team did not findevidence of widespread use and analysis of the FPI data todrive decisions. Additionally, while the APPA FPI databaseis a very good source for strategic benchmarking, it doesnot substitute for routine operational-tactical performanceindicators. Benchmarking results, comparisons, andperformance indicators need to be tracked and used todrive action within the organization.

FM does not have a regular facilities audit and inspectionprogram in place. In 2004-2005, an inspection of alleducation and general facilities was conducted by in-house personnel that identified and quantified buildingconditions. The University of Maine System selected theVanderweil Facilities Associates (VFA) program for track-ing all capital renewal/deferred maintenance on its sevencampuses. All information gathered from the inspectionsof the E&G facilities was entered into the VFA system andestimates were created using this system. The reviewteam commends FM for the wealth of facilities conditioninformation contained in the VFA database. However, thisinformation will easily become outdated since there is noprocess in place to update the data based on completedwork, and there are no ongoing inspections. This valuableinformation needs to be kept current and utilized for itsintended purpose.


There is no systematic process of operational inspection offacilities to identify day to day maintenance and repairrequirements. There seems to be an over reliance on cus-tomers’ requests to identify repair requirements. A proactiveapproach to facilities inspection should be initiated.

Facilities management does have an effective system ofmeasuring and recording electrical utility data for muchof the campus. Utility data is used to establish trends,minimize costs, and identify excessive usage and this isdone by FM through its Energy Watch Dog program.This information is not widely distributed. The depart-ment also currently has a contract with Hirnak EnergyServices to read and analyze the utility submeters at theGorham site. Part of the services provided in the contractis to analyze trends and to provide feedback regardingusage, trends, excessive usage, and to provide monthlyreports and a quarterly analysis. The department chargesthe auxiliary services for their utility usage. The FM utilitybudget for campus E&G facilities for 2008 is $2.56 mil-lion, which represents over 30 percent of the total FMoperating budget. Energy management and conservationwill continue to be a major challenge as prices continue toescalate. There is a need for FM to establish an aggressiveenergy management and conservation strategy for thecampus.

DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF HUMANRESOURCES

The success of facilities management depends increasinglyon the knowledge, skills, innovative creativity, and motiva-tion of its people. These criteria address the ways in which thefacilities organization ensures continuing learning environmentthrough communication, policies, recognition, training,professional development opportunities, and other methods.

The review team’s findings and recommendations for thiscritical area are as follows:

There is pride in the workforce, however, it is mainlyinstitutional based rather than departmental based.

There is commitment among some staff members toimprove, but not enough to bring about meaningfulcontinuous improvement. Given a clear direction and thetools to accomplish new expectations, the group can per-form better. As with any group of veterans, however, change


will not come easy, and it is incumbent on FM leadership toset the direction and align all staff constituencies.

Staff members want to have a quality operation and arefrustrated with having to be mostly reactive to reoccur-ring problems resulting mostly from poor communica-tions, inadequate work management, uncertainty aboutpurpose and strategy, a belief that budgets are inadequate,and a perception of constraints caused by policy andinadequate support needed to get the job done.

Overall, internal communications in the Facilities Man-agement Department are not good, and there is a need toimprove communications on the changes that are takingplace and on critical goals and issues for the department.There is a noticeable absence of clearly defined and commu-nicated goals and objectives for the FM organization.

Job descriptions and job classifications follow USM HRpolicy and procedures. It appears that generally theindividuals holding the positions in FM are classifiedappropriately.

There is a new employee orientation provided by mem-bers of key campus departments. A new employee’s rolein the department and the overall role of the FM depart-ment are reviewed with applicants during the interviewand hiring process. Supervisors also review individualstaff specific roles after they are hired at preshift or shopmeetings.

FM managers are supportive of training, especially techni-cal training required for license continuation. Employeesare encouraged to attend trade and equipment shows,vendor training and product shows, and educationalconferences. Additional training is available for employ-ees, especially technical training where licenses are re-quired. The university has a tuition remission programfor staff members and their families. Management couldhelp employee growth and development by doing moreto help build a development plan for all staff members. Itwould be helpful if training needs were assessed acrossthe entire organization and a training, education, anddevelopment plan with priorities for training determined.For example, facilities management staff and campuscustomers indicated they would like to see more cross-training for those working on the building automationHVAC systems. Library staff, for example, noted that thelibrary’s special collections rely heavily on the HVAC

24


system working properly, and they are concerned aboutthe small number of people who can operate and repairthe systems.

Working relationship between EH&S and facilities man-agement regarding safety policies and procedures aregood. Safety policy and procedures are reviewed withnew employees at orientation and by supervisors duringregular safety training sessions. There is good understand-ing of the importance of excellent safety practices by allstaff who participated in the interview process. Standardprocedures for reporting and completing accidentsreports are followed.

FM utilizes informal ways to determine employee well-being. As stated in the self-evaluation” being a smallorganization, the supervisors and crew leaders know howtheir employees are feeling and if they have issues.” Whenthe review team asked staff members to indicate whatpercentage of employees they felt where unhappy, theanswers ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent. It is hardto reconcile FM’s method of utilizing informal employeeassessment as an effective means for determining em-ployee satisfaction. It is never a good practice to assumethat you know what people are thinking. Employeeclimate surveys; when administered professionally, are amuch more reliable way of determining employee mo-rale, employee satisfaction, and employee well-being.Interviews with facilities management staff also indicatethat there are opportunities for improving communica-tion between management and staff. The review teamrecommends that FM look at more disciplined ways todetermine workplace and workforce priorities and issues.An employee satisfaction survey should be considered asa practical tool to determine a base level of employeesatisfaction, dissatisfaction, and well-being. As it standsnow, the management team does not have any factualinformation on how employees feel about workforce andworkplace issues. There is a need for management focuson making FM a great place to work.

FM holds an annual recognition breakfast each fall torecognize achievement; the university holds separatebreakfasts for staff members and professionals to recog-nize years of service; there is a breakfast at the beginningof the new academic year with some recognition, as wellas a welcoming of new employees. Direct and local or“on-the-spot recognition” of work done well by all super-


visors and managers in the field regularly reviewing thework that people are performing is an additional way toprovide recognition. There is a successful practice processfor “Catching people doing something right,” but it canonly happen when management spends the time to seethe work of staff members first hand. In some areas,work output is obvious, but in many areas of facilitiesmanagement, the work performed is in basements,mechanical rooms, on roofs, and behind the scenes.

PROCESS MANAGEMENT

Effective process management addresses how the facilitiesorganization manages key product and service design anddelivery processes. The review team found a number offundamental core facilities management processes missing.Among the most critical and important are processes formanaging financials, work management, and preventivemaintenance inspection processes. Our findings and recom-mendations for this section are summarized below.

Subunit managers do not control expenditures based onbudgets. It is not clear to the review team whether re-sponsibility has been delegated or not. However, thedirector of Administration and Information Systemsseems to be the only facilities management official withthe exception of the executive director involved in budgetactivities. The austere budget situation seems to be thereason given for not being more proactive in budgetactivities. The review team acknowledges the difficulty inplacing subunit managers in the expenditure controlprocess, especially when the managers have never had arequirement to do so.

The review team did not find processes to ensure equip-ment is programmed and included in the budget basedon needs and equipment life cycle. Equipment is replacedas it becomes nonserviceable on an as required basis. Thisresults in equipment being kept in service beyond itsservice life when it becomes less efficient and more costlyto operate. The executive director should review what isexpected of subunit managers regarding budgetaryresponsibility and ensure there is no lack of clarity andparticipation in budget development and expendituremonitoring and management.

Facilities management does not have and effective workmanagement system in place. The current MP2 work-


order system is considered too complex and user un-friendly. See recommendation for criterion 4.7.

The FM leadership understands the importance of aneffective preventive maintenance (PM) program, but theybelieve budget constraints prevent them from staffingsuch a program. In addition, some are of the opinion thatthe MP2 system does not support a PM program. Thereview team verified that the MP2 program does have apreventive maintenance module with the ability to pro-duce PM work orders, but that this feature is not beingused. Equipment failures and reactive maintenance willcontinue to dominate the workload unless an effectivePM program is put in place.

Management should reconsider the judgment that bud-get constraints prevent staffing a PM program. Theoreti-cally, resources applied to preventive maintenance reducethe resources required for breakdown and reactive work.A good preventive maintenance program also is a founda-tional component of a successful energy managementprogram.

FM engineering and architectural services has developedconstruction standards for equipment, materials, surfaces,finishes, systems, etc., which are provided to the designfirms to follow as they prepare contract documents. Theseguidelines were developed with input from the facilitiesmaintenance staff. One member of the engineering andarchitectural services staff is responsible for keeping thesestandards current. All UMS system campuses are re-quired to follow Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) guidelines in the design, construction, orrenovation of all facility spaces. The review team com-mends FM for it achievement in its application LEED tothe new construction on campus. While good designguidelines and construction standards are key to successfactors for construction projects, involvement of mainte-nance and operation personnel in all phases of construc-tion projects is also very important. During interviews,the review team learned that while maintenance andoperation staff is involved in some of the new construc-tion projects, they are not always invited to key projectmilestone events. Personnel interviewed did note thatlately they have become more involved than in the past. Itwould help department teamwork if maintenance andoperation staff members continue to be involved in allphases of new construction and major renovation.


PERFORMANCE RESULTS

In addition to the areas addressed in previous sections ofthis executive summary, facilities management’s perfor-mance results can be assessed through campus appearanceand condition, and the effectiveness of infrastructure andsystems operations.

The review team’s consensus is that there are many areason campus that do not yet meet an acceptable minimumstandard. Landscape fixtures such as benches, trash cans,lighting fixtures, and building entrance areas are not verywell maintained. The overall appearance of the campus isbelow what we would expect to see at USM and belowthe level of a national norm for colleges and universities.

The condition and cleaning of the facilities at the Portlandcampus can be described as only moderately clean. Thereappears to be an effective floor care program in place, asstained carpet and dull and stained hard floors were notoverly evident. However, general cleaning is beginning toshow the signs of reduced staffing and reduced frequencyof performing certain cleaning tasks. The review teamcommends FM for having a written document describingsafety and cleaning procedures for the cleaning function.The document also documents the square feet coverageper person for the Gorham and Portland campuses.However, with the turnover and hiring freeze, the squarefeet coverage has likely fallen out of balance. Even thoughthere is a document prescribing the cleaning tasks andfrequencies, because of the actual or perceived staffshortages, individual custodians have to make personaljudgment about which tasks to skip or discontinue. Thecustodians appear to be sufficiently trained and properlysupported with proper equipment, products, and tools.While the review team did not inspect as many spaces onthe Gorham campus as it did on the Portland campus,interviews with Gorham campus residence halls manage-ment team suggest that the residence hall cleaning pro-gram is well run, very effective, and fully meeting theneeds of the customers. The review team understandsthat there are 21 FTEs assigned to the residence hallscleaning work unit. This level of staff might be dispropor-tionately high relative to the total cleanable square feetassociated with residence halls and the dining facilities.The review team found the LAC campus to be very wellcared for and the custodial and grounds appearance andlevels of maintenance were exceptional.


Some of the FM workspaces need attention, and there area number of service functions that have totally inadequateworkspaces. Custodial services workstations and supplyclosets in some areas are totally inadequate. Groundsequipment maintenance workspace is totally inadequateand inhibits efficient and effective services. While facilitiessuch as shops, storerooms, and administrative spacesseem only marginally adequate, the review team foundno plan or strategy for upgrading or expanding thefacilities management complex. The review team recog-nizes in light of the budget situation that adequate FMspace will most likely be a low priority in university’scapital program. However, legitimate facilities needs formaintaining and operating the university should bedocumented in the same manner as all other facilitiesneeds.

The challenges of controlling temperatures in manybuildings were cited by a number of those interviewed asthe single most frequent building systems issue. Thefacilities management executive director, supervisors ofthe HVAC, and electrical shop expressed a determinedeffort to obtain appropriate system upgrades and redun-dancy in critical systems and equipment.

In order to avoid long-term facilities decline, it is neces-sary to recognize that campus facilities will deteriorateover time. Building and infrastructure components have afinite life cycle and many of the buildings on the campushave exceeded at least one cycle of depreciation. Onlythrough a program of constant reinvestment in order tooffset the predictable decline of building components canan institution expect to avoid major problems. Inadequatefunding levels for maintenance and operations force thedeferral of small repairs that cause escalating conse-quences when left unattended. Experience has demon-strated that it does not take long until a leaking roof thatneeds to be replaced begins to cause ceiling and structuralbuilding damage. The longer the problem is left unat-tended, the faster the cost for restoration grows. Thefacility condition audit for the entire campus physicalplant and infrastructure should be periodically updated.There is no universal agreement on what this update cycleshould be, but it should take place frequently enough toensure that major needs are identified and prioritizedappropriately. Some campuses update all informationevery year or do a percentage of the campus square


footage every year. The review team recommends thatFM update past reports on facility conditions after discus-sion with campus administration and that this updatecoincide with reporting requirements to the UM systemprocesses. Mutual agreement on this schedule that meetsthe campus total facilities needs requirements would bethe desired outcome. Funding resources are not adequateto support a level of facility maintenance and repair thatprevents deferral of major maintenance and repair. TheVFA facilities condition audit serves to document this fact.High impact needs; those projects considered critical aresupported by the FM list of highest priority needs.

Although individual and specific utility infrastructurestudies have been done and resulted in the electricaldistribution and transformer replacement project identifi-cation, a comprehensive master utility plan has not beendone. Facilities management staff members are aware ofany vulnerability and risks that might exist in the utilityinfrastructure, and especially in the electrical and me-chanical systems. FM has provided a listing of 13 high-priority projects designated as “high impact projects”eligible for UM deferred maintenance funding estimatedto cost $1.3 million. Included on this list are severalcampus buildings that have a large amount of waterinfiltration that cause damage to the building structuresand have a very negative impact on building occupantsand programs. Water leaks are through the roofs, exteriorwalls, caulked joints, general building envelope, andwindows. Several buildings have visible signs of masonrydeterioration of structure and exterior stairs.

The campus senior administrative officers and the FMexecutive director can serve the campus well if theywould work together as strong advocates for addressingcampus facility capital renewal and deferred maintenanceneeds. There is a need for a strong coalition of campusleaders who can work together, advocate and makedecisions on priority facility needs. The campus capitalrenewal and deferred maintenance needs are not simply aFM problem. This is a campus problem. A key facilitiesfinancial benchmark is defined and its common usedescribed in Section 7.0 of this report and gives a per-spective on the overall condition of the USM facilities.


1.0 LEADERSHIP

The facilities organization’s senior leaders should setdirection and establish customer focus, clear and visiblevalues, and high expectations in line with campusmission, vision, and core values. Leaders inspire thepeople in the organization and create an environmentthat stimulates personal growth. They encourage in-volvement, development and learning, innovation, andcreativity.

Facilities management leadership roles and responsibilitiesare clearly defined. The facilities management organizationalchart given to the review team provides a graphic represen-tation of the organizational model and alignment of thefunctional areas of the department services. The reviewteam noted however that the FM organizational chartcontained on their website is not current and does notprovide campus faculty and staff members a good represen-tation of how the organization functions.

The organizational chart patterns and arrangement aredesigned around functional specialties and include theexecutive director of facilities management, administrationand information systems, facilities maintenance, environ-mental services, and engineering and architectural services.The review team found that the current organizational

■

Evaluation Report andRecommendations

1.1 Leadership roles andresponsibilities are clearlydefined.


Recommendation 1A

structure is not the most optimal structure. The manner inwhich the FM staff interacts in its attempts to achievesynergy and to foster collaboration and coordination isundermined by management practice of assigning leader-ship roles and responsibilities inconsistent with the organi-zational structure. This practice also impacts areas of ac-countability and in turn inhibits support of the departmentmission. There is a need to clarify roles, responsibilities, andaccountabilities in a number of the organizational functionalareas.

A number of FM directors have indicated during the inter-view process their suggestions for improved organizationalalignment, and mentioned that the topic of organizationalstructure has been discussed on several occasions at FMdepartment staff meetings.

Recommendations on organizational structure and alignmentare also contained in Section 8.0: Other Considerations,criterion 8.1, of this report.

Roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities need to be madeclear for the following areas: executive director, engineeringand architectural services, administration and informationsystems.

The roles and responsibilities of the executive director arenot clear. Currently the executive director and the director,engineering and architecture share capital project responsi-bilities including project administration roles and responsi-bilities, and to whom the project manager reports, andperformance evaluations of project managers. There is also aneed to clarify and align roles and responsibilities for energymanagement and conservation, and ownership of the de-ferred maintenance program responsibilities. Although thesetwo critical functions are structured within engineering andarchitectural services, there is a great need for these func-tions to have high-quality contact and working relationshipswithin the facilities maintenance unit.

In administrative and information systems, roles and re-sponsibilities for work management, the work-order system,and customer services need to be made clear. These adminis-trative service functions also require a close working rela-tionship with facilities maintenance in order to be effective.


With the retirement of the director of facilities managementand the resignation of the assistant director of the Portlandcampus, the executive director and his team of directorshave an opportunity to work together to shape the organi-zational structure and alignment that compliments the skillsand abilities of each other.

Leadership system refers to how leadership is exercised,formally and informally, throughout the organization—it isthe basis for and the way that key decisions are made,communicated, and carried out. It includes structures andmechanisms for decision making; selection and develop-ment of leaders and managers; and reinforcement of values,directions, and performance expectations. An effectiveleadership system respects the capabilities and requirementsof employees.

The review team found that the executive director is af-forded clear recognition of his position by members of thedepartment’s workforce, but a number of staff expressedtheir disappointment in the level of management’s interestand participation in helping to solve their work problems.In some cases the workers themselves crave a clear defini-tion of goals, more orderly scheduling of work, bettercoordination, and, in some cases, more precise assignmentof work. More effective two-way communication is essentialfor proper functioning of the leadership system—the leader-follower relationship. The schedule of departmental meet-ings, their frequency, and the type of meeting seem suffi-cient in number when considering the relatively small sizeof the department and the frequent opportunities for infor-mal communication, which does take place. There areindications, however, that the quality and effectiveness ofthe meetings, the agenda of topics discussed, and the under-standing by meeting participants of the purpose of thevarious meetings could be improved. During our inter-views, many front-line workers expressed a desire to havemore information provided to them or have leadership totalk to them more. There may be a need for more informa-tional meeting with front-line workers.

During the course of our site visit, the review team testedthe staff understanding of the various organizational rela-tionships and inquired about communication, relationshipsbetween management and front-line staff, and how workgets done. Our findings indicate a very high volume of day

1.2 The leadership system isunderstood by andcommunicated among all levels.The leadership system includesmechanisms for the leaders toconduct self-examination,receive feedback, and makeimprovements.


Recommendation 1B

to day decisions are deferred by staff to the functional areadirectors and to the assistant director, facilities maintenance.It was also the review team’s observation that respondingand taking action on work that needs to be done is oftendelayed because of uncertainty about spending money oracquiring the necessary resources. A general theme that runsthroughout the organization and which negatively impactsresponse time and quality of work is the uncertainty andlack of control of financial and material resources. Thereview team found that the department’s operation andmaintenance budget information and expenditure reportsare routinely made available by administrative and informa-tion systems, but with few exceptions, the directors, assis-tant directors, and supervisors have not taken time toanalyze the reports and to use the budget information tohelp them make decisions. Consequently, service deliverytime and response is delayed while awaiting a decision onwhether or not there is funding to proceed. The quality ofservices and levels of services delivered to campus custom-ers vary substantially.

There is willingness among the various supervisors to workacross boundaries and to collaborate as required to get thejob done. Department supervisors were proud of the team-work among the various skilled trades.

The retirement of the director of facilities management hascreated a gap in the organization. The review team wasinformed that the former director was” out and about” theworkplace with enough frequency to receive additional andvaluable performance feedback. The executive director hasnot been as visible to staff and to campus customers.

The review team findings support that assessment of theperformance of those in leadership positions is done on anannual basis by the respective position’s supervisor and bypeers. The department is initiating a 360-degree perfor-mance evaluation model.

Communication will likely continue to be the number onechallenge for the Facilities Management Department. Allmanagers are encouraged to give high priority to effectivecommunications and decision making. The informal and theformal processes that are currently being utilized should bereviewed for effectiveness as a communication tool. There isneed to improve the formal meeting and communicationprocesses.


Monthly meetings that are currently held within facilitiesmanagement include:

director staff meetingssupervisory team meetings with all supervisors anddirectors presentproject review meetings where department performanceis reviewed

One-on-one meetings between the executive director anddirectors were reported to be done frequently.

Because of the multiple campus sites and various work shiftrequirements, facilities management has “built-in” specialcommunication challenges. Also, in today’s facilities man-agement world and that of higher education, the demands onleaders in top roles are outdistancing the capabilities of anyone person—no matter how talented. This fact magnifies theneed for top quality organizational communication practices.

It is recommended that management rethink its descriptionof the leadership/management team and to structure meet-ings by creating a compelling purpose for the particularmeetings, review the meeting groups to ensure that the rightpeople are attending meetings, and to plan and prepare foreach meeting to help ensure meeting success.

Facilities management has articulated a mission statementthat is aligned with the institutional mission. Successfullyachieving the mission will position facilities management asa viable and sustainable organization for the university. Themission statement contains many attributes that describethe organizations purpose and reason for being. The missionstatement does state the department’s purpose very well.

We are committed to providing a safe, healthy, clean, com-fortable, and favorable learning, living, and working environ-ment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Our efforts areto be achieved by building an empowered, creative, andsocially responsible workforce, with a culture and philoso-phy to continuously improve the quality and efficiency of ourservices. Facilities management’s goal is the active involve-ment, participation, and commitment of all staff members.The end result being that our members of facilities manage-ment and our customers are able to take great pride in ouruniversity.

1.3 The organization hasclearly aligned its mission,vision, and values statementswith those of the campus.Regularly communicates withemployees, customers,suppliers, and otherstakeholders.


The mission statement is posted on the department website,but the review team did not see the mission statementdisplayed in prominent places throughout the facilitiesmanagement work areas. The department mission should bedisplayed throughout the workspaces and should be a topicof periodic discussion at staff meetings. Since the universityis undergoing a leadership transition, the mission statementshould be reviewed with the chief financial officer and ap-proved to help ensure alignment of FM department purposeand service emphasis.

It is recommended that consideration also be given todeveloping a service theme derived from the lengthier andfull-body of the mission-statement. A service theme is asimple statement which, when shared among all employees,becomes the driving force of service. It is simple enough thatmost can carry it in their heads, and therefore is easy toremember. This service theme can also serve as a rallyingflag. It aligns staff efforts and establishes a foundation fortheir behavior toward customers. For managers, the servicetheme becomes a guiding precept. Every decision can bemeasured against it. Whether a decision supports the ser-vice theme is an important managerial litmus test. Facilitiesmanagement leadership can improve communications anddepartment morale by being visible examples of the missionstatement through their behavior and actions. The portion ofthe mission statement that is especially applicable to thisrecommendation is “Our efforts are to be achieved bybuilding an empowered, creative, and socially respon-sible workforce, with a culture and philosophy to con-tinuously improve the quality and efficiency of ourservices. Facilities management’s goal is the active in-volvement, participation, and commitment of all staffmembers.”

The major elements of the FM department’s purpose or reasonfor existing meaningfully described in the mission statementshould be incorporated in the development and execution ofdepartment goals and strategic initiatives.

Facilities management has not developed a vision statementfor the department.

Facilities management leaders are encouraged to developand to take steps to execute a vision statement for theorganization and to time this activity and align this to the

Recommendation 1D

Recommendation 1C


Recommendation 1E

vision of the new leadership of the USM. The development ofvision, if done properly, can create a picture of the destina-tion for the organization for all staff to keep in mind as theywork together in providing facility services to the campus.At a time of transition this sense of clear direction is espe-cially important and management has a responsibility forsetting organizational direction.

Facilities management has developed core values for theorganization. These core values or guiding principles were seendisplayed in several locations in the department work spaces.

USM Facilities Management Guiding PrinciplesOur staff is the most important resource.Provide an atmosphere of respect for all.Provide training and development opportunities so thatall staff can reach their full potential.With proper tools, training, and methods, provide maxi-mum service in the most efficient manner to our customers.Provide timely and effective technical support.Promote excellence and continuous improvement as away of life.Be progressive, innovative, and proactive.Provide recognition and positive reinforcement to jobswell done as each member lives up to their responsibili-ties to the team.Plan, schedule, and notify the community of operation/work in their facility.

It is recommended that the guiding principles be utilized forevaluating management behavior and practices. Theseprinciples could be incorporated into the performance evalu-ation process for everyone who serves in a leadership capac-ity. Management behaviors and visible actions in support ofthese principles or core values are critical for organizationalsuccess.

Throughout the normal course of conducting daily businessthere are ample opportunities for some of the facilitiesmanagement leaders to have contact with customers andfront-line staff. Because of the nature of the department’sservices, regular contact with customers is required in theform of meetings, consultations, and discussions of servicework or project work. Some members of the departmentare also active participants on numerous campus commit-tees. This level of involvement and participation on campus

1.4 Facilities managementleaders spend time on a regularbasis with their customers andfront-line staff.


Recommendation 1F

ensures regular contact with customers for most of thedirectors. However, the executive director is not as visible,both on the campuses with customers or within the Facili-ties Management Department with front-line staff.

Front-line supervisors are defined as “working-supervisors”and spend a large portion of their time in the field with staffmembers and do an excellent job of being available andaccessible to them. Regular meetings held with staff mem-bers and the department’s active training programs provideadditional opportunity for supervisors and managers tospend time with their staff.

It is recommended that the executive director spend moretime with customers and with front-line staff. Havingdiscipline in managing the calendar to ensure that regulartime is set aside for this important management function isessential. Scheduled time for the executive director to meetwith various FM work groups in their workspaces or to tourjobsites and be available for general questions and answersis recommended. This should be done for all shifts and willimprove communications, understanding of important issues,and will serve as an expression of management’s interests inthe workforce requirements.

The executive director is performing duties that distract himfrom providing strategic leadership, guidance, and direction.Such duties as project manager are contributing to his lackof visibility among front-line workers and customers.

Recommendations for the executive director to spend timewith customers are described in Section 3.0: CustomerFocus.

Although each person in facilities management has a posi-tion description and annual performance reviews are nowbeing conducted (until recently annual performance evalua-tions were not being done), job performance measures canbe much more clearly defined at all levels of the organiza-tion. The review team received information that the depart-ment is beginning to work toward ensuring annual evalua-tions get done for all employees, but they are still not thereyet. They do not have a process in place to centrally trackperformance evaluation completion and seem to hold theopinion that since there is no merit pay driven by perfor-mance evaluations, that employees do not care much about

1.5 Performance measures ateach level of the organizationare clearly defined.


Recommendation 1G

performance evaluation. This is a flawed view of the value ofa good performance evaluation process.

There are few signs of formal statements of service expecta-tions. The department has not developed measurable servicequality standards or defined performance measures at eachstep of the department’s service processes. Strategic goalsand objectives for core processes and critical services are notdefined or emphasized in such a manner that performancemeasures are meaningful to service personnel.

The department’s current performance management processand procedures should be examined more closely for effec-tiveness. Measuring service performance has not been a partof the workforce culture. There will likely be an increasingneed to improve understanding of what is important for theorganization to measure in order for the department man-agement to be positioned to respond effectively to increasingchange and the increasing need for accountability.

It is recommended that facilities management develop ashort list of the most important performance measures forthe department to meet its core services and processes.These measures should be presented in a “dashboard”fashion or like an executive summary of meaningful metrics.By doing so, actual performance results for a given periodand performance trends can be readily seen in a single placeby management and by the workforce. Key performanceindicators that measure progress toward achieving thedepartment’s goals should also be included when these goalsare developed.

There is no apparent history of identification of strategicgoals and performance results in meeting the stated goals infacilities maintenance, administrative and informationsystems, and environmental services. Engineering andarchitectural services has developed meaningful measures ofcapital project performance and has captured essential datato develop additional measures of performance. Some ofthese measures include project schedule on time, on budget,within scope, on quality, number and amount of projectchange orders, soft costs, and measures of sustainability(LEED) requirements.

This topic of performance measures is covered in additionaldetail in Section 6.0: Process Management and Section 7.0:Performance Results.


Recommendation 1H

Recommendation 1I

The review team found that the department directors forthe most part promote an environment that supports self-direction, innovation, and decentralize decision making.

Management is encouraged to continue to look for opportu-nities to improve the work environment that is conducive toutilizing the best of every person’s capabilities. The chal-lenges that the department faces in having to do more withless resources and to maintain a high level of quality ser-vices underscores the strategic importance of creating aproductive work environment.

Throughout the facilities management profession, there is agrowing trend in thinking about the leadership responsibilityfor establishing a quality work environment. There is anincreasing conviction supported by results that the purposesof the organization are best served when leaders help staffdevelop their own initiative, strengthen the workforce in theuse of their own judgment, and enable people to grow and tobecome better contributors.

Facilities management keeps up with current trends andpractices in the industry through attendance of professionalmeetings, membership in professional associations, partici-pation in University of Maine system facilities meetings, andpresentations by suppliers.

The licensed trades staff members attend code updateclasses to keep their licenses current.

There is no formal succession plan to ensure continuity ofleadership.

It is the review team’s collective experience that few univer-sity Facilities Management Departments have been success-ful in developing a true succession plan. It is recommendedthat FM increase opportunities for staff members to becross-trained and to review professional developmentactivities that are specific and relevant to the requirementsof leadership positions for the facilities management profes-sion. To the extent that leaders can develop others, they arethen creating something that can survive their own departure.

1.6 Senior leaders establish andreinforce an environmentwhere shared values supportself-direction, innovation, anddecentralized decision making.

1.7 Informed of current trendsand practices in the industry.

1.8 A succession plan is inplace to ensure continuity ofleadership.


2.0 STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING

Strategic and operational planning consists of the plan-ning process, the identification of goals and actionsnecessary to achieve success, and the deployment ofthose actions to align the work of the organization. Thefacilities organization should anticipate many factors inits strategic planning efforts—changing customer expec-tations, business and partnering opportunities, techno-logical developments, evolving regulatory requirements,and societal expectations, to name but a few.

Facilities management does not have a strategic plan.

It is recommended that the facilities management executivedirector enlist assistance in developing a strategic andoperational plan for the department. A practical approachfitting for a small university campus service departmentshould guide the process. It is recommended that partici-pants in the plan development be representatives from theFacilities Management Department and also include externalparticipants. The planning process should focus on strategicthinking as different from tactical thinking, based on theorganizations strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, andthreats. There is a need for a Facilities Management Depart-ment “game plan.” The following steps are suggested:

Perform a situational analysis-based on the organizationsstrengths; weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOTAnalysis);Write an annual and longer term strategic plan;Focus on strategic thinking;Develop clear and thoughtful goals and objectives linkedto the organization vision and any additional challengesthe organization faces; andDevelop plans that address all aspects of performanceincluding financial, customer, process, and employeelearning and growth.

Initial work should include stakeholder surveys/communica-tions of some form that capture stakeholder needs andexpectations. Facilities management should take the lead inidentifying the needs and expectations that should be ser-viced by FM and continue discussions with stakeholdersuntil both parties clearly understand each other in a win/

Recommendation 2A

2.1 A strategic plan exists thatincludes the goals andobjectives of the department.


Recommendation 2B

win partnership. As FM develops strategies to meet theneeds and expectations that have been identified, frequentcommunication with stakeholders on progress and receivingtheir feedback will ensure full development of those strategies.

The chief financial officer has a role also and should decide ifthe FM strategic plan will be a separate document or if it isintegrated into a comprehensive finance division plan—either way, he should take the lead in seeking approval andembracement of the plan by the administration.

See findings and recommendation criterion 2.1 above.

The strategic direction to incorporate customer needs andexpectations has not been clearly established and set bydepartment leaders. The historical sense of “customer” inthe Facilities Management Department at USM has beenblurred, inconsistent, and shows signs that it has beenplagued with a sense of favoritism. In previous years, somecustomers were treated to extraordinary lengths, and somecustomers were treated below minimal standards or notclearly thought of as customers. The good news is that theCFO understands that all customers must be treated fairlyand equally and is taking solid steps to integrate that con-cept into the FM organization and the campus community.

The review team heard comments from a number of deansand department heads that if they personally take an inter-est in their facilities then they are likely to receive the atten-tion from FM which they need. Those department headsthat are not aggressive in identifying their needs and expec-tations for service are likely to receive less service attention.

Facilities management will benefit greatly from being proac-tive in developing a stronger customer orientation thatincorporates the elements of a comprehensive customerservice strategy. The identification of the different custom-ers, the development of definition and scope of “customer”throughout the FM organization and campus community isneeded. A focus on communications between customers andFM that clearly relates needs to area responsibilities andproduces realistic expectations that can be communicated toFM staff members as minimum performance standards is

2.2 The strategic plan wasdeveloped with participationfrom internal and externalstakeholders, approved by theadministration, and effectivelycommunicated.

2.3 Customer needs andexpectations serve as majordrivers for setting strategicdirection.


Recommendation 2C

also needed. Identifying and anticipating future customerneeds and how FM will respond to those needs must also beaddressed in all facilities management’s strategic planningefforts.

A recommendation on the development of a customer servicestrategy for FM is described in further details in Section 3.0:Customer Focus.

Because FM does not have an approved strategic plan, it isunable to consistently set or identify strategic goals that canbe measured and reviewed. A formal FM departmentoperating goal-setting process has not been applied in thepast. An effective and consistent performance goal settingand review process by the facilities management leadershipis not done.

The opportunity to set, measure, and review goals andperformance measures that can be applied to strategicplanning, operational planning, and daily functions of thedepartment and staff members is huge. The development ofthe FM strategic plan will concurrently create opportunitiesfor operational planning improvements. It is recommendedthat FM set specific goals that address needs and expecta-tions identified as described in criteria 2.1, and then createkey performance measures for those goals. The communica-tion of those goals, how performance in achieving thosegoals will be measured, and setting up a process for periodicreview in the future are key items for success in this area.

Identifying key performance measures consistently in thedepartment and in operating units separately have not beena priority in the past. Understanding of those performancemeasures, communicating those performance measures,and review of those performance measures consistently ateach level has been lacking for various reasons.

As in criterion 2.4, the opportunities for improvement arehuge. Setting, communicating, understanding, and reviewingof performance measures on each level of the organization isjust as important as the department as a whole. Some, if notall, facilities management service areas have informal orpersonal forms of performance measures for individual staffmembers in place, and many staff members have a goodunderstanding of customer service and possess positiveattitudes.

2.4 Goals and key performancemeasures are understood by alland periodically reviewed.

Recommendation 2D

2.5 Performance measures ateach level of the organizationare used to meet goals.


Recommendation 2E

One concern in this area is that performance measures thatare being used are not consistent across the department andthat they are not formally tied to goal setting, communicat-ing expectations, and performance review of individuals andoperating units. Facilities management leadership shouldmake extra efforts to ensure consistent application of goalsetting and performance measurement efforts at each leveland within each respective service area.

Currently, FM does not have a formal internal budgetdevelopment process—the budget and allocation of financialresources have been largely based on historical expendituresand closely held in the executive director’s office. It has notbeen a departmental practice to involve other directors andmembers of management in the development of the budgetfor purposes of capturing their input. Because facilitiesmanagement has not been directed in the past to set strate-gic and operational goals or to allocate resources to supportthese goals, there has been no development of budgetperformance measures. In some cases, FM performs workthat is billed to customers, charged back, and in someinstances, facilities management services are provided byother departments such as student life, athletics, and somefacility services at the Lewiston/Auburn campus. The execu-tive director is working more closely with the CFO onunderstanding these issues, and they have made positivechanges in the overall budget management processes.

The executive director of FM should provide the leadershipto develop an internal budget process that is linked tostrategic planning and operational requirements. The execu-tive director should involve active participation of all direc-tors, assistant directors, and supervisors in identifyinginternal budget needs and in communicating financial andbudget development information.

While developing the FM strategic plan, special attentionshould be applied to identifying budget skills and timeresources required to effectively manage the internal budgetprocess. Both budget development, and expenditure monitor-ing and management should be included. Collection of sufficientand accurate data in timely fashion, analysis of that data, andpresenting that information to internal FM management andexternal stakeholders by members of the administration andinformation systems staff could require additional informationsystem tools, as well as skilled and talented staff.

2.6 A budget is developed withinput from staff that reflectshistoric expenditures, ananalysis of needs, effectiveallocation of availableresources to support theorganization’s goals andobjectives, and seeks new andinnovative measures toleverage resources.


Operational performance standards for the department orindividual units are not formally defined. Level of servicedefinitions, standard methods and procedures, and resourceutilization standards are not readily available or consistentlyapplied. Campus standards for equipment systems andequipment are generally informal and hit or miss. Campuslandscape standards in those areas under FM responsibilityhave been nonexistent or inadequate.

FM should create an internal review process for comparingits performance standards with applicable published stan-dards. Systems and equipment standards and landscapestandards can be expanded according to FM goals andresources available. Alignment of performance standards inFM with existing or future campus performance standards isdesirable. There is a need to develop and define performancestandards for operational units and staff members.

The university has a campus master plan for the Portlandcampus although it is in need of updating. There is nomaster plan for the Gorham campus. A master plan for thecampus at Lewiston/Auburn was done three years ago.

The University of Southern Maine may want to includecampus physical master planning in the development of itsstrategic planning work. The master planning can be cen-tered in FM or at a higher administrative level with signifi-cant FM involvement. Regardless of primary responsibility,all internal and external stakeholders should be included tosome degree. Consideration should be given to the formalestablishment of a standing campus facilities committee thatrepresents a large spectrum of stakeholders. The campusmaster plan should include guiding principles that can beeasily updated and effectively utilized for campus physicalplant decision making.

Components that are typically included in a comprehensivecampus master plan include the planning for each campussite, a residential master plan including dining services, alandscape master plan, an athletic facilities master plan, anda utility/infrastructure master plan. These components canbe assembled and applied initially as stand alone plans, butthey should be connected to a comprehensive campus masterplan and reviewed and updated accordingly.

Recommendation 2F

2.7 Standards have beendefined for overall operationalperformance, builtenvironment, and landscape.

2.8 A campus master plan is inplace, current, and utilized fordecision making.

Recommendation 2G


The findings for this criterion depend on who one talks toabout the participation and quality of the capital projectplan review process. The review team received mixedresponses that suggest a need to review what the reality ofthe process is. There is no documented or written proce-dure, and the indications are that the process is inconsis-tently applied. It appears that the project managers mayapproach this in different ways and with different levels ofimportance. The O&M staff members participated in theprogramming, schematic drawing, and design drawingreview for the LEED and all Gorham projects. Some FMoperational units have not traditionally been involved in thedevelopment of the campus construction program nor havethey been active, upfront planning participants in theuniversity acceptance of completed projects. There appearsto be a solid foundation of technical skills and experience tosome depth in most operational units that could be appliedto construction program review. There also exists a seriousdesire by many staff members to share their knowledgerelative to, and concerns about new construction and reno-vation work on campus.

Facilities management leadership should design an internalreview process for the construction program on campus. Alloperating units, including skilled trades, grounds, custodialoperations, and administrative services should be involved inthe review, along with the usual mechanical, electrical, andarchitectural program review. Time investments of staff andtimeline constraints of the project must be considered andplanned for.

Operating unit participation in identifying facility needs andimpacts of proposed change in the schematic design phase ofconstruction projects should be encouraged. Continuousinvolvement through construction documents phase shouldbe maintained; final bid documents review by operating unitsprior to construction should be a minimum. In addition todesign review, the active participation in project acceptanceby FM units will produce long-term benefits in the operationand maintenance of the project.

Operating units are expected to cover routine needs withexisting resources in the best way possible as the situationarises. Facilities management leadership succession capabili-ties are in similar status.

2.9 The operational unitsparticipate in the developmentof the construction programand are active participants inthe acceptance of completedprojects.

2.10 Strategies and processesare in place to ensurecontinuity of functions in theevent of staff turnover or otherdisruption.

Recommendation 2H


Recommendation 2J

Recommendation 2I Facilities management should include succession planning forleadership positions and key staff members within its strate-gic planning efforts. Identification of key responsibilities andskills required in order to ensure succession of personnelwith minimal disruption to FM operations and the leastimpact to the university community should be documented.Analysis of needs and the existing skill sets available forsuccession should be performed periodically. Disparitiesshould be addressed through staff training, consideringsuccession needs in the hiring of new employees, and identi-fying possible candidates external to FM personnel re-sources, both within USM and outside. Continuity of opera-tions planning is addressed in criterion 2.11 below.

USM maintains an emergency response plan that addressesthe most common emergency situations. Emergency re-sponse plans are current and are communicated to thefacilities employees and campus community if and asrequired.

The review team was informed that the Portland commu-nity has a long history of providing excellent emergencyresponse to severe weather situations and the more usualemergency situations, such as police first response, medicalcalls and fire alarms. We did not determine the local com-munity situation at the other campus locations. Cooperationbetween facilities management staff members, universitypolice, and other USM departments with external emer-gency responders appears to be good.

Facilities management should review emergency responseexpectations of the campus community for each operatingunit and document situational policies and procedures asnecessary. FM leadership should produce an internal emer-gency operations plan that fully supports and is linked to theuniversity emergency operations plan. Similar to otherstrategic planning efforts, FM must involve internal andexternal stakeholders in this planning and documentationeffort. All campus community sites should be included.Facilities management staff members should be trained inemergency first response efforts.

The Facilities Management Department should expose itselfto continuity of operations planning—what do they do afterthe emergency response phase and how do they help ensureuniversity operations continue with the least disruption to

2.11 Emergency response plansare in place, current, andcommunicated to facilitiesemployees and the campuscommunity as required.


Recommendation 3A

customers and stakeholders. Continuity of operationsplanning should be included in the FM strategic planningefforts.

The university should embrace FM in its overall emergencyplanning work, emergency procedure and policy reviews,and training and practice exercise efforts. Facilities manage-ment should be considered a key player in continuity ofoperations planning for the university.

3.0 CUSTOMER FOCUS

Customer focus is a key component of effective facilitiesmanagement. Various stakeholders (faculty, students,staff, and other administrative departments) must feeltheir needs are heard, understood, and acted upon.Various tools must be in place to ensure customer com-munication, assess and assimilate what is said, andimplement procedures to act on expressed needs.

The facilities management self-evaluation indicated thatthere was no formal structured mechanism for customers toprovide feedback other than the customer taking initiativeto e-mail, call, or write a note to the department. Thisprocess only works for those who are in regular contact withFM or in contact with a particular project or issue. Somecustomers get better service than others based on eithercomplaining louder or by having better relationships withthe staff. In general, it doesn’t allow for the campus cus-tomer a means to identify how they feel about generalservice provided over time and the quality, timeliness, andappropriateness of that service. Without engaging thecustomer directly, FM may well be providing service inareas that are not the priority of its customer base.

When the review team asked facilities management aboutcustomer feedback, they indicated that “they were such asmall campus that they knew what their customers werethinking.” This is probably not a good way to direct FM’slimited resources to servicing the campus. The departmentdoes not have a proactive customer focus.

Facilities management would benefit greatly by providingstructure and discipline in the conduct of its customerservice role. The following steps are recommended:

3.1 Surveys, tools, and othermethods are used to identifycustomer requirements,expectations, and satisfactionlevels.


Work hard on customer relationships and spend time withcustomers to understand needs and requirements.Define measurable customer service standards and mea-sure service performance against them.Develop a practical customer satisfaction survey instru-ment based on clearly identifying customers, their differ-ences, and the different campus segments that theyrepresent. Use a variety of methods to identify customerrequirements and priorities, including written surveyinstruments, telephone surveys, and personal contact.The executive director especially needs to be much morevisible to core customers. Regular meetings with deans,directors, academic and support services departmentssuch as campus environmental services, business services,library campus information technology, university ad-vancement, police and parking, student governmentassociations, residential life, athletics, and other customerconstituents to ensure customer awareness and to stayon top of customer expectations and the quality of ser-vices required. This will require more attention to themaintenance and operations services provided by FMincluding the development of service-level standards.Make it easy for customers to get information.Track all complaints, no matter how minor, and takesteps to quickly resolve complaints.At least one annual presentation to the university admin-istration or presidents cabinet on the campus master plan,major construction update, deferred maintenance update,and any other important facility topics that the keycampus leaders and stakeholders need to be aware.FM strategic goals and objectives should include customerservice goals and, as with other strategic goals, should bedeveloped by aligning with the campuses strategic plan.The alignment of limited FM resources will require specificand targeted application aligned with each campus divisionpulling in the same direction, with that direction informed bythe strategic plan and vision of the institution.

Facilities management staff members stated their belief thatroles, responsibilities, and the various services provided bythe department were well understood within the depart-ment, but those customers who have little contact with FMhad problems. There was little evidence that FM roles andresponsibilities are well understood in any areas of the

3.2 The roles, responsibilities,and services provided by thefacilities department are welldefined, communicated, andunderstood within thedepartment and by allcommunities served.


Recommendation 3B

campus. In its self-evaluation, FM identified confusionamong campus customers with what the executive directoris responsible for and the responsibility of other FM direc-tors. The review team found that even within the depart-ment, it wasn’t always clear who was responsible for what.Staff members identified this ongoing issue as the “passingthe buck” scenario.

While most faculty, staff members, and students receiveservice from FM regularly, many customers will be infre-quent requestors—one-time or other nonroutine services. Itis essential that FM understand that they are responsible foractively communicating to the customer who they are tocontact for work and services.

There is a need to clarify facilities management positionroles and responsibilities on the website and to make thewebsite user friendly so that it serves as a resource ofaccurate information for campus customers needing service.

During staff meetings (which should be mandatory and heldat regular times), reviews of customer-related problems onthis topic should be discussed with front-line staff (whogenerally deal with the frustrated customer) so that pat-terns can be discerned and appropriate actions taken.

Facilities management’s self-evaluation indicated that “Em-ployees are expected to meet or exceed customer expecta-tions and usually try to. However, achieving these levels isexacerbated by the lack of staff members, age, condition ofthe facilities, and a very limited funding.” Nowhere duringthe site visit and interview process did the review team seeany description of service quality standards for FM staffmembers or any tracking matrices for work performed.There was little understanding of and no use of work-ordercycle time or a real understanding of work-order backlog orany process for prioritizing work. Although facilities man-agement at USM has participated in the 2006-2007 APPAFacilities Performance Indicator (FPI) Survey, which con-tains work-order management measures and metrics, therewas no evidence that the data collected over the past years isbeing utilized to identify, address, prioritize, or correct workmanagement issues. In spite of this, customers seem to havean understanding view of the limitations of FM service andbelieve this is due to budget and staffing constraints. Itwould appear that the customer base has generally accepteda reduced level of service. This acceptance of lower expecta-

3.3 Levels of service are set toexceed customer expectationand are defined in terms thatcan be understood by theadministration, building users,and facilities staff.


tions is not uniformly accepted by campus departments. Forexample; the dean of Applied Science, Engineering, Tech-nology, expects a higher level of service, and it is generallyprovided.

An example of how a culture of acquiescence can bluntcustomer expectations is the following story by a customerduring the interview process. The customer told the custo-dian the area of his office that needed vacuuming (I believeit was during the presidential office complex move), so thecustodian brought a vacuum and gave it to him to use toclean his office. If this can happen in the president’s officearea, it can happen anywhere on campus.

A similar example of lack of customer focus was shared withthe review team. During the renovation of the president’shouse, the president’s office person appointed to work withfacilities management met with a management representa-tive to identify what changes were desired and was toldacross the board that the changes requested could not bedone. The president’s office representative insisted on thechanges, demanded the work be performed, and the workconsequently was performed without any undue problems.

During the interview process with customers, there wasregular feedback from a number of customers being toldthat certain things could not be done, either without expla-nation or based on some vague “policy reason.” The mostpopular reason given by FM for not doing the work re-quested was, “there isn’t sufficient staffing.”

It is recommended that levels of service for different types offacilities and spaces be developed by facilities management,and that these service levels be communicated to the cam-pus customer constituency. These levels of service should bedeveloped only after detailed discussions with buildingoccupants or designated building representatives. Thisprocess will give the executive director and the respectiveFacilities Management Department manager/supervisor anopportunity to discuss with the customer the constraintsand limitations of available resources and the “trade-offs” inservices provided, if necessary, to provide levels of servicethat the customer desires. A customization of services maybe appropriate in some circumstances. Some customerssuch, as the self-supporting and auxiliary enterprises, maybe willing to pay for additional or special services.

Recommendation 3C


A data-driven argument for resources levels must be madeby facilities management. A data-driven argument based onpeer campus comparisons of costs and resources availablecan go a long way in achieving mutual understanding ofrealistic service levels and, in turn, the customers’ serviceexpectations. Management tools should be used to deter-mine adequate staffing levels and resources to meet orexceed customer satisfaction. This determination would beextremely useful in making the case for additional staffingand resources needed for the department to align its missionwith that of the university.

The APPA Facilities Performance Indicator data can be usedto help develop a plan for how to distribute the resourcesthat are available to FM.

As indicated in other sections of this report, the executivedirector needs to spend more time on leading and managingthe department’s customer focus. There is a need to be muchmore visible on campus and have regular interactions withthe key customers. The executive director is responsible forsetting the direction and managing the FM resourcesproactively. Regular customer feedback on work quality andpriorities on resource distribution need to be used.

With training provided by facilities management staffmembers, customers have the ability to submit work-orderrequests to FM through the website. Currently, there is nosystem for customers to monitor progress of their workrequests other than by calling the FM office. Thedepartment’s self-evaluation indicated that, “since most ofthe work is in the area where the person is working, thecustomer is usually aware if the work has been completed.”While some basic painting and carpentry may take placeregularly within the work space of the customer, much ofthe mechanical and electrical trades work may be in remoteareas of the campus.

An example of poor understanding by a customer of how toget work done and poor customer service was a move in thepresident’s office complex. The customer and his staff metwith a number of FM personnel to identify the workneeded. Part of the work got done expeditiously, and partdidn’t. When the customer’s office called to see what thehold up was, they were told, “you didn’t put in the requiredwork orders.” Because it is common for infrequent users to

3.4 The communities servedknow how to obtain, monitorprogress, and evaluate theservices offered.


not know the system for getting things done, it is incum-bent on facilities management to ensure that the processesare clear and then track the work they agreed to do.

The Facilities Management Department has a major gap inits organizational structure, alignment, and description ofroles and responsibilities relating to customer service andwork management. It needs a functional work managementsystem. The details of this system are covered in this reportin Section 8.0: Other Considerations and includes a recom-mendation for FM to designate one telephone number forwork authorization and to make sure that staff are trainedin work control, responsible for and capable of trackingwork orders, and for providing customer service. Addition-ally, FM maintenance staff should be provided either post-ums or door hangers that indicate that work has beenperformed and the status—either finished or in some otherstate (parts on order, etc.). If not finished, an approximatetime of completion should be given. Whatever notification isused should be signed by the maintenance technician respon-sible so that they can be contacted if necessary.

Although the facilities management self-evaluation indicatesthat “customer feedback is used to build positive relation-ships and improvements,” there is no evidence of anycustomer feedback process except what happens in ordi-nary customer encounters. There is no department-wideunderstanding that customer input and feedback should beactively pursued, and customer feedback is not routinelyused to drive processes improvement.

Customer service needs to be developed as a core compe-tency for the department. All staff members should receiveappropriate training, and department managers and supervi-sors should nurture customer service and be visible practi-tioners of good customer relationship management.

As stated earlier in this report, facilities management cus-tomers seem to have an understanding view of the limita-tions of FM operations and maintenance service shortcom-ings because of budget and staffing constraints. Becausethere appear to be no expectations by either customers orFM management, and because there are no tracking data oncycle time and quality or any customer feedback processes,it is difficult to define FM service. Customers have a positiveview of FM workers’ empathetic attitude when responding

Recommendation 3D

Recommendation 3E

3.5 Customer feedback is usedto build positive relationships,drive processes, and effectimprovements in services.

3.6 Campus users have a clearunderstanding and positiveview of the services providedby the facilities organization.


Recommendation 3F

to their issues, and they seem to believe that the workers asindividuals are reasonably competent and want to be helpful.

There is a lot of discussion throughout facilities manage-ment about the lack of resources and how it affects theservice they provide. What there appears to be is a lack ofunderstanding that service levels can still be tracked andquality service can be delivered, based on the resourcesprovided.

Customers who had recent experience with the capitalproject processes and services were very complimentaryabout their experience. Numerous comments from custom-ers highlighted the services provided by engineering andarchitectural services. Positive comments from customersincluded a number of service attributes, which customersidentified as having value to them. These include easy towork with, knowledgeable about the project processes andwillingness to explain the process, excellent communicationskills and decision making before and during construction,and responsiveness to customer requests and needs. Somecustomer criticism, however, was directed toward engineer-ing and architectural services project managers. Some of thecustomers that were interviewed stated that they were notalways certain that the project managers are representingthe customer and the university as owner, or if the projectmanager is representing the interests of the contractor.

Operations and maintenance services provided by compe-tent workers in an organized and controlled environment,with good communication and support from good systemsand a good management team is still possible in an environ-ment of reduced resources. The appropriate, efficient, andeffective use of available resources to enhance the quality ofthe service provided is the responsibility of FM leadership.

Facilities management can use the FPI survey data todetermine how the resources that are available to FM arebest allocated and the data can be used to compare againstsimilar campuses to see if and where there are, in fact,limited resources. Quantifiable data needs to be utilized.

Facilities management operations and maintenance wouldbenefit by capitalizing on the customer service practicesthat are being practiced by successful facilities managementdepartments throughout the profession.


4.0 INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

Information and analysis is used to evaluate perfor-mance and drive future performance improvements. Ofinterest are the types of tools used (for example, peercomparative data clarified and validated throughbenchmarking), and how the tools are used to enhanceorganizational performance. Various aspects of informa-tion include facilities inspections/audits, financial/expenditure reports, utility data, and other relevantmeasures and indicators.

The USM Facilities Management Department does not havea systematic process in place for identifying and prioritizingperformance indicators, comparative information, andbenchmarking studies in most of its areas of operation.There are no documented performance indicators in use bythe USM facilities management organization. No peerinstitutions have been identified to visit or collaborate withfor comparative analysis purposes. The review team com-mends FM for participating in the APPA FPI survey; how-ever, the review team did not find evidence of widespreaduse and analysis of the APPA FPI data to drive decisions.Additionally, while the APPA FPI database is a very goodsource for strategic benchmarking, it is does not substitutefor routine operational tactical performance indicators.

A computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)or work-order system usually is a key element of a goodperformance indicator system since it serves as the reposi-tory of data needed to support performance indicatorsreview and analysis. The computer based work-ordersystem (Infor MP2) is not being used to its advertisedcapacity because is it believed to be too complex and userunfriendly by USM users (see criterion 4.7).

Facilities management should involve staff members from alllevels of the organization to develop relevant performanceindicators and benchmarks for all of its functional area. Datacollection for these indicators should be integrated into theday to day standard operating procedures as much aspossible.

Facilities management should formalize analysis and reviewof the performance indicator data. Adjustment in focus andattention should result from review and analysis of the

Recommendation 4A

4.1 A systematic process is inplace for identifying andprioritizing performanceindicators, comparativeinformation, andbenchmarking studies for themost critical areas.


performance indicators. Unless the FM leadership andmanagement team institute formal review and analysissessions, performance indicator data will not serve theintended purpose of driving operational decisions.

The review team recommends FM institute a two-tier,metric review and analysis process. Such a process shouldinvolve the directors holding meetings with key people intheir work unit to review and analyze performance indicatordata on a regular and scheduled basis, after which theexecutive director holds meetings with the director and keypeople in the director’s work unit to review performanceindicator data for the same period. The review team recom-mends that formal presentations be prepared for the meet-ings and that the presentations contain information aboutthe most recent period, along with cumulative data for thefiscal year. Cumulative information provides more usefulinformation than single data points for a particular period,because cumulative information affords management theability to spot trends and make projections.

Identify other institutions with profiles similar to USM aspeer institutions for making benchmarking visits and sharinginformation on best practices.

Identify key higher education facilities management stan-dards and compare them to USM facilities managementmethods, processes, and practices.

Benchmarking results, comparisons, and performanceindicators are not tracked and are not used to drive actionwithin the organization. Facilities management does nothave a formal system of tracking performance againstestablished standards. Most actions within the organizationare driven by reactions to current situations, rather thananalysis of data and information.

Collect and analyze performance data based on the keyperformance indicators and conduct performance indicatorreview sessions with the facilities management leadershipteam (director, assistant director, and supervisors) monthlyor at least quarterly (see criterion 4.1).

The facilities management executive director should take hisleadership team out of the day to day reactive routine andperiodically hold strategic planning and continuous improve-

Recommendation 4B

4.2 Benchmarking results,comparisons and performanceindicators are tracked and usedto drive action within theorganization.


ment sessions. The sessions are often more effective whenheld offsite. Consideration should be given to hiring a facili-tator for the first few sessions held.

The department does not ensure data and information arecommunicated and accessible to all appropriate users formost of its operational functions. The backbone for informa-tion accessibility for most facilities management organiza-tions is a CMMS or computer-based work-order systemwith a customer web-based self-help interface. Facilitiesmanagement’s Infor MP2 computer-based work-ordersystem is not serving the department’s internal informationneeds nor is it serving the customers’ information needs.During interviews with facilities management staff mem-bers and customers, many complaints were heard regardingthe complexity and user-unfriendliness of the Infor MP2system (see criterion 4.7).

Other means of providing access to information includeregular staff meetings, customer meetings, customer visits,and the department website. During interviews with staffmembers, many of them noted that they do not get enoughinformation about what is going on in the department. Theyexpressed a desire to have management talk to them moreabout current departmental events and issues. There doesnot seem to be a series of scheduled internal meetings orinformation exchange events to keep facilities managementstaff members well informed. Interviews with customersrevealed that there were regular customer meetings beingheld by the director and assistant director of facilities;however, both of these positions are now vacant and cus-tomers expressed concern about what would happen to thecustomer meetings.

Review the various methods currently in use to make dataand information available to staff members and customers.Take steps to determine what data and information the staffneeds to do its job and what data and information custom-ers need to make use of the services facilities managementprovides. Determine the most appropriate method for pro-viding the required data and information and implementprocedures to make data and information accessible to staffmembers and customers.

Facilities management is small enough to hold regular all-hands meetings or sessions on a quarterly basis to keep the

Recommendation 4C

4.3 The department ensuresthat data and information arecommunicated and accessible toall appropriate users. Therequired data and informationhave all the characteristicsusers need, such as reliability,accuracy, timeliness, andappropriate levels of securityand confidentiality.


staff informed, recognize high performing personnel, andallow for staff feedback. The review team recommends thatmanagement conduct all-hands meeting with preparedagenda or program for two-way communication with thefacilities management staff.

Facilities management does not have a regular facilities auditand inspection program in place. In 2004-2005, an inspec-tion of all education and general (E&G) facilities (classroom,office, library, athletic, etc.) was conducted by in-housepersonnel that identified and quantified building conditions.The University of Maine System selected the VanderweilFacilities Associates (VFA) program for tracking all capitalrenewal/deferred maintenance on its seven campuses. Allinformation gathered from the inspections of the E&Gfacilities was entered into the VFA system and estimateswere created using this system. The review team commendsthe department for the wealth of facilities condition infor-mation contained in the VFA database. However, this infor-mation will easily become outdated since there is no processin place to update the data based on completed work, andthere are no ongoing inspections.

Additionally, there is no systematic process of operationalinspection of facilities to identify day to day maintenanceand repair requirements. There seem to be an over relianceon customers’ requests to identify repair requirements.

Establish a process to keep the VFA facilities condition dataup-to-date by ensuring that completed work and newdeficiencies are enter into the database.

Establish an appropriate cycle to perform comprehensivecondition inspection of all facilities. One consideration couldbe to inspect one-third of the facilities every three years orsome other scheme appropriate for the USM local situation.

Establish a process to inspect facilities on a regular basis toidentify day to day maintenance and repair requirements toreduce reliance on customer requests for maintenance andrepair work.

Perform an analysis of the maintenance and repair workorder and trouble calls to determine what percentage ofwork is generated by customer calls, as opposed to inter-nally generated. A high percentage of customer calls would

Recommendation 4D

4.4 An effective facilitiesinspection or audit program isin place that provides a regularappraisal of facilitiesconditions, identifiesmaintenance and repair needs,and quantifies facilitiesmaintenance resourcerequirements.


indicate that facilities management is operating in a reactivemode, instead of the more desirable proactive mode.

Facilities management does not have a practice of includingsubunit managers in the budget formulation and executionprocess. While the director of Administration and Informa-tion Systems does distribute an expenditure report tosubunit managers, the reports are not used to make finan-cial or operational decisions. There appears to be littleconnection between the resource needs of subunits and thebudget process. The budget appears to be based on histori-cal expenditures adjusted by current budget constraints,and subunit managers are not managing their operationsbased on budgeted resources.

Provide budget and financial management training forsubunit managers and involve them in the budget develop-ment process for the next budget cycle. Require subunitmanagers to demonstrate their budget resource needs basedon the level of service their subunit is required to provide.Delegate expenditure authority commensurate with thebudget and hold subunit managers accountable for operatingwithin their budget and for providing analysis and justifica-tion for resource requirements that exceed the budgetedamounts.

As noted in the self-evaluation, the department does have aneffective system of measuring and recording electrical utilitydata for much of the campus. Utility data is used to estab-lish trends, minimize costs, and identify excessive usage,and this is done by the department through its EnergyWatch Dog program. This information is not widely distrib-uted. The department also currently has a contract withHirnak Energy Services to read and analyze the utilitysubmeters at the Gorham site. Part of the services providedin the contract is to analyze trends and to provide feedbackregarding usage, trends, excessive usage, and to providemonthly reports and a quarterly analysis. The departmentcharges the auxiliary services for their utility usage.

The facilities management utility budget for campus E&Gfacilities for 2008 is $2.56 million, which represents over 30percent of the total FM operating budget. Energy manage-ment and conservation will continue to be a major challengeas prices continue to escalate.

Recommendation 4E

4.5 An expenditure report isavailable to managers on aregular basis and is used toeffectively evaluate and controlexpenditures in assigned sub-units.

4.6 An effective system ofmeasuring and recordingutility data is in place and isused to establish trends,minimize costs, promote energyconservation, and encourageenvironmental preservation.


A campus with a large number of aging buildings and oldmechanical and electrical systems is a special challenge.Newer buildings such as the bio-sciences building are high-energy consuming facilities. The campuses also have sub-stantial need for upgrades in central heating plants, distribu-tion systems, and for additional metering of steam, high-temperature hot water, and chilled water.

It is recommended that facilities management increase itsefforts at identifying energy management and energy conser-vation opportunities. A comprehensive approach including arevisit of all energy audits previously performed is recom-mended. Because of the current situation with the escalatingcosts of all energy commodities, all opportunities for energysavings should be considered, including those opportunitiesfor savings that were not considered cost effective whenenergy costs were not as high as they are today.

Management of energy for the university should definitely bea strategic initiative for facilities management and theappropriate measures, metrics, and reporting are an essen-tial part of this strategy. FM has talented and knowledge-able staff members and an energy management effort thatcan be improved with better organization, collaboration andcooperation, and direction between those currently desig-nated as energy managers and those staff members who areoperating the campus energy consuming systems and infra-structure. The review team would like to see FM provide acomplete energy report that can serve to inform FM staffmembers, engineers, and the campus community aboutcampus energy consumption and costs on an on-going basis.

Large energy-saving opportunities need to be identified, andserious consideration for capital projects with attractivefinancial payback accomplished through partnerships andthe use of an Energy Savings Company (ESCO) specializingin campus energy savings projects should be done.

The USM campus information system department workswith facilities management to ensure hardware and genericsoftware is kept up-to-date. Desktop and laptop computersare on a three-year replacement cycle, which is more thanadequate to ensure that personal computers and softwareare up-to-date. However, the FM MP2 work-order system(which should be the backbone of the FM work manage-ment system) is not being used to it advertised full capabil-

Recommendation 4F

4.7 The organization has aprocess to ensure thathardware and softwaresystems are user friendly,reliable, up-to-date, and meetthe needs of all users.


ity because of the widespread belief of the FM leadershipand staff members that it is too complex and too userunfriendly. The review team visited the MP2 website toreview its advertised functionality. MP2 is owned by acompany called Infor (http://www.infor.com/industries/facilities). Below is quote from the Info MP2 website:

Infor has years of embedded industry expertise acquired bypartnering with global facility management companies withimplementations at more than 60,000 customer sites world-wide. Our business-specific, integrated computeraidedfacilities management solutions are tailored for organizationsthat need to manage critical functions such as work requests,purchasing, inventory, and preventive maintenance so they canextend the longevity of their assets, improve productivityalmost immediately ... and be more enterprising.

Within the scope of the FMEP, the review team was unableto determine whether FM’s dissatisfaction with MP2 is dueto lack of software functionality or user resistance caused byan inadequate initial implementation or inadequate training.Inadequate initial implementation or inadequate training areoften as much a contributor to dissatisfaction with softwarepackages as is lack of functionality or user unfriendliness. Itis usually expensive and resource-intensive to switch fromone enterprise software such as MP2 to a different one.Once substantial investments of time and resources havebeen made in a work-order system, much care and delibera-tion is needed before making the decision to abandon thepackage.

According to the self-assessment, the university’s informa-tion system department does not support the MP2 applica-tion, and there are no information system professionalswithin FM dedicated to the system. This lack of involve-ment by information system professionals may be a con-tributor to the department’s inability to obtain the adver-tised functionality from the system.

Before abandoning the MP2 system, conduct a systematicevaluation of the reason for the widespread dissatisfactionwith the system. There is a possibility that this dissatisfac-tion is due to initial implementation and training issues,rather than lack of user friendliness or lack of functionality.Research should be conducted to find out if there are otherorganizations with similar profiles as USM using MP2 todetermine if they are having similar issues. If not already

Recommendation 4G


done, full and open discussions should be held with the MP2vendor to ensure that the vendor is completely aware of thedissatisfaction with the system. Specific shortcoming shouldbe documented based on actual system deficiencies ratherthan a collection of anecdotal comments that might be theresult of personal preference or lack of training.

If it is determined, that MP2 is in fact deficient then amethodical approach should be taken to select a CMMS thatis appropriate for the USM size and complexity. A one-size-fits-all approach is likely to end up with a similar situationthat currently exists. USM is not a very large campus, andthere are scalable CMMS on the market with proven trackrecords on campuses comparable to USM. In selecting anew system, heavy weight should be given to systems thatare currently working well at similar campuses. Field tripsto campuses currently using the system of interest are the bestway to verify system performance and user satisfaction.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OFHUMAN RESOURCES

An organization’s success depends increasingly on theknowledge, skills, innovative creativity, and motivationof its employees and partners. These criteria address theways in which the facilities organization ensures acontinuing learning environment through communica-tion, policies, recognition, training, professional develop-ment opportunities, and other methods.

Interviews with HR and facilities management indicate thatjob descriptions and classifications follow USM procedures.It appears that generally the individuals holding the posi-tions in FM are classified appropriately. Some additionaleffort may need to be made to assure that job descriptionsaccurately reflect the work that is performed as organiza-tional changes are made or new and different services areadded.

The self-evaluation indicates that because of a lack of suffi-cient funding for the FM operating budget, staff numbersdo not meet the level of expectation that customers wouldprefer. While individual maintenance workers appear to becredited with working hard at resolving problems, it is clearthat many of them are limited to “stamping out fires.” There

5.1 Staff positions are properlyclassified and allocated inadequate numbers to meet thestandards for the targeted levelof service.


is no preventive maintenance program being pursued norhave maintenance standards including descriptions of tasksand frequencies been developed for custodial, grounds andgeneral facilities maintenance. Without maintenance stan-dards, it is not possible to determine appropriate staffinglevels.

Maintenance Standards and staffing levels are addressed inSection 6.0: Process Management.

Staffing and resource support for FM is spoken of as “nothaving enough and needing more.” During discussions withfacilities management, campus administration, or customers,there was no quantification of numbers of staff or clearjustification to support the need for additional staffing.Facilities management would be well served by developingmaintenance and operational standards and use the FPIinformation it has by participating in multiple FPI surveys todevelop a clear picture of where staffing resources arelacking. This information can be developed by performing acomparison with other UM campuses as well as other peercampuses who participate in the FPI survey.

There is new employee orientation training provided bymembers of key campus areas. In interviews with manage-ment and staff, it was clear that additional training wasavailable for employees, especially technical training wherelicenses were concerned. The university also has tuitionremission for staff and their families. What appears to belacking is any plan for management levels to build a profes-sional development plan for staff members. Opportunitiesfor development clearly exist as was highlighted by theletter from the state of Maine Board of Licensure for Profes-sional Engineers representing that Brian Labrecque hadpassed his test and would be issued a license as a profes-sional engineer. There is risk to the department that withouta professional development plan, generally only “self start-ers” will take maximum advantage of the training andeducational opportunities that currently exist.

Each supervisor and manager should be required to workwith their staff to develop a professional development planas a part of each annual performance evaluation. These plansmay range from basic training to professional and technicaltraining to formal degrees.

Recommendation 5A

Recommendation 5B

5.2 Training programs providefor new employee orientationand technical skillsenhancement for all staff.


Training needs should be assessed across the entire organi-zation. Each area should have access to its professionalassociations. Where the budget is limited for travel toeducational seminars and conferences, those resourcesshould be shared so that all interested parties get an oppor-tunity to attend on a rotational basis. And during times ofrestricted travel, webinars and professional publications canbe used to augment development.

Management’s commitment and action in support of thedepartment’s people needs for learning and growth should bemeasured. Measure training and development as a percent-age of annual salaries (investment %) and as training anddevelopment programs completed as compared to a needsassessment for training, education, and development. Train-ing and development curriculum should be developed for allkey functions and job skills, licensing, or certification updaterequirements.

A new employee’s role in the department and the overallrole of the department are reviewed with candidates duringthe interview and hiring process. Supervisors also reviewtheir roles after they are hired at preshift and/or shop meet-ings with their employees.

As stated earlier, a number of the staff complained about theissue of “passing the buck,” where it either wasn’t clear whowas responsible for a task or where there was task avoidancegoing on. This was clearly frustrating to the administrativestaff trying to assign the work to someone so that it wouldbe taken care of. Also, a number of the administrative staffdesired more communication with management, bothverbal and through staff meetings. They very often feel thatthey are completely out of the loop.

Interviews with both facilities management staff membersand customers indicate that there is a lack of visibility oncampus of upper FM management, especially the executivedirector. Good communication starts by being visible andaccessible to both staff as well as customers. The tougher thetimes, the more important it is for leaders to be accessible tothose working hard to provide good service to customerswho also are trying to get their work done in an environ-ment of reduced resources and difficult circumstances.

5.3 An effective communicationsystem exists within thedepartment to ensure that eachemployee knows his or her rolein the department, the role ofrelated areas, and the overallrole of the department.


Meetings with administrative staff should be set up for thebenefit of communication.

The existing staff meetings being held by the executivedirector and his management team should be formalized byrequiring attendance, issuing agendas before hand, andtaking minutes that include action steps and accountabilityidentification.

See recommendation in Section 1.0: Leadership.

There is a good relationship between EH&S and facilitiesmanagement regarding safety policies and procedures.Safety policy and procedures are reviewed with new em-ployees at orientation and by supervisors during regularsafety training sessions. There is excellent understanding ofthe importance of good safety practices reported by all staffmembers who participated in the interview process.

Establish goals for safety based on USM campus compari-sons for accident and injury on the job. Continue withopportunities to address safety in a prevention-based ap-proach. Assure that all safety training is documented.

Standard procedures for reporting and completing acci-dents reports are followed. EH&S seems to work veryclosely with facilities management in this area. It was indi-cated that if an incident appeared to be of a serious nature,either the director of EH&S would investigate or ask the FMsupervisor to do so.

All accidents, regardless of perceived seriousness, shouldanswer the question, “How could this accident have beenprevented?” This is standard practice in the industry. Byasking the question, there is a natural process to questionthe way work is performed and to ensure that work is beingperformed safely.

As indicated in a prior section of this report, facilities man-agers are supportive of training, especially technical trainingrequired for license continuation. Also, fee waiver at theuniversity allows employees to continue their education bytaking up to two educational courses a semester. Employeesare encouraged to attend trade and equipment shows,vendor training and product shows, and educational confer-ences, although the budget levels are restricting attendance

Recommendation 5C

Recommendation 5D

Recommendation 5E

5.4 Safety policies andprocedures have beenestablished, written, andcommunicated to all staff.

5.5 Accident records aremaintained and used to reduceaccidents and identify needs forspecial attention.

5.6 The organization promotesemployee development andprofessional developmentthrough formal education,training, and on-the-jobtraining such as rotationalassignments, internships or jobexchange programs.


Recommendation 5F

66

at some educational and professional conferences andtraining.

There didn’t appear to be any management driven expecta-tions of rotational assignments or mentoring for manage-ment or staff development. As indicated before, there is noprofessional development plan process that managementand supervisors uniformly use to work with their staff. Also,there was no evidence of an apprenticeship program avail-able for staff development.

Input from campus customers indicated they would like tosee more cross training for those working on the buildingautomation-HVAC systems. Library staff for example notedthat the library’s special collections rely heavily on theHVAC system working properly, and they are concernedabout the small number of people who can operate andrepair the systems, especially when some of the mechanicsare on vacation.

There should be a formal process in place for cross trainingfor critical functions in all areas as a part of staff develop-ment. This is an easy thing to do at little or no cost. Crosstraining is extremely helpful in developing coverage duringtimes of reduced resources and frozen positions.

As indicated in an earlier section of this report, managersand supervisors should work with their staff members andjointly work on professional development plans duringannual performance evaluations.

To assure that training resources are equitably distributed,training should be tracked. Training targets should beidentified for educational conferences, technical training,etc., so that the areas most in need of training get it.

Customers should be engaged in discussion regarding theirspecial needs and their concerns for levels of staff trained inareas of particular importance to them.

See findings and recommendations in criterion 5.25.7 Career development issupported throughinvolvement in job-related andprofessional organizations, andopportunities to advancewithin the department.


Although attendance seems to be tracked and used inperformance evaluations, work performance metrics are notused. The work-order system is not used to track work-order cycle time, nor is there any tracking of quality or callbacks for work orders. No customer feedback system is inplace, either formal or informal, to track work quality orquantity.

During the interview process with facilities managementcustomers, there was general acknowledgment that thework-order system was either not adequate or that it couldnot be utilized properly to track work-order progress.Regardless of the problem with the work-order system,some customers still believe that the responsibility is on FMto track work orders, rather than have the customer con-stantly call for updates.

The work-order system has the capacity to track work-order backlog and cycle times. Effort should be made toutilize its capabilities. It is not clear that the work-ordersystem is capable of doing a lot more than it is currentlydoing or not. Many times when a software system doesn’toperate up to its capacity, it is due to a lack of training forthose using it. It is easy enough to check with other users tosee if anyone is using the program up to its capacity. Onsitevisits could verify the programs ability to perform. Addi-tional training for select FM staff members could develop morecompletely the use of the work-order system on campus.

Until the work-order system either becomes functional or isreplaced, supervisors should track work-order cycle timesand backlog manually to ensure that their staff members areworking up to capacity and performing work by priorityneed, rather than cherry-picking work because it isn’t beingtracked.

Facilities management’s FMEP report indicates that it utilizesinformal ways to determine employee well-being, such as“being a small organization, the supervisors and crewleaders know how their employees are feeling and if theyhave issues.” When the review team asked staff to indicatewhat percentage of employees they felt where unhappy, theanswers ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent. It is hard toreconcile FM’s practice of utilizing informal employeeassessment as an effective methodology for determiningemployee satisfaction.

5.8 Work performance andattendance tracking measuresare in place, are understood bystaff members, and are used bysupervisors to assessperformance.

Recommendation 5G

5.9 The organization utilizesboth formal and informalassessment methods andmeasures to determine employeewell-being, employee satis-faction, and motivation.Assessment findings are linkedto performance results toidentify priorities for improvingthe work environment, employeesupport climate and the super-visor’s effectiveness (coaching).


It is never a good practice to assume that you know whatpeople are thinking. Employee climate surveys are a muchmore reliable way of determining employee morale, employeesatisfaction, and employee well-being.

An employee satisfaction survey should be done to deter-mine a base level of employee satisfaction immediately. Thenthe results of the survey should be addressed by the man-agement through meetings with staff in groups to work outparticular issues. Just the attention alone to hearing abouttheir needs will increase morale. A number of staff indicatedthat they just wanted to have a voice—to be heard.

As it stands now, the management team does not have anyfactual information on how it is really doing.

Facilities management holds an annual recognition breakfasteach fall to recognize achievement; the university holdsseparate breakfasts for staff and professionals to recognizeyears of service; and there is a breakfast at the beginning ofthe new academic year with some recognition as well as towelcome new employees.

What is lacking based on interviews with staff members isany direct and local or on-the-spot recognition of work donewell. In interviews with staff members, there were a num-ber of statements that indicated that FM managers, includ-ing the executive director, do not spend sufficient time withthe staff and do not know what they do nor how they spenttheir day.

All supervisors and managers need to be in the field regu-larly, reviewing the work that people are performing. Thereis a successful practice process for “catching people doingsomething right,” but it can only happen when managementspends the time to spot check the work of their staff. Insome areas, work output is obvious, but in many areas offacilities management, the work performed is in basements,mechanical rooms, on roofs, and behind the scenes. If theareas are not checked by those who supervise, the workgoes unnoticed unless there is a problem.

Simply saying “thank you” to staff members or sending thema thank you note goes a long way to build morale, becausepeople feel that their work is noticed and that it is impor-tant. Without regular recognition, the only thing left is

Recommendation 5I

Recommendation 5H

5.10 Employee recognitionprograms are in place forindividuals and groups (mayinclude community service).


working daily in an environment of reduced resources and asense of being taken for granted at best.

There are no processes in place to determine the effective-ness of recruitment and retention programs and to identifyareas of improvement. The self-evaluation indicates thatthere is a stable work force in facilities management exceptin the custodial services area. Facilities management indi-cates that HR does exit interviews to learn why people leaveso that retention can be improved. There was no indicationthat FM management worked with HR after the exit inter-views to determine why its employees left. There appears tobe a wage disparity between USM and the private sector, aswell as with other educational institutions in the area. Morethan one case of a USM employee leaving to go to thecommunity college to make more money was shared withus during our interviews. In the case of a custodial em-ployee, that difference in pay was $2 per hour.

But not all employee loss is due to money. Work conditionsand how people are treated can make up for money. It was aconsistent feeling in the custodial ranks, including thedirector of Environmental Services that custodial staff were notrespected and were frequently treated as second-class citizens.The prevalence of this feeling creates discontent and can be asubstantial contributing reason for employee turnover.

In the areas where there isn’t much turnover, it isn’t clearthat the employees stay because they enjoy their work andwork environment, or if there isn’t anywhere else to go.

Facilities management should consider conducting its ownexit interviews to determine the state of its employee’smorale and work closely with campus HR on the findings.

The department needs to be more interactive and communi-cative with staff members at all levels of the organization onmatters of workforce issues and staff retention. The use ofan employee climate survey, as mentioned earlier in thisreport, is recommended under this criterion also. A properlydesigned instrument and professionally administered assess-ment is needed to close the gap between management andworker perception of the FM workplace.

The APPA-FPI program has developed a survey instrumentand members of the review team have experience with

5.11 Processes are in place todetermine the effectiveness ofrecruitment and retentionprograms and to identify areasfor improvement.

Recommendation 5J


several assessment tools that can be made available to theuniversity and facilities management Experience has proventhat regular practice by management to collect data on awide variety of measures of employee satisfaction andtaking action on assessment results, is effective in buildingand maintaining a loyal and dedicated workforce.

6.0 PROCESS MANAGEMENT

Effective process management addresses how the facili-ties organization manages key product and servicedesign and delivery processes. Process managementincludes various systems such as work management,performance standards, estimating systems, planningand design of new facilities, and other key processes thataffect facilities functions.

The review team did not find processes to ensure equip-ment is programmed and included in the budget based onneeds and equipment life cycle. Equipment is replaced as itbecomes nonserviceable on an as required basis. This resultsin equipment being kept in service beyond its service lifewhen it becomes less efficient and more costly to operate.While facilities such as shops, storeroom, and administrativespaces seem only marginally adequate, the review team didnot find a plan or strategy for upgrading or expanding thefacilities management complex. The review team recognizesin light of USM’s budget situation that adequate FM spacewill most likely be a low priority in university’s capitalprogram, however, legitimate facilities needs for maintain-ing and operating the university should be documented inthe same manner as all other facilities needs.

Develop an equipment replacement program based on lifecycle of existing equipment inventory with a focus on replac-ing and acquiring equipment with state-of-the-art laborsaving devices to help offset the adverse impact of reducedstaffing. Organizations that do not include a budget line intheir budget specifically for an equipment replacementprogram will often find that they are spending more moneymaintaining out of date equipment or wasting labor hoursworking with inefficient equipment.

Determine the operating and workspace that facilities manage-ment needs to maintain and operate the campus and documentthis requirement, along with all other facilities needs.

6.1 Processes are in place toensure that departmentalfacilities and equipment areadequate for the provision ofeffective and efficient services.

Recommendation 6A


Facilities management does not have an effective workmanagement system in place. The current MP2 work-ordersystem is considered too complex and user unfriendly (seecriterion 4.7).

See recommendation for criterion 4.7.

According to the self-evaluation, generally the maintenancesupervisors review work orders and direct them to theappropriate shop. The maintenance supervisors set prioritiesfor work and review and coordinate assignments at themorning meetings. The review team, within the scope of theFMEP, was not able to validate equitable distribution ofresources; however, the team did not see evidence of astructured resource allocation protocol. Considering thethree campuses and no methodical resource allocationprotocol, there is a possibility of imbalances in resourceallocation among campuses and among functions. Resourceimbalances can easily occur during time of budget con-straint and recruitment freezes. One example is the numberof FTEs assigned to the cleaning function on the Gorhamcampus compared to the Portland campus. While thecleaning function on the Gorham campus is being per-formed very well, the 21 FTEs allocated to the residential lifefunction might be excessive. However, staffing judgmentsshould only be made after application of a methodicalstaffing protocol based on achieving a specific service level.

Based on current budget constraints, make a decisionregarding service levels the department is expected toachieve. The three APPA staffing guidelines for custodialservices, landscape services, and maintenance and opera-tions are good sources for assistance in determining servicelevels and staffing levels required to achieve them. Thisactivity will not only help to determine what service level isreasonable to expect based on current staffing, but it willalso help in achieving balance resource allocation.

Facilities management does not have a preventive mainte-nance program. The staff members at most levels of theorganization understand the importance of an effectivepreventive maintenance program, but they believe budgetconstraints prevent them from staffing such a program. Inaddition, some are of the opinion that the MP2 system doesnot support a PM program. The review team verified that

Recommendation 6B

Recommendation 6C

6.2 An effective workmanagement system is in placeto identify, report, correct, anddocument substandardconditions and maintenancerequirements.

6.3 Work authorization andscheduling procedures havebeen established that areconsistent with the identifiedrole of each work unit andachieve an equitabledistribution of resources.

6.4 An effective preventivemaintenance (PM) program isin place to provide regularinspection and servicing offacilities equipment to assuremaximum service life,reliability, and operation.


the MP2 program does have a PM module with the abilityto produce PM work orders, but that this feature is notbeing used. Equipment failures and reactive maintenancewill continue to dominate the department’s workload unlessan effective PM program is put in place.

Reevaluate the judgment that budget constraints preventstaffing a PM program. Theoretically, resources applied topreventive maintenance reduce the resources required forbreakdown and reactive work.

Evaluate the number of labor hours being used to respond toequipment breakdown and determine if some of these laborhours should be redirected toward a PM program.

According to the self-evaluation, estimates are prepared forall project work by the engineering and architectural depart-ment and by the trades’ supervisors for major maintenanceactivities or project work that they may be undertaking.Project work is often performed by the maintenance shopsas their department funding is dependent upon earning asignificant portion of their payroll costs from other univer-sity funding sources, including academic departmentaccounts as well as project accounts. The facility managersand supervisors are under pressure to have facilities classi-fied staffs perform as much project work as possible tomake up the gap between the department budget and theactual costs of staff and materials.

During customer interviews, the review team heard fromsome customers that they would like to see estimates thatare more accurate. This is especially true for those organiza-tions that charge other customers for the services theyprovide. An example that was cited involved support to astudent event where the actual charge was twice the esti-mated amount. The review team saw no evidence of asystem to evaluate estimated costs after the fact to deter-mine the causes of significant deviations between actualcosts and estimated costs.

Review the volume of work that require estimates to deter-mine if it is cost effective to invest in a more sophisticatedcost estimating system. Since it requires resources and laborhours to provide estimates, it is not cost effective to provideestimates for all work. Additionally, the amount of estimat-ing time and resources needed to produce estimates aredirectly proportion to the level of desired accuracy of the

Recommendation 6D

6.5 An estimating system isused that provides accurateestimates of labor and materialrequirements in order to planand schedule the execution ofwork and to determine thecauses of significant deviationsbetween actual costs andestimated costs.

Recommendation 6E


estimate. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance betweendesired accuracy and the cost of providing the estimate.

Facilities management engineering and architectural serviceshas developed construction standards for equipment,materials, surfaces, finishes, systems, etc., which are pro-vided to the design firms to follow as they prepare contractdocuments. These guidelines were developed with inputfrom the facilities maintenance staff. One member of theengineering and architectural services staff is responsible forkeeping these standards current. All UMS system campusesare required to follow LEED guidelines in the design, con-struction, or renovation of all facility spaces.

The review team commends facilities management for itachievement in its application of LEED to the new construc-tion on campus. While good design guidelines and construc-tion standards are the key to success factors for constructionprojects, involvement of maintenance and operation person-nel in all phases of construction projects is also very impor-tant. During interviews, the review team learned that whilemaintenance and operation staff members are involved insome of the new construction projects, they are not alwaysinvited to key milestone project events. Personnel inter-viewed did note that as of late they have become moreinvolved than in the past.

Ensure that maintenance and operation staff memberscontinue to be involved in all phases of new construction andmajor renovation. Maintenance and operation staff memberscan provide valuable insight into appropriate finishes,equipment and configuration of systems and subsystemsfrom the viewpoint of maintainability and reliability.

Subunit managers do not control expenditures based onbudgets. It is not clear to the review team whether responsi-bility has been delegated or not. However, The director ofAdministration and Information Systems seems to be theonly facilities management official with the exception of theexecutive director involved in budget activities (see criterion4.5). The austere budget situation seems to be the reasongiven for not being more proactive in budget activities.

The executive director should review what is expected ofsubunit managers regarding budgetary responsibility andensure there is not lack of clarity. See recommendation undercriterion 4.5.

Recommendation 6F

6.6 Design guidelines thatincorporate such elements asenergy consumption, operatingcosts, environmental concerns,maintainability, sustainability,accessibility, and safety havebeen prepared, updated and areutilized.

6.7 The delegation of budgetaryresponsibilities formanagement of subunits of thebudget is effective incontrolling expenditures.

Recommendation 6G


7.0 PERFORMANCE RESULTS

The facilities management organization’s performancecan be assessed through campus appearance, employeesatisfaction and motivation, effectiveness of systemsoperations, customer satisfaction, financial results, andsupplier/business partner results. Where feasible, it ishelpful to have measurement tools in place to assessperformance in these areas.

Without exception, campus administrators, key universitystakeholders, and numerous people who inhabit the cam-pus daily who were interviewed during this review made ita point to emphasize how important the appearance of thecampus buildings and grounds is to them and to the imageof the institution. The appearance of the campus landscapeplays a strategic role in creating and maintaining theuniversity’s image. Numerous studies have shown thatnationwide, the majority of admissions applicants weremost influenced by the appearance of the campus buildingsand grounds. In today’s competitive educational market-place, the appearance of the campus is absolutely critical tothe university’s success. The review team experienced firstimpressions at both the Portland campus and the Gorhamcampus, and one member of the team traveled to the LAC.

To the campus visitor and casual observer coming onto thecampus, the Portland campus is difficult to find. Part of thechallenge is that there are several entry points onto thecampus, and there is not sufficient monument signage atthe various entry points to help find the place. Once oncampus, it is not easy to determine where you are or todetermine the names and functions of the buildings.

The campus appearance on arrival is one of a busy place inthe middle of an urban setting. Older buildings on campusshow their age and present a tired look and general lack ofinstitutional pride in campus facilities. Upon walkingaround the campus and close inspection through the trainedeyes of the review team, there are many opportunities forimprovement in campus appearance. There is an obviousabsence of maintenance level standards for both buildingsand landscape maintenance.

Campus grounds maintenance demonstrates an absence ofedging and trimming, sweeping, inadequate weeding, areasin the landscape with poor surface drainage, damage to turf

7.1 The appearance of thebuildings and grounds is inkeeping with the surroundingcommunity, as well as thedesired image of the institution.


areas from snow removal operations, and poor maintenanceof landscape fixtures and landscape furniture are some ofthe areas that need improvement. There are many differ-ences in choices of materials, surfaces, colors, and finishes ofplanters and benches that visually impact the campusappearance.

In fairness to the grounds crew, the review team was in-formed that the grounds workers serve as the campus laborpool and that they are frequently reassigned to campusspecial event set-up requirements. It appears that thegrounds maintenance staffing numbers are low. However,there is a glaring absence of grounds maintenance informa-tion pertaining to the number of acres maintained andpertaining to the area (square footage) by type of landscapearea such as lawn area, shrub bed areas, numbers of treesand plantings that need regular maintenance, and amountof sidewalks, streets, plazas, and patios. Information was notprovided on trash collection activities and campus recyclingefforts for which grounds maintenance staff may providesupport. Without this information that in essence representsan inventory of what needs to be maintained, and without adescription by type of landscape space, it is not possible toaccurately determine maintenance workload, and staffinglevels.

The review team’s consensus is that there are many areas oncampus that do not yet meet an acceptable minimumstandard. Landscape fixtures such as benches, trash cans,lighting fixtures, and building entrance areas are not verywell maintained. The overall appearance of the campus isbelow what we would expect to see at USM and below thelevel of a national norm for colleges and universities.

Cleaning the exteriors of a number of campus buildingsneeds attention and if done, would remove detraction fromthe overall appearance and first impression.

The University of Southern Maine campus appearance ofgrounds and buildings matters greatly and it serves as atangible expression of the institutional identity. It speaks tothe campus community expectations and says somethingimportant about it.

A well-maintained campus appearance is not only importantto the students it serves but to the faculty, staff and thecommunity and employer groups thatcome to the campus. A

Recommendation 7A


good campus image and quality facilities can be a decidingfactor for students. For some, the appearance makes astatement that USM is a place where learning takes place.

The campus could benefit greatly from a way-finding analy-sis. In its most literal sense, way-finding is the ability of aperson to find his or her way to a destination. It can also bedefined from the stand point of the campus administrationthat is seeking to improve the function of the campus envi-ronment. The results for visitors can be a campus andfacilities that create a strong first impression and improvevisitor satisfaction.

It is recommended that facilities management give campusappearance a higher priority in its planning for operationsand maintenance services and the allocation of resources.Given the current context of the university and the manychallenges it faces, the appearance of the campus physicalplant is a strategic issue for USM.

The review team believes that there are many small thingsthat can be done to improve the campus appearance thatwill not cost much. It is recommended that facilities man-agement perform a campus appearance inspection and listthose things that can be done to improve appearance forbuilding exteriors, grounds, and landscape elements. A list ofimprovements needed can be prioritized and addressed asresources permit.

The condition and cleaning of the facilities at the Portlandcampus can be described as only moderately clean. Thereappears to be an effective floor care program in place asstained carpet and dull and stained hard floors were notoverly evident. However, general cleaning is beginning toshow the signs of reduced staffing and reduced frequency ofperforming certain cleaning tasks. The review team com-mends facilities management for having a written documentdescribing safety and cleaning procedures for the cleaningfunction. The document also documents the square feetcoverage per person for the Gorham and Portland cam-puses. However, with the turnover and hiring freeze, thesquare feet coverage has likely fallen out of balance. Eventhough there is a document prescribing the cleaning tasksand frequencies, because of the actual or perceived staffshortages, individual custodians have to make personaljudgment about which tasks to skip or discontinue. The

76

7.2 The condition andcleanliness of facilities are inkeeping with the image andstandards adopted by theinstitution, as well as activitiesassociated with its mission andprograms.


custodians appear to be sufficiently trained and properlysupported with proper equipment, products, and tools.

While the review team did not inspect as many spaces onthe Gorham campus and it did on the Portland campus,interviews with the Gorham campus residence halls man-agement team suggest that the residence hall cleaningprogram is well run, very effective, and fully meeting theneeds of the customers. The review team understands thatthere are 21 FTEs assigned to the residence halls cleaningwork unit. This level of staffing might be disproportionatelyhigh relative to the total cleanable square feet associatedwith residence halls and the dining facilities. The reviewteam found the LAC campus to be very well cared forboth inside the facility and throughout the groundsareas.

In light of the actual or perceived staff shortages, reviewcurrent staffing levels in all cleaning work units and apply anappropriate staffing workload protocol, based on cleanablesquare feet. From this protocol, determine what cleaninglevel is achievable for the current level of staffing. Adjusttasks and frequencies to achieve a realistic cleaning levelwithout compromising health and safety. Use the sameworkload protocol to ensure staff allocation has not fallenout of balance because of turnover and hiring freeze.

The review team heard again and again from FacilitiesManagement Department staff members that it is impera-tive that building systems and campus infrastructure func-tion well and consistently without major interruption inservices. This is a very positive indication by staff membersof their recognition of the importance of reliable and unin-terrupted operations.

Facilities management utility and building systems operat-ing staff provided details of the department’s efforts to keepthe systems and infrastructure operational. Specific engi-neering studies of the campus high-voltage distributionsystem and equipment has been done and the critical needshave been identified for the Portland campus. In addition,no critical comments or significant concerns were heardfrom building users about the reliability of heating, cooling,or electrical systems. Interruptions and outages were de-scribed as infrequent.

Recommendation 7B

7.3 Building systems andinfrastructure are maintainedand operated at a level ofreliability that contributes tothe successful implementationof the institution’s mission andprograms.


The challenges of controlling temperatures in many build-ings, however, were cited by a number of those interviewedas the single most frequent building systems issue.

The facilities management executive director, supervisors ofthe HVAC, and electrical shop expressed a determinedeffort to obtain appropriate redundancy in critical systemsand equipment. Priorities have been identified for upgrad-ing electrical service and transformers, steam and hot waterdistribution systems and components, and building auto-mation systems in an effort to address building systemoperations and energy management. Facilities managementstaff members are aware of any vulnerability and risks thatmight exist in the utility infrastructure and especially theelectrical and mechanical systems. The department hasprovided a listing of 13 high-priority projects designated as“high impact projects” eligible for UM deferred mainte-nance funding estimated to cost $1.3 million.

Several campus buildings have a large amount of waterinfiltration that cause damage to the building structures andhave a very negative impact on building occupants andprograms. Water leaks are through the roofs, exterior walls,caulked joints, general building envelope, and windows.Several buildings have visible signs of masonry deteriorationof structure and exterior stairs.

Some of the facilities management workspaces need atten-tion, and there are a number of service functions that havetotally inadequate workspaces. Custodial services worksta-tions and supply closets in some areas are totally inadequate.Grounds equipment maintenance workspace is totallyinadequate and inhibits efficient and effective services.

It is recommended that a comprehensive master utilitystudy be done as a component of the master planning pro-cess in order to ensure the condition of the existing utilityinfrastructure and the capacity for meeting future utilityloads. Although individual and specific utility infrastructurestudies have been done that led to the electrical distributionand transformer replacement project, a comprehensivemaster utility plan has not been done. This plan shouldinclude at a minimum for all campuses the following: electri-cal, chilled water, steam, and/or hot water heating, sanitarysewer, domestic water, and storm sewer requirements. Thestatus and needs of the utility infrastructure elements will be

Recommendation 7C


especially important as the campus master plan initiative takesplace.

The campus senior administrative officers and the facilitiesmanagement executive director can serve the campus well ifthey would work together as strong advocates for address-ing campus facility capital renewal and deferred mainte-nance needs. There is a need for a strong coalition of campusleaders who can work together, advocate, and make deci-sions on priority facility needs. The campus capital renewaland deferred maintenance needs are not simply a facilitiesmanagement problem. This is a campus problem.

Facilities management leaders should give high priority tocreate appropriate work space for custodial and groundsmaintenance functions.

Funding resources are not adequate to support a level offacility maintenance and repair that prevents deferral ofmajor maintenance and repair. The VFA facilities conditionaudit serves to document this fact. High impact needs orthose considered critical are supported by the department’slist of highest priority needs.

The facility condition audit for the entire campus physicalplant and infrastructure should be periodically updated.There is no universal agreement on what this update cycleshould be, but it should take place frequently enough toensure that major needs are identified and prioritized appro-priately. Some campuses update all information every yearor do a percentage of the campus square footage every year.The review team recommends that FM update past reportson facility conditions after discussion with campus adminis-tration and that this update coincide with reporting require-ments to the UM system processes. Mutual agreement onthis schedule that meets the campus total facilities needsrequirements would be the desired outcome.

In order to avoid long-term facilities decline, it is necessaryto recognize that campus facilities will deteriorate overtime. Building and infrastructure components have a finitelife cycle, and many of the buildings on the campus haveexceeded at least one cycle of depreciation. Only through aprogram of constant reinvestment in order to offset thepredictable decline of building components can an institutionexpect to avoid major problems. Inadequate funding levels

Recommendation 7D

7.4 Funding resources areeffectively used and areadequate to support a level offacilities maintenance thatprevents the deferral of majormaintenance and repairs.


for maintenance and operations force the deferral of smallrepairs that cause escalating consequences when left unat-tended. Experience has demonstrated that it does not takelong until a leaking roof that needs to be replaced begins tocause ceiling and structural building damage. The longer theproblem is left unattended, the faster the cost for restorationgrows.

Key Financial Benchmark IndicatorCurrent replacement value of the campus facilities andinfrastructure (CRV).Facilities Condition Index (FCI). The FCI is a useful toolthat has come into common use to express the overallcondition of facilities. The FCI is the ratio of the total costof correcting deficiencies to the facilities CRV.

FCI = Cost of Correcting DeficienciesCurrent Replacement Value

Over the past decade, the FCI has become a generallyaccepted measure of capital renewal, deferred maintenance,and modernization planning. One standard used to establishthe overall condition of a single facility or an entire campususing the FCI is as follows:

FCI Range Condition Rating<00.05 Good.05-.10 Fair

>0.10 Poor

Facilities management has utilized the UM system definitionand guidelines for calculating the current replacement valuethat specifies that property insurance schedules be utilizedfor calculating CRV. The APPA FPI survey and recom-mended definition for calculating CRV specifically recom-mends against using insurance schedules for calculatingCRV, as these schedules typically understate the actual costof replacing a facility. Using the UM guideline, the E&GCRV for USM is calculated at $329,383,966. This methodol-ogy provides consistency in calculation among the UMsystem institutions but does not allow an accurate compari-son with institutions outside the system that participate inthe Facilities Performance Indicator Survey (FPI).

The self-evaluation materials shared with the review teamreports an estimate according to the VFA deferred mainte-


nance report for E&G space of $59,548,763 and does notinclude infrastructure or soft costs. Soft costs and a 10percent project contingency typically account for 30 percentof total project costs. Including these, E&G deferred mainte-nance can be estimated at $100 million. Facilities manage-ment has calculated the campus E&G deferred maintenanceFCI at 30 percent. By utilizing the property insuranceschedule for calculating the CRV, it is likely that this 30percent FCI is significantly overstated.

It is recommended that FM calculate its FCI by utilizing theAPPA definition and calculation as described in the FPIsurvey instructions.

Additional key financial measures for help in determiningeffectiveness and efficiencies as defined in the APPA FPIsurvey should be used to measure overall financial perfor-mance. These measures include Facility Operating CRVIndex ($/CRV), Facility Operating Gross InstitutionalExpenditure Index ($/GIE), Facility Operating Index ($/GSF), and Total Needs Index, which includes the combinedneeds or the total dollars needed for deferred maintenance,capital renewal, and plant adaptation.

The review team findings on this critical performance resultfor the department is disappointing. Our findings aresummarized as follows:

There is pride in the workforce, however, it is mainlyinstitutional based rather than departmental based.

There is commitment among some staff members toimprove, but not enough to bring about meaningfulcontinuous improvement. Given a clear direction and thetools to accomplish new expectations, the group canperform better. As with any group of veterans, however,change will not come easy and it is incumbent on FMleadership to set the direction and align all staff constitu-encies.

Staff members want to have a quality operation and arefrustrated with having to be mostly reactive to reoccur-ring problems resulting mostly from poor communica-tions, inadequate work management, uncertainty aboutpurpose and strategy, a belief that budgets are inadequate,and a perception of constraints caused by policy andinadequate support needed to get the job done.

81

7.5 Staff is highly motivatedand productive, and takes pridein the accomplishment of theirduties.


Overall, internal communications within the FacilitiesManagement Department are not good, and there is aneed to improve communications on the changes that aretaking place and on critical goals and issues for the de-partment. There is a noticeable absence of clearly definedand communicated goals and objectives for the FMorganization.

To achieve a condition where staff members are motivated,have pride in their work and department, and in the accom-plishment of their duties, it is necessary to create andmaintain a high-performance workplace, to set clear direc-tion and goals, and to provide the necessary resources to dothe job right the first time. These resources include thefinancial aspects, the equipment and supplies, the appropri-ate staffing numbers, and the appropriate staff skills.

As recommended in Section 5.0: Development and Manage-ment of Human Resources of this report, facilities manage-ment is encouraged to develop and administer an employeeclimate (employee satisfaction) survey and to conduct thesurvey annually or at least every two years.

Strong leadership is needed to address these requirements.

FM has no effective means to listen to the “voice of thecustomer.” The general practice and attitude has been that ifthe customers are not complaining then everything must bealright. Management has a large opportunity to place anemphasis on the importance of identification and under-standing of the customer needs and requirements, customerexpectations for service, and customer satisfaction and dissatis-faction. Additionally, the Department needs to improve itscommunications about its services with campus customers.

On the campuses of USM, face to face discussion aboutservices between facilities management managers andcustomers will work better than formal written customersurveys or electronic survey methods. It is recommendedthat a planned approach to assessing customer satisfactionbe developed. Customer service is a strategic need for thedepartment and should be considered a major indicator ofthe department’s success.

This plan should include first the identification of the variouscustomer groups (academic departments and schools, USM

82

Recommendation 7E

Recommendation 7F

7.6 Customer satisfactionmeasures ensure that the levelsof service are consistent withcustomer needs andrequirements and within thefacilities department’scapability.


libraries, athletics, student life, etc.). Personal contact withindividuals or the use of group discussions in the form of“focus group” methodology could be employed. Standardizedquestions should be asked about the various services whichthe Facilities Management Department provides as well asquestions that allow the customer to suggest areas forimprovement or the need for new or additional services. TheFM leadership must be prepared to respond to the customercomments and to take appropriate actions to address thecustomer suggestions and comments on service improve-ment needs.

Everyone within FM should be asked for customer serviceimprovement ideas. The staff can be an excellent source forservice improvement ideas. Staff members should be askedthe questions such as, “Why is our service quality what itis? And how can we get better?”

The use of telephone surveys is also appropriate for certainservices including follow-up on completed work-orderrequests.

Facilities management clearly understands the importanceof managers and supervisors staying in touch with thefacility needs of higher education and the need for continu-ing education, training, and development. Managementsupports these needs to the extent and levels of resourcesavailable to meet the needs.

The department is behind in its adoption of informationtechnology, its energy management and conservation activi-ties, and its development and use of performance measure-ments that are most meaningful, and in its strategic andoperational planning processes. A major deficiency exists inthe department’s work management and preventive mainte-nance processes. These practices are essential ingredients forimproving services to the university.

The FM engineering and architectural services on the otherhand has been quite innovative and has been a leader inLEED and overall sustainability efforts. The development ofthe integrated design deliverables and testing (IDDAT) as analternative to the traditional capital project delivery ap-proach when utilized serves the institution very well.

83

7.7 Managers and supervisorsstay in touch with the needs ofhigher education.


Opportunities to participate in conversations and communi-cating forums with key administrators and academic depart-ment heads are encouraged. Discussions about the distinctmission, vision, and strategies of individual schools andcolleges can particularly be helpful in understanding depart-mental needs and in identifying what facilities managementcan do to help meet these needs.

It is recommended that members of the Facilities Manage-ment Department management team continue to be activeparticipants in APPA and the Eastern Regional Associationof Physical Plant Administrators. This should be an on-going commitment of active participation for the executivedirector and all other directors. Other important profes-sional organizations where participation is encouragedinclude:

The Professional Grounds management Society (PGMS)The International Executive HousekeepingAssociation (IEHA)The APPA Institute for Facilities Management and theLeadership Academy

8.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

At the request of the institutional representative thissection would include any items or subjects that are notcovered by the criteria in Sections 1 through 7. These itemsmay include those things that are specific to the campus.

Organizational design is influenced by size, strategy, tech-nology, and institutional context among other consider-ations. These factors dictate the most appropriate form oforganization and the combination of these dimensionscreates the general environment or context within which theorganization must operate. In the continually evolving effortto develop and maintain an effective organizational struc-ture, facilities management leaders are encouraged to bemindful of the following.

There is no one best way to design an organization. Thereview team is aware that when it comes to organizationalstructures, there are numerous ways to put the piecestogether, and that there is no “one right way.”

Factors that influence organizational design change overtime.

84

8.1 Organization Structure


Key constituencies, strategic initiatives, and informationrequirements are major considerations in designing anorganization to meet modern facilities managementservice requirements.

The structural forms in use today at our colleges anduniversities are greatly varied. Even though similaritiesexist among institutions of comparable size and classifica-tion, there is little consensus among facilities administra-tors with regard to which organizational form works best.Because of the ever-changing requirements for services,especially at an institution that is undergoing considerabletransition, the organizational structure for facilities man-agement will likely require a strong measure of flexibilityand adaptability to change.

Organizational design work is hard work and time con-suming, and any meaningful organizational changeusually involves difficult decisions.

The review team members’ view on this topic is not one thatis stuck in past practices nor overly influenced by someone’sidea of the perfect organizational alignment and structure.Many factors were taken into consideration before advanc-ing these suggestions, including effective and efficientutilization of resources, organizational goals, challenges, theorganizational history, the institutional context, and thework culture of the offices and departments mostly affected.Communication requirements, business practice require-ments, and the institutional mission and vision for thefuture were also considered. Additionally, prevailing profes-sional facilities management practices, practical experiencesof the review team members, and organizational structuresthat have proven successful at similar kinds of institutionswere carefully considered.

A critical missing piece for facilities management at USMthat is essential for good organizational design is strategy. Asmentioned in Section 1.0: Leadership and Seciton 2.0:Strategic and Operational Planning, there is a need for aclear and concise Facilities Management Department strate-gic direction—strategy shapes structure.

In the absence of FM strategic direction, the review team isat a disadvantage in proposing specific and detailed organi-

85


zational design. We have given consideration to the CFO’sexpressed interest in key issues.5

What is the optimum organizational structure? Does itsupport or inhibit the effective use of HR? How shouldexisting HR and financial resources be allocated?1. Distributed vs. Centralized Model2. Service and Communication

The Current FM Organization StructureThe review team found that the current FM organizationalstructure and alignment has a number of shortcomings thatinhibit communications and overall organizational perfor-mance. Some of these include:

Spans of control regarding manager to supervisor andsupervisor to worker ratios are narrow.

Alignment of functions—environmental services, facilitiesmanagement, engineering and architectural services,administrative services, including finance, HR, IT, andwork service center.

Awkward flow of information—vertical, horizontal, anddownward in the existing hierarchy. The manner inwhich the department operates promotes a “silo” mental-ity or individual “fiefdoms.” Many people see themselvesin the context of the specific service, which they provide.Learning to look at facilities management from the out-side in, from the customers’ perspective, will be a majortriumph. Part of the present management challenge is tobreak down the barriers between the different functionsand to build better teamwork and cooperation within theorganization.

Missing critical functions—work management, preven-tive maintenance, customer service center function.

Organizational Design ConsiderationsThe size of the FM Department and the overall squarefootage and acreage for which FM is responsible is relativelysmall. The multiple sites including Portland, Gorham, andLAC adds some small measure of complexity but notenough to approach the organizational design as separatefacility management entities. It is recommended that thefacilities management organizational design be considered

86

5. Notes from USM Facilities Review Committee, May 16, 2008.


as “One Facilities Management Department” (1-FM) inconcept and in practice, and that, the decisions to centralizeor decentralize functions be designed with a goal to achievethe best productivity and performance value. This couldinclude athletics, residential facilities, and the LAC campusas opportunities for change to occur, and as the FacilitiesManagement Department improves its ability to deliverwanted and needed high-quality services that thesedepartments have declared as absolute needs for successof their respective programs. Facilities management iscurrently not able to deliver these stated requirementsfor service.

The future emphases for facility management services arelikely to be concentrated in the traditional operations andmaintenance functions with de-emphasis on capital projects;especially new construction starts. Therefore, managementemphasis on strengthening of the operation and mainte-nance service functions has strategic merit. Capital projectsthat are funded for addressing deferred maintenance/capitalrenewal needs can easily be managed by the operations andmaintenance (O&M) functional areas. The need for special-ists or engineering support on occasion for deferred mainte-nance/capital renewal projects can be contracted as neededand project management provided by the operations andmaintenance supervisors or midlevel managers. Becauseof the limited funding available for these types ofprojects, the workload should not be overwhelming forthe supervisory/midlevel managers to manage someprojects and simultaneously take care on their O&Mresponsibilities.

Make the Difficult Decisions FirstThe engineering and architectural services are at full staffwith seven positions assigned to this unit. With the majorcapital construction program winding down, this functionalarea should be reviewed for appropriate sizing. The talent inthis unit should be assessed and evaluated for best fit forreassignment where there is a legitimate need identified forparticular skills and abilities in O&M. In this report, thereview team has suggested that all functions associated withenergy management and building automation controls andsystems be aligned with O&M because of the many interde-pendencies between these functions and the facilities main-tenance functions. In addition, FM is greatly in need ofimproving its use of IT and urgently needs a CMMS. There

87


is staff expertise within the engineering and architecturalservices that can do this work.

Facilities management needs to declare its overall mainte-nance management plan and then perform a trades staffinganalysis. It is recommended that the APPA MaintenanceStaffing Guidelines6 be utilized for this analysis. A preventivemaintenance (PM) program function with a dedicated PMteam should be designed into the organization. All buildingelectrical and mechanical equipment and systems and utilityinfrastructure should be included. CMMS should be uti-lized to its fullest capability for recording equipment inven-tory, maintenance history, and materials and parts manage-ment. PM work-order status and completion analysisshould be performed regularly to ensure adherence to workplan, schedule, and maintenance priority.

An initial part of this declaration of a maintenance manage-ment plan is the FM approach and decision on how toprovide remodeling and alteration services. How will theseservices be provided—in-house workforce or contracted?Moreover, who will manage remodel and alterationprojects?

It is recommended that environmental services (custodial,grounds, refuse) be considered as an operations and mainte-nance function with alignment and reporting lines the sameas and equal to facilities maintenance. Facilities maintenanceshould include the utility plant operations and all skilledtrades.

There is a need for administrative and IT services tostrengthen its IT and HR functions. There is also a need todevelop a work management center for work reception intothe department, work authorization, and work priority. Thiswork service center should also serve as a single point ofcontact for customers, customer information on status ofwork requests, information on departmental services of-fered, and in general take a lead role in customer servicealong with the director by proactively outreaching to thecampus customer constituencies. This service center func-tion should have a close working relationship with theoperations and maintenance functions, the director, and the

88

6. Maintenance Staffing Guidelines for Educational Facilities, APPA,Copyright 2002.


various facilities maintenance managers and supervisors onall campuses.

In summary, the following functional alignments are recom-mended:

Administrative ServicesFinancial services, including budget, accounting, andbillingInformation technology systems and supportHuman resources and labor relations, including trainingeducation and developmentWork service center, including work management andcustomer service functionsMotor pool

Architectural ServicesThis functional area should be scaled to meet capital pro-gram needs and departmental and campus architecturalservice needs and include traditional functions for manage-ment of capital projects, role in space database manage-ment, planning, specifications and architectural guidelinedevelopment and update, and liaison with UM systemfacilities office.

Facilities MaintenanceFacilities maintenance services to all university properties,including all maintenance services provided by skilledtrades and environmental services, including operations andmaintenance of campus utilities production, distribution,building automated systems, and energy management andconservation.

89

Director

Administrative Services

Architectural Services

Facilities Maintenance

Technical Trades Environmental Services


In many higher education institutions, a department thatdelivers services to other departments may charge a fee tothe budgets of receiving departments. These internalcharges are often referred to as recharges or chargebacks.Chargebacks are often used to target service departmentssuch as facilities, catering, print service, and informationtechnology, and they apply to only selected services. Forfacilities management the services charged back are gener-ally defined as nonmaintenance services.

It is the review team’s experience that those institutions thatuse chargebacks comprehensively have developed andrefined campus budget philosophy and policy over theyears to allocate all costs to the unit that incurs them.

The use of chargebacks for facilities management varies byinstitutional Carnegie class and institutional governance(public or private). The use of chargebacks appears to behigher among public institutions than private institutions,although neither the review team nor APPA has conductedany extensive research on this topic. The driving forces foruse of chargebacks seems to be the institutions budgetphilosophy where the use of chargebacks to fund internallyprovided services is a basic part of their management cul-ture and tradition. Interestingly, the reverse is also true. Aprimary reason institutions do not use chargebacks is thatthey have not historically been used at the institution or areinconsistent with the institutional budget philosophy.

Most state-supported institutions charge back for internalservices that are provided by facilities management tocampus auxiliary enterprises and other campus service unitsthat are not included in the institutional definition of educa-tion and general (E&G). With some variation, campusfacilities at state-supported institutions are provided fundingfor maintenance by the state for E&G defined facilities andservices. Capital expenditures and nonmaintenance servicesto E&G facilities are typically recharged services.

For facilities management, nonmaintenance services gener-ally include remodel and alterations, departmental equip-ment hook-ups and installations, keys and lock changes as aresult of lost keys or breach of security, signage, specialevents and set-ups, moving, and small nonmaintenancerequests such as bookshelves and painting.

90

8.2 Internal Services/Chargebacks


Clear definitions of maintenance and nonmaintenance arerequired for this to be successful as well as a clear statementof why the recharge is necessary, campus policy, or campusbudget philosophy.

Pricing models, cost allocation, and rate development forchargebacks for facilities varies also among institutions.Some institutions utilize a fully burdened chargeback modelfor labor, material, supplies, and overhead. Others use avariation of this approach and may charge only a percentageof actual costs for providing the service. A number of insti-tutions utilize a campus recharge rate review committee.Here is an example of such a committee utilized at theUniversity of California, San Diego.

Recharge Rate Review CommitteeThis committee is advisory to the controller that reviews andrecommends approval or disapproval of requests to estab-lish new recharge and other income-producing activities,establishment of new recharge rates or revisions to existingrecharge rates as submitted by recharge and other income-producing activities, and proposed corrective action pre-sented by staff in response to an annual review of all existingrecharge rates and recharge and income-producing activi-ties. The committee will review university and other policyproposals affecting recharge and other income-producingactivities.

Ex Officio DepartmentsDirector of Financial Analysis, Resource Managementand Planning (chair)Controller & Assistant Vice Chancellor—Businessand Financial Services

Appointed DepartmentsScripps Institution of OceanographyStudent AffairsAuxiliary & Plant Services (Facilities Management)Business and Financial ServicesMedical Center AdministrationCampus Budget OfficeDevelopment & University RelationsSchool of MedicineAcademic Affairs

91


Where campus departments such as facilities managementare not provided funding for nonmaintenance type services,an alternative to the use of chargebacks is for the institutionto provide funds from a “pool” of campus funds in order topay for these services. Funds available for maintenance andoperations of the USM physical plant are minimal and thefunds that are provided should be fully utilized for mainte-nance work.

With decreasing state funding for facilities operations andmaintenance, increasing costs for almost everything thatfacilities management purchases, and with a substantialneed by the Facilities Management Department to investdollars in a number of important service areas (many ofwhich are recommended in this report), the initiation of amore robust chargeback system may be appropriate.

Members of the FMEP review team have had variousexperiences in working with a variety of chargeback sys-tems at a number of different institutions. Team memberswill be available for any questions on chargebacks forfacilities management services and will be available toprovide additional resources, contacts, policy examples, andprocesses that may be helpful.

On a university campus, construction work attracts theattention of almost everyone on campus as students, faculty,staff, alumni, and the general public witness the growth andevolution of the campus physical environment. Tremendousenergy and effort go into the planning and design of aproject as months and years of planning, raising funds, anddesigning culminate in a construction project. It is duringthe construction phase when the majority of the projectfunds are expended. It is also “crunch-time” when theproject schedule no longer floats and campus commitmentsare starting to be built around the project completion date.It is a phase of the project when the administration of theproject is intended to ensure that the contractor delivers thequality required by the plans and specifications, on time, onbudget, and within the scope of the project intent.

To ensure that a construction project meets these funda-mental requirements, the university should have a system inplace for effective construction contract administration.

In our interviews within the engineering and architecturalservices unit, the review team was presented with a descrip-

92

8.3 Capital Project ConstructionContract Administration


tion of the construction administration process that is inplace for managing construction projects. The processdescribes industry professional practices, and when fol-lowed and applied by skilled project management profes-sionals, should reduce the risk of serious problems withcapital construction projects.

Typically, construction contract administration is the respon-sibility of the head of the Architectural Services or Construc-tion Management Department, with the administrativeresponsibility over the entire construction program. Whenresponsibilities are shifted as was apparently done with theBio-tech, Wishcamper, and Osher Library, the institutionmust be careful where to draw the lines of authority. In anyevent, to enhance the effectiveness in managing the project,the construction manager should be the central contactpoint for all project communication during the constructionphase. All communications between the contractor andarchitect/engineer should absolutely pass through theconstruction manager, as must any communication fromthe campus client, future building occupants, or donor.

To help avoid future project management problems, theconstruction managers’ responsibilities should cover allaspects of contract administration, including the following:7

Review of contract documents during design phaseNegotiations, where applicable, with the contractorduring the contract award phaseManagement of the project budgetManagement of project scheduleInspection of the work for adherence to the contractLiaison between the architect/engineer, contractor,campus client, and other campus departmentsFirst line negotiator of contract disputes

The review team reviewed the issue associated with the factthat some facilities maintenance and operation functions arebeing performed by organizational units external to facilitiesmanagement. At the Gorham campus, cleaning services forresidence hall and dining facilities is being performed byresidence halls, and athletic field maintenance is beingperformed by the Athletic Department. Additionally, at theLAC campus, cleaning services and minor day to day

93

8.4 Multiple FacilitiesManagement Departments—Student Life, Athletics, LAC

7. Facilities Design and Construction Administration, Facilities Manage-ment: A Manual for Plant Administration, APPA, Copyright 1977.


maintenance functions are being performed by a smallwork unit reporting to the dean. The review team does notfind this to be uncommon. Because of the student and eventdriven nature of residence halls and athletic operations,coupled with the geographical separation of Gorham andLAC from the Portland campus, along with the history ofhow the arrangement evolved, the current arrangementmay very well be the best arrangement at this point in time.Care must be taken to ensure that the scope of these workunits do not expand into the area of renovation, electrical,and mechanical work that could subjected the university tocode and compliance issues.

Additionally, periodic reviews should be made to ensurethat imbalance of resources do not occur over time withoutsound reasons. Certain budget controls might need to beput in place to ensure resources intended for facilitiesmaintenance and operation activities in fact are used for theintended purpose. Certain accounting procedures mightalso be needed to ensure that expenditure against facilitiesmaintenance and operation activities are in fact accountedfor as such. Because of the geographic separation of thecampuses, there is no immediate “physical synergy” such asease of sharing of personnel and equipment that wouldoccur by consolidating the function as a direct responsibilityof facilities management.

94


The University of Southern Maine is a challenging environ-ment that contains all of the complex elements that requireapplication of professional facilities management practices.Anything less will shortchange the institution.

It is likely that this report has called attention to a numberof the fundamental issues of the past. Management mustfind a way to address these issues and to engage in activitiesthat will produce a change from the past, and a change fromthe status-quo. The university faces a facilities stewardshipchallenge not entirely unlike that which is faced by universi-ties throughout the country. Facilities stewardship at USMrequires diligent leadership, and facilities management incollaboration with the senior leadership of the institutionsmust define a course of action for its facilities that is soundenough to endure as the campus moves forward.

Many of the challenges that USM facilities management isfacing in its work to improve facility conditions should notbe seen as the sole responsibility of the Facilities Manage-ment Department. The university is facing a formidablebacklog of space that is in need of renewal. USM is con-fronted with built in costs of deferred maintenance, renova-tion, and renewal. Numerous campus facilities have outlivedthe functions that they were originally designed to accom-modate. The need for rehabilitation of existing facilities isnot just a matter of aging, but with keeping up with theever-changing code requirements, compliance with ADA,environmental regulations, energy conservation measures,and new mandates for security improvements. Years ago,many of the campus buildings had gone past any reasonable

95

Conclusion

■


cycle of depreciation without major upgrading. In fact,without funding for operation and maintenance of newspace, the university is facing fast track depreciation of itsnew buildings when it opens the doors. USM has manysimilarities with other institutions in the Northeast andother regions of the country, struggling to meet an increas-ing array of budgetary demands while revenues have de-clined or not kept up with rising costs. USM’s institutionaland financial challenges are inextricably tied with its capac-ity to sustain the quality of its physical environment. It isincumbent of FM leadership to ensure that the departmentdoes not become insular from the larger view of institutionalneeds. It will be increasingly important that each member ofthe Facilities Management Department—from the front-linestaff to the executive director—continue to championcampus facility needs, but at the same time look outward atthe larger needs of the university. Facilities managementmust become a more visible player in the campus plangoing forward and increase its role as participant, collabora-tor, and supporter of needs described in the campus plan.There is a need for FM leaders to think holistically about itsdepartmental organizational design in order to increasemore productive interactions, both internally and externallyto the department.

There is clearly an opportunity for facilities management tostrengthen its basic operations and maintenance services, tocontinue to find ways to do more with less, to also see thebig picture needs of the campus, and to develop and imple-ment its operational strategy accordingly. It will be impor-tant for the department leaders to find ways to becomemore effective in management of resources, includingfinancial resources, HR, and its physical resources.

To accomplish this successfully, the FM organization mustembark on a continuum of change that, at a minimum,matches the changing environment of the university. Thiskind of change or transition for the organization will requirethe fullest attention and focus of management. Additionally,management must recognize and understand that themagnitude of change will require all the sensitivities of amajor change initiative. It will be necessary for managementto develop a clear and compelling vision and strategy for thedepartment with goals and objectives linked to this strat-egy—goals that are actionable and achievable. Managementmust effectively communicate this vision and strategy,

96


establish a sense of urgency, form a strong managementteam with the authority and responsibility to make deci-sions, empower others to act on customer service improve-ments, and seek out and find new approaches to getting thenecessary work done. This transition must also includebetter use of technology, relevant performance managementand measures, and a stronger dose of collaboration withinFM and with campus departments.

In the course of this review, we were constantly reminded ofthe numerous challenges facing those who work in theFacilities Management Department. It is our sincere hopethat the people of the University of Southern Maine campuswill find a way to work together and overcome the cumula-tive affects of its many campus physical plant challenges.

All members of the APPA review team—Jack Hug, ErnestHunter, and Dan Johnson—found the review to be bothchallenging and professionally rewarding.

97

university of southern maine...university of southern maine overview 1 the criterion that the review...

Documents