Rich McEvoy

Hi Brian
I can’t speak to the overall capital project prioritization but can share how we look at the deferred maintenance component which may help as I’m sure there are similarities.
We look at 3 levels: 1. Building/ 2. Assets & Systems/ 3. Recommendations
1. Buildings are assessed for usage type which have been assigned scores (Academic 100; Admin 50; Residential 50; Other 30; Site 20)
– essentially, Academic buildings have higher priority

2. Assets/ Systems are assigned multiple scores for each uniformat code;
a) Condition (Critical 5,…., Excellent 1) Note: These are assigned at the time of the building condition assessment
b) Consequence of Failure (Life Safety 100; Campus Shutdown 100…. , Occupant Discomfort 10, Minor Concern 10)
c) Severity (Serious 100 …. Minor 40)
d) Accessibility (Will improve 100; Not likely to improve 1)
e) Level of Green Improvement (Significant Green Energy & Carbon Reduction 100; Significant Green Energy 80; Significant Carbon Reduction 80;… No improvement 1)

3. Recommendations (in SLAM, from Building Assessments)
– scores are assigned to individual recommendations by our internal Committee to break ties. If 2 competing recommendations have similar scores from the previous calculations, our cross-functional group can usually discern which has the higher priority and assigns a score accordingly.

Scores are assigned automatically for 1) and 2). Our committee assigns scores for 3) during monthly review meetings as required. All scores are recorded in SLAM for transparency. The higher the collective score, the higher the priority.

I hope this helps.

…Rich

I just uploaded my 1st sample for another Cool Tool: Scheduling Poll. The capture tool was simple and worked quite well!

This sounds like it has great potential but, I’m not sure where to start or what topic to apply this tool or how participants would interact. Is there a video/ demo you could recommend or perhaps would you consider hosting a demonstration for others?

Thanks for sharing Daniel. I’ve been receiving this daily email for a few years now and it’s a quick way to keep up with current trends.

Hi Lise,
I don’t have much info on section size but would like to point you to our COFSI Report/ Dashboard (https://www.ocappa.ca/cofsi-dashboard/), or look under ‘Members Only’ menu on this website.
The Dashboard ‘Reports’ tool has a ‘Detailed Report by College’ section that can be filtered for the ‘Athletics/Wellness’ metrics. This table summarizes space, student FTE, weekly contact hours and whether each College aligns to the prescribed standard. It also details key inputs used to arrive at the values.

If you’d like to drill into the room-level detail, you can go to the ‘Data’ section and filter where COFSI_L1 = B3. Here you’ll see the 3,693 rooms that fall into the Athletic/ Wellness category reported by Colleges.

I’ve attached a screenshot for your reference.

I hope this helps,

…Rich

Hi Lise – Fanshawe has been storing project information in a few areas. 1 – we also have been using a home-grown MS Access database to manage active projects (have been waiting for years for robust replacement!); 2 – we store documents in SharePoint in a prescribed project template format which includes a series of folders and 3 – our drawing files are stored in AutoDesk Vault.

We are in the process of piloting SharePoint 365 in the hopes of consolidating our documents and have also been experimenting with AutoDesk Construction Cloud. We’re finding that it’s not easy to identify a one-stop-shop for secured file storage and sharing to meet all our needs. A significant challenge that we’re now facing is that the size of our 3D models (e.g. Revit) continues to grow. It is becoming more of a challenge to share views with our maintenance teams and linking to supporting software (ArcGIS, Archibus). We’re trying to avoid making copies that would subsequently have to be maintained.

I’ll be curious to hear what others are doing and how you progress.

Regards,

…Rich