Provider No.: A197 Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment ...Not operational. Discountinued /...

Provider No.: A197

Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment

for Facility Renewal Planning

Samir Patel - Director of Operation & Maintenance

Walter Castillo - Principal Project Manager

Date: 09/22/2018

Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment for Facility Renewal Planning 1

Credit(s) earned on completion of this

course will be reported to AIA CES for

AIA members. Certificates of Completion

for both AIA members and non-AIA

members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CES

for continuing professional education. As

such, it does not include content that may

be deemed or construed to be an approval

or endorsement by the AIA of any

material of construction or any method or

manner of

handling, using, distributing, or dealing in

any material or product._______________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and

services will be addressed at the conclusion of this

presentation.


The Facility Renewal Program (FRP) was created

to prioritize infrastructure and aesthetic conditions

needs for strategic renewal and replacement. The

FRP was designed to capitalize on the

knowledge base of in-house facilities staff and

the expertise of our Facility Condition

Assessment (FCA) consultant. This program

includes identification of existing and anticipated

lifecycle infrastructure deficiencies in addition to

aesthetic renewal projects. The consolidation of

information from various sources into a single

program has allowed the facilities division to make

improved decisions on project prioritization and

resource allocations. It will also provide a platform

to substantiate future infrastructure requirements

and funding needs. An effective program will not

only operationally extend the life of MD

Anderson Cancer Center facilities but also

minimize disruption in space utilization and

equipment downtime.

Course

Description


Learning

Objectives

1. Analysis - Emphasis on the type of analysis that should take

place when prioritizing facilities needs.

2. Planning - Learn how to build the components of a facilities

renewal program and allow for recalibration as institutional

goals change.

3. Formulate - Based on institutional objectives and relevant

facilities data a complete facility renewal plan can be

prepared.

4. Implement - Execute and measure the plan effectiveness.

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:


MD Anderson

Contents


1 STATE OF AFFAIRS

2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

3 EXECUTION OF PLAN

4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

MD Anderson

Facility Renewal Program - To define a process that

enables MD Anderson Facilities to assess, identify,

and prioritize infrastructure and aesthetic conditions

for strategic renewal and replacement on a multi-

year cycle.

6Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment for Facility Renewal Planning

MD Anderson 7Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment for Facility Renewal Planning

STATE OF AFFAIRS

MD Anderson

Current State


0115 Million Gross Square Feet

023 Mission areas 5 Campuses

Administrative, Research, and Patient Care Buildings

03 140+ Buildings

Includes all spaces managed by MDACC.

Space Data

MD Anderson

Current State


61 Buildings

(age 15 - 35 years)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 75-80

Num

ber

of

Buil

din

gs

Age of Building

Number of Buildings by Age

Administrative Research Patient Care

In 10 years - 72 Buildings

(age 15-35 years)

MD Anderson

In 10 Years


0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,0001

0-1

4

15-1

9

20-2

4

25

-29

30-3

4

35-3

9

40-4

4

45-4

9

50-5

4

55-5

9

60-6

4

75-8

0

81-8

5

86-9

0

Gro

ss S

quar

e F

eet

Age Range (years)

Smithville

Houston - South Campus

Houston - Off Campus

Houston - North Campus

Houston - Mid Campus

Houston - East Campus

Bastrop

11.2 million ft2

(aged 15 - 35 years)

Buildings Under 10 – Low RiskLittle work. “Honeymoon” period.

Buildings 10 to 25 – Medium RiskShort life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.

Buildings 25 to 50 – Higher RiskMajor envelope and mechanical life cycles come due.

Buildings over 50 – Highest RiskLife cycles of major building components are past

due. Failures are possible.

MD Anderson

GSF and Work Orders


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Num

ber

of

Wo

rk O

rder

s

Gro

ss S

quar

e F

eet

Axis Title

GSF W.O.

MD Anderson

Facility Management’s Pain Points


Instability in Budget

Process

Budget was difficult

to project and was

volatile.

Reactive Approach

React to equipment to failure

or next big emergency.

Lack of Resource

Planning

Difficult to plan for human

resource needs.

Conflicting

Priorities

Various projects with

inconsistent alignment to

institutional objectives.


PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

MD Anderson

Program Development - Objectives


Stewardship

Facility stewardship as

a core value.

Evolve

Management processes

need to evolve.

AestheticsModernize existing

spaces.

Efficiency

Efficiently utilize

resources.

Proactive

Strategically forecast

future funding needs.

FCA.

Prioritize

Have a means to

target critical needs

and systems.

Performance

Data driven. Monitor

and track

performance.

MD Anderson

Program Development - Stakeholders


OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Engineering

EH&S

Front Line Staff

LEADERSHIP

CONSULTANTS

Master Planning,

Engineering Studies, FCA

CLINICAL & ACADEMIC

STAFF

Faculty

Nurse Managers

CAD’s

Professors

Researcher Leadership

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Managers

Project Data Personnel

SPACE PLANNING

Aesthetics

Master Planning

Commitment from all levels

on program development and

execution.

MD Anderson

Facilities Renewal Components


FCA

O&M

Aesthetics

Project

Management

O&M

Issues identified by

O&M and other

operational groups.

Aesthetics

Aesthetically refresh

spaces, surveys,

furniture

FCA

Facilities Condition

Assessment

MD Anderson

Facility Condition Assessment


FCA Components

• Scope of work

• Data required for FCA

• Process for conducting an FCA

• Milestones and timeline

• Taking action on FCA report

• Pilot FCA

• Lessons Learned

FCA

O&M

Aesthetics

Project

Management

MD Anderson

FCA Data Requirements


Space Data

Facility Condition

Assessment

Asset Inventory

Work Order History

Project History

Future Projects

Drawings

Field Survey

&

Interviews

MD Anderson

Aesthetics Renewal


Aesthetics Components

• Aesthetics renewal

assessment process

• Process to utilize project

database for aesthetics

• Established frequency of

assessments based on

space type

• Developed a matrix to

evaluate aesthetics

FCA

O&M

Aesthetics

Project

Management

MD Anderson

Aesthetics Renewal Condition Assessment


Building: building name Assessed by:Team Participants By

Area: zone / clinic or dept name Date: date By Item Category

Level: floor level %

Art/Installations Includes: Displays, Art Program pieces, Wayfinding, Exhibits, Kiosks, Monuments/Plaques, Statues/Busts, etc. 5%

Great - No Action 1 0

Minor Infractions 2 Missing artwork, space needs artwork, no asset tag, crooked, inaccurate, dirty 33.3

Repair 3 Minor scratches, torn fabric, damaged base, moderate surface damage, chipped edges, marred 66.6

Replace 4 Cracked glass, broken/chipped frames, outdated standard, no longer relevant, 100

Ceilings Includes: hard, tile/grid, fabric, metal, suspended/specialty. Also, building systems: speaker, life safety, sensor, HVAC 10%


Minor Infractions 2 Not significant damage or modification needed for project consideration, but needs attention 33.3

Repair 3 One or more components have damage or need repairs 66.6

Replace 4 More than 2 ceiling surfaces or greater than 1/3 of single component are visibly damaged or detracting 100

Doors Includes: sliding, automatic, laminate, hollow metal, 10%


Minor Infractions 2 Inoperable or missing closer, paint touch up, dirty, 33.3

Repair 3 Chipped laminate, damaged kick plates, damage indicates adding door protection 66.6

Replace 4 Door doesn't fit frame, thresholds damaged to be safety hazard, H/W difficult to operate, cracked glass, overall poor condition 100

Floors/Base Includes: rolled carpet, carpet tiles, vinyl tiles, rolled vinyl, concrete, terrazzo, ceramic tile 15%


Minor Infractions 2 Loose, snagged, damaged base, dirty but cleanable, threshold, mismatched pattern, single seams 33.3

Repair 3 Intersections or bordering areas mismatched, product appearance or sections need attention, minor grout issues 66.6

Replace 4 100

Furnishings Includes: Public/Patient area furnishings, podiums, reception/information/security custom builts, institution accessories 20%


Minor Infractions 2 Dirty/soiled piece, layout incorrect, hallway obstructions, simple wood repair (sand/touch up finish) 33.3

Repair 3 Stains on several pieces, cushions deteriorating, worn upholstery, refinish wood, functional feature malfunctions 66.6

Replace 4 Broken frames, unleveled pieces, bent metal frames, pattern to upholstery wear/tears/stains, layout doesn’t support area 100

Lighting 5%


Exists/Work Order 2 Bulbs out, switch plate cracked, loose fixture, cobwebs/dust, sensor not working 33.3

Repair 3 Noisy fixtures, electrical reactions, (MEP assessment will know technical issues) 66.6

Replace 4 Pattern of consistent wear, discoloration, does not function for space, obsolete fixtures 100

Millwork Includes: custom built, installed pieces and their openings, backsplashes, doors, drawers, hardware, top surfaces 15%


Minor Infractions 2 Dirty, marks, loose hardware 33.3

Repair 3 Significant issue with hardware, mismatched finishes in space, scratches, missing caulk, feature issues 66.6

Replace 4 Missing/chipped laminate or hard surface, cracks, feature broken/inoperable 100

Walls 15%


Minor Infractions 2 Less than 3 patch/paint items, wall protection needs repair or dirty, stains, hanging accessories non-compliant 33.3

Repair 3 Patch/paint on >3 or more walls, consistent damage or non-compliant accessories, vinyl tears/holes, visual clutter/life safety, 66.6

Replace 4 Water damage apparent, surface damaged beyond repair, accessories obsolete, surface non-compliant for area use 100

Window Treatment 5%


Minor Infractions 2 broken chain, treatment dirty, window glass dirty or frame/mullion dirty, wand broken 33.3

Repair 3 66.6

Replace 4 No longer appropriate for space, new standard, more than 1/4 damaged/inoperable or 1/4 applied mat'l damaged 100

PRIORITIZATION

SCORE 100%

Mat'l non-compliant with use, significant wear, stains, broken tiles, missing/stained grout, tears/seams in vinyl, scratched

or chipped terrazzo/ceramic tile

Electrical systems won't sync, shades removed/down, crooked on roller, jammed, blackout/overlay issues,

tears/mismatched seams on applies mat'l

MD Anderson

Operations and Maintenance


O&M Components

• Process to handle the needs from

operational groups

• Developed Matrix for evaluating

requests or deficiencies

• Method to track O&M needs and

engineering assessments

• Utilize asset data for decision

making

FCA

O&M

Aesthetics

Project

Management

MD Anderson

Evaluation Matrix Criteria


SAFETY

REGULATORY – CODE COMPLIANCE

OPERATIONAL IMPACT

EUL

ROI

AREA IMPACTED

MD Anderson

Prioritization


Utilized to effectively score competing

priorities for available fundingDate: 6-Oct-16 Task No: 18023

Evaluator Steve Suter Task Name: Exhaust System for G12 Rooms Not in Compliance with ASHRAE

Safety 3

1

2

3

Regulatory 4

1

2

3

4

Operational

Impact 3

1

2

3

4

End of Life 4

1

2

3

4

Return on

Investment (ROI)1

1

2

3

Area Impacted or

Served4

1

2

3

4

Prioritization

Score 89

Direct patient care and mission critical space (i.e. waiting room, exam room, OR, vivarium, Data Center)

N/A. Zero years or 5+ year payback

3-5 year payback

< 3 years payback

Unoccupied space (i.e. mechanical space, vacated space)

Administrative space

General research or clinical support space

Should be corrected within 5+ years inorder to maintain integrity of the facility.

Should be corrected within 3-5 years inorder to maintain integrity of the facility.

At end of life but is fully or mostly operational. Should be corrected within 1-2 years inorder to maintain integrity

of the facility.

Not operational. Discountinued / Obsolete. Product/system is no longer available or supported or no longer

services it's intended purpose.

No direct impact to site operations. Equipment is supported with redundancy and redundant equipment is

operational.

Localized level, often restricted to a localized system or a specific floor/room location .

No significant effects or disruption of facility operations

Building level, often restricted to a building system.

Minor effects or disruption of facility operations, but effects anticpated as temporary with necessary

Institutional level, restricting critical communication systems. Major effects or disruption of critical facility and

operations. Functional obsolescence - the inability to support new technology, equipment or process for

clinical/research operations.

None

Institutional Standards, as defined in MDA Owner Design Guideline Elements and others.

Code Modifications, upcoming code changes as dictated by an organization body with a compliance date issued.

Examples include items that do not conorm to existing codes, which are "grandfathered" in their existing

condition and may require renovation in the future to correct.

Regulatory or Code violation/deficiency. Examples inlucde NFPA, AAALAC, Joint Commission, GMP, USP797.

CRR/FRM

Facilities Renewal Prioritization Matrix

<---Select the number that best fits the task as noted in each category

No risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Indirect risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Direct risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Safety 3

1

2

3

Regulatory 4

1

2

3

4

None

Institutional Standards, as defined in MDA Owner Design Guideline Elements and others.

Code Modifications, upcoming code changes as dictated by an organization body with a compliance date issued.

Examples include items that do not conorm to existing codes, which are "grandfathered" in their existing

condition and may require renovation in the future to correct.

Regulatory or Code violation/deficiency. Examples inlucde NFPA, AAALAC, Joint Commission, GMP, USP797.

<---Select the number that best fits the task as noted in each category

No risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Indirect risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Direct risk of harm, injury or loss of individuals, animals and/or property

Operational

Impact 3

1

2

3

4

End of Life 4

1

2

3

4

Should be corrected within 5+ years inorder to maintain integrity of the facility.

Should be corrected within 3-5 years inorder to maintain integrity of the facility.

At end of life but is fully or mostly operational. Should be corrected within 1-2 years inorder to maintain integrity

of the facility.

Not operational. Discountinued / Obsolete. Product/system is no longer available or supported or no longer

services it's intended purpose.

No direct impact to site operations. Equipment is supported with redundancy and redundant equipment is

operational.

Localized level, often restricted to a localized system or a specific floor/room location .

No significant effects or disruption of facility operations

Building level, often restricted to a building system.

Minor effects or disruption of facility operations, but effects anticpated as temporary with necessary

Institutional level, restricting critical communication systems. Major effects or disruption of critical facility and

operations. Functional obsolescence - the inability to support new technology, equipment or process for

clinical/research operations.

Return on

Investment (ROI)1

1

2

3

Area Impacted or

Served4

1

2

3

4

Prioritization

Score 89

Direct patient care and mission critical space (i.e. waiting room, exam room, OR, vivarium, Data Center)

N/A. Zero years or 5+ year payback

3-5 year payback

< 3 years payback

Unoccupied space (i.e. mechanical space, vacated space)

Administrative space

General research or clinical support space


Project Management

Project database

• Intake method for aesthetics,

FCA deficiencies, O&M capital

needs

• Identify method to track future

projects

FCA

O&M

Aesthetics

Project

Management


EXECUTION OF PLAN

MD Anderson

Execution of Plan


Project ScoringFacility Condition

Assessment (FCA)Budget/Project Analysis Execution Plan

• Every project is scored on

a 100 pt. scale

• Projects range between

MEP infrastructure,

Aesthetic, EH&S and

Energy Efficient needs

• Study provides

recommended immediate

“Do Now” and life-cycle

needs w/ respective

budgets

• Validate annual needs of

report and insert request

into Facility Renewal

Database

• Validate project intentions

(scope & budget)

• Normalize project scores

between mission groups

• Create Sensitivity Model

• Project ranks & efficient

frontiers

• Carry-over cost analysis

• Provides a roadmap on

how projects will be rolled

out throughout the FY

• Set expectations upfront –

Validated list of projects,

kick-off dates, high-level

schedule, Int./Ext. AE

resources, PM resources

Providing a level playing

field across different O&M

MGMT teams

Complements O&M

internal generated projects

and provides a baseline

need per building

Drive recommendations by

leveraging Data

Roadmap to a successful

project year

MD Anderson

Annual Budget Exercise


9/1/2018 9/30/201910/1/2018 11/1/2018 12/1/2018 1/1/2019 2/1/2019 3/1/2019 4/1/2019 5/1/2019 6/1/2019 7/1/2019 8/1/2019 9/1/2019

2/1/2019 - 7/1/20199/1/2019

New FY

3/3/2019

Milestone Description 4/2/2019

Milestone Description

5/2/2019

Milestone Description

6/1/2019

Milestone DescriptionBu

Budget

Iteration

1

Budget

Iteration

2

Budget

Iteration

3

Final

Budget

February – June (Budget Exercise for next Fiscal Year)

September

(New Fiscal Year)

September

(Active Fiscal Year)

Working on Active Projects

Budget Iteration Process is a Transparent Process where each Stakeholder

understands their Peer Needs (Project & Financial Based)

• O&M Directors

• Owner’s Engineers

• Project MGMT

• Aesthetic Renewal Team

Stakeholders

MD Anderson

Facility Condition Assessments


Building ‘A’

Feeds Project

Candidates for

a given FY

(Supplements O&M

operational needs)

Per Assessment - Leverage Both Immediate & General Life Cycle Needs

MD Anderson

Budget Analysis


Data analysis allows transparency

and fair educated decisions among

the various FM stakeholders with

how the project portfolio is being

put together

Inst

ituti

onal

Pro

ject

Val

ue

Accumulative Project Cost

More Cost/ Less ValueOptimal Project Portfolio

Projects

Fin

al E

stim

ate

Matrix Scores

# o

f P

roje

cts

# o

f P

roje

cts

Matrix Scores Matrix Scores

Group ‘A’ Group ‘B’

MD Anderson

Baseline Actuals

Execution Plan – Project Portfolio Sub-set


FundToDate SpendToDate

Active Fiscal Year Next Fiscal YearActive Fiscal Year

Q1 Q2

# of Kick-Offs

per Month

• Strategic kick-off dates

• Establish PM Resources upfront per current

workload & strengths

• Create project schedule templates (6, 12, 18

months)

• Establish internal/external Design resources

• Monitor financial trends for a sub-set of projects

FY Project Loading

FY Project Finance Trend

Co

unt

# o

f P

roje

cts

$

MD Anderson

Execution Plan - Project Portfolio Sub-set


Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18

Original Cumulative Forecast Cumulative Reforecast High Visibility Cumulative

Analyze top projected expenditure projects for the fiscal year

Spread between

original & cumulative

forecast

Spread between cumulative forecast

& high visibility actuals ; Positive Correlation

$ i

n m

illi

ons

High Visibility projects are

pre-selected at beginning

of the FY

MD Anderson

Project Portfolio Spend Forecasting


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4

Monthly Actuals Cumulative Actuals

Dynamic

Forecasting

provides an

opportunity to

anticipate

future variance

needs

Evolving model (s-curve driven) that takes into account various project lengths and

Design Intent (internal vs. external resources)

M1 M2 M3 M4

$ i

n m

illi

ons


FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

MD Anderson

Capital Budget/Actuals Trend


-35%

-18%

-44%

-60%

-81%

-46%

-24%

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Facility Renewal

Program Starts

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY181

• Capital budget variance (%)

performance has improved

since the start of the Facility

Renewal Program

• Learning curve continues

• Streamline Sourcing &

Contract processes

Downward trends w/

respect to capital budget

portfolio since FY13

AA

B

B

Note: % Change = Actuals vs. Budgets 1FY18 = Reflects up to July 2018

MD Anderson

Future Improvements – Lessons Learned


Challenge Details

Strategy/Plan will change throughout the

year

1. Weather and Organizational Changes will impact a given year’s project portfolio plan.

Be flexible and adjust resources as needed to manage the plan.

2. Priorities & Emergencies that were not “Planned” work will cause the plan to shift

Data is just Data ; Still need to enforce

the plan

1. Communicating project portfolio progress to executives is important, but more

importantly is to communicate w/ staff (see the big picture)

2. Don’t assume that a project being in the correct stage also translates to it is progressing

Predicting ramp rate of construction

spend

1. For a given sub-set of projects that started in the same FY, it takes time to see significant

construction dollars being expensed

2. Important to improve upfront project documentation throughput time

3. Avoid Design Stage stagnation

4. Competitive Sealed Proposal’s Lag Time

Coordinating w/ other parallel initiatives

1. Take advantage of other active projects that are leveraging the same space use ; minimize

multiple disruptions to customer

2. Take advantage of future projects that will leverage the same space and have more

complexity to it

Integrate better both aesthetic renewal

and infrastructure needs

1. Invest in “Patient Experience”

2. The book does get judge by its cover

MD Anderson

Future Enhancements – Building Blocks of Culture Change


Leadership

CommitmentManage Align

Clarify the

Problem

Develop

Talent and

Skills

• Getting Executive

approval of process is

important for buy-in

• Leverage Executive

MGMT support to

remove process barriers

• It is more than just

an idea, it is a managed

process

• Show structure to the

program w/ expected

accountability

• Share latest data trends

to both MGMT and staff

• Align strategy to

staff’s workload

• Help staff understand

the “Big Picture”

• Build on strengths

to deliver quick wins,

but also develop to

have more resource

capacity

• Not 100% Project

MGMT matrix team

(reduce volatility

workload)

• Make sure staff/MGMT understand

the problem it is trying to solve

(i.e. continued budget

shortfalls = less projects)

• Make sure staff understands how

they are part of the solution

MD Anderson

This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing

Education Systems Course

Please take a moment to complete the evaluation form.

Provider Name/Logo

Theresa Bartos Drewell, AIA

806-790-1987

[email protected]


Provider No.: A197 Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment ...Not operational. Discountinued /...

Documents

Transcript of Provider No.: A197 Leveraging Data and Strategic Alignment ...Not operational. Discountinued /...