Skip redundant pieces
University Relations
KU Home : About KU : Leadership : Office of University Communications :

Report of the Chancellor's Campus-Wide Task Force on Administration and Reengineering

PART II: Reengineering

C. Facility Improvements and Building Construction

Description of the function to be improved:
Facilities planning and architectural and engineering services are professional services provided by Design and Construction Management (DCM). DCM is responsible for planning, designing, contracting, managing, and bidding campus construction projects. University construction projects must be processed in accordance with the policies and procedures of this unit to ensure compliance with University and State of Kansas building guidelines, and the State of Kansas procedures of the Division of Architectural Services.
What are the perceived problems?
  • Planning and design fees. A rationale for service fees assessed by the Office of Design and Construction Management (DCM) is needed.
  • Lines of communication. The functions and interrelationships between DCM and Facilities Operations need to be studied to determine the most efficient organizational model.
  • Lines of authority. There is a need for the University community to better understand the lines of administrative authority for the facilities planning processes as practiced by the University and the State.
  • Coordination of activities. The facilities planning processes need to effectively coordinate with the teaching and research functions of the University.
  • State and University regulations. The restrictive contracting processes associated with State and University regulations should undergo a review.
  • There is a campus perception that the processes involved in facilities planning are heavily regulated. In addition, some within the University community believe they have minimal influence over these processes and this, in turn, impedes their ability to accomplish their mission. Budget reductions, along with the hiring freeze, account for the service challenges facing the planning processes. However, the tight regulations relating to the construction processes often help to deter the completion of projects in a timely manner. The following are additional concerns of the University community:
  • --- Actual construction costs versus estimated costs
  • --- Time required to obtain university and state authorizations
  • --- The use of academic resources for facility planning
  • --- Duplication of services provided by DCM and the State Department of Architectural Services
  • --- The integration of facilities planning with academic and research operations
    • What is the evidence of the process(es) problems? Consumer input, relevant data?
  • Interviews with senior administrators, September-October 1995
  • Letters from campus community, Fall 1995
    • What additional information and/or data are needed?
  • Each stage of the facilities improvement process needs to be reviewed in order to streamline the approval processes (i.e. selection of architect, engineer, contracting services, etc.). The review should include those university agencies, departments, etc., most involved in facility improvement and building construction.
    • Who are the stakeholders in this process? Who should be involved in its improvement?
  • Faculty and staff, department chairs, deans
  • Design and Construction Management
  • University administrative offices (Academic Affairs, Research, Graduate Studies and Public Service, Student Affairs)
  • Board of Regents
  • State Department of Architectural Services
  • State Joint Committee on Building and Construction
    • Who are related providers?
  • Administration
  • Facilities Operations
  • Purchasing Office
  • Networking & Telecommunication Services
  • State Advisory Committee on Building Construction
  • University Long-Range Physical Development Planning
  • Accounts and Reports
    • Is the improvement of this process likely to be a short-term or long-term task?
  • The on-campus processes under the internal control of the university can be improved in the short-term. The more cross functional processes under the internal control of the university will take more time to demonstrate improvement. Any improvement in the off-campus processes will, necessarily, be considered long-term tasks.
    • What is the desired outcome of the improvement of this process?
  • The goal is to provide service to campus customers in an expeditious fashion.
  • Uniform reporting system. Establish a systematic reporting procedure between Facilities Operations and DCM so that related agencies are apprised of their mutual responsibilities and can pool their resources for priority sessions.
  • Flexible state regulations. Identify the State structures and processes that represent more cost than benefit to the University and lobby the State for deregulation.
  • Flexible University regulations. Identify and minimize problematic policies and procedures.
  • Technology advancement. Develop the capacity for computer-aided design.
  • Centralized priority procedure. Develop an institutional priority-setting procedure to ensure that projects will be designed and phased into construction in a timely manner.
  • Improved communication channels. Streamline the communication links among DCM, Facilities Operations, Provost, and affected academic programs.
  • Utilization of private sector. Establish guidelines for when and how outside contractors may be engaged for design projects.
  • Feasibility studies. There is a need to streamline feasibility studies so that resources are not expended on projects that have a low probability of being carried out.
    • Are administrative savings likely to result? How?
  • Alternative design and planning processes need to be considered to meet rising expectations for building improvement and renovation of campus facilities. These alternative processes may not result in direct administrative savings; however, they could help to allow university resources to become more focused.

    • Return to Report main page | Members | Introduction | Process Identification | Student Support processes | Computing and Telecommunications | Facilities Operations | Funding of Classroom Improvements | Effective Utilization of Classified Staff | Purchasing | Space Allocation | Privatization/Outsourcing | Consumer Suggestions for Administrative Savings | Concluding Statement | KU Announcements page | University Relations main page