The physical assets of a campus (buildings, grounds, and infrastructure) are often not managed and benchmarked with the same analytical rigor as the financial assets of a college, according to panelists at an Institute session. The condition of campuses and facilities, however, have become key components in a prospective student’s decision about where to attend college and determine the viability of campus enrollment plans. Aging buildings, rising energy costs, and technology changes stress facilities and maintenance budgets. Many CAOs, therefore, need to make mission-critical decisions about how much and where to invest in upkeep, repair, and modernization as well as custodial staffing, said Karen L. Leach, vice president for finance and administration of Hamilton College (NY), and Michael K. Le Roy, provost of Whitworth College (WA).

Leach and Le Roy demonstrated how collecting comprehensive data about the physical assets of a campus and a college’s investments, and benchmarking them against national trends can help CAOs develop a sound operating strategy.

Panelist James A. Kadamus, vice president of Sightlines LLC introduced the ROPAsm model that provides campus leaders with a common vocabulary with which to measure, monitor, and benchmark facility performance. The model includes four key elements of facilities management: annual stewardship (upkeep with maintenance and modernization requirements), asset reinvestment (capacity to address the backlog of repair and modernization projects), operations effectiveness (performance in providing daily services, planned maintenance, and energy management), and service effectiveness (presentation of the campus and satisfaction levels of students and staff). Based on the data collected for a specific campus, a sensible physical assets strategy and balanced investment plan for all facilities can be developed, Kadamus said, and improvements over time can be measured on any of the four indicators.

Leach explained that benchmarking facility performance and investments allowed her to see how Hamilton compared with other institutions and to develop a sustainable competitive strategy for the college. Internally, sound data collection and the results of a campus master plan (focused on academics) and a residential life study enabled her to contrast campus perceptions with the reality of conditions and spending patterns at Hamilton. The ROPAsm findings also proved useful in conversations with campus leaders and trustees to establish a commonly shared physical assets plan.

Le Roy presented the findings and process of a classroom utilization study undertaken at Whitworth to address crowding in academic facilities and perception by administrators that space allocation and scheduling were inefficient. Among the goals of the study were to maximize the efficient use of academic square footage and recommend changes to the academic schedule. The study, assisted by Sightlines, revealed underuse of classrooms during the day and generally low occupancy of chairs in Whitworth’s larger classrooms. As a result of the findings, some larger rooms were divided into smaller meeting spaces, an existing science building plan was amended, and discussions are underway to modify the existing class schedule and course credit system. The space utilization and cost analysis also helped, Le Roy explained, in discussions about the “highly idiosyncratic sacred cows” of dedicated classrooms used by particular professors and departments.