Charles Sturt University

Transcription

1 Charles Sturt University Division of Facilities Management DRAFT Operational Plan Statement of Context The Division of Facilities Management will seek to consolidate structural and operational initiatives during Staffing changes, vacancies and challenging construction programs have plagued the Division in the past few years. Many new initiatives have been introduced in 2008 and the 2009 Operational Plan seeks to consolidate and develop these at an organisational level. DFM will seek to improve its delivery of the Capital Plan and Maintenance Management in an extremely challenging financial environment. The Operational Plan targets a quality and consultative approach which, coupled with more open and structured business processes, is targeting incremental improvements across all areas of the division. The DFM Organisational Plan looks to develop some CSU wide proposals relating to Total Asset Management. These will be presented throughout the year and we will be seeking to establish a more consistent approach for Asset Management across all disciplines and divisions to promote efficiency and a more industry aligned Asset Management and business based approach.

2 Key Objective 1: Support of the CSU Course Plan Link to Course Plan 1.1 Provide appropriate facilities for the Ontario initiative. Context / planned outcomes historic performance / proposed actions / expected outcomes (targets or deliverables) / timeline [Associated Risks] Historic performance Expansion needs have been met on time and on budget Deliver next phase in accordance with new course profile Spaces to be developed in accordance with user needs and within budget allocation. In accordance with course approval, delivered in 2009? Risks - Timetable for delivering needs is compressed due to course approval difficulties. 1.2 All Leased spaces meet required needs of courses and accommodation needs. Historic performance There is currently no regular review of leases. Review all leases in regards to appropriateness via site visits and user interviews. Report annually (in July) focussing on appropriateness of space and cost / term of agreement. Definitive record and known position on all significant leases. Completed by June 2009 Risks - Resources to complete the work. Significant expansion needs identified. 2

3 Key Objective 2: Support of the CSU Research Plan Link to Research Plan 2.1 Research the Performance of Academic Accommodation Building #3 in Thurgoona. Context / planned outcomes historic performance / proposed actions / expected outcomes (targets or deliverables) / timeline [Associated Risks] Historic performance AA3 has been constructed to allow ongoing research in regards to phase change materials and passive building management. It is also hoped to achieve 6 star as designed GreenStar status. Submit 6 Star Accreditation Application Engage research partner to monitor and measure building performance Risks - Achieve 6 Star Accreditation for as designed building Publish annual report on the buildings performance and ultimately publish a paper. Submit 6 star documentation by Dec 08, response in Feb 09 Engage Research partner in Jan 09 and report in Dec 09 Not achieving 6 Star Cost of Research partner not sustainable 3

4 Key Objective 3: Support of the CSU Learning and Teaching Plan Link to Learning and Teaching Plan 3.1 Improve the Delivery of the Capital Plan Context / planned outcomes historic performance / proposed actions / expected outcomes (targets or deliverables) / timeline [Associated Risks] Historic performance Typically projects are delivered well behind the originally intended dates for availability Improve Governance by having established Steering and Control Groups Ensure project Definition Plan developed for all projects and endorsed by SEC Provide comprehensive Monthly reporting Focus on consistent project Management Methodology Stronger control and adherence to scope, program and budget Improved awareness of project progress, risks and program. Standardisation should improve project efficiencies within DFM All new projects from late Risks Users non adherence to more rigid framework. 3.2 Improve the reporting of the Capital Plan Historic performance There is no current comprehensive reporting of the Capital Plan in terms of budget and program Quarterly publish an authoritative Report on the implementation Status of the Plan Better informed clients and administrators. More active review of the plan first report issued in Feb 09 (review of 2008) then in April, July and October Risks Insufficient DFM resources to meet commitment. 3.3 Establish CSU Building Design Standards Historic performance CSU has little in the way of established design standards. Develop a framework for the documentation of the design standards and complete design standards in the following areas Signage Access Control Building Management Systems Furniture Increased consistency, reduced consultant briefing Complete a policy and associated documentation (procedures, guidelines etc.) each quarter. 4

5 Risks - DFM resources, Getting University approval for Policies. 3.4 Develop interim Master plans for all sites Historic performance There is limited consistent Master Planning Documentation for CSU Campuses. Develop interim Master Plans for all campuses with focus on Wagga Wagga and Bathurst as priorities. Undertake detailed traffic studies at Thurgoona and Bathurst Complete topographic surveying strategic areas of the major campuses Develop a requirements statement for each campus for the preparation of engaging Master planning consultants. Better guidance for current and medium term Capital Developments Identification of major needs for consideration for planning of detailed studies. Publish Interim Master Planning document in August 2009 Risks - DFM Resources, Budget allocation for Master planning. 3.5 Assessing Client needs Historic performance There have been few formal processes in the past to proactively seek advice from clients regarding their needs and future requirements. Visit each HoS formally and assess through discussion their Facilities needs. This to be done in conjunction with Backlog Maintenance and Teaching Space Refurbishment reviews. Better understanding of Clients needs for prioritisation Visits to occur twice annually during Mar / Apr and Sept / Oct Risks - DFM resources to achieve. Clients expectations in regards 5

6 Key Objective 4: Support of the Institutional Development Plan Link to Institutional Development Plan 4.1 Development of Strategic Asset Management Plan for the CSU Context / planned outcomes historic performance / proposed actions / expected outcomes (targets or deliverables) / timeline [Associated Risks] Historic performance CSU has no formal Strategic Asset Management Plan which leads to inconsistent and ad hoc approaches which result in longer term inefficiencies and financial Develop and document a Strategic Asset Management Plan for implementation. This covers all aspects of Total Asset management in accordance with NSW Government TAM Manual. In particular Asset Creation, Maintenance, Renewal and Disposal. Consistent approach to Asset management adopted across the University Draft by April 09 for discussion and consideration. Risks - Proposal not endorsed by SEC due to organisational change requirements 4.2 Implementation of Asset Register Project Historic performance Information systems are disjointed and inconsistent across DFM and other divisions / faculties with Asset responsibilities Implementation of project in accordance with agreed project methodology. Current DIT project however requires organisational change in accordance with Planned Strategic Asset Management Activity (listed above) to be successful. Establishment of one asset register for CSU that will provide foundation data for a range of asset related systems across the University which will lead to huge data improvements. Consistent data will lead to being able to conduct space analysis in confidence and this data, together with Maintenance, backlog and compliance data will allow more accurate planning in short, medium and longer terms. targeted for 09 implementation, however likely to extend to 2010 Risks - High risks due to lack of sufficient recurrent funding in current model / business plan. 4.3 Implement the Strategic Maintenance Framework Historic performance A framework for Strategic Maintenance has been developed to date however is yet to be fully implemented. Continue the implementation of the Strategic Maintenance Framework with particular emphasis for 2009 on the consolidation of all routine service contracts and the scheduling of planned maintenance. Complete roll out of BEIMS at Orange and ensure all new buildings data is captured into BEIMS through either WebFM or manual processes. 6

7 Review the Condition Audit data and update Review, in conjunction with Finance, Student Services and others, the opportunity to adjust the delivery of Cleaning Services to allow a more flexible and streamlined service that can cater for the dual roles of maintenance and cleaning where applicable and align more closely to Strategic frameworks. Risks - Improved knowledge of Assets and backlog / compliance issues Planned Maintenance requirements documented and implemented Contracts in place by June 09 BEIMS data for all new buildings in place by Oct 09 Condition Audit review by May 09 Cleaning Company review by April 09 Maintenance funds insufficient for required preventive Maintenance. DFM resource shortage to update BEIMS Can t reach agreement on future Cleaning company structure. 4.4 Introduction of Partnering Agreements Historic performance No specific documentation exists to provide guidance to the roles and responsibilities of inter division relationships which leads to inconsistencies Develop and implement a Partnering Agreement between DFM and Student Services Clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities for each division in regards to assets. Draft prepared by Feb 09 and implemented in April 09 Risks - Strategic and Organisational Policies not in place to allow for effective Partnering agreement to be implemented. 4.5 Assist with the implementation of a new Timetabling System for the University and use for Wagga BURF funded laboratory Project. Historic performance A new Timetabling software package is proposed for implementation. DFM currently has no effective interface into the timetabling system to undertake space planning exercises. Intermit involvement in the project as support Division and providing base data. Actively support implementation so space usage can be understood as soon as possible for asset planning needs. Seek to use process to assist with planning needs for BURF Funding initiative at Wagga Wagga laboratories. In accordance with project plan however hope to run trial on Wagga Labs by March Risks - Project group not ready for trial for Wagga Labs and process will need to revert to manual calculation. 7

8 4.6 Improve Energy Conservation 4.7 Establish a quality system for key activities within the Unit. Historic performance Limited energy savings projects have been implemented to date. Major strategies will be required if targets are to be met. Extensive Energy Measurement introduce automated measuring to assist with analysis and reporting (Optergy solution). Improve Energy Reporting issue scorecard and benchmarking, potentially normalising of consumption to ensure accurate comparisons. Implement an organisation wide Building Management system and integrate all new and ready buildings Undertake an Energy Audit of Orange Campus Investigate the use of Energy Performance Contract (EPC) at Bathurst and Wagga Wagga Establish some energy design principles for new buildings and target energy usage for benchmarking. Fill vacant Energy Manager s position Risks - Reductions in accordance with Sustainability Targets Better control and management of buildings energy consumption Minimise the impact of new buildings and increased energy consumption on CSU financial position New buildings achieve nominal 5 star ratings BMS implementation by June 09 EPC Draft documentation by March, final agreement by Sept 09 Design Principles by June 09 Energy Audit by Aug 09 DFM resources. Funding for BMS and Energy Recording outside budget parameters Achieving an acceptable funding model with the EPC s Historic performance Little documented quality processes are evident within the division. Establish a quality framework and system for evaluating the performance of all consultants Establish 3 key quality improvement tasks for each stream to be implemented throughout the year. Improved consistency in adherence to project deliverables and identification of preferred higher performing consultants. Improved understanding of quality processes and use of data 8

9 for process improvement Develop by Mar 09 for implementation 1 task per 4 months during 2009 Risks - None envisaged 4.8 Improve Financial reporting within the Division Historic performance There have been little official financial reporting in the division for the last 2 years and this has impacted on budget management. Establish a suite of regular reports that are published on a regular (monthly ) basis Better informed expenditure and budget monitoring More informed decision making in regards to budgets Reports have been developed in draft form during the later stages of 2008 and will be issued formally as of end January 2009 Risks - DFM resources due to maternity leave of key players. 4.9 Ensure new facility costs are understood and appropriate budget provisions made Establish a DFM Single point of contact. Historic performance Typically the costs of new buildings are not formally calculated prior to construction and consequently are not provided for appropriately. Establish a set of principles and processes to determine the operational costs of all new buildings prior to occupation. A Financial Impact Study to be developed as part of the feasibility planning process. Accurate understanding of future costs and liabilities of new buildings. Better budget consideration given to new developments. Complete as a trial for VDL Building at Wagga by June 09 Develop Policy by September 09 for endorsement by SEC Risks - True costs of buildings identified for consideration Historic performance Currently there is no specific standard process for contacting DFM for information, queries or requesting works Establish a single point of contact for all DFM queries and requests Consistent and standardised process should lead to less confusions, more timely responses and improved reporting procedures. Framework developed by March 09 and implemented in June 09. Evaluation to occur in Nov 09 Risks - Project implementation contingent on VOIP system being available. 9

10 4.11 Streamline the Purchasing and Tender Boards Historic performance Currently the tender and purchase board have overlapping responsibilities and reflect dated procurement processes Collapse both Tender and Purchasing Boards to forma new Procurement Review Board Establish Tender link as predominant tender process across the University Benchmark the delivery of tender processes for timeliness and outcome Improved efficiency of purchasing processes, particularly for larger projects. More streamlined and potentially more competitive process. Develop structure by end of 2008 including training and information session Training / introduction phase in Feb/ Mar 2009 Full implementation April 09 Benchmarking of performance Nov 09 first report. Risks - Compliance of internal CSU staff with new policy 4.12 Policy and Procedure development 4.13 Establish a formally agreed Asset Disposal Plan Historic performance The Division suffers form a distinct lack of formally documented Policies and Procedures which lead to inconsistent approaches Target 6 procedures and 3 formal policies for development throughout the year. Targeting areas of Signage, Energy, Access Control, Property Disposal, Project Management and Maintenance procedures. Increased consistency of approach and lead to planning and implementation efficiencies 2 Procedures and 1 policy per quarter and the final quarter to be used for planning for 2010 Risks - DFM resources to achieve documentation and consultation requirements. Historic performance CSU does not have an agreed disposal plan for surplus buildings Document a formal disposal plan for consideration by SEC with agreed timeframes Focus will be on Albury City Campus Broken Hill Lamplighter Building - Bathurst Agreed program, timetable and anticipated income schedules. More structured approach to disposals which will be reviewed annually Documentation of Plan by Mar 09 for review and endorsement. Implementation throughout the year in accordance with the Plan Risks Achieving targeted income during current economic downturn. 10

11 4.14 Establish improved communication forums with Clients Historic performance Typically in the past DFM has operated on a needs to know basis. A more open and two way dialogue is necessary are part of the quality improvement for the Conduct a DFM RoadShow which will be held at each campus twice annually. The forum will give an overview of major aspects of the Division, together with specific site related feedback in regards to programs and plans for specific areas. Improved understanding by Clients of the complexity of the Facilities Management process and identification of client issues and opportunities. hows held at each campus during the months of April and October Risks - None perceived at this stage Establish improved relationships with Planning departments of key local Councils Historic performance Currently most CSU developments are approached in a piecemeal fashion in regards to Development Applications and long term planning Establish an annual review of CSU Facility Directions with each major City Council Improved holistic understanding of CSU development directions and identification of any potential conflicts or special considerations required for future development Application. Reduced Development Application processing time. meet each council in May 09 on an annual basis form there on. Some preliminary meetings have occurred in Risks - None perceived at this stage 11