Document 6584788

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