Strategic Planning Power: Life Cycle
and Space
p
Utilization Tools
S06
Strategic Planning Power: Life Cycle and
Space Utilization Tools
This presentation is protected by US and
International Copyright laws. Reproduction,
distribution, display and use of the presentation
without written permission of the speaker is
prohibited.
S06
Strategic Planning Power: Life Cycle and
Space Utilization Tools
This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing
professional education. As such, it does not include content
that may be deemed or construed to constitute approval,
sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any method,
product, service, enterprise or organization. The statements
expressed by speakers, panelists, and other participants
reflect their own views and do not necessarily reflect the
views or positions of The American Institute of Architects or of
AIA components, or those of their respective officers,
directors, members, employees, or other organizations,
groups or individuals associated with them
them. Questions related
to specific products and services may be addressed at the
conclusion of this presentation.
S06
Learning Objectives
• Evaluate life cycle
y
and space
p
utilization tools to advance
the strategic plan, design and sustainable renovation
• Identify ways that life cycle and space utilization tools
may better assist clients to assess and improve existing
space
• Recognize the connection between the use, renovation,
and re-use of space and a building's "life cycle," as well
as the value of being able to articulate that connection to
clients and funders
S06
Speakers
(List alphabetically by last name regardless of speaking order)
• Rick Biedenweg
Biedenweg, PhD
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
408-374-9957
rickb@ppcg com
rickb@ppcg.com
• Sally Grans-Korsh, FAIA
System Director, Facilities Planning and Programming
Offi off the
Office
th Chancellor
Ch
ll
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
(651-296-7083)
sally grans@so mnscu edu
sally.grans@so.mnscu.edu
S06
Agenda
ge da
1. System Understanding and Objectives
Applicability to other Owners
2 Life
2.
Life-cycle
cycle Modeling
3. Configuring the Model
4. Deliverables and Results
5. Facilities Condition
C
Index ((FCI)
C ) used in
Master Planning and Capital Budget
p
Utilization used in Master Planning
g
6. Space
and Capital Budget
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group and Office
of Chancellor Facilities
1/3 of the State’s Building Space
• 7 state universities
• 25 community technical colleges
• 54 campuses in 46 communities
• 21 million square academic
• 5 million square feet revenue
Other State Agencies
• 6,937 acres with
28.8 Million GSF
• 320 acres of roof
Mn State
Colleges &
Universities
26 Million GSF
University of Minnesota
28.5 Million GSF
S06
S06
Problem Solvers
Architects Assist Owners:
decipher building condition & usage issues
Analysis: Thoughtful - Key is Building Knowledge
Communication Skills: Be a Translator/Interpreter
p
Linkage of Concepts: Condition – Use - Function
Options for Actions: Vision – Incremental Plan
100%
Average Weekly Usage
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 11:00
AM 12:00
AM AM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
Hour
Budget History
Example
a p e of
o Proposed
oposed Requests
equests to Actual
ctua Budget
udget Proposed:
oposed
Major Capital:
Major Repair
Initiatives
Property
T t l
Total:
2006
$270 million
$220
$ 24
$ 20
$554
2008
$280 million
$307
$ 20.2
$ 13.2
$620 4
$620.4
2010
$344 million
$356
$14
$10.8
$724 8
$724.8
Actual Requests to Enacted Funding:
$ in millions
S06
1998
2000
2002/02
2004/05
2006
2008
Capital Budget
Request
$214.4
$230.0
$268.4
$292.6
$280.4
$350.2
Appropriation
Enacted
$143 1
$143.1
$131 1
$131.1
$218 6
$218.6
$213 6
$213.6
$191 4
$191.4
$234 2
$234.2
% of Request
67%
57%
81%
73%
68%
67%
Backlog and 10-year Forecast
Campus: SF
g Fine Arts -1
Bldg:
CRV (($000's):) $120 Buildingg Number: 006A
Backlog and 5 year Renewal Forecast by building ($000's)
Backlog 2008
2005
Subsystem:
b 1 Building Exteriors (Hard)
b.1
$336 2012$0
c.1 Elevators and Conveying Systems
$0
$0
d.1 HVAC - Equipment/Controls
$176
$0
e.1 HVAC - Distribution Systems
$0
$805
f 1 Electrical
f.1
El t i l - Equipment
E i
t
$291
$0
h.1 Fire Protection
$205
$0
i.1 Built-in Equipment and Specialties
$0
$218
jj.1 Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors
$302
$0
Total by building
$1,310 $1,023
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
S06
GSF: 48,470 Year Built: 1953 FCI: 0.12
2006
2009
$0
$136
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$136
2007
2010
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$149
$149
2008
2011 2009
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$336
$136
$176
$805
$291
$205
$218
$451
$2,618
Renewal Curves
Annual Renewal Needs
$80.0
$70.0
$60 0
$60.0
$50.0
Renewal
Average
$40.0
$30 0
$30.0
$20.0
Year
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
S06
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
$0.0
1985
$10.0
Why are These Useful?
•Save
Save money
•Increase (the likelihood of) funding
•Improve
Improve project scheduling
•Integrate with modern capital plans
•Provide
Provide alignment with space utilization needs
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Typical Campus Objectives
Predict (system-wide) when building systems
need
d tto be
b replaced
l
d or renovated,
t d and
d th
the
associated costs.
Estimate the magnitude of the backlog (DM)
Tool for potential building owners, current and for
planning
Provide a sustainable planning tool:
S06
•
system profiles of each building
•
easily
y updated
p
•
inexpensive to implement and maintain
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Typical Underlying Objectives
 Collect information that will support the
creation of multi-year capital plans.
 Save money
a)) minimizing
g ((or eliminating)
g) condition assessments
b) identifying buildings to “consume”
c) consolidating capital projects
 within buildings
g
 across systems
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Life Cycle Modeling and
Renewal Curves
C
• Concept of Life Cycle Planning:
Three Key Elements:
(1)
Building Systems have known life expectancies.
((2))
Remaining
g life of each building
g system
y
can be
estimated.
(3)
Renewal costs can be accurately estimated.
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
S06
“Maintenance” Definitions
Annual Expenditures for
Facilities Maintenance
Definitions:
•Routine Maintenance:
periodic “tune-ups”
Modernization
Routine
Maintenance
•Capital Renewal:
replacing major subsystems
•Renewal of Backlog (DM):
Backlog
Renewal
necessary
y renewal work that has
been deferred
•Modernization:
responding to changes in standards
and/or program
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Example of a Renewal Curve
MnSCU Renewal Needs over Time
$140
Millio
ons of $$$
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
Year
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
2056
2052
2048
2044
2040
2036
2032
2028
2024
2020
2016
2012
2008
$0
Example of a Renewal Curve
Renewall Needs
R
N d over Time
Ti
State Space
Millions
s of $$$
$200
$150
$100
$50
Year
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
2054
2050
2046
2042
2038
2034
2030
2026
2022
2018
2014
2010
$0
What Contributes to Renewal Cycles?
 MnSCU Campus Construction Cycles
MnSCU GSF by Construction Data
(GF Space only)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
,
,
GSF
3,000,000
2,000,000
1 000 000
1,000,000
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
S06
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1930
1920
1910
1900
1890
0
Configuring
g
g the Model
Process for Developing a Facilities Renewal Resource Model
All Facilities
1. Determine focus of Capital
Renewal/Deferred
Maintenance Study
facilities
to be included
Categories of Facilities
22. Group
G
facilities
f iliti
into common categories
3. Identify
Id tif sub-systems
b
t
for each facility category
facilities
excluded
Subsystems
y
4. Determine life cycle
parameters
and renewal cost p
for each sub-system
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Life cycle and cost
S06
Why
y Costs are Accurate
• Costs are determined from Actual Campus
Experience: these are also the Current
Replacement Value costs
Bid documents and schedules-of-values are used for actual
projects.
projects
This information is compared with a PPCG data base of over
25 million gsf of actual university projects (adjusted for labor
rates and special circumstances).
The resulting cost data is then tested against industry
experience, for validation purposes.
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
Facilities Condition Index = FCI
• FCI = Deferred Maintenance Backlog (Backlog)
divided by the Current Replacement Value of the
physical plant(CRV).
• CRV is calculated based on the cost of
replacement from the square footage and type of
b ildi ((simple,
building
i l complex,
l
etc.).
t ) Thi
This iis updated
d t d
with inflation.
• Backlog calculated each year from the data
entered by the campus. Key indicator of the
campus/building conditions! Campus/owner
coordinator for this FRRM activity is important!
S06
FRRM™ Results
Campus:
p SF
Bldg: Fine Arts -1
CRV ($000's): $120 Building Number: 006A
GSF: 48,470 Year Built: 1953 FCI: 0.12
Backlog and 5 year Renewal Forecast by building ($000's)
Backlog 2008
2005 2009
2006 2010
2007 2011
2008 2012
2009
Subsystem:
b.1 Building Exteriors (Hard)
$336
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
c.1 Elevators and Conveying Systems
$0
$0
$136
$0
$0
$0
d.1 HVAC - Equipment/Controls
$176
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
e.1 HVAC - Distribution Systems
$0
$805
$0
$0
$0
$0
f.1 Electrical - Equipment
$291
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
h 1 Fi
h.1
Fire PProtection
t ti
$205
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
i.1 Built-in Equipment and Specialties
$0
$218
$0
$0
$0
$0
j.1 Interior Finishes: Walls, Floors, Doors
$302
$0
$0
$149
$0
$0
Total by building
$1 310 $1,023
$1,310
$1 023
$136
$149
$0
$0
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
S06
Total
$336
$136
$176
$805
$291
$205
$218
$451
$2 618
$2,618
FRRM™ Results
FRRM
MnSCU Renewal Needs over Time
Millions of $$$
$
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
Year
S06
The Pacific Partners Consulting Group
2056
2052
2048
2044
2040
2036
2032
2028
2024
2020
2016
2012
2008
$20
$0
Mn State Colleges
g & Universities
Benchmark Data - FCI
System
University of Texas (15)
University of Hawaii (11)
CUNY (21)
SUNY (36)
California State University (24)
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (53)
Oregon University System (7)
University of California (10)
S06
Low
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0 06
0.06
0.07
25th
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.06
0 16
0.16
0.11
Average
0.06
0.07
00.11
0.11
0.12
0.13
0 18
0.18
0.23
75th
0.06
0.07
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.15
0 21
0.21
0.27
High
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.20
0.36
0.27
0 24
0.24
0.32
Mn State Colleges and Universities
Benchmark Data – Age of Buildings
Percentage of Buildings over 30-years Old
System
University of Texas (15)
California State Universityy ((24))
University of Hawaii (11)
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (53)
CUNY (21)
Oregon University System (7)
SUNY (36)
University of California
S06
Low
2%
8%
0%
0%
15%
2%
0%
44%
Average
32%
56%
58%
63%
65%
66%
73%
75%
High
47%
100%
89%
98%
100%
89%
100%
92%
Benchmark Data – Complex Share
Percent of Buildings with Complex Systems
System
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (53)
CUNY (21)
California State University (24)
SUNY (36)
Universityy of Hawaii (11)
( )
University of Texas (15)
Oregon University System (7)
University of California (10)
S06
Low
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
26%
25th
0%
0%
1%
1%
6%
9%
0%
31%
Average
7%
8%
15%
16%
19%
29%
32%
43%
75th
11%
12%
20%
17%
15%
66%
37%
50%
High
21%
20%
24%
90%
40%
79%
42%
75%
Mn State Colleges & Universities
Benchmark Data – Renewal
Average Annual Renewal as a Percent of CRV
S06
S t
System
L
Low
25th Average
A
75th
Hi h
High
California State University (24)
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (53)
University of Hawaii (11)
SUNY (36)
CUNY
University of Texas (15)
Oregon University System (7)
Universityy of California
1.2%
1 1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.4%
1 5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.6%
1.3%
1 4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.6%
1 6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.4%
1 7%
1.7%
1.5%
1.6%
1 8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.5%
1 9%
1.9%
1.5%
1.7%
1 9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.4%
1 5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1 7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Campus Space Growth History
MnSCU GSF by Construction Data
(GF Space only)
Millions
6
5
4
3
GSF
2
1
S06
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
1930
1920
1910
1900
1890
0
FCI: Master Planning with backlog
and renewal
S06
Using FCI in the Master Plan Discussion
Sample
Using FCI in the Master Plan Discussion
Sample
Sample
Major Renovation
Sample
Sample
Before: Failing
exterior brick
$8.4 million
After: New
skin/roof at MSU
Mankato Athletic
Renovation
Ankey Kell 2005
Kayoma Photo
S06
Before: Mechanical
system inoperable and
After: Mechanical system
fresh air intake becomes
branding symbol at MSU
Mankato
Gym
y Remodel
Ankey Kell 2005
S06
Before: Exterior, tired, worn, light-less
After: Small 1,500 sq ft addition with light!
Plus Renovation 34,000 GSF - $2.5 million
Kryzsko Commons Solarium Addition
Sirney
y and Associates Architects 2005
34,000 square feet and $2.5 million
S06
S06
Before: Major interior: Outdated
mechanical, electrical and plumbing
$9.2 million 80,000
$
,
GSF
After: Revitalized, modern, comfortable
Southwest Mn State University Library
Hay Dobbs 2005
S06
Before
and After
Southwest Mn State University
Library
Hay Dobbs 2005
Simple new color
palette and furniture
economically
modernize this space.
S06
Conclusion for using FCI
• Backlog and renewal are a part of planning: this
data is derived from the FRRM data entered yearly by
campus personnel.
• FCI is critical for facilities understanding using
FRRM report with its findings (just like good old
factors like reducing your energy, good access,
efficient operational design layout and security!)
• FCI data used to justify all projects (from FRRM)
• FCI is one of the critical key dashboard
accountability measurements the campus is
evaluated by !
S06
Using Both FCI/Space Utilization in
th Master
the
M t Plan
Pl Discussion
Di
i
S06
S06
Full schedule: mostly 8 - 5
S06
S06
Note: No classes before 11 am M – W – Th
No classes on Friday or Tuesday after 2 !?!?!
S06
Strong overall
St
ll
room use –
but still times
that
are available
Analysis for the Master Plan
S06
Proposed Reorganization
for the Master Plan
S06
Normandale Community College
Existing
E
i ti gym:
space
utilization
indicated
conversion
needed to
create
classroom
space
S06
AKA Architects
First Floor:
two
classrooms,
classrooms
lab and
fitness
created
from
reuse of
gym
Funded in 2008 and
now under
construction
S06
Second floor
infill:
five classrooms,
offices and
seminar
Rochester Community Technical College
The ultimate sustainability;
Building reuse
from one kind of program
to another kind of program
S06
Conversion of the gym
to Allied Health and
Classrooms
in 2005
S06
BWBR Inc
IInserted
d new floor
fl
into
i
gym:
Created varying spaces from offices,
Classrooms, labs and great revitalized spaces!
Note:
Holes
from basketball
hoop station
S06
Introduction of
two story space
and additional
natural light
S06
Rochester
Community
Technical College
Introduction of
two story space
and additional
natural
t
l light
li ht
S06
BWBR Inc
Typical classroom
S06
Before at upper right Facilities Condition
poor and Space Use poor– $500,000
initiative
After lower left note: utilities on the
perimeter and moveable tables allow for
greater future science lab flexibility
M West
Mn
W t Granite
G it Falls
F ll Science
S i
Initiative
I iti ti
Hay Dobbs 2005
Before: Interiors outdated and space utilization poor due to existing conditions
After: MSCTC Moorhead: new carpet, paint and furniture transfigure a tired classroom!
S06
After: MSCTC Moorhead: new carpet, paint and furniture transfigure a tired classroom!
Note: table flexibility in that they can be set up ‘lecture’ style or brought together for a
circle team conversation.
S06
After: MSCTC Moorhead: new carpet, paint and furniture transfigure a tired classroom!
S06
Existing Lab Space - interior space gutted
to create new academic purpose
S06
Mn State Community Technical College Moorhead
Corridor and lab space redone – sophisticated colors,
colors shapes
and forms –emphasizing a revitalized learning appearance !
S06
YHR Architects
Added natural light and ceiling extended sense of light and
updated student common spaces creating inviting areas to
study network and casual learning
study,
learning.
S06
YHR Architects
YHR Architects
Mn State Community Technical College Moorhead
Classroom and seminar room
furniture allow multiple arrangements
creating flexibility for various
classroom configurations!
Simple,
Si
l strong colors
l
and
d
lighting enliven space!
S06
YHR Architects
S06
Review and analyze underutilized areas that are
outdated large, obsolete, recreational spaces
Do you have outdated recreational
or large areas that are underutilized?
Obsolete space: the new frontier!
S06
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
architects
S06
Library space inserted into underused cafeteria space
Mn South East Technical College - Winona
New library created in an oversized cafeteria space;
utilization
tili ti and
d an active
ti center
t has
h been
b
created!
t d!
S06
PARTNERS
& SIRNY
architects
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
architects
Re-think
Re-purpose
Re-vitalize!
Campus
reinvigorated the
main ‘town square’:
library,
cafeteria and
administration
d i i t ti
S06
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
Architects 2007
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
Architects 2007
B k
Book
Admin
Only new
S footage
Sq
f t
S06
Cafeteria
Library
Mn South East Technical College
Red Wing
Mn Southeast Technical College –Red Wing
Small entry adds new vantage point to campus.
campus
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
Architects 2007
Library space now exposed to both exterior and Cafeteria
Cafeteria serves as additional
Learning Resource Space
Mn Southeast Technical College –Winona
Small entry adds new vantage point to campus.
S06
PARTNERS & SIRNY Architects
Small entry adds new perspective!
Welcoming entry; provides casual learning space.
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
architects
Small entry adds
new perspective!
PARTNERS &
SIRNY
architects
Using Condition Assessment and Space
Utilization to focus on areas of revitalization
in the Master Plan Discussion
S06
Interiors in Deferred Maintenance Backlog Before: Corridor – outdated carpet, rough
sawn dated and dirty concrete, dull, outdated and uninspired lighting and ceiling grid.
S06
After: New carpet and walls with greater transparency with lighting and material vibrancy.
Revitalized ceiling plain with lights and shape.
$6 8 million
$6.8
illi D
Dakota
k t C
County
t T
Technical
h i lC
College
ll
Wold Architects 2006
S06
Interiors in Deferred Maintenance Backlog Before outdated materials, tired, worn out.
Space had no real purpose to the space: a ‘walk thru’ that was just big and empty !
S06
After: Reinvented space with a purpose for gathering to continue the collegiate conversatio
softer furniture, lighting, textures that create an inviting space and bring purpose and activ
Reoriented entry doors to prevent the ‘pass thru’ sense of space.
Wold Architects 2006
Before and After
Dakota County Technical
College
Wold Architects - 2006
S06
Using Space Utilization
in the Master Plan Discussion - Existing
S06
Using Space Utilization
in the Master Plan Discussion - Options
S06
Using Space Utilization
in the Master Plan Discussion - Options
S06
Interiors upgraded when other
corresponding systems are improved such
as mechanical: Think of space in a new
way
way…..corridors
corridors have movement; purpose
purpose,
interaction - so add some cyber movement,
energy and excitement!
S06
After: Entry between student
commons and main entry at
Northland CTC Thief River Falls;
Technology Staff created 2005
S06
After: Northland CTC Thief River Falls cyber space off of
an existing corridor created heavily used student space.
Neon, leather, glass tables, stainless steel;
grandfather’s institution!
this is not yyour g
S06
Conclusion on FCI and Space Utilization
• Backlog, renewal and space utilization are key parts
of planning
• Both FRRM - FCI and Space Use are critical for
facilities understanding
• FCI data: derived from FRRM data entered yearly
by
y campus
p personnel.
p
• Space Utilization: derived from the student ISRS
system; campus personnel control the coding of
classroom labs and other
classroom,
other.
• FRRM - FCI data and FCI is used to justify both
Capital
p
and Major
j Repair
p p
projects
j
FCI is one of the
key dashboard accountability measurements
campus is evaluated by!
• Space Utilization is an indicator used to justify
capital projects Space Utilization is an indicator.
.
S06
Problem Solvers
Architects Assist Owners:
decipher building condition & usage issues
Analysis:
y
YOUR Building Knowledge
Communication:
Be a Translator/Interpreter
Linkage of Concepts:
Condition – Use - Function
Options for Actions:
Vision – Incremental Plan
Ringdahl Architects Inc 2007
The Pacific
Th
P ifi Partners
P t
Consulting
C
lti G
Group:
Rick Biedenweg (408-374-9957)
rickb@ppcg.com
Mn State College &Universities
Sally Grans-Korsh, FAIA, System Director
Facilities Planning (651-296-7083)
(651 296 7083)
sally.grans@so.mnscu.edu
Metropolitan State University
BTR Architects - 1996
North Hennepin Community College
Kodet Architects Inc.
2005
S06
Lake Superior College – TLPA Architects 1998