Report of the Space Economy Task Force - DOC

Document Sample
Report of the Space Economy Task Force - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                                      February 4, 2004




Space Allocation Management Report




         February 4, 2004




  University of Illinois at Chicago
                                                                        February 4, 2004


                         Space Allocation Management Report

                                   Executive Summary


1. Space is a critical resource.

2. Current space management activities are more difficult than they need be, because of
   the lack of recognized guidelines for space allocation the absence of an established
   and respected structure and process, conflicting perceptions of space ownership, and a
   lack of clearly perceived relationships between space decisions and programmatic
   priorities.

3. A formal institutional model for managing and allocating all new and existing space
   should be adopted, marked by clear processes of input and consultation, clear points
   for decision-making, and clear processes for appeal.

4. Guidelines for analyzing space requirements should be adopted, in order to create a
   common understanding of how the campus values space.

5. Existing space allocations should be periodically reviewed, quantitatively and
   qualitatively, in light of space allocation guidelines.

6. The cost and productivity of space should be addressed explicitly in program
   planning and budgeting. Budgetary mechanisms should be developed to assist units
   in using space efficiently and effectively.

7. UIC’s existing space inventory data and planning staff must provide an adequate
   technical foundation for managing the allocation of campus space. Specific
   administrative adjustments should be made as needed to support new processes as
   they are established

8. Space management activities should be reported publicly and periodically and
   summarized to provide an assessment of problems and progress toward their
   resolution.

9. UIC should continue to explore models for a sophisticated market-based “space
   economy” in an academic setting.

10. UIC should continue to explore ways to develop robust linkages among capital
    planning, facilities planning, facilities management, and academic programming.
                                                                           February 4, 2004

                         Space Allocation Management Report


                                     A. Introduction.

At the request of the Provost, a small group was convened in late 2003 by the Vice
Provost for Academic Administration to review existing mechanisms for analyzing and
managing the allocation of space on the UIC campus. A copy of the charge letter is
included as Appendix One of this report. The draft report of the working group was
referred to the provost to the Executive Vice Provost for further revision and
development.

This report summarizes this collective analysis of the history of space planning at UIC,
the strengths and weaknesses of existing institutional structures, current practice and staff
capabilities, and options and opportunities for improving management of new and
existing space.

This report is intended as a progress report and a catalyst for broader discussion, leading
to formal adoption of new processes. As this draft is shared with interested parties, the
ensuing conversations will be reflected in subsequent drafts.

Comments on this draft should be directed to Tracy Wise (tlwise@uic.edu).


                                     B. Background.

The creation and use of space by any institution is not only important in itself, but also
has a critical affect on other resources, especially people and money. We speak on
everyday conversation of an internal “space economy,” with the multiple meanings of a
mode of value, modes of allocation and exchange. In the near term, we must look at
ways of improving an internal space economy which has a variety of centralized and non-
market mechanisms for allocation (as is characteristic in higher education.) In the long
run, we must reflect on how our internal space economy intersects with the more
decentralized price-based market mechanisms of the external space economy.

The phrase “space economy’ also carries the meaning of “economizing,” or finding the
most efficient and effective use of space resources . Hence space planning professionals
constantly ask questions about whether existing space assigned to departments is being
used efficiently (is the ratio of people to space appropriate?) and effectively (are
occupants of space performing tasks that are beneficial to the institution?). And of
course the same questions apply equally to proposals for new space.

Finally, the etymology of the word “economy” includes the concept of “stewardship,”
especially of the resources within a household or family. While any finite resource is
inevitably an object of competition, there remains an obligation of the university as a




                                         Page 1 of 20
                                                                              February 4, 2004

whole, and of each responsible party within it, to act as steward of our space resources for
those who are served by our university.

With these thoughts in mind, we turn to some basic questions:

        1.   What is the value of the space that is occupied by campus units?
        2.   How, historically, has this space been managed?
        3.   What is the current mode of operation?
        4.   How could our management strategy be improved to better our stewardship of
             space as a valuable resource?


                                 C. Overview of Campus Space.

The UIC campus (excluding rental space and regional sites) has approximately 7.7
million net assignable square feet of space. This figure includes both state-supported and
Auxiliary Facility System buildings and parking decks. Table One provides a summary of
space inventory and replacement value for UIC.

        Table One: Quantity and Estimated Replacement Value of Existing Space

                                                                                 Estimated
                                                                                Replacement
Space Type                                    NASF         Estimated GSF          Value

Classroom                                     250,473            375,710        $    64,287,653
Instructional Laboratory/Service              334,990            549,383        $   108,332,952
Research Laboratory/Service                   668,273          1,116,016        $   292,329,207
Office                                      1,667,504          2,834,757        $   502,120,472
Study (Library)                               314,109            486,869        $    83,994,631
Special Use                                   276,097            496,974        $    85,076,944
General Use                                   438,862            833,839        $   170,536,659
Support Facility-Central                       37,205             44,646        $     7,134,878
 Computer/Telecom
Support Facility-Shop                           76,252             91,503       $ 14,622,998
Support Facility-Central Storage              334,047             400,857       $ 64,060,861
Support Facility-Vehicle Storage            2,006,230           2,407,476       $ 384,738,739
Support Facility-Central Services             110,293             132,351       $ 21,151,109
Support Facility-Hazardous Materials             0                   0                    -
Health Care                                   462,167             785,684       $ 210,971,895
Residential                                   469,034                0                    -
Unassigned                                    258,584                0                    -
                                            ------------      -------------     ------------------
Total                                       7,704,120         10,556,065        $2,009,358,998

(Source: Office of Facility Planning and Space Analysis)

This data is included in annual reports that are sent to the Illinois Board of Higher
Education (IBHE) for use in its review of budget requests. The major room use
categories (“space types”) are as defined by the post-secondary Higher Education


                                               Page 2 of 20
                                                                                 February 4, 2004

Facilities Classification and Inventory Procedures Manual, which is the standard for
classification and reporting of space data for institutions of higher education in the United
States. Appendices Two and Three show comparable space tabulations for each vice
chancellor and college, as well as definitions of each space type.


                                   D. Value of Campus Space.

The significance of UIC's space inventory as a campus resource should not be taken for
granted. The estimated replacement value is $2.1 billion. To put this number in context,
we note that the FY03 operating budget of UIC was $1.25 billion and that of the entire
University of Illinois system was $2.7 billion.

If we consider a hypothetical situation in which UIC might be forced to pay market rates
for the space it uses, we can begin to appreciate the resource value of space that is used
by campus units on an annual basis. As an example, Table Two presents a rough
estimate of the value of existing space based on office rental rates in the West Loop Gate
area and estimated laboratory rental rates.


            Table Two: Estimate of Market Value of Space Utilized by UIC Units


Space Type       NASF         Assumed Annual Market Rate          Implicit Annual Rent
Office           1.95M                       $25/sf                          $48.8M

Research Lab     0.80M                       $50/sf                          $40.0M

All Space        8.85M                      $15-40/sf                   $133-354M*

         * Implicit Rent as Percentage of Campus Operating Budget: 10%-28%

(Source: Office of Facility Planning and Space Analysis)

The point of this example is that UIC’s operating budget does not capture the full cost of
operations. If we accept the heroic assumptions built into Table Two, it would appear
that the facility use value (implicit rent) associated with the space that UIC provides to
campus units might be valued at 10-28% of the campus operating budget.

It should be noted that these estimates are only presented to suggest an “order-of-
magnitude” for the resource value of existing campus space. The estimates are extremely
rough approximations of actual values. For example, the private sector quotes market
rates on the basis of “rentable” area square footages, which can be 15% higher than the
net assignable square foot figures carried in the UIC space inventory. Furthermore,
office rental rates vary considerably depending on building condition, and rates for
laboratory space can vary dramatically depending on the type of laboratory environment.
The range of rates shown for the “All Space” category was chosen to represent a blending


                                              Page 3 of 20
                                                                          February 4, 2004

of the costs of relatively low-cost space (e.g., office and storage) and very high-cost
space (e.g., laboratory, hospital, and clinic). The Office of Facilities Planning and Space
Analysis (FPSA) and the Office of Business and Financial Services (OBFS) staff could
be asked to conduct a more rigorous analysis of market conditions, if there is interest in
pursuing further this valuation question.


       E. Historical Perspectives on Space Planning and Management at UIC.

Interviews with several former senior administrators added perspective on previous
approaches to space management. These interviews focused on space management at the
pre-consolidation Medical Center and Chicago Circle campuses and at UIC during the
late 1980’s and 1990’s.

The major conclusions drawn from these interviews are as follows:

        Campus administrators have always been aware of quantitative space planning
         standards and guidelines.

        Space guidelines have been used to plan new buildings and to vet individual
         space requests.

        There have been several attempts to prepare comprehensive studies of space
         needs versus space allocations. Due to the controversial nature of these
         studies and the high stakes associated with their use in decision-making, these
         efforts were unpopular.

        Similarly, when space planning and analysis activity aimed at quantification
         of need occurred in the context of project planning, these activities tended to
         focus on interactions between individual units and the project architect and
         campus space office.

        There has been little public airing of methodologies or results.. Space
         allocation negotiations have, for the most part, been conducted in one-on-one
         meetings between senior campus administrators and deans or department
         heads and have not always made full use of guideline-based staff analysis.


                       F. Current Space Management Practice.

In assessing current practice, we discussed the condition of existing space data; existing
analytical tools; and space management and planning principles, processes, and
procedures.

1. Space Data and Software Systems. UIC’s space data collection, storage,




                                        Page 4 of 20
                                                                           February 4, 2004

and representation capabilities have increased dramatically over the past six years. At
one point, UIC relied on mylar transparencies to produce paper copies of floor plans and
maintained a flat-file mainframe database that could be used to print out basic data keyed
to room numbers on the floor plans. Updating of this data was laborious and often
undertaken infrequently, either on an annual or as-needed basis. UIC now has a
sophisticated system for obtaining and maintaining space allocation and space utilization
data. This system was developed by and is the responsibility of FPSA.

FPSA uses state-of-the-art software to maintain campus space data. The three key
platforms FPSA uses for this purpose are Archibus, AutoCad, and the FPSA website.
AutoCad is used for creating and maintaining floor plans that represent space inside of
existing buildings. Archibus is a facility management application that creates
associations between a relational database containing information about space attributes
and AutoCad plan elements. The website facilitates collection and display of information
held within the Archibus and Autocad databases.

The basic attributes included in the FPSA databases include square footages, user
assignment, space type identifiers, utilization information, personnel location, principal
investigator location, and organizational codes. Much of this data is available to
authorized users (including departmental gatekeepers) via a web-based interface.

Archibus and AutoCad are used by FPSA to extract and manipulate space data and to
graphically display adjacencies between units. Crystal Reports is used as a tool to create
ad hoc reports as requested for customized space planning and for development of more
complex reports. FPSA also uses standard Excel spreadsheets for analytical work.

FPSA recently completed beta-testing of a web-based space utilization survey tool that
will allow departments to update and propose space assignment changes on a real-time
basis. This system has been rolled out as a replacement for the manual paper space
utilization survey that has traditionally been conducted on an annual or bi-annual cycle.
The new system will dramatically increase the efficiency and timeliness of data collection
and support efforts to build a quick-response space planning capability.

2. Analytical Methods. The analytical functions of FPSA are most critical for purposes
of this report. The key ingredients for space requirements modeling are guidelines,
standards, or benchmarks to translate staffing, enrollment, and research activity into
space needs. There is a long history of the application of this methodology at the
University of Illinois. In fact, one of the earliest space generation modeling texts was
written by a UIUC engineer, Harlan Bareither, in 1968. This method was made
operational in UIC’s space office in the late 1980’s and was used to prepare several
reports comparing space requirements to space assignments.

More recent work in this area is reflected in guidelines and standards prepared by the
California Post-Secondary Education Commission, the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Another point
of reference is the amount of space allocated to similar functions at other institutions.



                                        Page 5 of 20
                                                                         February 4, 2004

FPSA staff have identified a number of peer institutions that are used as benchmarks for
comparative purposes in evaluating space need claims.

Useful points of reference include:

University of Michigan
The University of Michigan has implemented a space chargeback system. The system is
predicated on activity-based space accounting. Fundamentally, space operations &
maintenance charges such as custodial, grounds, heating, and cooling, are charged to
units at differing rates based on the buildings and the space types they occupy. These
charges are paid for from the units’ budget. The units are given most, if not all, of their
activity-based indirect cost reimbursement. This includes, but is not limited to, income
from tuition, gifts, endowments, executive education, and outreach. This has erased the
operations and maintenance funding gap that typically occurs between the state costs and
the real costs of building operations. Furthermore, it has led to an entrepreneurial spirit
and, ultimately, to spending flexibility at the department and college level. They have no
“space czar,” but do have an active master-planning process.

University of California System
The California System has pursued space economies for nearly a quarter of a century. In
the late 1970’s and through the early 1990’s, California established the California Post
Secondary Education Commission (CPEC). The commission consisted of 15 members,
nine representing the general public, with three each appointed for six-year terms by the
governor, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly. The other six
came from major segments of post-secondary education in California. Through the
implementation of space measures, the commission was charged with assuring the
effective utilization of public post-secondary education resources, thereby eliminating
waste and unnecessary duplication, and promoting diversity, innovation and
responsiveness to student and societal needs. Although the space utilization system was
not formally implemented, many universities, both inside and outside the system, use its
productivity measures on an informal basis.

University of Wisconsin - Madison (UW)
According to Eb Schubert, administrative program manager, and president of the Higher
Education Facilities Management Association (HEFMA), space economies have not been
actively pursued at UW. Interest in the subject has been extremely political and the
perceived outcome of such an effort has been less than appealing. UW believes the
primary University benefit of such an exercise would be to identify decentralized space in
poor condition. These beliefs, along with the strength of their faculty governance, the
considerable power of researchers, and issues of tenured faculty, have kept them from
instituting a productivity measure related to space economy. Eb mentioned that there is
no “space czar” at UW and that much of the power related to the assignment of space is
controlled by faculty and researchers.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
Rigorous quantitative analyses of space requirements have not been actively pursued at
UIUC since the era of Harlan Bareither during the 1970's. Interest in the subject has


                                        Page 6 of 20
                                                                            February 4, 2004

waned due to economic and political factors. In the 1970's Bareither published two
books on the principles of measuring productivity vs. space usage. Both books were
widely disseminated and hugely successful. Bareither had a close relationship with the
president of the university at that time, and the concept of closely managed productivity
measures was actively pursued. Because of Bareither's close relationship with the
president, he was the de facto "Czar of Space." This approach served the University well
until that president stepped down. Since then, productivity measures have been less
important and have not been implemented at either the University or the IBHE levels.

Conversations about space at UIC reflect the lack of formal space standards in Illinois.
FPSA staff are careful to distinguish between “standards” and “guidelines” and recognize
that existing quantitative models do not address quality of space and idiosyncrasies of
existing buildings, e.g., building dimensions which make it impractical for offices to
conform to commonly accepted sizes.

These qualifications and reservations are appropriate and reflect thoughtful consideration
of the limits of quantitative analysis, but they also signal the relatively weak status of the
space analysis and management function at UIC. It should be understood that FPSA staff
are the campus’s primary repository of expertise in the application of space requirement
models. The value of that expertise can best be realized in a climate where these models
are adopted as state or university guidelines, and where it is understood that “off-the-
shelf” models must be customized for specialized activities, e.g., research, and for
adaptive reuse applications, e.g., conversion of old teaching labs to office space.

Nevertheless, FPSA has conducted thorough analyses of space requirements for the
Colleges of Architecture and the Arts, Pharmacy, and Business Administration and for
the School of Public Health. These analyses have shown that the colleges are using
existing space efficiently, and have confirmed the need for additional space to
accommodate projected growth and to eliminate existing space deficits. This report
concurs with FPSA's recommendation that similar studies be initiated for the remaining
colleges and that these studies be updated regularly. (Appendix Four provides a
summary of the status of space data and analytical work for each of UIC's colleges and
departments.)

3. Evolving Space Management Processes and Procedures. It is generally
acknowledged that two distinctly different approaches to space management have been
taken at UIC. These approaches can be labeled as “formal” and “informal.” Both are
acknowledged to have political dimensions. The two key differences are the use of
analytical methods and the public airing of issues.

The informal approach involves one-on-one negotiations with senior campus
administrators. This approach can produce quick decisions which meet the needs of the
negotiating unit. However, it typically results in decisions being made without the
benefit of FPSA analysis, and without public input and debate that can foresee impact on
other units.




                                         Page 7 of 20
                                                                        February 4, 2004

The formal approach involves a structured preparation and review of space proposals. It
requires FPSA analysis and provides structured points for assessing impact on other units
and relationships to overall university priorities. However, it may involved an added
burden of proof on the proposing unit, and, if mis-managed, can lengthen the mandatory
time to a final decision.

The evolving formal approach at UIC is evidenced in procedures and policy statements
that have been developed over the past few years. Appendix Five, for example, includes
space allocation and facility planning policy statements that have been adopted by the
campus and are generally acknowledged by deans and vice chancellors. It also includes a
copy of the FPSA “Space Request Form,” a sample "Memorandum of Understanding"
(MOU) that has been recommended to identify parameters for planning and
memorializing agreements, a "UIC Move Guide," and the Table of Contents from a
“Guide to Facility Planning Services.” These documents reflect analytical approaches to
space planning and management, and include procedural guidelines and “frequently
asked questions,” as well as statements of principles to be followed in analyzing space-
related issues.

A significant event in the development of the formal space management structure at UIC
occurred in April, 2000 with the appointment of a standing space planning committee for
the west side of campus. The premise for the creation of this committee was that
discussions regarding space should occur in a public forum. The west side space
planning committee has continued to meet, typically on a bi-monthly basis, since its
creation, and a similar east side committee was created in November, 2001.

The members of the existing east and west side space planning committees generally
agree that opening up the space management process was a healthy step for the campus
and that a formal process for space management is appropriate. However, there is a need
to clarify several aspects of the evolving process.

The first issue is clarification of the role(s) of the existing committees. Initially, the
committees were thought of as planning committees, and there was an attempt to develop
consensus decisions regarding space requests. Over time, experience showed that very
little planning per se occurred in the committee process (because planning requires
intense staff work with space users, which is best accomplished in small working
sessions) and that consensus, although desirable, was not feasible in all situations. The
existing committees are now being referred to as space management committees and their
role is being redefined to focus on sharing information that results from FPSA staff work.

The second issue is the role of the committees in decision-making. There has been
confusion over whom the committees report to, and at what level decisions should be
made in the event that consensus is not reached at the committee level. One option is to
create a campus-wide group that would approach space allocation from a broad campus
perspective that is difficult to achieve in committees whose participants have strong
vested interests. This committee could include representation from colleges, the faculty
senate, university administration, and campus administration to achieve the desired



                                       Page 8 of 20
                                                                          February 4, 2004

breadth of perspective. A second approach would be to have the committees report
directly to the Office of the Provost, which would make final decisions with the advice of
appropriate senior campus officers. The working group favors adoption of this second
model, the details of which are included in Section I of this report.

4. Current Administrative Space Allocation Protocol. The current approach to space
allocation at UIC (the “space economy”) can be described as an administrative model, as
opposed to a market-based model. This approach begins with the assertion that all space
on campus belongs in a legal sense to the State of Illinois, in a fiduciary sense to the
Board of Trustees and operationally to the Provost. But in practice, colleges and other
administrative units feel they have proprietary rights to the space they occupy, and
campus administration frequently behave in ways that tacitly acknowledge those rights.
For example, it is common to say that the ideal resolution to a space conflict is to find a
“win-win” solution. In the majority of cases, negotiated solutions are reached in which
the campus provides “sweeteners” to induce agreement from one or more of the
participants to relinquish their “rights.” This may be a “win-win” solution for the
competing departments, but in reality it is a three-person game in which the campus pays
for moves and remodeling. Presumably this approach has been acceptable, because the
value of the resulting programmatic improvements exceeds the financial cost to the
campus and because minimization of conflict is a valued outcome.

5. Market-Based Space Allocation Alternatives. Various alternatives exist to this model.
One is to establish a free-market economy in which units could exchange space and
financial resources without central regulation to meet their space needs. Another is to
establish a centrally brokered exchange mechanism in which the campus would credit
units for relinquishing space and charge for new allocations of space. Appendix Six
contains a prospectus for one market-based approach to space allocation. This and other
formalized exchange mechanisms may merit further exploration and discussion, and
potential implementation on a pilot basis.

A more incremental approach is to recognize the resource value of space assignments by
including inventory, utilization, productivity, and valuation data in budget planning and
performance reporting contexts. This report strongly supports this concept , and suggests
that OBFS include space metrics and valuation in their annual closing statements for
operating budget accounts.

                              G. Organizational Strengths

The working group noted a number of strengths in the current UIC space economy:

        Establishment of committee mechanisms for involvement of campus units in
         space allocation discussions

        Experience and expertise of FPSA staff




                                        Page 9 of 20
                                                                         February 4, 2004


        Existence of well-developed and carefully maintained floor plan and space
         assignment data, and implementation of web-based floor plan and data
         extraction utilities and data collection tools

        Ongoing development of space planning and management principles and
         space request protocols to link space requests to program and budget
         requirements

        Ongoing development of campus and college-level strategic plans with
         articulated space-needs components


             H. Opportunities for Improvement of Space Management.

Space management at UIC can be improved by creating and institutionalizing a
philosophy and a management structure as follows:

1. Articulation of a Space Management Philosophy. The campus administration should
formalize the best elements of current practice; should make improvements where
needed; and should create a shared understanding of how space issues will be framed,
analyzed, and resolved on an operational basis.

One of the first steps in this process should be the adoption of space planning principles
that articulate a philosophy regarding the allocation and use of space. Space issues should
be rational, analytical, participatory, and closely linked to campus goals and needs.
Campus space policies and practices should be clear and non-burdensome, and should
support efficient administration at the unit level. Existing policy statements and FPSA
guidelines should be reviewed and distilled in order to capture the essential elements of
this approach. The resulting principles should be widely disseminated and used as an
anchor point for analysis of individual space requests and overall space allocation
priorities.

2. Institutionalization of a Space Management Process and Structure. The campus
should create a structure and process to resolve competing space claims that meet
threshold conditions for need. The campus should likewise create a structure and process
for periodic reassessment of existing space assignments. The lack of these structures and
processes is the greatest weakness of the existing space allocation management system.
Under current arrangements, space claims are asserted and vetted in a variety of venues
and often resolved on an ad hoc basis. Establishment and implementation of a clear
structure and process for space issues will require the clarification of the roles of FPSA
and the east and west side space committees, the recognition of a high-level policy
committee, and administrative resolve to avoid circumventions of the process in the
interest of short-term expediency or conflict-avoidance.

Our specific recommendations are as follows:



                                       Page 10 of 20
                                                                          February 4, 2004


       Clarify FPSA Roles and Responsibilities.

Establish FPSA as the sole point of input for the processing of space allocation requests.

        Require that requesting units submit and/or develop develop and submit
         background information, programmatic rationales, and strategic priorities as a
         necessary condition for the processing of space requests.

        Establish a tradition of preparing staff reports and recommendations to
         accompany completed requests that are forwarded for higher levels of
         administrative review.

        Post completed space requests and FPSA staff reports on the FPSA website to
         promote awareness of pending issues and fully disclose criteria used in the
         development of recommendations

       Clarify the Roles and Responsibilities of East and West Side Space
       Committees and Provost’s Management Team.

        Change the emphasis of the East and West Side Space Committees from
         planning to information and management. This change would recognize the
         fact that most planning activity occurs outside of the committee process due to
         the need for intense one-on-one activity to define program requirements and
         analytical staff work to prepare options and evaluate alternatives.

        Clarify the role of these committees as advisory to the Vice Provost for
         Academic Administration and assign responsibility for decision-making to the
         Vice Provost, subject to the review and consent of the Provost.

        Focus the agendas of the Space Management Committees on (a) sharing of
         information on new space requests, (b) identification of issues to be addressed
         by FPSA in preparing staff work, (c) reviewing and commenting on
         completed FPSA staff work and recommendations, and (d) providing advice
         to the Vice Provost for Academic Administration regarding disposition of
         requests.

        As the Vice Provost for Academic Administration formulates decisions,
         provide for regular consultation by the VPAA with the Provost’s Management
         Team to ensure a breadth of perspective and congruence of decisions with
         programmatic priorities.

       Focus Decision-making in the Vice Provost for Academic Administration.




                                       Page 11 of 20
                                                                         February 4, 2004

       FPSA, the East/West Side Space Committees, and the PMT should act in advisory
       and decision-support roles to the VPAA. Decisions should be formulated by the
       VPAA for review and confirmation by the Provost.


       Recognize the Need for Use of Ad Hoc Task Forces to Provide Advice on
       Difficult Issues.

The campus should consider the use of ad hoc task forces to provide independent analysis
and recommendations regarding difficult choices. This mechanism was used to provide
advice regarding reallocation of space in the MBRB to accommodate a major research
grant and also to resolve conflicts associated with the siting of the East Campus
Recreation Center. These task forces should be composed of members of the campus
community who have subject-area expertise, but who have no vested interest in the
matter at hand. These task forces are intended to serve on a short-term basis to minimize
delays in decision-making.

I. Proposed Space Management Process Model

The flowchart on the following page summarizes the process that we recommend for
managing space requests. The process focuses on open and public discussion of space
requests in the context of strategic and business plans. We believe that this will enable
the campus to move from a largely ad hoc and opportunistic model of decision-making to
one that is aimed at middle to long-term optimization of the use of facilities. The
following paragraphs summarize the activities that are associated with each segment of
the flowchart.

The process may begin with the identification of perceived need by the requesting unit.
Alternatively, it may begin with the Vice Provost for Academic Administration
identifying a major space opportunity, such as backfill in the wake of new buildings, and
the solicitation of space proposals.

 In either case, units’ perceived needs should be identified using FPSA’s Space Request
Form (see Appendix Five - B) as is currently required. In addition, the requesting unit
should be required to provide:
         (a) an analysis of the efficiency of use of existing space
        (b) a summary of the productivity of the occupants of existing space
        (c) the programmatic rationale for the request for additional space
        (d) a business plan outlining the costs and benefits of the proposed programmed
activity, including all associated operating and staffing costs.

FPSA should draft templates for collection of this data and circulate them to the East and
West Side Space Management Committees for review and comment.

The proposing unit’s role in processing the request is to (a) review the request for
completeness, (b) verify the assumptions and projections in the unit’s business plan (c)



                                       Page 12 of 20
                                                                            February 4, 2004

confirm that the request is consistent with the unit’s strategic plan and (d) analyze options
for internal reallocation of space to accommodate the unit’s needs. The Dean , or Vice
Chancellor forwards the request to FPSA if and only if the college or unit determines that
it cannot provide space by internal reallocation.

FPSA will typically interact intensively with the requesting unit to confirm programmatic
needs and fill in gaps in the strategic and business plans that support the space request.
FPSA will (a) identify any gaps in the information provided by the unit, (b) confirm the
utilization and productivity data supplied in support of the request, (c) prepare an
independent assessment of the availability of space for internal reallocation, (d) apply
space allocation guidelines to establish an independent assessment of need, (e) identify
options to provide additional space (if appropriate), and (f) prepare a written report of
findings and recommendations for review and discussion by the appropriate space
management committee.

As is currently the practice, the Vice Provost for Academic Administration will chair the
space management committees. An agenda for each meeting will be posted on the
committee’s website in advance of each meeting. In addition, FPSA will post staff
reports in advance of the bi-monthly meetings of each committee. The structure of the
committee agenda will provide opportunities for discussion and comment on specific
requests and FPSA staff reports. If the discussion indicates that additional information or
analysis is needed, the Vice Provost for Academic Administration as chair of the
committee will direct FPSA to engage in further research and revise its reports for
consideration at a subsequent meeting. If the committee determines that a staff report
provides a sufficient basis for discussion, the chair will obtain the advice of the
committee on the disposition of the space request.

The Vice Provost for Academic Administration should be assigned decision-making
responsibility. In the event that competing interests for the same space have comparable
programmatic value, functional efficiencies and fiscal stability, or if the matter at hand is
extremely controversial, the Vice Provost will ordinarily confer with the Provost’s
Management Team prior to conferring with the Provost.

Either the Provost and Vice Provost may choose to appoint a task force of disinterested
faculty and staff to conduct an independent assessment. This group should be chosen to
ensure impartiality and should be given a relatively short period of time to review the
matter and provide advice to the Vice Provost.

The Vice Provost’s recommendation will be finalized after confirmation by the Provost.
The Vice Provost’s decision will be transmitted in an MOU from the Office of the
Provost to the requesting nit with copies to the appropriate Space Management
Committee. The Vice Provost will report quarterly to the Deans Council on space
decisions and major pending proposals.




                                         Page 13 of 20
                                                                                                         February 4, 2004




University of Illinois at Chicago                                                                             Space Management Process Model
                                                                                                                                                                   Revised 2/7/03




                                                                                        Request for                                      Request for
                                                                                      information and                                     additional
                                                                                        clarification                                      analysis
                                                                                                                                                           Space Management
       Request from Unit                                       College                                               FPSA
                                                                                                                                           Initial            Committee
                                                                                                                                          request
   Includes business plan;                                                                 Endorse          Reviews documentation,
                                                                                           Request                                        and staff
   programmatic rationale;            Request         Confirms priorities and                             identifies information gaps,     report       Reviews request and staff
   and relationship to unit,                           inability to reallocate                                 analyzes needs and                        recommendations and
     college, and campus                                  space internally                                  utilization, and develops                   provides advice to VPAA
         strategic plan                                                                                         recommendations

                                                                                           Feedback


                                                                                            Advice
                                     Referral of
                                       issue
 Optional Ad Hoc Task Force                                                                               2010 Priorities Committee
                                    Third-party
                                    recommen -
     Provides independent              dation
          review and                                                                                          Strategic direction
       recommendation



                                                                                             Process                                       Process
                                     Referral of                                          improvement                                    improvement
                                       issue                                                feedback                                        advice
Provost's Management Team                                       VPAA                                               Provost                                   Deans Council
                                                                                              Final
                                                                                          recommen -                                      Report of
                                      Advice                                                 dation         • Advice and consent         action taken     Monitors process and
                                                           Develops final
   Regular advice to VPAA                                                                                  • Process improvement                           suggests process
                                                          recommendation
                                                                                                                 initiatives                             improvement initiatives


Notes:
1) VPAA = Vice Provost of Academic Affairs, FPSA = Facility Planning and Space Analysis
                                                                                          Page 1 of 20
               February 4, 2004




Page 1 of 20
                                                                           February 4, 2004

Any unit affected by a space allocation decision may appeal the Vice Provost’s decision.
Appeals may be filed on the basis of procedural error, factual error, or new information.
The appellant shall state the basis for the appeal and provide appropriate documents to
substantiate the nature of the error.

Examples of procedural error include:
      •failure to consult with a unit that will be affected by the decision;
      •failure to secure funding
      •failure to schedule the space request for discussion by the cognizant space
        management committee.

Examples of factual error include:
      •errors in reporting of existing space assignments and utilization
      •errors in reporting of FTE, headcount, or research activity
      •use of incorrect standards for estimating space requirements.

Examples of new information include major changes in a unit’s status, research activity,
or availability of funding. Such information would not be a valid basis for appeal if the
information were available for, but not reflected in, the original space request or
discussion with the space management committee.

Units should be encouraged to enter into voluntary space contracts with one another.
Such contracts should be promptly reported so that they may be reflected within the
annual space utilization survey. Space that is leased or loaned but not reported should be
subject to forfeiture.

The Provost’s Management Team under the leadership of the Vice Provost for Academic
Administration will monitor the effectiveness of the space planning process and consider
strategies for improvement, especially as recommended within the Deans Council. The
Office of Facility Planning and Space Analysis is developing a “Guide to Facility
Planning Services” which can provide the basis for a space planning process when
adopted by the campus.


                           J. Additional Recommendations

1. Adopt a Set of Space Allocation Guidelines. The benchmarks used by FPSA in
evaluating space requests should be circulated for review and comment and published to
provide a framework for discussion of the adequacy of existing space allocations and the
appropriateness of requests for assignment of additional space.

2. Heighten Awareness of the Space Management Process. This is being partially
addressed by restructuring the agendas of the east and west side space management
committees. The new agendas will feature written work programs for analyzing and
preparing recommendations for resolution of space allocation issues.




                                        Page 1 of 20
                                                                              February 4, 2004

     In addition, the FPSA website should be expanded to provide for the posting of the
     following information:
             > Space allocation guidelines
             > Space planning principles
             > Space request submittal requirements and review protocols
             > Space requests as submitted by requesting units
             > Staff analysis and recommendations
             > Final space allocation decisions

     The campus should consider the value of publishing an annual report summarizing space
     allocation, space utilization and productivity data, space issues taken under advisement,
     and space issues that have been resolved.

     3. Heighten Awareness of the Resource Value of Space Assigned to Colleges and
     Departments. Space allocation and space value data should be included in annual
     reviews of performance and productivity and in budget planning exercises. Space
     resource consumption should be incorporated in college and departmental operating
     statements that are prepared by OBFS.

     4. Develop a System to Manage Space Commitments Associated with Grant
     Applications. The current practice of allowing units to submit grant applications
     indicating that the activity can be accommodated in existing space should be reexamined.
     Submitting units should be held responsible for providing space via internal reallocation,
     unless there is a formal Memorandum of Understanding specifying unit, college, and
     campus responsibilities for reallocation of space in the event that the application is
     funded. Typically, this MOU would be signed by the Vice Provost, Vice Chancellor for
     Research and College Dean.

5.              Develop a Checklist of Issues that Should be Addressed in Space Planning
     and Negotiation Activity. The existing FPSA Memorandum of Understanding template
     can serve as the basis for developing this checklist. This template should be used in all
     space allocation activity to ensure that a comprehensive perspective is maintained.

     6. Require a Space and Staffing Impact Analysis for all Program Expansion Proposals.
     This requirement would improve decision-making by making explicit the costs associated
     with staffing changes and any space reallocation and remodeling requirements.

     7. Acquire knowledge about market-based “space economies.” As a well-structured
     space allocation management process develops, UIC should investigate models for the
     adaptation of market-based systems of space exchange to university settings.

     8. Acquire knowledge about alternative administrative models. Other universities may
     offer administrative models, such as that of the “campus architect,” which provide for
     close coordination of planning, budget, design, and construction. Such models may
     provide a basis for useful reflection, both on their formal arrangements and on their
     underlying values.



                                             Page 2 of 20
               February 4, 2004




Page 3 of 20