space optimization & asset management tinker air force
TRANSCRIPT
Space Optimization & Asset Management Tinker Air Force Base - Asset Management Division
Ms. Geri Hart, P.E.
Chief of the Asset Management Division
72nd Air Base Wing
U.S. Air Force
Tinker AFB, OK
Introduction
This presentation brings into focus what Asset Management (AM) means, specifically at the base
level. Tinker AFB has been working AM issues for over a year and has been a participant in the
Space Optimization transformation effort. You’ll get a sneak peak at our future capabilities and it
is pretty exciting stuff.
The presentation includes a summary of the recommendations for the M-6 (Space Optimization)
transformation initiative. The goal of this initiative was to provide specific recommendations to
improve the space and occupancy process so that the AF can achieve reductions in space and
subsequently, in resources spent on federal facilities. It’s packed full of examples and shows
step-by-step how the recommended space standards were derived and how using them will
enable us to achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 goal. It also includes a demonstration of how
the future IT systems will enable these key space optimization findings.
Current Asset Management solutions
Currently Real Property (RP) and Space & Occupancy(S&O) data are handled in various ways.
ACES-RP, which is being replaced, has been the system for handling Real Property information.
This information is compliance driven and is reported to the Office of Secretary of Defense
(OSD). In the past, Space & Occupancy data have been handled in spreadsheets and in
Geographical Information Systems (GIS). We have adopted and enforced various space
standards at our installations, but we really haven’t had the tools to inventory and manage these
built assets.
An Integrated Workplace Management System (IWMS) Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
solution is used by many corporations to merge the critical information about built assets to
include costs, space & occupancy information and real property data. IWMS systems act as a
repository of information for an organization’s facilities and costs in a web environment,
allowing managers to sustain data related to a facility or asset.
The enthusiasm for these systems go beyond Civil Engineering and extends to facility managers
who benefit from the IWMS system data that allows you to drill down into CAD drawings, view
critical financial projections and view occupancy data. The strengths of these systems are
transparency of data that can be rolled up to an installation level.
Why is Asset Management critical?
At an installation there are continuous changes occurring. We have never had the capability to
link directly to CAD files and at the same time view Installation Geospatial Information &
Services (IGI&S) map data. When a floor plan changes or a physical asset is moved, some users
don’t notify CE and therefore our data are continuously stale. Imagine a tool that allows
managers, space managers, CE personnel, to view and analyze building and space from an
individual facility, installation wide or AF wide.
For example, a manager can look at integrated CAD, IGI&S, and facility data in the same view.
The facilities can be viewed in a dashboard like the picture below that shows which facilities are
using the most energy (BTU/GSF). This type of information will allow program managers to
target those facilities that may be underperforming to address the “worst first” and prioritize
upgrades.
What Assets do we have?
The ACES-RP data include inventory and attribute data for our built assets, structures and land
parcels. This database contains information about the number, type, location, age, size (GSF),
plant replacement value, restrictions, category codes or usage, and other information. These data
are generally aggregated at the facility level and at the current time are not generally available
for viewing in a visual tool. The category codes are the foundation for the use of the asset. The
screenshot on the following page shows the category codes overlaid in a CAD environment, for a
hangar at Tinker AFB.
Space and Occupancy
The M-6 project objectives included a review of space allocation standards and guides (AFH 32-
1084, BOMA/ANSI), processes, techniques and tools that could help inventory and optimize AF
space utilization. S&O process standardization is key to ensure a standardized comparison of
assets across the enterprise.
Air Force Bases use a range of techniques and methodologies to assign and track space and
occupancy in AF facilities. Generally, AFH 32-1084 has been the reference document for space
standards which have been broadly interpreted in an operational environment. Space surveys
utilize in-house and contracted personnel to inspect facilities. In most cases the data resides in a
notebook computer or is entered into a geospatial system. However, without web-enabled tools
that make the information transparent and visible to our customers, data sustainment is very
difficult. Because there is no standard methodology for proration of shared space or common
space, quantifying square footage assigned to each occupant is a challenge. The private sector
tracks rentable and useable square feet per occupant. This is one metric recommended by the
M-6 team. Another standard adopted by AF will allow 230 rentable square feet per person and
200 useable square feet per person. These numbers fall in line with GSA portfolio averages.
The example on the following page shows occupancy by organization and measures rentable
square feet per person. By comparing building level administrative space data, building
utilization can be displayed as a red/yellow/green metric.
How will we standardize space classification across the AF?
AF space classification, as defined by DOD, will still be tied to category codes. In addition,
space will be classified at the room level by industry adopted space classification codes or Open
Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) categories. The OSCRE, in conjunction with
industry and government representatives, has developed a standard set of space classifications
that align with Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and International Facility
Management Association (IFMA) Floor Area Measurement Standards. OSCRE space
classification standards will allow an accurate comparison of space types across the portfolio.
The diagram below illustrates how the BOMA/OSCRE space standards are integrated.
The most commonly used method used for data collection in an IWMS system requires that each
room be assigned a classification. Another benefit of applying OSCRE space classification
standards is that embedded space types become more clearly defined. In this example, as we
apply OSCRE standards, we more clearly define room usage. This is important in identifying
embedded support space which will be used to define future revision to the programming
documents (AFH 32-1084), and in determining space standards for special use space such as
maintenance areas or warehouses. Because the OSCRE standards have been written from a
broad perspective and are integrated with the BOMA measurement standards, the level of effort
for defining this embedded space is relatively straight forward. This will allow enterprise space
assessments and requirements to be an apples-to-apples comparison and allow benchmarking
with similar private sector operations.
The building below shows the OSCRE standards applied to the space.
Building Performance
If someone asked you how much we are investing in our facilities, could you answer their
question? A recommendation of the M-6 project was to include a Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) for our facilities operating costs (e.g., utilities, custodial, sustainment, etc) per square foot.
The building “cost to operate” model is based on the eleven costs of accounting used by the
private sector. The primary difference is that some components are not applicable to federal
agencies (e.g., taxes, insurance, etc). This “cost to operate” model is key as it will allow us to
benchmark against private sector costs and determine underperforming assets. The example on
the following page shows the cost of occupancy for three types of facilities.
The cost performance of a facility can also be rolled up with the space and occupancy data to
determine how well a building is performing. For the facility below, you can see a roll up of
building cost data as well as building occupancy data. These data coupled with the backlogged
maintenance information can provide a clear picture of the overall health of the facility.
Additionally, with the emphasis on utilities, it is possible to review the monthly utilities of a
building alongside facility operating costs to determine if adjustments should be made in facility
operations. For instance, in the example on the following page the facility primary use is
hangar. The utilities for October were unusually high relative to other hangars on base and
should trigger a review by facility managers to check on potential causes. Perhaps doors were
left open or if there were additional aircraft moved in/out of the hangar during that time period.
These cost data are critical to understanding our assets and managing costs.
Conclusion
To improve decision-making regarding built assets, and to improve the day-to-day management
of our portfolio, it is important to establish and track key performance indicators such as those
shown below. To measure aspects about our assets such as cost to operate and space utilization,
performance indicators are key. At the highest level, the goal of every base is to promote asset
management goals and initiatives.