Learning Resources

Abstract: At a time when institutions must change the status quo in their approach to addressing the climate crisis through the campus built environment, the Kendeda Building at the Georgia Institute of Technology shows us that successful change is possible. The Kendeda Building, a deep green LEED Platinum Living Building, offers many lessons learned and best practices regarding net-positive water, energy, and waste that you can use to fight climate change and COVID-19 on your campus. Come learn how to overcome design and operational challenges—both expected and unexpected—of high-performance buildings to create a healthier and safer campus environment.

Abstract: This session will focus on the development and use of consistent metrics through the program review process and other key university processes to support integrated planning at the department, school, and university levels. Using coordinated data at multiple levels of an institution can better inform both strategic planning and budget decisions. We'll share successful examples from Northwestern University that you can apply at your institution, including school-level dashboards that inform the annual strategic planning process as well as department-level planning.

Abstract: LEED is not always suited to campus-wide, long-term perspectives on building development and carbon emissions reductions. It can often result in a more expensive process that misses the mark on achieving realized savings, leading universities to shift away from LEED. This session will focus on the next step in the evolution of green building and provide a comprehensive sustainability framework for responsible development with a holistic view of the campus and community wellbeing. Come learn how you can use this improved planning process for green building by outlining rigorous sustainable design standards and integrating operational tracking to examine facility performance.

Abstract: “SMART” built environments usually refer to buildings with embedded technologies that allow them to run as efficiently as possible. Yet for research institutions, that definition should be expanded beyond efficiency to include metrics that are used to quantify research productivity and accomplishments. The expected useful life of the building and individual labs, research dollars generated per square foot, intellectual property generated, and successful recruitment and retainment of researchers are but a few bottom line-oriented measures that colleges and universities use. By embracing the business side of higher education, architects can create even smarter built environments.

In this presentation, we discuss how to identify and select appropriate metrics for institutions that are equally focused on education and research. What objective and subjective measures can be considered? Are these metrics applicable in our new (hopefully) post-COVID reality? How are institutions reallocating space in this new reality? How do we redefine the future of “smart” higher education research facilities?

Abstract: Athletic buildings suffer from a long-held image problem. Fieldhouses, hockey and basketball arenas, and other large indoor competition and practice facilities traditionally lag other campus spaces in energy performance and sustainability. However, because of the size, scale, and location of athletic buildings, there is significant untapped potential as campus planners seek creative ways to implement change initiatives. The authors share lessons learned from their recent experiences applying imaginative, cost-efficient approaches to sports and recreation buildings. In addition to reimagining how the facilities can contribute to the greater good of the entire campus, they demonstrate the value of early cross-discipline collaboration and problem-solving to fulfill shared aspirations.

Abstract: There is increased demand to provide facilities that encourage student success. But how do you know if a space "works"? We will focus on how you can link your facilities planning to measurable student success. After reviewing broader national trends, we'll discuss metrics for student success and how space contributes to student success. Finally, we'll focus on tools and solutions that your institution can incorporate into its facilities planning process to ensure your learning spaces contribute to student success.

Abstract: Literature points out that big data and analytics (BDA) still fails to positively influence institutional planning—even though it's promoted as a novel approach to improving efficiency and effectiveness. What limits the usefulness of BDA? Researchers point to a lack of conceptual models that translate information into meaningful signals. Nonsense! We're using a metrics-based planning framework that's producing remarkable outcomes. We'll share our framework and how you can apply this concept at your institution.

Abstract: This article describes execution of the balanced scorecard (BSC) strategic framework in a School of Nursing (SoN). The SoN strategy map was the outcome of the development phase. The two-year implementation phase incorporated balanced scorecards that linked outcome measures to the priority strategies. Thirty-two percent of the defined outcome measures were met. Factors in adopting the BSC framework included development of a strategic plan that supports the college mission and vision, improved communication within the SoN, a united effort to institute strategies to sustain the SoN’s future, and establishment of performance indicators to measure success in achieving those strategies.

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.