Learning Resources

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: Establishing capital projects is typically a long-term effort with changes occurring over months. In this session, we'll share how Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) applies a standard process to address its unique capital needs and withstand the test of time. CSCU maintains its 10-year capital plan in a dynamic environment to remain relevant and resilient for allocating resources equitably between its sixteen campuses with optimal effect. Come learn how a mission-driven, evidence-based capital planning approach responds to changing demographics and financial conditions while addressing specific facility and infrastructure needs in a wide variety of campus settings.

Abstract: Space planning and capital programming should reflect an institution’s role and mission. Relating data analysis to institutional priorities is key to effectively communicating institutions’ needs to funding agencies. The Florida State and Georgia University Systems employ varied approaches to their space standards, planning, and capital programs. We’ll compare these approaches and discuss best practices for determining the effectiveness of space use and the planning process. Come learn about accuracy in space planning metrics, how to appropriately apply them in campus-wide planning and building programming, and how to relate needs to your institution’s strategic goals and performance indicators for funding.

Abstract: In April of 2017 the University System of Georgia (USG) launched a system wide initiative, known as the Comprehensive Administrative Review (CAR). The charge was to identify and implement administrative service improvement, efficiencies, and administrative cost savings that can be redirected to student success efforts and core academic programs. As Chair of the CAR Steering Committee, Dr. Marrero will outline the objectives of the CAR, the process, implementation and reporting structures, and the results to date. Furthermore, as a President of two USG comprehensive universities during the process of and initial implementation of CAR (University of West Georgia and Georgia Southern University), Dr. Marrero will provide an institutional perspective and insight into building a culture of high performance with a focus on evidence-based leadership, accountability, and continuous improvement. The session will highlight why investing in and engaging your people is critical in building a culture of continuous improvement.

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: 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: 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.