THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
Property and Campus Services 2010/11 Benchmarking Performance
INTRODUCTION: Property and Campus Services (P&CS) has been benchmarking its activities for over ten years. We prepare reports based on available comparative data over the preceding five years in order to consider trends and improve performance. The following charts, cover the range of P&CS activities, included in the Chancellery and Common Services catalogue as key performance indicators. They provide a comparison of P&CS performance with that of other Australian Universities, and the results of client satisfaction surveys. The financial and resource usage figures are as supplied to the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA), to which all Australasian universities provide data. This annual survey is unique in the property sector for the extent of information benchmarked and the participation of all Australian universities. In order to ensure the data is as accurate as possible, an independent audit assessment by Currie & Brown Quantity Surveyors is carried out on 5 participating universities each year. Over the past five years 26 Universities have been audited. There is limited benchmarking data available in the commercial property sector due to the reluctance to share information in a competitive environment. The Property Council of Australia does prepare annual benchmarking around the operating cost for common areas of major office buildings and shopping centres. These provide information for comparison of costs in the commercial property sector. A measure of client satisfaction is shown a ‘P&CS Client Focus’ survey, which is sent to over 300 regular users of our services across the University. This provides detailed client feedback at the individual common service level. The survey is completed twice a year, with follow-up from a focus group meeting between P&CS staff and the contributors.
Page 1 of 11
1.
PROPERTY AND CAMPUS SERVICES OVERALL
Building Operating Cost The Common Services operating costs are generally comparable to or less than the Australian, GO8 and Victorian University averages. The exception is for Maintenance, where University Council took a deliberate decision to properly invest in facility renewal. The Property Council of Australia provides an annual survey of property management costs for common areas in Major Office Buildings and Shopping Centres in Victoria. These rates are not directly comparable, as the costs for energy, cleaning and maintenance only relate to the ‘common areas’ i.e. 20 to 30% of the building area rather than the total building. The University of Melbourne rates cover both occupied ‘tenancy areas’ and the ‘common areas’. The inclusion of these rates for comparison purposes in the benchmarking for Overall Performance demonstrates that the University’s Facilities Common Service Charges are equivalent to, or often less than, comparable private sector property management charges. The level of overall Client Satisfaction with our services is lower than P&CS would like, and we set a target to achieve an overall client satisfaction rating of 3.5/5 in 2010/11. We aimed to achieve this by improving our level of client service and communication, clarifying respective roles, responsibilities and service expectations and improving our project delivery. The Feb 2011 survey result of 3.49 came close to realising this target.
Quantitative:
Qualitative: The P&CS Client Focus Survey provides the following overall assessment of P&CS service provision:
Page 2 of 11
2.
ASSET SERVICES
Building Maintenance There has been an increase in expenditure on general maintenance over the last two years to ensure the upkeep of the University's assets progressively meets acceptable industry standards. An accepted industry benchmark is that institutions should be spending at least 1.5% of Asset Replacement Value on maintenance. Many private sector organizations in public/private partnership arrangements require between 2 to 4%. The University of Melbourne’s expenditure on maintenance is currently 1.23%, which makes it a sector leader in this area, but still below the industry benchmark for best practice. In addition, there has been a significant increase in backlog maintenance expenditure, as a decision of Council to invest $61m. over six years in the upgrade of the fabric of the University's building stock. Asset Services provides a range of target response times depending on the priority of the service request. Priority 1, 2 and 3 requires a response time within one day and the group have progressively improved the percentage of requests responded to within this time and reduced the rectification times to below the target of 5 days. This improvement in the resourcing of maintenance has seen a generally positive trend in client satisfaction.
Quantitative:
Page 3 of 11
Qualitative:
Grounds Maintenance The University Grounds have long been highly regarded by staff, students and the community. Grounds Maintenance costs are generally lower than other GO8 Universities and the client feedback has generally been positive. The impact of the drought and the extensive works around the Parkville campus has led to a reduction in client satisfaction in 2009/2010, but this is now trending up towards higher satisfaction again.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 4 of 11
Energy The University adopted significant Energy Reduction Program targets in December 2007 to halve its carbon footprint (based on 2006 energy usage) by 2010. P&CS has been implementing actions to achieve this target, including increasing the purchase of Green Energy and carbon offsets, and implementing energy reduction measures. The increasing cost of energy will require the University to continue to improve its usage reduction initiatives. The program targeted in particular the reduction of annual carbon emissions in 2010 by 20% on 2006 levels (a reduction of 24,700 tonnes of CO2). This target has been achieved, and carbon emissions are now significantly below comparable benchmark institutions.
Quantitative:
Page 5 of 11
Water The University has achieved significant reductions compared to benchmark institutions in the overall consumption of water since 2005. This has been achieved partly through smarter grounds watering in line with water usage restrictions. In addition, a range of initiatives both in upgrading existing infrastructure and services in new buildings has assisted in maintaining this reduced level despite new buildings coming on line. The increasing cost of water will require the University to continue to improve its water retention and usage reduction initiatives. A slightly longer-term view of water usage at the main Parkville campus shows our progress on reaching the target of 10% reduction on 1996 levels by end 2010.
Quantitative:
Page 6 of 11
3.
CAMPUS OPERATIONS
Cleaning Expenditure on cleaning services to campuses was raised significantly in 2006 with a resultant increase in client satisfaction. The rate now approximates the average for Australian and GO8 institutions and compares well with the Victorian Universities average where a significant cost increase occurred in 2007. Auditing of the cleaning is required to be carried out by the contractors’ own staff as well as by a University employed contract auditor. These audits indicate that cleaning is consistently above the required benchmark, although educating clients on a clear understanding of the cleaning specifications remains an ongoing challenge. Customer satisfaction scores have remained disappointing, although with a recent rise against trend in 2010 being confirmed in early 2011.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 7 of 11
Security Expenditure on security has been maintained at University of Melbourne at a level significantly below that for most other Australian universities. This is in part a result of effective management of the mainly outsourced function, and also due to the role of Building Supervisors in opening up buildings as required. A new market tested contract awarded at the end of 2007 led to an increase in expenditure in this area, which was supported by a major safety and property awareness directed mainly at bike owners and library users. Client satisfaction with the outcome has shown a small drop off, which in part may be due to the settling in of the new contractor arrangements. In fact the number of security incidents reached all time lows in 2009, and has remained generally at this level during 2010. Better recording of data is the reason for the exceptional increase in fire alarm incidents.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 8 of 11
4.
PLANNING
In 2008 University Council approved the Parkville Master Plan to guide the future development of the main campus through a set of planning principles. This provides a long term view which in 2011 will be underpinned by the Campus Development Plan, to provide the context for the 10 Year Infrastructure Plan - Property. The University as a research intensive University is always going to be at the high end of space usage per EFTSL when compared with all Universities in Australia due to the space required for research activities which underpins Melbourne’s outstanding performance in the international rankings. However the amount of space used and the services consumed is a significant driver of the University’s carbon footprint. So in support of the University’s goal of reducing the environmental impact of its operations, it is appropriate to set a target for overall space usage at or below the average of m2 (GFA) per EFTSL when compared to the Go8 Universities. The Client Satisfaction with this area has been less than the desired level for some time, partly due to the difficulties with forward planning for an extensive program of Faculty/Budget Division accommodation to support the Melbourne Model, and organisational change arising from Responsible Division Management Initiatives. In 2011 a comprehensive Accommodation Audit will be undertaken to examine efficiency and equity of space use across the Campus. This will complement a recent survey of use of Teaching Spaces and will inform the preparation of a Space Consolidation Plan, to be completed by the end of 2011. Also, the spatial information system UoMSIS was launched in March 2011, and will greatly improve access by Faculties/Budget Divisions to space data and floor plan information.
Space Management Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 9 of 11
5.
Project Delivery
The University has a significant capital expenditure plan over the next 10 years to develop a new learning, teaching and student support spaces to support the Melbourne Model and to significantly expand research space to underpin our reputation as a world-class research leading institution. Project Delivery has been implementing the PRINCE2 project management governance framework across all projects and reviewed our resources in order to meet the increase demand. Also, a Project Management Office has been established to: Administer the allocation, budgeting, cash-flowing, monitoring and reporting on projects; Improve the Project Management Procedures and extend the functionality of Archibus to enable the Project Managers to record projects budgets, cashflows, commitments and invoices; and Enhance project reporting to ensure that comprehensive reports can be automatically generated at the end of each month.
Quantitative:
Page 10 of 11
Qualitative:
Page 11 of 11
INTRODUCTION: Property and Campus Services (P&CS) has been benchmarking its activities for over ten years. We prepare reports based on available comparative data over the preceding five years in order to consider trends and improve performance. The following charts, cover the range of P&CS activities, included in the Chancellery and Common Services catalogue as key performance indicators. They provide a comparison of P&CS performance with that of other Australian Universities, and the results of client satisfaction surveys. The financial and resource usage figures are as supplied to the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA), to which all Australasian universities provide data. This annual survey is unique in the property sector for the extent of information benchmarked and the participation of all Australian universities. In order to ensure the data is as accurate as possible, an independent audit assessment by Currie & Brown Quantity Surveyors is carried out on 5 participating universities each year. Over the past five years 26 Universities have been audited. There is limited benchmarking data available in the commercial property sector due to the reluctance to share information in a competitive environment. The Property Council of Australia does prepare annual benchmarking around the operating cost for common areas of major office buildings and shopping centres. These provide information for comparison of costs in the commercial property sector. A measure of client satisfaction is shown a ‘P&CS Client Focus’ survey, which is sent to over 300 regular users of our services across the University. This provides detailed client feedback at the individual common service level. The survey is completed twice a year, with follow-up from a focus group meeting between P&CS staff and the contributors.
Page 1 of 11
1.
PROPERTY AND CAMPUS SERVICES OVERALL
Building Operating Cost The Common Services operating costs are generally comparable to or less than the Australian, GO8 and Victorian University averages. The exception is for Maintenance, where University Council took a deliberate decision to properly invest in facility renewal. The Property Council of Australia provides an annual survey of property management costs for common areas in Major Office Buildings and Shopping Centres in Victoria. These rates are not directly comparable, as the costs for energy, cleaning and maintenance only relate to the ‘common areas’ i.e. 20 to 30% of the building area rather than the total building. The University of Melbourne rates cover both occupied ‘tenancy areas’ and the ‘common areas’. The inclusion of these rates for comparison purposes in the benchmarking for Overall Performance demonstrates that the University’s Facilities Common Service Charges are equivalent to, or often less than, comparable private sector property management charges. The level of overall Client Satisfaction with our services is lower than P&CS would like, and we set a target to achieve an overall client satisfaction rating of 3.5/5 in 2010/11. We aimed to achieve this by improving our level of client service and communication, clarifying respective roles, responsibilities and service expectations and improving our project delivery. The Feb 2011 survey result of 3.49 came close to realising this target.
Quantitative:
Qualitative: The P&CS Client Focus Survey provides the following overall assessment of P&CS service provision:
Page 2 of 11
2.
ASSET SERVICES
Building Maintenance There has been an increase in expenditure on general maintenance over the last two years to ensure the upkeep of the University's assets progressively meets acceptable industry standards. An accepted industry benchmark is that institutions should be spending at least 1.5% of Asset Replacement Value on maintenance. Many private sector organizations in public/private partnership arrangements require between 2 to 4%. The University of Melbourne’s expenditure on maintenance is currently 1.23%, which makes it a sector leader in this area, but still below the industry benchmark for best practice. In addition, there has been a significant increase in backlog maintenance expenditure, as a decision of Council to invest $61m. over six years in the upgrade of the fabric of the University's building stock. Asset Services provides a range of target response times depending on the priority of the service request. Priority 1, 2 and 3 requires a response time within one day and the group have progressively improved the percentage of requests responded to within this time and reduced the rectification times to below the target of 5 days. This improvement in the resourcing of maintenance has seen a generally positive trend in client satisfaction.
Quantitative:
Page 3 of 11
Qualitative:
Grounds Maintenance The University Grounds have long been highly regarded by staff, students and the community. Grounds Maintenance costs are generally lower than other GO8 Universities and the client feedback has generally been positive. The impact of the drought and the extensive works around the Parkville campus has led to a reduction in client satisfaction in 2009/2010, but this is now trending up towards higher satisfaction again.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 4 of 11
Energy The University adopted significant Energy Reduction Program targets in December 2007 to halve its carbon footprint (based on 2006 energy usage) by 2010. P&CS has been implementing actions to achieve this target, including increasing the purchase of Green Energy and carbon offsets, and implementing energy reduction measures. The increasing cost of energy will require the University to continue to improve its usage reduction initiatives. The program targeted in particular the reduction of annual carbon emissions in 2010 by 20% on 2006 levels (a reduction of 24,700 tonnes of CO2). This target has been achieved, and carbon emissions are now significantly below comparable benchmark institutions.
Quantitative:
Page 5 of 11
Water The University has achieved significant reductions compared to benchmark institutions in the overall consumption of water since 2005. This has been achieved partly through smarter grounds watering in line with water usage restrictions. In addition, a range of initiatives both in upgrading existing infrastructure and services in new buildings has assisted in maintaining this reduced level despite new buildings coming on line. The increasing cost of water will require the University to continue to improve its water retention and usage reduction initiatives. A slightly longer-term view of water usage at the main Parkville campus shows our progress on reaching the target of 10% reduction on 1996 levels by end 2010.
Quantitative:
Page 6 of 11
3.
CAMPUS OPERATIONS
Cleaning Expenditure on cleaning services to campuses was raised significantly in 2006 with a resultant increase in client satisfaction. The rate now approximates the average for Australian and GO8 institutions and compares well with the Victorian Universities average where a significant cost increase occurred in 2007. Auditing of the cleaning is required to be carried out by the contractors’ own staff as well as by a University employed contract auditor. These audits indicate that cleaning is consistently above the required benchmark, although educating clients on a clear understanding of the cleaning specifications remains an ongoing challenge. Customer satisfaction scores have remained disappointing, although with a recent rise against trend in 2010 being confirmed in early 2011.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 7 of 11
Security Expenditure on security has been maintained at University of Melbourne at a level significantly below that for most other Australian universities. This is in part a result of effective management of the mainly outsourced function, and also due to the role of Building Supervisors in opening up buildings as required. A new market tested contract awarded at the end of 2007 led to an increase in expenditure in this area, which was supported by a major safety and property awareness directed mainly at bike owners and library users. Client satisfaction with the outcome has shown a small drop off, which in part may be due to the settling in of the new contractor arrangements. In fact the number of security incidents reached all time lows in 2009, and has remained generally at this level during 2010. Better recording of data is the reason for the exceptional increase in fire alarm incidents.
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 8 of 11
4.
PLANNING
In 2008 University Council approved the Parkville Master Plan to guide the future development of the main campus through a set of planning principles. This provides a long term view which in 2011 will be underpinned by the Campus Development Plan, to provide the context for the 10 Year Infrastructure Plan - Property. The University as a research intensive University is always going to be at the high end of space usage per EFTSL when compared with all Universities in Australia due to the space required for research activities which underpins Melbourne’s outstanding performance in the international rankings. However the amount of space used and the services consumed is a significant driver of the University’s carbon footprint. So in support of the University’s goal of reducing the environmental impact of its operations, it is appropriate to set a target for overall space usage at or below the average of m2 (GFA) per EFTSL when compared to the Go8 Universities. The Client Satisfaction with this area has been less than the desired level for some time, partly due to the difficulties with forward planning for an extensive program of Faculty/Budget Division accommodation to support the Melbourne Model, and organisational change arising from Responsible Division Management Initiatives. In 2011 a comprehensive Accommodation Audit will be undertaken to examine efficiency and equity of space use across the Campus. This will complement a recent survey of use of Teaching Spaces and will inform the preparation of a Space Consolidation Plan, to be completed by the end of 2011. Also, the spatial information system UoMSIS was launched in March 2011, and will greatly improve access by Faculties/Budget Divisions to space data and floor plan information.
Space Management Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Page 9 of 11
5.
Project Delivery
The University has a significant capital expenditure plan over the next 10 years to develop a new learning, teaching and student support spaces to support the Melbourne Model and to significantly expand research space to underpin our reputation as a world-class research leading institution. Project Delivery has been implementing the PRINCE2 project management governance framework across all projects and reviewed our resources in order to meet the increase demand. Also, a Project Management Office has been established to: Administer the allocation, budgeting, cash-flowing, monitoring and reporting on projects; Improve the Project Management Procedures and extend the functionality of Archibus to enable the Project Managers to record projects budgets, cashflows, commitments and invoices; and Enhance project reporting to ensure that comprehensive reports can be automatically generated at the end of each month.
Quantitative:
Page 10 of 11
Qualitative:
Page 11 of 11
