TOPICS 1. Project Overview 2. Why is UCSF doing this project? 3. Project Considerations 4. Governance 5. Timeline 6. Academic Senate Consultation Appendices 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW    Summary  Implementation of end-to-end space systems, processes and management information enable us to manage space as a strategic asset  Phase I: Develop detailed improvement roadmap for the management of space  Phase II: Implement, in phases, space management business systems with focus on process, data, technology and organization, including options to incorporate GIS and BIM solutions where feasible Benefits and Impact  Addresses strategic business need of space systems for units to use to improve usability and productivity of existing space, enabling increased productivity and success in research through improved infrastructure, and enhancing revenue, including Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR)  Enables better decision making at all levels through improved quality of space data and management information, directly benefiting a broad constituency base including researchers, department administrators and managers, facilities workforce, asset management personnel, leadership, and the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP)  Delivers high potential return and cost offsetting through optimization of space resources, and cost avoidance by reducing unnecessary construction and lease payments  Significantly streamlines current technology Key Process, People and Organization Changes  Beyond new systems and improved data, analyze and revise processes and responsibilities to optimize benefits from new technology 3 Why is UCSF doing this project?  Current Space Management at UCSF  Assigned to departments permanently who “own/manage” the space; accountability for utilization and productivity varies with each unit (school, vice chancellor); no historic UCSF-wide performance metrics or incentives for optimal utilization; no incentives or transparent mechanisms for deploying space  Results: Those who need space negotiate space from others or lease off-campus space or renovate their existing space to increase occupancy or build new space; those who don’t need space sit on unoccupied space, which in some cases is in poor condition and needs renovation  Space attributes are tracked in different systems managed by different units (e.g. Capital Programs, Campus Planning, Facilities, Medical Center Design & Construction, Budget, ITS) for different purposes; shadow systems developed because systems are not integrated and easily accessible to other users. Some attributes, e.g. occupants, are not tracked, so departments/units lack the data to make informed decisions about assigning/renovating/planning space.  Space Management Systems need to be overhauled and consolidated to support effective space governance at UCSF 4 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS  Process  Fix process and data flows as a condition to implementing technology investments  Incorporate related campus-wide changes (such as UC Path) into design analysis  Organization  Need organization strategy and commitment around staff support to manage technology and data needed for space management;  Technology  Buy vs. Build software options and final software solution approach will be vetted through the requisite governance structure(s)  Deliver technology for priority business areas while balancing building for the future  Leverage, where feasible, existing software tools from campus, Med Center and sister campuses  Identify systems that will be retired and include transition in implementation plans to eliminate duplication and redundancy 5 Space Management System Project Implementation Governance Structure Chancellor and Chancellor’s Direct Reports Executive Sponsors John Plotts, Jeff Bluestone Working Group (s) SMEs with data and systems knowledge of: • • • • • • • RAS; Research Systems (iRis, Rio, IDR) ICR Benchmarking HRIS Tools Current space inventory systems; GIS Medical Center space systems Facilities Security related (emergency, hazmat, etc) Project Leadership Team Owner Lori Yamauchi Project Leader Director, Space Analytics (under recruitment) Project Manager Jill Goldsmith, PMO Ad hoc SME Groups TBD based upon the topical focus and deep dive needs Steering Committee 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Lori Yamauchi (chair) Maye Chrisman, DOM Clarice Estrada, CVRI Bruce Wintroub, SOM Michael Nordberg, SOP Susan Schultz, SOD Miriam Rike, FAS Jason Stout, HR Jerome Sak, BRM Esther Morales, RE Michael Bade, CP Tim Mahaney, Med Center Anja Paardekooper, SOM Implementation Reps: Jane Wong, Mara Fellouris Add’l Members Phase 2 Police Facilities Rep EVCP CORE Functional, Technical, Change Management Team Details tbd 6 SPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ESTIMATED MILESTONES AND TIMELINE FY 14 FY 16 FY 15 Jan-June 14 July-Dec 14 July-Dec 15 Jan-June 15 Develop Roadmap (May-Oct) Oct 14 Scope and Plan delivered and approved Conceptual Design and Quick Wins (Oct – Mar) • • • • • Identify deliverables/outcomes Evaluate existing space management systems/processes Identify/evaluate alternative systems/tools for space management, including technologies, and mechanisms such as space charge Identify system/tool, process improvements Develop implementation plan, timeline and resource plan Jan-June 16 • • • • Procure tools (as needed) Complete conceptual design for entire system Complete detailed design for Phase 1 Complete communications and change management strategy March 15 design complete Implement Wave 1: (April-Dec) Dec 15 Phase 1 go live • • Build and deploy Wave 1, focused on top priority campus management and departmental needs Final Wave 1 scope tbd Design and Implement Wave 2 post Jan 16 tbd the scope and timeline Key milestones 7 ACADEMIC SENATE CONSULTATION  How does the Academic Senate want to be consulted in the development of the Space Management System?  Consultation through Senate committee(s)  Consultation through Faculty Councils  Steering Committee representation  Other mechanisms? 8 APPENDICES: 1 QUESTIONS THE SPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHOULD ANSWER 2 CURRENT SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATION 9 QUESTIONS THE SPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHOULD ANSWER: PRIMARY FOCUS 1. Space Inventory: What space does UCSF have? What are the key attributes (ie location, age, rooms, sq feet, etc? 2. Assignment: What space is assigned to which major units (e.g. schools, Medical Center, vice chancellors) and departments? 3. Utilization: How densely occupied is the space? Where is the unoccupied space at UCSF? Is the space being used effectively? If not, how can space utilization be improved (e.g. electronic file management) and what space can be returned for reassignment to others? How productive is research and clinical space? What opportunities exist at UCSF for consolidation and sharing of space and equipment between programs and individuals, and how can those programs and individuals be collocated to facilitate such consolidation and sharing? 4. Research: Where are individual research grants to UCSF investigators being conducted? 5. Personnel: where are the UCSF personnel physically located? 6. Future Planning: What space needs do UCSF units and departments have in the next three to five years to support existing and new programs, to provide for program growth, and to accommodate programs in less expensive space? What space solution options are in existing UCSF space including current utilization findings? 7. Revenue: Are UCSF’s major units generating sufficient revenue to cover the costs of their assigned space? If not, how can they be incentivized to generate more revenue, reduce their footprint, or lower their space costs? 10 QUESTIONS THE SPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHOULD ANSWER: SECONDARY FOCUS 8. Opportunities to leverage space data and supporting software investment: how can we leverage tools such as GIS and foundational space data to provide broader analytics and incorporate additional information to meet budgeting, facilities management, capital program, and other management needs? • Renovation and Upgrades: What is the age and condition of space and fixtures including “behind the walls” building systems? Which space needs renovation, reconfiguration or updating for its current use or alternative uses in order to meet code requirements, to renew building systems which have reached or will soon reach the end of their useful lives, or to be more efficient, productive, or functional to support the needs of contemporary research, instruction and clinical programs? How can such renovation/reconfiguration projects be batched with building-wide system improvements to leverage capital investments? How should space be rearranged through demolition/new construction and conversion in order to optimize its use and functionality? • Valuation: What is the value of UCSF’s physical assets, including land, buildings and equipment? • Operating Costs: What are the operating costs for UCSF’s space, by site, building, floor, room? What strategies can UCSF implement to lower their operating costs? • Other key management areas: where GIS technology has been deployed, can it be leveraged in such areas as IT management, emergency management and hazardous materials management? 11 CURRENT STATE: SPACE AND COST DATA SYSTEMS AT UCSF 12