While there may not be much a facilities manager doesn’t know about the buildings on an institution’s campus, knowledge of the college or university budget is generally an altogether different matter. Yet when many facilities managers approach campus executives and board members with requests for added funding, they expect those financial and administrative decision makers to immediately understand why facilities funding must come before other requests.

It’s no wonder that backlogs across many higher education campuses are growing as maintenance is deferred. To successfully secure funding for improvements, facilities managers are best served by taking a closer look at how they communicate requests. By speaking the right language, facilities managers may offer more convincing arguments — and see funding requests granted more often.

Defining the Shared Problem

Too often, facilities managers describe funding needs by explaining (sometimes in exhaustive technical detail) the nature of a problem. That’s often the first communication breakdown.

A college president or university board of trustees is most concerned about the impact a problem will have on the campus and the university’s overall mission. Instead of highlighting the problem itself, facility managers may want to convey the consequences that could be felt if the problem isn’t solved. Campus executives and board members need enough information about facilities requests to evaluate and fund them. Information shared with these professionals should convey the risks of failing to act as well as the positive results of completing a project.

Improving Communication Channels

The following three steps can help facility managers to more effectively communicate facility needs and concerns:

1. Define a clear set of priorities that can help executives understand the relative urgency of each project. Begin by assessing needs. These are key takeaways which can provide financial and administrative decision makers with the facts they need to objectively consider the situation. Categories might include repairs, maintenance needs and improvement costs.
2. Challenge every technical term. An insider’s knowledge doesn’t impress anyone, and it certainly doesn’t make an argument more convincing — just as switching to a broader discussion in layman’s terms doesn’t mean an audience isn’t shrewdly considering the solutions to the stated problems. Step back from overuse of jargon and ask if there is a layman’s term that might work instead. If not, will someone with limited facilities background understand the term? If not, provide a brief definition. Data, in particular, can help in these conversations as it shows definitively the nature of a problem or how a facility compares to peers — and how a solution can provide a competitive edge.
3. Discuss facilities needs in the context of the institution’s mission. Pinpoint the areas that most concern decision makers when it comes to campus improvements. Outline needs in terms of how a repair or other investment would impact the institution’s ability to perform its mission. How exactly does the institution benefit from an investment into the maintenance backlog? If the answer seems obvious, remember that it might only be obvious to those entrenched in these problems day-in and day-out. Help executives understand how a project will deliver a return on the money they invest.

Stop the Confusion

By communicating problems through a shared financial vocabulary, facility managers can ultimately eliminate confusion that could hinder the urgency of funding requests. Developing a shared vocabulary can be a challenge. But it can also be a strong first start toward gaining an ally among university decision makers.

Peter Reeves is an associate director of member services at Sightlines and currently is responsible for service delivery of the operations teams in the Pennsylvania and Oregon offices. 

The post 3 Communication Tactics to Bolster a Facilities Budget appeared first on School Construction News.

Many higher education campuses across the country desperately need to address mounting deferred maintenance backlogs. However, many of these institutions opt to allocate capital to more visible programs, leaving maintenance needs unmet for far too long. The resulting deferred maintenance may save money in the short term, but in the long term can lead to higher costs, as poorly maintained systems burn out before their expected end of life.

In some cases, funds to address deferred maintenance projects are simply not there, as many institutions continue to rebound from the economic downturn of 2007 to 2009. But in all too many instances, facility managers are unable to make the case for funding this necessary maintenance.

The first step to solving this problem is ensuring that the key decision makers have an accurate understanding of the high cost of deferred maintenance.

Competition for Capital

Before presenting the facts to financial decision-makers, it’s important that facility managers understand what they’re competing against.

The three biggest expenses for higher education institutions are financial aid, faculty compensation and facilities. Financial aid and faculty

salaries take the lion’s share of the campus budget. These are necessary expenditures for attracting quality faculty and students. Although facilities are equally critical, this department rarely gets the attention — or funding — the other departments enjoy. Maintenance needs, seen as behind the scenes, seem the simplest to push off.

Unfortunately, the lack of funding for facilities makes it challenging for facilities managers to make necessary upgrades and perform the routine preventive maintenance that keeps these buildings attractive places to live, learn and work. Maintenance delays only worsen the issues that come from aging infrastructure.

More challenging yet, enrollment trends are increasing the competition for funding on campuses. In areas where college and university enrollments are seeing declining or stagnant numbers of high school graduates, many institutions are dealing with unexpected amounts of unused space. And in states like Texas and Utah, where enrollments are facing unprecedented increases, capital is being spent on new solutions to relieve overcrowding.

Costs Become Higher Costs

Virtually every campus across North America has a backlog of deferred maintenance. However, maintenance can’t be deferred forever. When critical systems from roofing to HVAC to electrical are not upgraded or even serviced on a regular basis, institutions are increasing the chance that today’s problems will grow worse tomorrow.

The bigger problem caused by a growing maintenance backlog is that deferred costs ultimately lead to higher costs. This is because when facilities systems receive less preventive maintenance than advised by the manufacturer, these systems will break down well before their projected replacement date. Frequent emergency repairs and more rapid replacements are far more costly than planned maintenance when viewed in the long term.

Communicate the Problem

Facilities managers seem to face an ever-increasing number of challenges when it comes to the problem of deferred maintenance. The best solution for these challenges is clear communication of the problem.

Strong data demonstrating campus performance, including in comparison to other campuses, can be an invaluable tool in prioritizing the areas most in need of improvements. These metrics also can be useful in communicating the need for facilities funding. It’s up to facilities managers to present their challenges and clearly communicate a path forward to board members, trustees and other key decision makers.

Address Deferred Maintenance

It’s understandable that many campuses have had to push back maintenance on their buildings and systems. Unfortunately, the annual maintenance backlog will only continue to grow, even if the available capital does not. At some point, these problems will need to be solved. With a clear understanding of their department’s needs and a clearly stated plan forward, facilities managers will find they can contribute to campus savings.

Jay Pearlman is associate vice president, marketing, at Sightlines. He has been with the company since its inception in 2000 and has played a variety of roles, including those in operations, business development, quality control and product development. 

The post The High Cost of Deferred Maintenance appeared first on School Construction News.