An Coiste Feabhais Riarachán agus Seirbhísí
The Committee on Administration and Services Quality Improvement
The Administration and Services Quality Assurance Programme 2003 – 04
REVIEW OF
THE BUILDINGS OFFICE
Final Report
February 2004
BuildingsOfficeFinalReport04
0
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
Introduction & Context
This report arises from an exercise carried out by a Review Group regarding the Buildings
Office, NUI Galway on 2 – 5 December 2003. The Review Group consisted of:
• Mr. Jim Cahill, Director, Facilities Planning Division, University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
• Mr. Aidan Grannell, Buildings Officer, University College Dublin
• Professor Michael Guiry, Director, Martin Ryan Institute, NUI Galway
• Mr. Martin Heffernan, Manager, Professional & Technical Services, Department of
Education & Science (Chair)
• Ms. Sinéad Ní Fhaoláin, Acting Director of Computer Services, NUI Galway, acting
as Rapporteur.
In advance of the visit the Buildings Office had already prepared and submitted a SelfAssessment Report to the Quality Office which, with other documentation, was made
available to the Review Group. The group found the report to be excellent and reflective
of significant effort, long-term commitment and a desire for change on the part of
Buildings Office staff. However, the Review Group wishes to record its regret that the
Sports Attendants declined the opportunity to participate in this progressive exercise.
NUI Galway has developed at an accelerated pace particularly in the last 10 years. These
changes have generated greater expectations of, and increased demands on, all units,
including the Buildings Office. It was noted that the structure and systems of the Buildings
Office have only been partly revised to take account of developments. However, the
Office has been forward looking to the extent that it has recently developed a strategy in
line with the University’s Strategy. One of the key recommendations therefore of the
Review Group is that a structure be put in place to support the aims of the strategy. The
group wishes to fully endorse the major recommendations of the Self-Assessment Report,
while adding others which it feels appropriate based on:
• A tour of the Campus
• A visit to all the offices and facilities of the Buildings Office
• Meetings with:
o all the managers of the Buildings Office and representative staff from all
sections
o Heads and Deans (or their nominees)
o Students’ Union representatives
o Meetings with UMT members.
These recommendations constitute the majority of this report, under the headings of Restructuring, Organisation of Work, Communications Plan and Resources. The Review
Group observed throughout the meetings with senior University Staff that there was a
strong consistency of concerns and suggestions. Through the implementation of these
recommendations it is envisaged that improved structures and systems will develop in the
Buildings Office, leading to an improvement in the delivery of a support service in
accordance with the strategic aims of the University.
1
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
Re-structuring
The Buildings Office Self-Assessment Report recognizes that its current organizational
structure has remained largely unchanged since the 1970’s. Furthermore, its structures are
not designed to respond to current service demands and emerging strategies aimed at
improving its delivery of service to the campus community.
The Review Group heard from several campus constituencies that depend on services
provided by the Buildings Office. While they were quick to praise individuals within the
Buildings Office, they clearly perceived that the current organizational structure inhibited
the delivery of consistent and reliable services that are responsive to their needs and
slowed the development of a customer-oriented approach.
The Review Group agrees that restructuring the Buildings Office is a critical priority if
real improvement is to be effected in the delivery of support services to the University.
Moreover, it is considered that this restructuring should take place without delay and
before other strategies for service improvements are implemented so that they can have
optimum impact. The restructuring should be carried out in tandem with an assessment of
the type and levels of staffing, required to ensure the delivery of quality services, and
should also be communicated carefully within the Buildings Office and to the University
community.
It was evident to the group that, like other organisations, there are tensions within the
Buildings Office, which hinder its efficiency as an organisation. The group believes that
the restructuring recommendations outlined below should help to address this issue.
The Review Group identified several key elements that are of critical importance in the
discussions on structure and organisation and the following are recommended:
•
•
•
Role of Vice-President for Physical Resources
It is understandable that from time to time, staff and students will contact the VicePresident for Physical Resources to resolve problems related to routine operational
issues. The Vice-President should have an open, transparent and reliable structure to
which these inquiries and their responses can be channelled. This will enable the
Vice-President to reinforce the systems that are put in place to deliver routine services
and to follow up on complaints at the appropriate level of the organisation.
The Name of the Unit
The name of the Buildings Office should be changed to Physical Resources to reflect
its new focus and modernisation.
Institutional planning
The Director of Buildings should play a greater role in institutional planning to ensure
that critical ongoing facilities planning and operational issues are fully considered in
the executive decision-making process. Specifically, in support of the both the
University, and of the Buildings Office as a highly specialized service function, it was
felt that a Group of Senior Administrators should be established, in line with section
3.3 of the Focused Review of Quality 2000. This would facilitate the regular proactive
engagement of the Director with UMT, along with his senior colleagues on campus
such as the Directors of Computer Services and Human Resources and the Librarian.
This group would likely be chaired/convened by a member of UMT, and would be a
further support for the Vice-President for Physical Resources.
2
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Job Description and Compensation of the Director
The job description and compensation of the Director should be reviewed and
evaluated as soon as possible, to ensure that the role is clearly and appropriately
defined and that compensation is commensurate with the level of responsibility and
equitable with positions of comparable responsibility in the sector.
Planning and Development Unit
The recent establishment of this unit, with a clear function and responsibility, appears
to have provided a successful focus in the management of major capital projects. This
unit to be used as a model for the management of projects of all sizes.
Small Projects Group
The establishment of a Small Projects Group, aligned with compatible functions such
as space management, etc. is proposed. It is recommended that this Group be given a
similar role for small projects to the role which the Planning & Development Unit has
for major capital projects, coordinating all activities and customer communications
regarding small project delivery.
In-house Design
The Review Group believes that the Buildings Office should review the current
practice in regard to in-house design activity with a view to moving toward a reliance
on external design services, using the expertise of the Buildings Engineering Managers
in a project brief and project management role in line with industry practice and with
the aims of the new Small Projects Group as recommended below.
General Services
It was felt that the delivery of general services (mail, stewarding, etc.) should be
improved by the appointment of a number of managers with responsibility for
dedicated zones across the Campus.
Physical Plant Maintenance
In response to proposals it is recommended that a unit be established with primary
responsibility for physical plant maintenance, including routine and preventative
maintenance, separate from the project delivery units. This unit should provide the
appropriate technical support to project activity as necessary with a primary focus on
maintenance of the physical plant.
Value for Money
It is recommended that strong consideration be given to the creation of a new post with
specific skills in quantity surveying to perform a consistent and focused ‘value for
money’ function in all service delivery areas.
Clearly Defined Roles
The new organizational structure must establish clearly defined roles for managers of
the service units within the Buildings Office. The description of these positions must
stress the responsibilities of leadership, management and supervision focused on
customer service, continual quality improvement and maintaining accountability
within their areas of responsibilities. Appropriate training should be provided.
Organisation of Work
•
Work Request Management and Room Booking systems
The shortcomings of both of these existing systems have been clearly identified in the
Self-Assessment Report and by staff and student feedback to the Review Group. It
should be noted that there was positive appreciation of the work of the co-ordinator of
the existing Work Request Management system. Both systems are due to be replaced
3
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and it is expected that this will significantly improve the organisation of these aspects
of the Buildings Office work, including the problematical area of teaching space
management. There is a heightened expectation of the performance of this system
amongst staff and students, consequently it is recommended that these expectations are
managed through the Communications Plan outlined below. In addition, the later
recommendation regarding staff and student planning is relevant to the successful
implementation of this recommendation and should accordingly be effected in
conjunction with it.
Facilities of the Buildings Office
Feedback from user groups and Buildings Office managers indicate that there is a need
for purpose-designed space (avoiding cellular and isolated offices in order to improve
teamwork) to include a front office facility, with the suggestion that this provides
direct access for students to the Room Booking system.
Maintenance Store
Ideally, the next available centrally located building project on campus should include
adequate provision for the Buildings Office maintenance store, thus allowing for the
demolition of the current unsightly store which is accommodated on a prime central
site.
Teamwork
The process of preparing for the Quality Review was reported by Buildings Office
staff to be quite a productive one. It is recommended that the process be continued as
part of the Quality Management System.
Information Systems Management
The new Work Request Management and Room Booking systems will mean a
significant increase in the array of information systems in use by the Buildings Office.
Whilst specific managers will have responsibility for the operation of individual
systems, it is recommended that either the duties of a manager be increased or that a
person be appointed to have overall management of the full array of systems in the
Buildings Office.
Building Management System (BMS)
It is recognised that the BMS is a critical application for the delivery of many aspects
of the services of the Buildings Office. Ideally, this system should be extended on a
planned basis to all the physical resources of the University.
Health & Safety
It was noted that there is a very effective working relationship between the Fire
Prevention Officer and the Health & Safety Advisor. It is recommended that a
strategic review of the overall function of Health & Safety be carried out to address the
specific legislative compliance issues, particularly in relation to academic departments.
Sports
The Review Group wishes again to record its regret that the Sports Attendants chose
not to take the opportunity to participate in this excellent progressive quality exercise.
It is strongly recommended that a strategic review be carried out of the Sports area in
order to address a number of issues including the perceived poor quality of service to
students and various staff issues.
New Research Units
Clarity should be provided by the University on the servicing of the new high-demand
research units so that appropriate prioritisation of support can take place and the
resource needs identified.
Service Metrics
4
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
Service Metrics need to be established in line with best quality practices so that the
service can be benchmarked and improved over time and so that additional resources
can be requisitioned where shown to be required.
•
•
•
Physical Plant Maintenance
The current planning system which facilitates the repair, and where necessary
replacement, of physical plant should be enhanced.
Energy management
Ongoing commitment should be given to proactive energy management which has
successfully reduced energy costs in the past.
Formalisation of Complaint Procedure
A system for dealing centrally with complaints should be instituted.
Communications Plan
The need for such a plan, essential to underpinning quality customer service particularly in
the context of fundamental organizational restructuring, is compelling in the view of the
Review Group. In its present operating mode it is felt that the aims and aspirations of the
Buildings Office are not adequately known to the campus community, and, to judge from
feedback from customers, in some cases not known at all. It may well be that those within
the Buildings Office function of the University, while committed and dedicated in their
endeavours, are continually diverted to emergency and urgent items, thus keeping them
from more strategic issues, particularly in relation to communications. The
Communications Plan should ensure that the University community at large is fully aware
of the Buildings Office work and plans, and that transparency prevails in relation to roles
and responsibilities within the function itself. It was felt that the notion of a quality
customer service should be a primary driver in the information supply. The Plan should
also serve to outline re-structuring plans and progress. Accordingly, the Review Group
makes the following recommendations:
•
Website
This site, which is already in development, should be integrated with the University
website to provide all necessary information on contact points for relevant service
providers in the Buildings Office. The Communications Plan itself should also be
available on-line.
•
Newsletter
It was felt by the Review Group that the production of a regular newsletter would
complement the proposed web site, informing staff and students of developments,
progress and initiatives. Both web and Newsletter could also be of some considerable
use in communicating the limitations of what can actually be achieved, thereby
assisting staff and students, and possibly supporting the Buildings Office in securing
additional resources.
Personal Interface with Users
The established communication conduit into each department should be strengthened
by the establishment of a system of “ambassadors” within the Buildings Office. These
staff would regularly liaise with all university departments.
Intra-departmental Communications
•
•
5
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
•
•
•
•
It is felt that intra-departmental communications would be improved by regular
meetings of appropriate groupings within the Buildings Office. The outcomes of such
meetings should be available for the benefit of the function as a whole.
Front-of-house
The Review Group acknowledges the urgent need to identify and strengthen the
“front-of-house” element, allowing a “One-Stop Shop” approach with all
communications channelled through this “helpdesk”. In this way queries and
complaints alike are effectively dispatched to specific personnel with remits to deal
with various issues. This recommendation and the related one above on the new Work
Request Management and Room Booking systems should improve this area
significantly.
Event Planning
It is felt that the Buildings Office group need a formal conduit to ensure early
involvement in such planning, bearing in mind their often significant logistical
demands.
Staff and Student Planning
It is clear to the Review Group that academic staff must take appropriate responsibility
for the planning of teaching space, as the Buildings Office depend on such planning
and its communication to them to effectively manage this central resource. It is
recommended in accordance with staff feedback to the Review Group that regular
meetings be held between staff and the Buildings Office group Equally, the Students’
Union should be encouraged by the Vice-President and the Director to revert to the
previously successful practice of meeting with appropriate Buildings Office staff
regularly, as recommended above.
Customer Satisfaction Survey
An independent University-wide survey should be carried out, particularly in relation
to cleaning and other selected services, including Sports.
Resources
The Review Group recognises that some of the recommendations made above are resource
dependent. It is hoped that the University will appreciate, even in these financially
challenged times, the major significance of the outcome of this Quality Review for the
future development of the Buildings Office and consequently the University. The Group
would like to make the following recommendations:
• Maintenance Backlog Fund
This should be restored. This was started some years ago by the HEA and recently
withdrawn. The maintenance situation will simply deteriorate if this does not happen
and lack of funding in this area will be exposed as a false economy. NUI Galway
cannot fund at this level (current estimates indicate a cost of €98m to cover
maintenance and replacement of buildings), so external funding must be raised.
• Infrastructural Backlog Funds
NUI Galway has been setting aside and should continue to set aside such funds to
cover essential works such as the Quadrangle renovations (to include Earth & Ocean
Sciences & Physiology), Anatomy, Pharmacology and Education.
• Cleaning Costs
These must be reviewed as they have already been identified as too high by the
internal auditor, and as a percentage of budget are out of line with other Irish
6
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
•
•
•
•
•
Universities. This is partly due to the inclusion of the cost of attendants within the
budget breakdown.
Funding for New Initiatives
The cost of these, such as 24/7 access, must be budgeted for before they are
undertaken.
Buildings Cost
Where possible, permanent buildings should be the norm. Temporary buildings as
currently located on campus cost more than 50% of their permanent counterparts and
given their anticipated lifetime represent poor value for money.
Health & Safety
The budget available for Health & Safety (including Fire Safety) is meagre and
consideration should be given to increasing it. Although Health & Safety is strictly
outside the remit of the Buildings Office, it was included in the unit for the purposes of
this quality review, thus this recommendation is felt to be appropriate.
Nightly Lock-up
The number of security personnel available to do the nightly building lock–up is
inadequate and should be reviewed.
Safety Aspects of New Buildings
Safety inputs to new buildings should be included from the start of a building project
and be funded from the project’s funds.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The schedule of the Review Group as planned by the Quality Office is available
elsewhere and it is not intended to reproduce it here. In only one instance did pressure
of time cause a meeting to be rescheduled; otherwise all meetings and visits went
according to plan. Second appointments were arranged with both the Vice President,
whose original time slot of 30 minutes was felt by the Group to be very short, and with
the Director as the last meeting to facilitate clarification of a number of points. The
availability of almost an entire day dedicated to writing this report was very much
welcomed by the group.
All members of the Group had read the Buildings Office Self-Assessment Report
before commencing the review process and as they found it to be an excellent
document it formed the basis for many of the recommendations which constitute the
body of this report. Members of the group individually took notes of meetings and
these were used in the drafting of the report to ensure that recommendations were
either included or modified appropriately.
Care was taken to prepare as much of this report as possible in advance of the ‘exit
meeting’ with Buildings Office staff in order to ensure that an accurate portrayal of the
spirit and intent of the recommendations could be offered to those present. A version
of this report was prepared before the Review Group completed its business on Friday
evening December 5 2003 and agreement was reached on items that needed to be
added subsequently. It was agreed that the report would be circulated by the
rapporteur to group members the following week with a subsequent two-week period
available for further comments before sending a final draft to the Director of Quality.
7
Buildings Office: Review Group Report
This methodology was felt by the group to be a successful one as it facilitated the
processing of inputs and the production of the report in a timely way.
The group would like to take this opportunity to thank:
• the Buildings Office staff for the excellent Self-Assessment Report and for the
time given to the group by staff
• the Director of Quality and his staff for their support and care in advance of and
during the review process
• the University Foundation Office for the use of its comfortable board room
• all of those who met the group and offered such constructive comment during the
course of the review.
Mr. Jim Cahill, Director, Facilities Planning Division, University of Massachusetts
Mr. Aidan Grannell, Buildings Officer, University College Dublin
Professor Michael Guiry, Director, Martin Ryan Institute, NUI Galway
Mr. Martin Heffernan, Manager, Professional & Technical Services, Department of
Education & Science (Chair)
Ms. Sinéad Ní Fhaoláin, Acting Director of Computer Services, NUI Galway
(Rapporteur).
5 February 2004
8