Deferred Capital Renewal and Deferred Maintenance

• Introduction
• Capital Asset Management
• Total Cost of Ownership
• Improving the Capital Planning and Budgeting Process
• Estimating Capital Renewal Needs
• Setting Priorities for Capital Renewal/Deferred Maintenance
• Funding Strategies for Capital Renewal/Deferred Maintenance
• Capital Renewal Program Management
• An Action Plan
• References
   

Updated 2-3-2025 by Cameron Christensen from the original chapter written by Harvey Kaiser.

Historically, the terms deferred capital renewal and deferred maintenance have been used interchangeably. While this is still acceptable in some areas and operations, it is recommended that a differentiation of the two be employed.

Deferred capital renewal is defined as major maintenance or capital projects that had gone unfunded in previous budget cycles. It is the failed air handling unit that is not running. The air compressor that is past its life-cycle. The chiller running on 50% capacity because of age and wear.

Deferred maintenance is defined as preventive, predictive, or corrective maintenance that assets and systems should have undergone but have not yet done so. It is the three-month backlog of preventive maintenance work orders. The air handler components that need repair. The leaky but repairable roof that is dripping into a collection and drainage system. Throughout this section of the BOK, we will employ the use of this distinction between deferred capital renewal and deferred maintenance.

From the very beginning, when the facilities condition assessment began to catch on as increasingly common practice, uncertainty prevailed about whether to include the prospective costs of subsystems life expiration, because prospective costs of renewal did not fit within the definition of “unfunded in previous budget cycles.” If these costs anticipated in the future were included in reports of what was called deferred capital renewal, then those deferred capital renewal backlogs ballooned to disproportionate amounts, because they included both past accumulated deficiencies and projected future needs.

The result was that many institutions and public systems experienced instant rejection of unreasonably large funding requests, sometimes presented as an “urgent one-time need.” The shock wave in those reactions then led to resubmission of capital funding requests significantly understating real needs but formulated to gain acceptance for at least partial funding.

Capital Renewal and Major Maintenance

What defines a project as “capital” depends on your organization. The definition typically stems from accounting practices and relates to a dollar threshold and sometimes a scope of work consideration. For the sake of this section of the BOK, capital renewal projects can typically be generalized into work that is not funded by the annual operating budget and requires a specific funding request or identified funding source to complete.

A capital renewal program is a systematic management process to plan and budget for known renewal, retrofit, and replacement requirements that renew or extend the life and usable condition of assets and systems. Capital renewal is a planned investment program that ensures facilities will function at levels commensurate with the academic priorities and missions of an institution.

Renewal and replacement is an accounting term used to distinguish a subgroup of plant fund assets from capitalized plant additions and improvements. However, institutional accounting practices vary; decisions are sometimes made to capitalize portions of major maintenance and renewal and replacement. Replacements in the form of new construction are routinely designated as capitalized and are grouped together with renewals as capital renewal and replacement programs. As a form of capitalized construction, replacements are interchangeable with new construction, whether they are replacing an existing facility or are an addition to the plant. Linking capital renewals with replacements is a more accurate way to describe a program for renewal of existing plant assets as distinguished from totally new additions to plant assets.

The scope, complexity, cost, and duration of a project can dictate whether major maintenance should be supervised by maintenance management or by a separate design and construction department. As an alternative to using in-house maintenance and design staff, a major maintenance project requiring plans, specifications, and competitive bidding can be designed by consultants and constructed by contractors. Capital renewal and replacement usually requires external assistance in design and construction administration to avoid dedicating facilities management staff to lengthy, time-consuming projects. Regardless of the choice made, major maintenance and capital renewal and replacement require supervision by facilities management staff to coordinate campus conditions (e.g., access during construction, interim relocations, utilities) and ensure project delivery in conformance with specifications, budgets, and schedules.

Unintended Consequences

From the early 1980s, deferred maintenance, as the term was understood at the time, began rising on the agendas of facilities professionals, chief financial officers, presidents/chancellors, and governing boards. However, to some, deferred maintenance suggested that someone was responsible for a deliberate policy to ignore renewal of older facilities. Indeed, a stigma was attached to a senior facilities officer reporting that significant funding would be necessary to remedy unsatisfactory conditions. “Who,” it was asked, “was in charge when these problems developed?” Or, “How did you (we) spend the millions allocated for maintenance?” Or, “Why exactly did you (the administration) defer this maintenance?” In these cases, it was useless to point out that maintenance was deferred by leadership through many policy and annual budgeting decisions over a long period of time—not to mention the overwhelming tilt to new facilities in capital budgets. An ostrich-like attitude sometimes resulted, as professionals were tempted to suppress bad news, to limit exposure of liability risk due to unsafe conditions, or to avoid criticism and embarrassment about management failure—real or perceived. It turned out that the term deferred maintenance became a problem in capital renewal communication.

Perceptive facilities and financial managers, seeing that the phrase deferred maintenance reduction presented semantic barriers and resistance to acceptance, sought other descriptive terms. The phrase spoke of failures in management, judgment, and stewardship, as though deferred maintenance was a trait of inept management. What followed was a shift in focus to programs of comprehensive financial and facilities planning, adopting terms such as capital renewal, facilities modernization, capital asset management, and strategic capital development.

As the term deferred maintenance was losing currency because of its suggestion of mismanagement or inattention, the problem was gradually redefined as capital renewal. The new term signified a broader view—not just the renewal needed due to past events (deferred) but also the concept of life cycle needs (capital renewal). This broader notion of capital renewal remains in use today, with varying nomenclature, such as asset management, recapitalization, and even strategic facilities planning.

By the early 1990s, as more institutions began to tackle the deferred capital renewal problem, a more enlightened view of capital planning and budgeting began to emerge. Researchers and consultants were concluding that detailed field inspections of physical conditions and estimating costs of remedial action conducted in the facilities audit had limitations. The scope did not present total capital renewal needs. The goal of the evolving Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) became comprehensiveness, a balanced combination of data collection through field surveys for both physical conditions and functionality, and statistical projections for forecasting life cycle renewal needs.

Methodology developed and published in 1991 by Applied Management Engineering (AME), in Managing the Facilities Portfolio,¹ offered a comprehensive process of identifying short- and long-term facility maintenance and repair requirements. In addition, AME provided management indicators and reporting tools. For example, the Facilities Condition Index (FCI), which measures deferred capital renewal backlogs and is now the most commonly applied facilities metric in practice, was seen in print for the first time. The equation to calculate FCI is deferred and current capital renewal needs divided by the total current replacement value of the managed assets and systems within the portfolio.

A major breakthrough in how higher education professionals evaluate capital renewal came in various approaches that considered the entire cost of a facility throughout its useful life, as opposed to the prior concept of “one-time” capital expenditure. This effort has been culminated in the publication of APPA 1000, a National Standard for Total Cost of Ownership Modeling. For more details, please refer to the BOK section and standard itself.

Now, nearly 40 years since the first alerts were sounded about higher education’s decaying stock of buildings and infrastructure, we see more attention being paid to the problem of inadequate capital renewal assessment and funding. Through the efforts of higher education organizations—APPA, NACUBO, and SCUP—a substantial body of research and publications has been pouring forth to guide institutions in their efforts to address the issue of facilities renewal. Despite enhanced attention to capital renewal, the central problem of backlogs of deferred capital renewal lingers as a substantial liability for many institutions. The fact of the matter is that information on the magnitude of the problem varies widely from institution to institution. And there is still a great gap between the awareness of funding needs and the actual funding of corrective work for deferred capital renewal backlogs and the life cycle renewal.

While much progress has been achieved in principles and tools for capital planning, including tools for quantitative estimation of new space, capital renewal, and overall master planning, much remains to be done by improving factors such as the following:

• Piecemeal approaches to comprehensiveness
• Linkage to a strategic plan
• Multidisciplinary planning team—not just the job of the facilities officer
• Multidisciplinary consulting support team
• Involvement of stakeholders in developing priorities
• Continuous planning process (not episodic)
• Reliable planning data and information—space inventory, physical conditions, and functionality assessments for buildings and infrastructure
• Need for restraint—no “wish list” projects and real effort to use resources more efficiently
• Need to depoliticize priorities and use real analytical data (along with strategic priorities) to prioritize capital investment
• Need to complete the planning process with a feasible funding plan
• Plan to maintain momentum of the planning process through ongoing implementation

One major problem is a capital development plan prepared in isolation from the institution’s mission and vision, as embodied in an institutional strategic plan. Frequently, lack of specificity for physical planning goals and objectives and quantitative data in an institutional strategic plan stymie an assessment to determine capacity needs (space availability in square footage and functional adequacy) for current and future programs and enrollments. Another difficulty is a master planning process solving problems of current arrangements of facilities and organizing spatial relationships for new campus facilities developed independently of the vision of the institution. While incorporating grand visions, these plans are unrealistic in their reflection of needs, including those for existing facilities.

Elsewhere, inadequate studies evaluating physical conditions of facilities may establish backlog remediation priorities while weakening credibility by omitting functionality/suitability needs assessment to adequately support programs. Institutions without a long-range strategy to assess facilities capacity, condition, and adequacy fail to accomplish the basic goals of a financing program: to reduce deferred capital renewal backlogs and adequately support long-term capital renewal.

An institution’s awareness that deteriorating facilities conditions have reached the point of significant liability immediately opens the question: How much is needed to correct the problem?

An effective deferred capital renewal reduction program requires reliable estimates of funding requirements and thorough planning. A successful program should estimate funding needs in the following categories:

• Macro-level broad estimates for five and ten years for long-term capital renewal needs.
• Micro-level estimates of near-term programs (one to five years) to reduce deferred capital renewal backlogs to acceptable levels

This approach recognizes that facilities’ conditions continually age over time and require ongoing investments to maintain functional and financial value; and historical facilities underfunding problems must be addressed through an ongoing program of capital renewal by a strategic infusion of funding.

Macro-Level Estimating

The empirical guidelines in the Building Research Board (BRB) publication Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings are one source of macro-level estimating. The BRB addressed an array of costs associated with acquiring, maintaining, and replacing facilities to guide financial planning for integrating maintenance and repairs and reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.

The BRB’s conclusions and recommendations are based on the finding that underfunding of maintenance and repair is a widespread and persistent problem. To overcome this problem, annual maintenance and repair budgets should be structured to explicitly identify the expenditures associated with routine maintenance and repair and activities to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance. The BRB concluded that an appropriate total annual budget allocation for routine maintenance and capital renewal is in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement value (CRV) of those facilities (excluding major infrastructure, e.g., utility distribution lines, central utility plants, etc.). When a backlog of deferred capital renewal has been allowed to accumulate, spending must exceed this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated.

The specific percentage for a campus depends on a wide range of factors, and the relationship between maintenance and repair requirements and CRV may vary widely, because any  building may be outside the proposed range (Figure 2). The 2 to 4 percent range for maintenance and capital renewal is most valid as a budget guide for a large inventory of buildings over periods of several years. The upper limit of the range can be reduced over time as deferred capital renewal reduction programs take effect. An important but often misunderstood point is that this range does not include “one-time” funding to reduce deferred capital renewal backlogs or make functional improvements.

• Building size and complexity
• Types of finishes
• Current age and condition
• Mechanical and electrical systems technologies
• Telecommunication and security technologies
• Historic or community value
• Climatic security
• Tenancy turnover rates
• Criticality of role or function
• Ownership time horizon
• Labor prices
• Energy prices
• Material prices
• Distances between buildings in inventory

Figure 1. Factors influencing Levels of Maintenance and Capital Renewal Expenditures

Some evaluations of plant conditions and needs recommend higher ranges. For example, a research-intensive institution will have a high rate of obsolescence and deterioration owing to changing technologies and use of facilities. Institutions that have implemented a deferred capital renewal reduction program will see benefits in lower capital renewal and replacement needs.

In summary, a budget model for operating budget O&M and capital renewal looks like this:

(a) Operations & maintenance = 0.5 to 1.5% CRV

(b) Life cycle renewal = 1.5 to 2.5% CRV

Recurring annual budget guideline = (a) + (b) = 2.0 to 4.0% CRV

Micro-Level Estimating

To effectively forecast macro-level estimating, a more granular assessment of facility assets and systems needs to be employed. What started as the periodic Facilities Condition Assessment has evolved into a recapitalization management model complete with life-cycle forecasts and annual facility condition assessments of targeted assets and systems. These annual FCAs can forecast anywhere from one to five years ahead but it is not advisable to look beyond that horizon as data becomes unreliable.

Forecasting life-cycles 30 or 40 years into the future can be helpful to identify when, according to life-cycles, major renewal needs are going to accumulate and be required. Having that longer horizon will help to effectively plan for those high-demand periods while the FCA can provide the required guidance for the immediately due renewals and replacements.

For more details on recapitalization management, please refer to the BOK section on Recapitalization.

Facility Quality Metrics

The use of a comprehensive assessment methodology for micro-level estimates includes a change from the universally accepted measure of facilities condition: the facility condition index (FCI), defined as the estimated cost to correct condition and code compliance deficiencies, divided by the current replacement value of the portfolio of managed assets.

FCI = $ to Correct Condition and Code Deficiencies
______________________________________

$ Current Replacement Value

Capital renewal programs require clear guidelines and procedures for setting priorities among potential projects. The desire to balance competition for scarce resources can be satisfied by the funding source’s determination of categories of projects and selection criteria. Setting priorities requires consistent treatment of deficiencies and functional improvement funding requests. Typically, categorizing involves collecting data, estimating project requests, and then summarizing project requests for a five- or six-year budgeting cycle. Selection of priorities is based on a systematic categorization established by an institution or governing board. As a practical matter, needs must be met in a certain order, and that order is dictated by financing capacity and by pragmatic considerations of logical, orderly campus development.

Selection of priorities for capital renewal includes temptations like those that occur in the development of annual operating budgets, which are established in a political environment of satisfying short-term needs that conflict with institutional goals and become a compromise between alternatives. Overcoming this traditional approach to distribution of resources requires clear policy guidelines in selecting priority projects and a strong partnership between the facilities professional and senior administration. The following principles are examples of guidance for the priority selection process:

• Major maintenance and repairs in the annual operating budget should be reserved only for projects offsetting facilities deterioration and extending the life of plant assets.
• New construction or major renovations for program improvements should be funded separately from major maintenance and repairs.
• Deferred capital renewal or renovations should be funded as special appropriations on a project-by-project basis.
• Renovations for functional improvements should be funded separately from capital renewal funding.
   

Prioritization Process

The process of prioritizing among competing capital needs must be one of objective analysis moderated by informed personal judgments. The relatively more objective portion of the exercise balances the essentiality of the facility to the institution’s mission with the urgency of the project—usually based on relative qualitative deficiencies, but possibly including critical maintenance backlog issues that need immediate attention.

The relatively more subjective portion of the exercise is a process of scoring projects based on a set of prioritization criteria or factors developed as part of a capital renewal program. The institution begins by assigning categories of facility essentiality to each major building on the campus in several categories. For example, academic buildings could be given the highest essentiality priority, auxiliary buildings a second level of priority, and “other” buildings the lowest priority. Following this process, projects are sorted by the level of urgency (based on FCIs, mandatory compliance, legally imposed, etc.). Finally, a matrix is developed for ranking all projects based on the combined factors of project urgency and facility essentiality.

Although the process is designed to optimize objectivity in the analysis of issues affecting prioritization, factors such as resource availability and other issues specific to a system or institution inevitably will introduce some level of subjectivity into the process—and this is appropriate. Thus, after an initial sorting of projects is completed, a prioritization scheme will emerge, based on the methods above. The final steps are to review, adjust, and refine the prioritization based on experience and judgment (but not in a way that violates the established prioritization efforts).

For example, in reviewing all projects, opportunities should be analyzed to “package” several projects for economies of scale. Roof repairs and replacements for several buildings may be consolidated into a single project to allow for lower unit pricing. Similar operations, such as erecting scaffolding or suspending use of portions of buildings, also lend themselves to cost efficiencies and minimizing building use inconvenience.

Intangible Factors

Other factors do not readily lend themselves to objective prioritization but should be considered when making funding decisions. Faculty and staff morale make a positive contribution to overall productivity and can be influenced by the quality of space and properly functioning, well-furnished and well-equipped, attractive, and well-maintained facilities. Faculty and staff recruitment and retention are similarly affected by the physical appearance of facilities and the architectural qualities of buildings and site aesthetics.

Historic preservation is an important aspect of a campus’s traditions and image. Facilities that are in marginal condition and being considered for replacement may be more valuable, because of their historical importance or as a focal point for a community, if they are retained and improved. Organizing these categories and intangible factors into a specific set of selection guidelines enables decisions based on technical evaluations and an institution’s requirements.

In the final analysis, selection of priorities is the relative weight given to the protection of plant assets, possible fiscal instability caused by postponing capital renewal or energy conservation measures, the visual image of the institution, and the risk of erosion of function and quality of environment. Although these matters may seem relatively intangible, they can be as debilitating as the more obvious physical consequences of deferring high-priority building and site repairs, loss of facility use and hampering program activities, or affecting economies.

Projections of costs estimated for capital renewal at the macro and micro levels are useful to gauge the magnitude of funding needs. However, these projections typically fail to associate the “how much” with the “from where” considerations of funding.

For some capital needs, the source of financing is self-evident. For example, new student housing or housing renovations will be financed, almost always, from housing system revenues and as revenue bonds. We can presume that, for private institutions, major utility improvements are more likely to be funded from operating funds or bond proceeds than from donor gifts and so forth.

The sources of funding capital renewal shares the same issues as capital financing for new construction, a widely varying pattern of arrangements across the country. An analysis of national activity is a complex task: definitions vary among the states regarding operating and capital funding; the specific allowable usage of tuition, fees, and capital funds vary from state to state; and some states define their capital budgets as consisting only of major building projects, while others include major building projects, equipment, and repairs/renovations.

Capital Renewal Program Management

Managing the long-range integrity of facilities in support of an institution’s mission is a broader challenge than routinely responding to repair emergencies or requests for modifying offices or laboratories. Management of a capital renewal program starts with the following:

View a facility as a collection of components and systems. The deterioration of one component can cause breakdowns in other parts of a system. Evaluation of a repeated maintenance problem should consider the systemic nature of facilities. Maintenance management staff pooling knowledge of unsatisfactory conditions that are developing into major problems can offset facilities deterioration.

Keep track of facilities conditions. An annual facilities condition assessment to note current problems and priorities should be a basic practice of facilities management. Familiarity with conditions enables the facilities professional to become aware of the most pressing needs. Lack of knowledge of conditions prevents anticipating major problems and avoiding budget surprises for overall campus fiscal management.

Maintain a long-range recapitalization program with a maximum of 5-year management plan in connection with a 30 or 40-year life-cycle projection. A five-year capital budget plan provides a level of confidence for senior administrators in the facilities management staff by regularly reviewing overall campus capital requirements. A level of capital requirements is established in long-range budget base planning, offering flexibility for emergencies or special situations that cannot be anticipated. Finally, the facilities professional has an operational framework for maintenance management to direct staff, materials, and contractors to appropriate priorities.

Know the differences between maintenance, repairs, and major maintenance. The categories may sound so routine that the important differences are overlooked. A simple check on the practices of work management and control is the proportion of staff devoted to routine building and preventive maintenance and the proportion devoted to major maintenance. Although many facilities professionals take justifiable pride in their staff’s construction accomplishments, they are mistaken if they look at their labor pool primarily as a construction team. Unless the facility is in an area where competition from contractors is unavailable, the wrong emphasis is being placed on work management if the majority of staff labor hours are allocated to major maintenance “construction” projects.

Manage maintenance as opposed to maintaining management. Any size institution needs a work management system to assign tasks, control material purchases, and be a responsive service organization; obviously, the size and complexity of an institution dictates the degree of sophistication of a system. Similarly, annual capital budget planning is part of a multiyear capital budget plan that integrates all funding streams with work priorities. Failure to bring these basic management programs into routine operations is a sign of complacent management and of an organization prepared to complain about inadequate funds and a lack of appreciation for staff that is dedicated, loyal, and hardworking.

Understanding these principles can create a fresh approach to capital renewal practices and procedures. The facilities professional should take good stock of the condition of the plant, including buildings, grounds, utilities, and equipment. Walk through the buildings, keeping in mind the operations and maintenance budget. Be candid in the self-evaluation of the maintenance management’s effectiveness. Also, have a feel for the previous annual funding for major maintenance and the tempo of plant additions. (A quiet period or increase in activity? A shift from new construction to renovations?) Set aside frustrations over “inadequate” budgets and be self-critical of work control, staff performance, and the presentation of requests for increased base budgets and special capital appropriations.

As you walk the grounds and through buildings from basement to roof, take note of deferred maintenance, especially for safety problems and a building’s exterior envelope—roofing, flashings, mortar, or other sealants—and places where deterioration permits moisture penetration. Check the operating records for failures of mechanical systems and complaints about heating and cooling. Finally, observe environmental safety conditions such as exits, hazardous material storage, sprinkler systems, and smoke detectors. Observe for any obstacles to disabled individuals.

This is an informal checklist to set the facilities professional to the task of preparing a strategy for a capital renewal/maintenance program. Formal aspects of the program begin with senior plant administrators evaluating the overall facilities management program for the institution. Later, tasks are defined for the administrator of the small campus to personally take on with available assistants, or, at a larger campus, for the delegation of staff.

Managing the long-range integrity of facilities in support of an institution’s mission is a broader challenge than routinely responding to repair emergencies or requests for modifying offices or laboratories. Management of a capital renewal program starts with the following:

View a facility as a collection of components and systems. The deterioration of one component can cause breakdowns in other parts of a system. Evaluation of a repeated maintenance problem should consider the systemic nature of facilities. Maintenance management staff pooling knowledge of unsatisfactory conditions that are developing into major problems can offset facilities deterioration.

Keep track of facilities conditions. An annual facilities condition assessment to note current problems and priorities should be a basic practice of facilities management. Familiarity with conditions enables the facilities professional to become aware of the most pressing needs. Lack of knowledge of conditions prevents anticipating major problems and avoiding budget surprises for overall campus fiscal management.

Maintain a long-range recapitalization program with a maximum of 5-year management plan in connection with a 30 or 40-year life-cycle projection. A five-year capital budget plan provides a level of confidence for senior administrators in the facilities management staff by regularly reviewing overall campus capital requirements. A level of capital requirements is established in long-range budget base planning, offering flexibility for emergencies or special situations that cannot be anticipated. Finally, the facilities professional has an operational framework for maintenance management to direct staff, materials, and contractors to appropriate priorities.

Know the differences between maintenance, repairs, and major maintenance. The categories may sound so routine that the important differences are overlooked. A simple check on the practices of work management and control is the proportion of staff devoted to routine building and preventive maintenance and the proportion devoted to major maintenance. Although many facilities professionals take justifiable pride in their staff’s construction accomplishments, they are mistaken if they look at their labor pool primarily as a construction team. Unless the facility is in an area where competition from contractors is unavailable, the wrong emphasis is being placed on work management if the majority of staff labor hours are allocated to major maintenance “construction” projects.

Manage maintenance as opposed to maintaining management. Any size institution needs a work management system to assign tasks, control material purchases, and be a responsive service organization; obviously, the size and complexity of an institution dictates the degree of sophistication of a system. Similarly, annual capital budget planning is part of a multiyear capital budget plan that integrates all funding streams with work priorities. Failure to bring these basic management programs into routine operations is a sign of complacent management and of an organization prepared to complain about inadequate funds and a lack of appreciation for staff that is dedicated, loyal, and hardworking.

Understanding these principles can create a fresh approach to capital renewal practices and procedures. The facilities professional should take good stock of the condition of the plant, including buildings, grounds, utilities, and equipment. Walk through the buildings, keeping in mind the operations and maintenance budget. Be candid in the self-evaluation of the maintenance management’s effectiveness. Also, have a feel for the previous annual funding for major maintenance and the tempo of plant additions. (A quiet period or increase in activity? A shift from new construction to renovations?) Set aside frustrations over “inadequate” budgets and be self-critical of work control, staff performance, and the presentation of requests for increased base budgets and special capital appropriations.

As you walk the grounds and through buildings from basement to roof, take note of deferred maintenance, especially for safety problems and a building’s exterior envelope—roofing, flashings, mortar, or other sealants—and places where deterioration permits moisture penetration. Check the operating records for failures of mechanical systems and complaints about heating and cooling. Finally, observe environmental safety conditions such as exits, hazardous material storage, sprinkler systems, and smoke detectors. Observe for any obstacles to disabled individuals.

This is an informal checklist to set the facilities professional to the task of preparing a strategy for a capital renewal/maintenance program. Formal aspects of the program begin with senior plant administrators evaluating the overall facilities management program for the institution. Later, tasks are defined for the administrator of the small campus to personally take on with available assistants, or, at a larger campus, for the delegation of staff.

To summarize, an action plan for comprehensive management of capital renewal includes the following:

• Build a constituency of campus support.
• Develop a work plan.
• Inventory conditions.
• Select priorities.
• Determine funding requirements.
• Seek funding sources.
• Create public awareness of facilities conditions and funding needs.
• Continue the cycle until results are produced.

These actions are necessary to ensure the consistent and reliable function of campus assets and systems.

Applied Management Engineering and Sean C. Rush. 1991. Managing the Facilities Portfolio: A Practical Approach to Institutional Facility Renewal and Deferred Maintenance. Washington, DC: NACUBO.

Back to BOK