^{Go directly to the original of the resource described below.}

• Cool Campuses? (PDF) by Walter Simpson (downloadable)
• The benefits of Guided Facility Self-Assessments by Keith O’Leary (if not APPA member, must read interactive PDF)
• A Study of State Tax Appropriations for Capital Needs in U.S. Public Higher Education (if not APPA member, must read interactive PDF)
• Can We Make a Difference in Campus Sustainability by Steve Glazner (if not APPA member, must read interactive PDF)
• The Facilities Stewardship Oversight Role of Governing Boards (PDF) by Lander E. Medlin (downloadable)

From Simpson’s piece, one important point: Deep energy conservation in existing facilities is a necessity

The cleanest BTU or kWh is the one we don’t consume. Thus, deep energy conservation should be the top priority in campusclimate action plans. However, most plans project modest conventional retrofits of existing buildings paired with larger-than-necessary purchases of renewable energy credits (RECs) and carbon offsets to eventually mop up the remaining energy waste. Paying someone else somewhere else to reduce emissions for you—as is the case with carbon offsets—does not model a strategy consistent with the task at hand, essentially quitting fossil fuels within a few short decades. That goal can only be achieved if energy users are successful at sharply curtailing and eliminating to whatever extent possible fossil fuel use on-site. 

Many tools and strategies are needed to achieve this objective, including submetering of buildings and even of individual building energy systems, so that the real effectiveness of conservation measures is accurately assessed and understood. The cost of submetering can be made up many times by the additional savings it allows facilities managers to achieve

Integrated Project Delivery for Public and Private Owners is a new, free, downloadable, 40-page PDF from APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers and several other organizations.

Click here to get the document from APPA. 

Table of Contents

Introduction – Degrees of Collaboration: An Evolutionary Process

1. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD): An Overview

A. Forces Driving Change

B. Result: Integrated Project Delivery

C. Levels of Collaboration and IPD: “Delivery Method” versus “Philosophy”

i. IPD as a Philosophy (IPD “Lite” or “IPD-ish” / Non Multi-party IPD)

ii. IPD as a Delivery Method (“True” IPD / Multi-party IPD)

D. IPD Principles and Catalysts E. Convergence: Related Industry Trends

i. Lean Construction / Lean Project Delivery to Increase Efficiency ii. Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a Catalyst iii. Sustainability

2. In Pursuit of Integrated Project Delivery

A. Why Adopt IPD Philosophies?

B. Why Adopt IPD as a Delivery Method?

C. IPD as a Delivery Method

i. Applying Principles and Practices with IPD as a Delivery Method

ii. Early Lessons Learned – Practices to Consider

iii. IPD Case Studies

D. IPD as a Philosophy – What Can You Do if You Can’t do Multi-party?

3. Trying Integrated Project Delivery: First Steps

A. Culture – Willingness to Change; Take Risks and Trust

B. Addressing Potential Barriers or Limitations

i. Selection / Procurement Options: Buying Value ii. Regulatory / Legislative

4. Summary | Recommendations for all Owners (Not Just Public)

Appendices:

A: “IPD-ish” at Massachusetts and Emory

B: Levels of Collaboration

C: Standard Form Agreements

Click here to get the document from APPA.

Arkansas State University-Jonesboro and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas have received APPA's 2010 Award for Excellence (PDF). Congratulations to the SCUPers who are part of the teams at each institution!

The Award for Excellence is based on a set of criteria, which include:

• Leadership
• Strategic and Operational Planning
• Customer Focus Information and Analysis
• Development and Management of Human Resources
• Process Management
• Performance Results

Evaluation for the award consists of two parts: a self-evaluation addressing specific, stringent criteria, and a site visit by a team from APPA’s Professional Affairs Committee to confirm the accuracy of the self-assessment. Applying for and receiving the AFE is no small task for an institution. As you will read in the following pages from ASU-J and UNLV, it takes teamwork from everyone within the facilities organization and requires coordination, motivation, and support from the top levels of leadership to be a successful facilities operation and to win the APPA Award for Excellence.

A couple of weeks ago we shared a good article on this topic with you. Now we share the existence of the book the article came from, by Harvey Kaiser and Eva Klein, who are well known among SCUPers. APPA describes Strategic Capital Development with these words: 

[It] presents a bold approach for planning capital investments from a strategic and long-range perspective. The authors combine their extensive higher education experience and expertise to improve capital planning and decision-making and to make a case for a new model that seeks to balance idealism with pragmatism. They define stewardship principles necessary to create and sustain a physical plant that is responsive to institutional strategies and functions, that remains attractive to faculty and students, and optimizes available resources.

...

The proposed comprehensive model is presented as a fully integrated set of methodologies to assess needs and develop a prioritized capital projects plan, integrated with a physical master plan. The authors include, and advocate, the concept of a strategic funding framework--a larger view of feasible and desirable capital funding for defined capital needs.