Research Space: Assessing Investment Return

1
Research Space Assessing Investment Return
Premise A properly constructed and maintained
space database can provide information useful for
assessing return on investment and for making
informed management decisions.

• Tom Higerd, Ph.D.
• Medical University of South Carolina
• Catherine Watt
• Clemson University

2
Outline of Discussion

• Space Information Needs
• Overview of a proposed solution to needs
• Inventories vs. databases
• Response to Information Requests
• Bottom line and examples of space reports
• How the information is being used
• MUSCs Space Management System
• Functional versus physical management of space
• The Clemson Experience
• Basic Principles and Their Barriers
• Technical and process issues
• Cultural issues
• Introduction of the SPACE Consortium

3
Overview
Space Database
Awards Database
Personnel Database
Enrollment Database
4
Components of a Web-based Space Management System
Space Database
Fields Bldg. Name Room Number Area
(NASF) College / Unit Department Room Use CIP
Code for Dept. Faculty Assigned Faculty
Rank Faculty ID
FileMaker Excel Access SAS
5

• Space Information Needs
• Inventories for state and federal needs

• Renewed Interest AAMC annual survey or SCUP
• Some states require an annual facilities report

• Databases suited for informed management decisions

Database
Inventory

• Focused on mission / program needs

• Focused on physical plant attributes

• Categories sufficiently specific for program
  decisions

• Categories are too general for academic planning

• Linkers encourage integrated information

• Difficult to merge with other information

• Interactive and decentralized updates increase
  reliability and accuracy

• Periodic, labor-intensive updates, and hence,
  limited timeliness

6
Space Information Needs

• Why Research Space and Why Now?
• Space has been identified as the single
  rate-limiting factor in expanding research
  clinical enterprises.
• Space has been poorly managed in its assignment.
• Financial concerns over changing revenue streams
  and deferred maintenance lead to increased
  importance.
• Specialized facilities cost 250.00 ft2 to
  build and 18.00 ft2 to maintain.

7

• Response to Information Requests
• The Bottom Line of a Space Database
• An Information System Must

• Define sovereignty of academic space
• Defines who has authority over what space --
  Central Admin. v College v Department v Division
  v Center
• Be a reliable representation of facilities
  assigned to academic programs
• Fields and terms must relate to mission-specific
  functions
• Have reliable links to other related databases
• Fields and terms must relate to functional use
• Maintain a focus on converting data to information

8

• Response to New Information Needs
• Examples of management Reports

Ex Space of an individual faculty member
9

• Response to New Information Needs
• Examples of management Reports (Cont.)

Ex Active awards of an individual faculty member
10

• Response to New Information Needs
• Examples of management reports (Cont.)

Ex Space of individual departments
11

• Response to New Information Needs
• Examples of management Reports (Cont.)

Ex Active awards (lab requiring) of departments
Laboratory Requiring Awards (/NSF) of department
research-dedicated space
12

• Genesis of MUSCs Space Management System
• Functional versus physical management of space

1. Initiated in 1989 as method for MUSC to define
   and establish sovereignty of College of Medicine
   space
2. Downloaded PP inventory and cleansed
3. Refined database to denote functional use of
   space and authority
4. Designed and implemented interactive web
   interface
5. Integrated research funding data with space data
6. In process of obtaining discipline-specific data
   for comparisons with other institutions via the
   SPACE Consortium

13
Use of MUSCs Space Management System

• Originally used as a hammer to free-up labs
• Became a tool to assess departments request for
  additional lab space
• Information source for
• establishing certain university standards
• supporting requests to Boards for capital
  research expenditures and
• supporting requests for renovation in specific
  grants.

• The Clemson Experience

14
Clemson University One Year to a Changed Culture

• June 02 Introduced the system to Deans, finance
  officers, college reps, systems leaders
• July 02 Ensured accurate space assessment for
  19 research buildings for pilot test
• Sept. 02 Presented system to President
  Provost
• Sept. 02 Worked to create new reports based on
  award proportions
• Oct. Dec. 02 Shared SAMS with other system
  leaders PSA, OSHA, Facilities
• March 03 Presented first space reports to
  Chairs
• April 03 Presented first reports integrating
  awards with space information

15
The Edit Process
Technical Issues
- which data fields can be modified by the viewer

• Access rights are broad, yet controlled.
• At MUSC, these are department business managers
  (administrators) -- they have first-hand and
  accurate knowledge.
• Authorized individuals can make change campus
  wide.
• Only selected fields can be changed.
• Information is verified by annual walk-throughs.
• There are two databases -- web database and
  authentic database.
• Reconciled once a month or as needed

16
Technical Issues
- data fields can be modified by the viewer
17
The Basic Search Engine
18
Searchable by fields
19

• Flexibility in Viewing
• HTML, Tab-delimited, or Excel downloads

20
Select Only Fields of Interest
21
Technical Issues
- data fields can be modified by the viewer
22
Technical Issues
- which data fields can be modified by the viewer
(Cont.)
23
Process Issues
Web Interface

• Data is viewed and edited via the Web Interface
• At the end of each month, the Web Space Database
  is compared with the Master Space Database via
  the Review Database.
• The Review Database updates the Review Date
  Field and synchronizes the two databases.

Web Space Database
Master Space Database
Review Database
24
Cultural Issues

• Leadership is required to override turf issues
  and to apply principles uniformly across
  departments.
• Encourage the concept of one authoritative
  database.
• Information needs require integration of
  institutional information with space data.
• Encourage campus-wide acceptance and use through
  collaboration, therefore minimizing data
  integrity challenges.
• Depending on web facility, users may require
  assistance.

25
Acceptance of data merging
Cultural Issues (Cont.)
Linking Space Data to Awards
Awards Database
Space Database
Name

Sq. Feet
144 85 122 50 130 130
350 255 214 210 2,095 177
John Jane Jim Jerry Jenny Jes
26
Awards Database
Merge with Space database on Faculty ID
Awards Database
Fields Faculty ID Sponsor Title Start Date End
Date Total Award Direct dollars (or ) Indirect
dollars (or ) Proportion on Award Wet lab
required
Determine specifics of reports
Share within SPACE Consortium
Assume it already exists in accurate form
27
Cultural Issues (Cont.)

• Acceptance of data merging

College of MedicineResearch Funding and Lab
Space (old)
Of the 215,637 ft2 dedicated to research
173,986 ft2 (or 81) are labs assigned to
individual researchers 41,651 ft2 (or 19) are
research support space not assigned to individual
researchers (e.g. cold rooms, shared equipment
rooms, dark rooms)
Of the 173,986 ft2 of labs assigned to individual
researchers
6,239 ft2 of labs are listed as vacant
(undergoing renovations, holding for recruitment
of new faculty, etc.) Leaving 167,747 ft2 lab
space currently assigned to individual researchers
28
Cultural Issues (Cont.)

• Acceptance of data merging

College of MedicineResearch Funding and Lab
Space (Cont.)
The 167,747 ft2 of lab space is assigned to 187
researchers
The average lab assigned to a researcher is 897
ft2 In addition, there is an additional 223 ft2
(on average) of common support space available to
each researcher
29
Cultural Issues (Cont.)

• Acceptance of data merging

College of MedicineResearch Funding and Lab
Space (Cont.)
The awards that require the 167,747 ft2
laboratory space total
Under the best and realistic scenario, only 80
of researchers are funded at any moment (due to
unfunded periods between grants, recruitment of
junior faculty without funding,
etc.). Recomputed, the funding per ft2 becomes
30
Cultural Issues (Cont.)

• More refined /NSF

31

• The SPACE (Space Productivity And Cost
  Evaluation) Consortium

• Established to
• facilitate inter-institutional assessment of
  space utilizing common methodologies and
  terminology
• share non-proprietary tools useful in managing
  space and in building comparative information
  and
• begin to define acceptable practices in
  management of space.

32
The SPACE Consortium (Cont.)
Vision
To have a secure Web portal through which member
institutions can obtain data elements from any or
all member institutions. Information will be
considered as privileged.
Structure
A Governing Board will be made up of a
representative from each member institution.
Membership
Institutions must have space data of value, be
willing to share data and expertise, and have
sign-off by highest official.
Cost
We anticipate no consortium fee. We are
attempting to secure grant funding for its
initial phases.
33
Suggested Implementation Procedures

• Stage 1 We will review your current space
  database for design, fields, usefulness, and
  electronic portability. (Some schools can go
  directly to Stage 4.)
• Stage 2 Assess shortcomings and overcome them.
• Stage 3 We will develop a web prototype, and
  will upload the system onto your platform.
• Stage 4 The prototype is fully functional and
  can share information with members of the SPACE
  Consortium.

34
SPACE Consortium web page
The Consortium web page is currently being
constructed. A first draft can be viewed
at http//www.clemson.edu/oir/Space/SAMS.htm. This
page contains presentations, sample reports, and
our contact information.