Provider No.: A197

UT Austin Space Allocation Study

Enhancing the Core; Maximizing Efficiency

AIA/CES No.: 00000

Michael Carmagnola, UT Austin

Dan Alexander, Jacobs

Date: 09/21/2018 – 1:00PM

Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CESfor continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner ofhandling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product._______________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

With near constant expansion of UT Austin’s academic and research space, one of the University’s most valuable assets is the physical campus. The operations, maintenance, and construction of buildings is expensive, but also critical for the pursuit of excellence.

UT Austin began the Space Allocation Study (SAS) in May 2016 with the goal of determining whether current administrative and library space might be allocated to serve the core academic mission, and in doing so, improve operational efficiency.

Course DescriptionNow on Phase 2 and 3, the SAS has proven fundamental to advancing excellence in education and research by directing repurposing and reinvestment in facilities to create more conducive environments for next-generation learning, as well as enhanced and interdisciplinary research.

Space Standards were also created that are now applied to all new construction and renovation projects. Cost savings was also an aim of the project and the savings of this undertaking are very significant.

The University was assisted by Jacobs and Paulien & Associates.

LearningObjectives

1. Skill of understanding the dynamics of space efficiency.

2. Exposure to space standards and their applicability in the university setting.

3. Cost studies to determine highest and best use.

4. Process for undertaking similar study – what should be included and what should be avoided.

.

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:

This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course

Please take a moment to complete the evaluation form.

Provider Name/Logo

Theresa Bartos Drewell, AIA806-790-1987

Theresa.drewell@ttu.edu

Director UT Austin PMCS

Leads staff of 145

$100M+ design and construction annually

Licensed architect in four states

Graduate of the APPA Institute for Leadership in Educational Facilities, and the APPA Leadership Program

Principal at Jacobs

Manages 20-year UT Austin relationship

Served as Director of Campus Operations for The George Washington University –Mount Vernon College Campus

Licensed architect in three states

SCUP Planning Institute graduate

Comprehensive Space Allocation Initiative

• Return Campus core to academic mission

• Improve student success initiatives

• Improve operational efficiency & performance

• Implement space standards

• Senior leadership support

• Centrally-led communications

• Governance structure

FORMULATEEVALUATE IMPLEMENT

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? WHAT DO YOU NEED? HOW DO YOU GET THERE?

FORMULATEEVALUATE IMPLEMENT

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? WHAT DO YOU NEED? HOW DO YOU GET THERE?

Interview 47 units

Develop space list/program database each unit

Analyze existing space for utilization/efficiency

Identify facility condition issues

Receive owner-provided information

Understanding of each unit’s requirements

Familiarity with targeted space & condition

Schedule alignment with academic calendar

Uncovered risks & challenges

FORMULATE

WHAT DO YOU NEED?

EVALUATE

WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

IMPLEMENT

HOW DO YOU GET THERE?

Space Standards

Location matrix (core, edge or off-campus)

Planning principles (building, department, operation, adjacencies, access)

Test-fits with evaluation matrix

Iterative process with units & UT leadership

Develop phasing plan & sequence schedule

Confirm cost requirements

Secure funding commitments

Highly informed plan framework

Support from units & administration

Confident implementation approach

Risks alleviated or mitigated

Space Standards

Use data from peer institutions

Minimize office types (4 closed + 3 open)

Apply space standard by position

Compared existing 2015 space data with SAS proposed via location and calculated change

Office CirculationOffice Type Core Edge

VP/AVP 200-250 220

Closed + Conference 150-175 160

Closed + Meeting 125-150 140

Closed + Visitor 120-130 120

Open + Visitor 68 65

Open 56 65

Admin 49 48

Student/Workstudy 40 40

Factor Core Edge

Conference + Support .35 .32

Internal Circulation .26 .24

Information Security OfficeVP:

DEAN/AVP:

DIR: Cam Beasley

LOCATION: FAC

1 Security Officer

2 Incident Response Team

3 Tool & Dev Team

4 Risk Management Team Employee 2015 Proposed

FTE 16.00 16.00

Student Workers 0.00 0.00

Group Space Breakdown

Conference & Service 205 742

Internal Circulation ASF 0 400

Office ASF 2,006 1,280

Total ASF 2,211 2,422

ASF/FTE 138 126

Proposed Group Detail Total Office Space in Selected Filters 1,600

Functional

Group Employee Position Office Type FTE

Proposed

Location ASF Total

1 Cam Beasley BSChE, CISSP, CIFI Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

2 Kelly Kerby Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

2 Scott Loder Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

2 James Liao Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

2 Jason Ragland Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

3 Daryl Ashley Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

3 Jason Phelps Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

3 Sean Reid Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

3 Ben Maxfield Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Charlie Scott Assistant Information Security Officer Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 John Gordon Senior Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Justin LeSelva Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Bryon Hill Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Lindsay Walker Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Vacant Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

4 Vacant Network Security Analyst Open + Visitor 1 Core 80 80

Test Server Room Conference & Service Core 120 120

Additional Storage Space Conference & Service Core 200 200

Total Office Space 1,280

Conference & Support Space 742

Internal Circulation 400

Proposed Total 2,422

Core Total ASF Proposed 2,422

Edge Total ASF Proposed 0

Off Total ASF Proposed 0

Function Group Key

Group Snapshot

2,006

1,280

400

205 742

2 0 1 5 P R O P O SE D

TOTAL ASF

Darrell Bazzell

N/A

Use ASF/GSF, then adjacencies, then count spaces

Create map with vacated space and attributes (student-oriented, near transit, move-in ready)

Group synergistic units or desirability for location

Provide advantages/benefits of each option

FORMULATEEVALUATE IMPLEMENT

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? WHAT DO YOU NEED? HOW DO YOU GET THERE?

Mobilize PM core team – project launch

Organize by unit type

Secure funding/accounting interface

Create implementation schedule

Secure CMR for multiple renovation activities

Engage design team in program approach

Move unit communication from idea to reality

Focus on improving efficiency & operations

Phased implementation strategy

Quality delivery process & product

Maintained mission-focus

Created low-risk delivery profile

4 phases over 5 years

On schedule with projects added over time

47 departments interviewed

350K SF of space analyzed

4.5 months of test-fit/concepts (Option A-G)

Significant cost avoidance

Space Standards

Utilizing existing resources

Facilities TEAM-LED implementation

Touched over 270K GSF

Spent $18M ($65/SF TPC)

Emptied two buildings

Increased space for ACADEMIC programs

Space released from Core 204,774 ASF

Modify from ASF to GSF 342,000 GSF

Building Cost $575 GSF TPC

Cost to construct released space $197,000,000

Implementation costs ($58,000,000)

UT Austin cost avoidance $139,000,000

What Worked Areas for Improvement

• Facilities-led effort (SME)

• Early communication

• Each unit treated equally

• Units secured equal or better space

• Started with vacant space

• Organizational change duringdesign & construction

• Broader/targeted communication during design & construction

• Pressure exerted from legacy or “connected” programs

Improve space utilization (right sized!)

Limited new building sites

Match space with operations

Return core campus to direct STUDENT use

Planning/Set up 2016

Phase 1 2017

Complete Phase 2 2018

Planning Phase 3 2019+

“ACADEMIC BACKFILL”

• New Welcome Center

• New Career Center

• New One-Stop Center

• New Entrepreneurship Ctr

• New Home Aerospace

• Building for Social Work

EVALUATEWHAT DO YOU HAVE?

FORMULATEWHAT DO YOU NEED?

IMPLEMENTHOW DO YOU GET THERE?

Communication Plan

Interview/brief unit leadership

Interview 45 units

Plan review and confirmation

Assess existing space (efficiency/utilization, front

facing accessibility and location desirability)

Develop space list

Deliver complete package to units for acceptance

Establish Space Standards

Create program with current and proposed space

Present location changes with evaluation criteria based on

program/function/need

Metric-based decision making (space savings, improved

adjacency or program gain)

Create move sequence schedule and budget

Relocation test-fits for approval

Communication Plan for transparent process

Mobilize core team

Detailed planning with managers

Select design and construction partners

Refine cost estimates

Confirm move schedules with operational realities

LOCATION STANDARDS RENOVATION COST

COREHigher amount of historic, legacy or institutional buildings – more difficult to change or adapt

Most difficult to change or

adapt because of systems

and construction

Highest cost and highest

risk due to age of systems

and construction type

EDGEGreater flexibility with space

standards – but many

buildings not easily

adaptable to change

Some flexibility because

construction type may be

non-institutional construction

Less cost than Core except

building systems and

condition may be equally

challenging or sophisticated

OFFHighest degree of space

standards flexibility and

easiest to implement

(non-institutional)

Easiest to renovate or

change and CM’s may have

higher knowledge base with

Off campus buildings

Higher cost certainty about

off-campus buildings (tend

to be non-institutional)

RISK

CO

MP

LEX

ITY