Flooding and other natural disasters can exacerbate problems related to poorly maintained or aging school infrastructure. Photo courtesy of jayfish/iStock/thinkstock.com
Asumag 959 201409 Article 23
Asumag 959 201409 Article 23
Asumag 959 201409 Article 23
Asumag 959 201409 Article 23
Asumag 959 201409 Article 23

Strong bones

Sept. 1, 2014
Addressing the aging of critical infrastructure to insure against unexpected failure and natural disasters.

The recent water main breakage in Los Angeles shines a spotlight on a problem that all too many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities face: the risk of critical but aging infrastructure failing suddenly. While not all failures are as spectacular as millions of gallons of water flooding streets and damaging UCLA campus landmarks, the impact of key electrical, mechanical, plumbing, communication, or power plant failures can be far-reaching, even more so than the failure of individual buildings. And the impact of such failures goes far beyond the immediate disruption of normal operations. These failures expose schools to risks of increased insurance premiums, legal claims, fines, and expenses to make urgent repairs, harm to the institution’s image, and “collateral damage” such as relocating people and finding alternate facilities to continue operations.

More schools are proactively addressing the issue of critical but aging infrastructure. Often led by both the Risk and Facilities Management departments, they have adopted a three-step process. The first step is to identify and quantify the areas of highest risk through on-site assessment by skilled specialists. The second step is to model different strategies for using limited capital resources to remediate the underlying issues, taking into account the tradeoffs this may require with existing and currently planned capital projects. The final step is to begin implementing what will inevitably be a multi-year remediation effort, including gaining consensus from multiple constituencies, such as the local community, whose infrastructure may also pose risks.

Step 1: Visibility

Institutions are responsible for a broad range of physical assets, from buildings on and off campus, to the entire underground infrastructure that supports the day-to-day operations. Managing all of these assets in a complex environment where there are multiple constituencies (students, faculty, administration, parents, and the community) can be a challenge, both operationally and politically, as each group has different goals and objectives. Knowing what is in the portfolio is not enough. Understanding the condition of each asset, its expected lifespan, the likelihood of failure, and the impact of such an outcome is needed in order to quantify the risks and set up an action plan. And since you can’t always anticipate a major failure or a natural disaster, this understanding also serves as the foundation for rapidly recovering from a catastrophic event.

A best practice is to conduct a thorough review of the entire portfolio through a facility condition assessment (FCA) to understand the condition of each asset. Understanding the condition of every building is important but not enough. Infrastructure and site assets, such as underground water pipes, steam tunnels, and electrical service, are just as important. Schools can perform their own FCAs or hire a third-party firm do this work. Either way, the resulting condition data should then be stored in a central database accessible by all relevant parties. Ideally, the data should be combined with a map showing both the facilities and linear assets (see Figure 1). Mapping the infrastructure along with any facilities served enables facilities teams to see the potential impacts of a failure.

FCAs capture the current condition of each system, along with the costs to remediate any issues and end-of-life renewals, which can then be rolled up to the condition of each asset or facility. From this data, it is possible to calculate the Facility Condition Index (FCI) and System Condition Index (SCI) which provides a relative measure of the condition of each system and asset. The FCI is derived by dividing all capital needs by the current replacement value of the assets. The SCI is calculated by dividing the capital needs of each system by its current replacement value. These metrics enable sophisticated analysis for decision-making; for example, funding scenarios can show the impact on the FCI over time based on various funding levels (see Figure 2).

While the condition data from an FCA provides base information, adding a Risk Index helps pinpoint where to focus first. Combining system criticality with an FCI clarifies the financial and operational impacts of a potential failure. For example, classrooms in moderate condition are probably more important to address than a storage shed in poor condition. The Risk Index provides an objective view into the relative impact of projects across multiple areas of potential risk and helps build a solid case for the best use of existing funds and for securing additional funding for capital projects.

Step 2: Prioritization

Schools taking a proactive approach have learned that identifying potential problems and the associated risks of failure is just the beginning. Prioritizing what to do and when to do it is the vital next step. The experiences of these schools indicates that a data-driven process which evaluates all competing uses of capital based on the institution’s goals and explicitly prioritizes them is most effective in balancing competing constituencies in an environment of limited resources.

Creating and comparing multiple capital “strategies” supports this type of transparent, defensible approach and can often create consensus across different interest groups (see Figure 3).

The strategies defined for ranking capital needs, combined with analytics to understand current status and to adjust as conditions change, create a living capital plan, one that acts as an effective roadmap for addressing capital needs across the campus over time.

Step 3: Implementation

As proactive institutions have found, the data collected to help mitigate the risk of significant failures can also help them be prepared to recover more quickly from disasters. Hurricane Sandy, which battered the east coast in 2012, illustrates this point. The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC), which runs numerous hospitals with more than 18 million square feet of facilities, experienced tremendous damage during the storm. Prior to the hurricane, HHC had developed a complete capital planning and condition database of all their key assets. After the storm, HHC was able to quickly access that database, update the condition of each system, generate reports on their key systems, and identify what needed to be replaced or repaired. This enabled them to access FEMA and other insurance funds far sooner than they otherwise could have done and to be first in line to place replacement orders with manufacturers, shortening wait times.

Conclusion

Schools can’t predict disasters, but knowledge about aging buildings and infrastructure makes it possible to mitigate the impact. Best practices from leading institutions indicate that information about the entire portfolio, both building and linear assets, including data on the current conditions and risks, is a good starting point. Considering the needs of various constituencies, as well as the level of risk, in an objective prioritization process gives schools the ability to focus on what needs to be addressed first, and lets them recover more quickly in the event of a catastrophe.

Isaacson is director of product marketing at VFA, Inc., a provider of end-to-end solutions for facilities capital planning and management.

Sponsored Recommendations

How to design flexible learning spaces that teachers love and use

Unlock the potential of flexible learning spaces with expert guidance from school districts and educational furniture providers. Discover how to seamlessly integrate adaptive ...

Blurring the Lines in Education Design: K–12 to Higher Ed to Corporate America

Discover the seamless integration of educational and corporate design principles, shaping tomorrow's leaders from kindergarten to boardroom. Explore innovative classroom layouts...

Room to Learn: Furniture Solutions for Education

Preparing students for the future. Utilizing our experience in the education market, we offer a dynamic selection of products that pair technology with furniture to help stimulate...

Transforming Education: A Case Study in Progressive Classroom Design

Discover how Workspace Interiors and the Baldwin School District reshaped learning environments in Long Island, New York, creating pedagogically responsive spaces that foster ...