Western Oregon University

Wheaton College (MA)

Whitworth University

Widener University

Wilkes University

Williams College

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester State College

Wright State University

Xavier University

Yeshiva University

Youngstown State University

Plan More, React LessBuilding and Expanding Your Planned Maintenance Program

Sightlines Webinar w/ Steve Maruszewski of Penn

State University & Paul Armas of Brown University

April 27, 2016

Today’s Presenters

> Kevan Will; Account Manager, Sightlines

> 9+ years of tenure at Sightlines

> Has worked with over 100 campuses in 27 states

> Sightlines Operational Lead for The Pennsylvania State University’s University Park Campus & 20

Commonwealth Campuses

> Graduated from Gettysburg College with a BA in Management

> Paul Armas; Director of Maintenance Operations, Brown University

> 6 years of tenure at Brown University

> Proudest Accomplishments @ Brown:

> Cultivated a culture in Facilities Management of Continuous Improvement

> Aligning facilities operations with capital renewal investments and identifying operational inefficiencies that improve the effectiveness of service initiatives

> Steve Maruszewski; Associate Vice President for Physical Plant, The Pennsylvania State University

> 20 years of tenure at The Pennsylvania State University

> Proudest Accomplishments @ Penn State:

> Sustainability Efforts including Co-chairing the Development of Penn State’s Sustainability Strategic Plan

and achieving APPA’s national Award for Sustainability in Higher Education.

> Leading a physical plant staff of incredibly talented individuals

2

Introduction to Sightlines and our database

Brown’s story – Paul will share Brown’s PM

implementation/execution strategy and anticipated

outcomes

PSU’s story – Steve will discuss PSU’s PM strategy

centered on reliability

Executive takeaways and concluding thoughts

Questions & comments

Agenda

3

Feel Free to Start a Dialogue with Our Presenters

Enter questions in the box at any time; questions will be answered at the end of the presentation

Enter questions

here at any

point during the

webinar

Presentation slides

and webinar

recording will be

sent to each

attendee following

today’s session

4

Questions will be answered at the end of the presentation. If we run out of time, any

remaining questions will be answered after the presentation via follow-up emails.

Introduction

Who We Serve

Robust membership and growing database provides experience and perspective

Partners to the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

• 14 of the Top 20 Colleges*

• 15 of the Top 20 Universities*

• 34 Flagship State Universities

• 13 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions

• 8 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions

• 8 of 13 Selective Liberal Arts Colleges

Serving state systems in:

• Alaska

• California

• Florida

• Hawaii

• Maine

• Massachusetts

• Minnesota

• Missouri

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• Oregon

• Pennsylvania

• Texas

6

Sightlines Drives a New Conversation

Facilities intelligence toolkit that connects the dots between space, capital, and operating policies

A new conversation around facilities management…

• Treats physical plant like a core business

• Uses concepts of endowment management to contextualize investment decisions;

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

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

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

7

Preventive

Maintenance Strategy,

Implementation, &

Anticipated Outcomes

Brown Campus Profile

> Located in Providence, RI

> 9,100 Students

> 6.8M GSF

> 236 Buildings

> 149 Maintained Acres

> Sightlines Member since 2002

9

> Building Portfolios Grouped by Type:

> Academic Research

> Academic Non-Research

> Biology & Medicine

> Residence Halls

> Athletics

> Student Life

> Admin / Support

> Auxiliary Housing

Brown Campus Profile (cont.)

Maintenance Operations Staffing

Management & Support Staff: 18

Trades Staff: 105

10

Additional Facilities Intelligence Compiled

Campus is older

than peers and

becoming more

complex19% 17%

6%

26%23%

22%

52%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Brown Peer Average

% o

f T

ota

l C

am

pu

s G

SF

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 Significant needs in building

systems occur over the next

ten years

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$/G

SF

Total Operating Expenses

Daily Service PM Utilities Peer Average

Lower operating expenses, but

performing more work with in-house staff

than peers

12

> Campus NAV 81.65%

> Deferred maintenance need identified at

$462M

> Infrastructure renewal needs $60M annually to

keep backlog from growing

Facts Learned from 2010 Assessment

“Brown needed to increase funding for recurring

capital and needed to focus on Preventive

Maintenance within its operating budget”

11

Statistics at “The Beginning”

2011 (Pre-Strategy)

No. PM+CM completed 14,000

No. RM completed 38,000

% PM+CM labor 25%

% RM labor 75%

In house PM+CM labor $1.5M

Supplies PM+CM $580K

Contract services $1.6M

Dedicated PM staff 0

No. of equipment 5,000

13

Goals:

> Prolong the useful life of equipment

> Lower operating costs associated with

maintaining equipment

> Reduce utility costs and energy

> Reduce unplanned system interruptions

PM Strategy Overview

14

• Co-created a strategy with 133 FM staff and customers using

3 lean principles

• Focus on increasing value, reducing waste, and respecting

people

• Assessed current PM situation including work practices &

systems

• Assessed data systems & sample buildings

• Created building and asset prioritization method

• Generated ideas, assess cost vs. value

• Designed a new PM Program

• Created an implementation approach, including phasing plan,

staffing, and budget

What We Did: The Process

15

PM Strategy by Portfolio

Proposed PM Level of Service

Maint. Levels* Description* PMCritical Bldg.

Score

Brown Bldg.

Portfolio

Level 1:

Showpiece

Facility

All

recommended

PM is

scheduled and

performed

100% >75

Central Heat

Plant

Academic

Research

Level 2:

Comprehensive

Stewardship

85% of

recommended

PM is

scheduled and

performed

85% 50-74

Academic Non-

Research

Student Life

Level 3:

Managed Care

50-60% of

recommended

PM is

scheduled and

performed

50%-60% 20-49

Admin/Support

Athletics

Dormitory

Level 4:

Reactive

Management

25% or less of

recommended

PM is

scheduled and

performed

<25% <20Auxiliary

Housing

Portfolio

Critical

Bldg.

Score

Avg.

Acad. Research 77

Student Life 63

Acad. Non-

Research51

Admin/Support 33

Athletics 23

Dormitory 21

Aux. Housing 8

16

* APPA service levels and descriptions

Brown Values & Desired Outcomes

Identified by Customers and Stakeholders

Customer

Satisfaction!

• Better Planning &

Organization

• Balanced Workflow &

Prioritization

• Improved Communication &

Transparency

17

PlanningDesign &

Construction

Gather Data&

EquipmentInfo

Plan PMNeeds

Define PMTask &

Frequency

DevelopCM WO

Schedule &Assign Work

ObtainMaterials/

PartsDo Work

Documentin Famis

Closing &QA/QC

Organization Mgmt

Problems 9 13 14 15 8 12 27 58 7 14 5

Ideas 19 8 17 15 2 20 33 55 8 11 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Value Stream Mapping ofPreventive & Corrective Maintenance Work Order Processes

Learning to See Problems Together

Identifying Opportunities & Ideas

18

19

> Used to identify waste in maintenance execution

process to help fund the desired PM program

> Identified 57,000 hours of recoverable labor costs

through operational efficiency improvement in these

areas:

Lean Process

Improvement Area Estimated Hours Gained

Asset & Equipment Information 12,528

Standard Work Execution 12,161

PM Strategic & Responsive Scheduling 9,305

Tools/Parts/Materials/Inventory Management 14,568

Management & Communication 8,439

20

PM Budgeting Process

100%

PM Budget

Estimate

Brown University

100% Maintenance

LevelGross

Square feet

Total

PM Hours

Total

PM Cost

Total

PM Material

Cost

Total

Contract

Services PM

Cost

Total

PM Costs

Cost/GSFT

Academic - Research 643,393 28,755 1,293,989$ 212,877$ 176,435$ 1,683,301$ 2.62

Biomed 694,073 32,701 1,471,545$ 218,311$ 194,572$ 1,884,428$ 2.72

Academic - Non-Research 1,563,481 56,763 2,554,328$ 292,554$ 465,918$ 3,312,800$ 2.12

Student Life 279,275 8,858 398,620$ 91,438$ 100,882$ 590,939$ 2.12

Admin / Support 683,117 14,871 669,198$ 104,205$ 270,700$ 1,044,103$ 1.53

Athletics 440,923 14,406 648,269$ 128,073$ 69,217$ 845,559$ 1.92

Dormitory 1,685,533 29,328 1,319,752$ 176,151$ 372,394$ 1,868,297$ 1.11

Aux. Housing 219,208 6,126 275,676$ 61,184$ 87,441$ 424,301$ 1.94

Central Heating Plant 4,500,000 8,000 360,000$ 24,000$ 160,000$ 544,000$ 0.12

Total 6,209,003 199,808 8,991,377 1,308,791 1,897,559 12,197,727 1.96$12,197,727199,808

21

Target PM Budget Selected

Brown University

Recommended PM

Program Gross

Square feet

Future

PM Hours

Future

PM Cost

Future

PM Material

Cost

Future

Contract

Services

PM Cost

Total

PM Costs Cost/GSFT

Academic - Research 643,393 19,266 866,973$ 170,302$ 176,435$ 1,213,709$ 1.89

BioMed 694,073 20,941 942,345$ 208,647$ 185,960$ 1,336,952$ 1.93

Academic - Non Research 1,563,481 32,326 1,454,690$ 291,764$ 465,918$ 2,212,372$ 1.42

Student Life 279,275 5,045 227,014$ 93,042$ 100,882$ 420,937$ 1.51

Admin / Support 683,117 5,978 269,018$ 88,296$ 270,700$ 628,013$ 0.92

Athletics 440,923 4,826 217,170$ 108,277$ 69,217$ 394,664$ 0.90

Dormitory 1,685,533 9,825 442,117$ 113,481$ 297,915$ 853,513$ 0.51

Aux. Housing 219,208 959 43,155$ 37,932$ 71,091$ 152,178$ 0.69

Central Heating Plant 4,500,000 8,000 360,000$ 24,000$ 160,000$ 544,000$ 0.12

Total 6,209,003 107,166 $ 4,822,481 $ 1,135,742 $ 1,798,117 $ 7,756,339 1.25$7,756,339107,166

22

> Seed Money (One time funding)

> Built up a PM reserve over several years of $580K

> New Space Incremental O&M funding (Annual)

> Reoccurring new and renovated space funding

$400K targeted toward Preventive Maintenance

> Recapture of 57,000 hours of labor efficiencies

> PM activities equivalent to 27 FTE’s or $2.5M of PM

PM Program Funding

23

PM Strategy Implementation

2011

› PM Strategy Development

› Lean Process

2012

› PM Strategy Finalized

› Staffing Plan Defined

› Training Program Established

› CMMS Redesign – Phase 1

2013

› CMMS Redesign – Phase 2

› In-House Equipment Data Collection Pilot

› PM Management Team Created

› PM Staff & Supervisor Additions

2014

› 3rd Party Equipment Data Collection Pilot

› PM Metrics Design

› Visual Aids Established

› Mobile Application Design

2015

› Visual Aids Pilot

› Mobile Application Pilot

› Master Scheduling Implementation

› Campus Wide Equipment Data Collection – Phase 1

24

2016

› Visual Aids Deployed

› Mobile iPad’s Deployed

› Campus Wide Equipment Data Collection – Phase 2

› PM Metric Deployed

› QA/QC Pilot & Deployed

Current & Future State

2011(Pre-Strategy)

2015

(Year 4)< 2019(Target)

No. PM+CM completed 14,000 32,000 45,000

No. RM completed 38,000 30,000 20,000

% PM+CM labor 25% 52% > 70%

% RM labor 75% 48% < 30%

In house PM+CM labor $1.5M $4.11M $4.85M

Supplies PM+CM $580K $740K $1.15M

Contract services $1.6M $2.0M $1.8M

Dedicated PM staff 0 30 40

No. of equipment 5,000 16,000 >20,000

25

The Team In Action!

26

Reliability Centered

Maintenance

Penn State Campus Profile

> University Park (UP) Campus

Located in State College, PA

> 45,000 Students at UP

> 95,000 Students at all locations

> Sightlines Member since 2002

28

Penn State Campus Profile All Locations

24 distinct locations in Pennsylvania including a major hospital. Each

location is subject to local governance and local support structure.

University Park is almost it’s own city with 2 power plants, it’s own water

supply and filtration plant, sewage treatment plant, 4 substations, etc.

Type UoM University

Park

Campuses Total incl. Hershey

& all other

locations

Land Acres 7,343 3,042 22,539

Paved Roads Miles 35 28 63

Paved Walkways Miles 60 21 71

# of Buildings Each 940 478 1710

Building Area GSF (Millions) 24.6 8.1 32.1

394 Man. & Sup. Staff; 957 TS Employees; 101 Temporary TS Employees

29

> Facility Needs Index (FCNI) Goals:> Icons (Old Main) 0.15

> Student Space (classrooms, commons, etc.) 0.15

> Education and General Space 0.25

> Infrastructure (parking, roadways, etc.) 0.25

> Utilities 0.15

> Current FCNI’s

0.01-0.05 Excellent, new 18%

0.06-0.15 Good 28%

0.16-0.30 Fair 35%

0.31-0.40 Below average 11%

0.41-0.59 Poor, gut/renovation 6%

0.60-and above Replace 2%

> Current Deferred Renewal Backlog – $1.7B

Penn State Facility Conditions

30

Penn State Age Profile: UP vs. CWC

19% 16%

13%27%

29%

42%

39%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

UP CWC

% o

f To

tal C

am

pu

s G

SF

Renovation Age by Category

Less Than 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50

Buildings Under 10

Little work. “Honeymoon” period.

Low Risk

Buildings 10 to 25

Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.

Medium Risk

Buildings 25 to 50

Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due.

Higher Risk

Buildings over 50

Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are

possible.

Highest risk

68%57%

31

Penn State Capital Investment Against Target

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023

To

tal $

in

Mil

lio

ns

Annual Stewardship Projection to ‘Keep Up’ Campus in Current Condition

Asset Reinvestment Projection to Significantly Reduce Backlog and Modernize Buildings

Blue Bars – Annual Stewardship Capital Investment (Includes MM & SFF Funding)

Yellow Bars – Capital Asset Reinvestment (Includes UFR, DGS, PFI, Gifts)

Blue Line – Annual Stewardship Capital projection to keep up campus in current condition

Yellow Line – Capital Asset Reinvestment Projection to reduce backlog

32

Penn State Loss in Buying Power

-60.0%

-50.0%

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

Budget Reduction

Industry InflationRateCumulative Impact

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

53% over last

ten years

uncompounded

33

Summary of the Challenges

• The challenges are significant and they aren’t going away soon.

• National pressure on affordability = increased pressure on

funding sources.

• Permanent stewardship funding is getting harder to acquire.

• Capital funding doesn’t fully address the gap because much of

it goes to non-priority deferred issues.

• Our annual buying power continues to shrink.

• We need to maximize the use of existing funding to extend the

life of our systems and to improve overall reliability.

We cannot afford to be in the reactive

maintenance business!!!

34

Establish a path toward Reliability focused

Maintenance through Planned, Predictive and

Preventive maintenance

Change the Culture to Focus on Reliability!!

The Answer

35

Change the Culture

Congratulations you oiled 50

bearing sets today!!!!!!

Best way to start a

cultural shift is to

start by changing

what your reward.

36

Why Make this Shift?

Cost for Ineffective Preventive and Predictive Maintenance

for 2 – 40,000 CFM Lab Make-up Air Handlers:

• 2 months down time for one

• 6 months down time for other

• Over $500k direct cost

• Over $1m lost research opportunity

37

Potential Failures – Where to Detect Them?

Cost to repair is

only a portion of

the total cost due

to the failure

38

‘Run to Failure’ Unacceptable in Institutional Settings

While run to

failure is a viable

strategy, it is

rarely acceptable

in Institutional

settings.

39

Operating Actuals: Higher than Average Daily Service Costs

$3.73

$3.13 $3.23 $3.49

$4.31

$3.43

$4.42

$6.10

$5.48

$7.03

$4.03 $3.90

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

A B C D E F G PennState

H I J K

$/G

SF

Facilities Operating Budget Actuals

Actual Daily Service $/GSF Peer Avg

*Institutions ordered by backlog

40

Maintenance Performance

Penn State operates with more maintenance staff than most peers

PSU Peers Database

General Repair/

Impression4.29 3.74 3.84

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

GS

F/F

TE

Maintenance Staffing Coverage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FT

E/S

up

erv

iso

r

Maintenance Supervision

*Ordered by tech rating

41

Planned Maintenance Investment

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

201

4

PM

Sp

en

din

g

Planned Maintenance Spending

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

A B C D E F

Pen

n S

tate G H I J K

$/G

SF

PM spending $/GSFAgainst Facilities Peers

*Institutions ordered by tech rating

42

Re-Organized to increase focus on preventive and predictive maintenance programs.

This allows for easier expansion of one area with simultaneous reduction in another area

Re-organizing Around Preventive and Predictive Maintenance

Manager

Maintenance

Programs

Electrical System

Integrity Programs

Electrical System

Integrity Programs

Electrical System

Integrity ProgramsHVAC PM

Hydronic Treatment

Programs

Elevator Program

Maintenance

Maintenance

Programs And

Services

Sr. Manager

Building Services

Area Services 1

Area Services 2

Area Services 3

Area Services 4

Area Services 5

Area Services 6

Plumbing & Metal Fab

HVAC

General Services

Electrical & Electronics

2nd Shift Trades

Weekend Shift Trades

43

Institute Numerous Preventive and Predictive Programs

> Predictive:

> Vibration Analysis

> Thermographic Analysis

> Eddy-Current Testing

> Preventive:> Custodial Equipment PM

> PMs on all snow removal, landscape, and construction equipment, and all vehicles

> Mechanical room walk thru’s

> Exteriors: Doors and Roofing PMs

> Water softener PMs

> Research Equipment PMs (stills, autoclaves, acid digesters, environmental chambers, etc)

> HV Equipment (filter, belts, lube) & Refrigeration PMs (DX units, process chilled water, etc.)

> Electrical Integrity, EMGs, UPS

> Water Treatment

> Fire extinguishers and Sprinkler Systems, Fire and Smoke Alarm Systems

> Elevator PMs

> Animal Waterers and various farm systems like milking systems, manure removal

> Street Light PMs

> Group Relamping

> Ultrasonic Steam Trap Program

44

> Upgrading our CMMS and aligning our facilities condition analysis to

focus on Assets. This will allow for more informed decision making

> Strengthening the planning and scheduling process

> Adding planners that focus on each of the major disciplines

> Plans will result in job kitting to ensure techs have materials at the site

when they are ready to perform the work.

Strengthen the Planning

45

> Developing new metrics to support the effort and linking metrics directly

to the university and physical plant strategic plans

Develop New Metrics

High-level Objective Child Objective [ 1 ] Grandchild Objective

Work Execution Management Schedule Optimization Schedule Compliance

MRO_Inventory Management Demand Management Stock-out Management

Work Execution Management Planning Efficiency Planned 2 Unplanned

MRO_Inventory Management Demand Management Service Level Management

Work Execution Management Proactive Work Optimization Proactive Maintenance Compliance

Work Execution Management Proactive Work Optimization Proactive Work Past-due

Reliability Management Asset Reliability Critical Failures

Work Execution Management Planning Efficiency Planning Accuracy

Reliability Management Maintenance Strategy Maintenance Mix

Work Execution Management Schedule Optimization Schedule Break-in Ratio

Work Execution Management Schedule Optimization Backlog Management

MRO_Inventory Management Demand Management PR aging

MRO_Inventory Management Inventory Movement Inventory Aging

MRO_Inventory Management Inventory Movement Inventory Turnover

Reliability Management Asset Reliability M T B F

Reliability Management Asset Reliability M T T R

Reliability Management Maintenance Strategy PM PdM Yield

Reliability Management Asset Reliability Rework

MRO_Inventory Management Inventory Movement Material Transfer Invoicing (MTI)

MRO_Inventory Management Inventory Value Growth Critical Spares Growth

MRO_Inventory Management Inventory Value Growth Non-Critical Spare Growth

MRO_Inventory Management Demand Management Kitting Efficiency

MRO_Inventory Management Warehouse Controls Inventory Adjustments

46

Performed Baseline Wrench Study

Metrics for each Supervisor

Key Activity Type Description

1Working

Time spent physically performing tasks

2Travel

Time spent walking/driving to locations

3

Matrl Rec

Time spent gathering materials (i.e.

parts, tools, etc.)

4

Meetings

Time spent in meetings on or off the

jobsite

5

Instruction

Time spent in a learning environment on

or off site in which training takes place

6

Clearance Delay

Time delay due to permission or access

to be granted to perform the work

7

Interference

Time elapsed due to conflicts between

two or more entities on one site (i.e. CM

crew must work around electrical crew)

8

Idle

Downtime due to miscellaneous

occurrences such as mini-breaks, waiting

for glue to dry, etc.

9 Rest Room Time elapsed for rest room visit

10

Break

Time elapsed during break (may include

travel time)

11

Total Time Obs

This is the total time in which an

observation takes place (multiply by the

number of persons observed) (see in

GDM Wrench Time Algorithm)

121 Tech Only Time

Time in which only one technician is

working while the other is idle

Activities Studied

47

Expand capacity of staff by capturing $3-6m/yr

in wrench time

Reduce reactive maintenance to less than 20%

Reduce operating cost/SF

Significantly improve overall reliability

Increase overall customer satisfaction

Expected Outcome

48

Executive Takeaways

Paul Armas – Brown University• It’s critical to have a strategic plan.

• ‘Buy-in’ by both management and the staff is critical. They need to be part

of the process in developing the solutions.

• Metrics must be established and monitored to ensure that goals are met.

Steve Maruszewski – The Pennsylvania State University• Funding will always be constrained and we need to make the best use of

what we have.

• Planning and Prevention are the key to maximizing the value of available

funding.

• A cultural shift from valuing the extreme to valuing the routine is necessary

for success.

Executive Takeaways

50

Questions?

Please remember to complete the survey after the webinar ends.

Thank you!

Stay Current with Latest Trends and Best Practices

Let us keep you current, visit our Insights page

If you haven’t downloaded

our report, The State of

Facilities in Higher

Education: 2015

Benchmarks, Best

Practices & Trends, please

go to sightlines.com to

download your copy today.

Sign up for our monthly

newsletter

Read our blog, explore our

content

52