Learning Resources

Abstract: How are you addressing your campus’ historic facilities with so many competing needs for limited resources? This webinar will outline strategies for the management of historic properties on college and university campuses, with guidelines, standards, and best practices to address a wide range of concerns dealing with historic facilities.

Preservation of your historic facilities can also be an important part of your long-term plan for a sustainable future for your campus and the planet. Upkeep, renovation, and repurposing of existing structures are seen by many as an essential part of flattening the carbon curve. We will consider examples of successful efforts to integrate sustainability, preservation, and practical re-use of older facilities.

Abstract: Deans, professors, and students all seek high-performance, zero-energy buildings because of their value in elevating recruitment, learning, and living outcomes on campus. Zero-energy buildings are now a reality on today’s shoe-string budgets. To become an advocate for high-performance, zero-energy design and construction, it’s important to understand the initial steps in implementing these projects. Come learn how you can reduce operating costs and bring a zero-energy building to your campus, resulting in a lower carbon footprint and greater health and wellbeing for students.

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: “You don’t know what you don’t know.” Everyone wants to do a good job on a facilities project, but it can be hard when you don't understand the other side’s unique perspectives, needs, goals, and competing demands. This session features insights from people who have been on both sides of a project—as architects, engineer, and sustainability professionals who also serve as college trustees and administrators. We'll share how to nurture empathy, prevent misunderstanding, and make your next facilities project run more smoothly.

Abstract: Managing a facility inventory can be frustrating, particularly when it seems like money to properly maintain your buildings is scarce. Tracking and communicating facilities data to stakeholders can make all the difference for both annual maintenance and capital expenditures. For Alamo Colleges, it resulted in $17 million more for maintenance funding over 10 years, and the passing of a $450 million-bond program. This article explains how to conduct a comprehensive facility condition assessment, use the data from that assessment to identify needs, and then communicate those needs to stakeholders in a convincing way.

Abstract: Innovative leaders must promote and cultivate a data culture that informs decision making across an institution. In this session, we will discuss data strategies for capital and facilities planning that enable real-time mobile access to planning tools, automated project tracking, metrics, and building transparency in order to support the planning and execution process. Come learn about agile development of available open source tools that enable cost-effective data strategies, including automated processes, and the development and implementation of planning and execution tools.

Abstract: Capital projects are designed and built in a number of ways. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each prescribes different roles for the owner, architect, and builder. The question is, which way or method best fits your institution’s criteria and project? This article presents a brief outline of the most popular methods by which projects are designed and built.

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.