Read the Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Relating Facility Performance Indicators with Organizational Sustainability Performance in Public Higher Education Facilities A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty by Gregory K. Adams In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Building Construction and Integrated Facility Management in the College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology May 2010 Copyright 2010 by Gregory K. Adams Relating Accepted Facility Performance Indicators with Organizational Sustainability Performance in Georgia Public Higher Education Facilities Approved by: Professor Kathy Roper, Advisor College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Daniel Castro-Lacouture College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Linda Thomas-Mobley College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: March 19, 2010 This work is dedicated to the memory of my father, Edward S. “Jack” Adams, the smartest man I ever knew not to have received a college education who, more than any other, inspired and taught me to think critically, and to my mother, Arah E. Adams, whose love and support for me is as fresh today as the day she brought me to this world all these fifty-four years ago. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my wife, Maria Guadalupe Alonzo Adams, who made innumerable sacrifices so that I could complete this work, and my sons, Jack and Gary, who have supported their father in the pursuit of his education at the expense of time that would have otherwise been spent with them. My employer, the University System of Georgia, is to be commended for providing employees such as me the opportunity to perform this kind of research, and for supporting them through it. My supervisor, Sandra Neuse, has not only directly supported this research by reviewing and commenting on sustainability assessments, but also by ensuring that the demands of my work load and schedule were balanced with the time needed to complete the research. Angelica Ospina Alvarado provided invaluable support in performing SPSS analyses. I wish to thank my thesis advisor, Kathy Roper, and the members of my thesis committee for serving in these capacities, and for the valuable counsel they provided along the way. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………. iv LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………..viii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. ix LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………… x SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW………………………..…… 1 1.1 The Sustainability Dilemma of the Facility Manager……………………....…1 1.2 Background…….………………………………..………………….……….. 5 1.2.1 Overview of Sustainability………...………..…………………..….……… 5 1.2.2 Organizational Sustainability………...………………………....….…..… 10 1.2.2.1 Private Sector Organizational Sustainability……………….......……… 11 1.2.2.2 Public Sector Organizational Sustainability……………………...…..… 17 1.2.2.3 Organizational Sustainability in Higher Education………………...….. 20 1.2.2.4 Transforming Higher Education Organizations………………....…….... 22 1.2.3 Barriers to Sustainability in the Organization…….…...........…………….. 25 1.2.4 Sustainability Drivers and the Role of FM in Organizational Sustainability…….……..………...…………………..……………...….… 36 1.2.4.1 The Role of FM in Organizational Sustainability…………..…......….… 38 1.2.4.2 Introduction of the Concept of Direct and Indirect Roles of FM in Organizational Sustainability…………………....…...... 41 1.2.5 Assessing Sustainability in the Higher Education Organization................. 44 v 1.2.6 Facility Management Performance in Higher Education………...…....….. 49 1.2.7 The Intersection of Facility Management Performance and Organizational Sustainability……...………..…………………………..… 53 1.2.8 Additional Burden of Sustainability Leadership in Higher Education…..….…………...……………………………………….…..…. 54 2 IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM & STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS ………………………………….…………..………... 58 3 METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………..……… 61 3.1 Methodology Overview………………………………………………..…… 61 3.2 Methodology Detail……….……………………………………………..…. 63 3.2.1 Development of Sustainability Ratings as the Dependent Variable……… 63 3.2.2 APPA FPIS and USG Energy Data as Independent Variables ……...…… 67 3.2.2.1 Selection of Facilities Performance Indicators for Comparison……….. 69 3.2.3 Statistical Methodology Detail…………………………………....……… 71 4 PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH………………..………….………….…… 75 4.1 Sustainability Best Practice Scores…...………...……...……………….….. 75 4.2 Correlation of FM Metrics and Sustainability Best Practices………..…….. 76 5 CONCLUSIONS………...……………………………….…………….……… 80 5.1 Opportunities for Further Research…………………..…………………….. 81 APPENDIX A: AUTHOR’S COMPLETED RATING SHEETS FOR USG INSTITUTIONS SUSTAINABILITY BEST PRACTICES AS IDENTIFIED IN BERINGER (2007)……….…………………….... 83 APPENDIX B: APPA FPI DATA DEFINITIONS………………………………… 155 APPENDIX C: DATA TABLE FOR CORRELATION ANALYSIS……………... 158 APPENDIX D: SPSS PEARSON CORRELATIONS, ALL VARAIBLES……….. 167 APPENDIX E: PEARSON CORRELATIONS, 21 VARIABLES………………… 175 vi APPENDIX F: OUTPUT OF SPSS STEPWISE REGRESSION FOR SEVEN VARIABLES……………………………………………………… 180 APPENDIX G: DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH AND FINDINGS……...……… 191 REFERENCES ........………………………………………………..……………… 202 vii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Organizational sustainability approach matrix………………………………. 14 Table 2: Barriers to the installation of high efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment……………………………………………………... 27 Table 3: Sustainability best practices………………………………………………….. 50 Table 4: Aspects of FM performance and potential impacts to organizational Sustainability………………………………………………………………… 55 Table 5: Sustainability best practices ratings for USG institutions…………………… 66 Table 6: Data points selected for correlation analysis………………………………… 68 Table 7: SPSS Descriptive statistics for 21 variables…………………………………. 73 Table 8: Pearson correlations for 7 significantly correlated variables of 21 variables ……………………………………………………………………………… 74 Table 9: SPSS correlation table for correlation analysis, 21 variables……………… 158 Table 10: SPSS correlation analysis………………………………………………….. 167 Table 11: SPSS correlation table for 21 variables……………………………………. 175 Table 12: SPSS descriptive statistics, 7 variables……………………………………. 181 Table 13: SPSS Pearson correlations for 7 variables………………………………… 181 Table 14: SPSS stepwise regression, variables entered/removed……………………. 185 Table 15: SPSS stepwise regression, model summary……………………………….. 185 Table 16: SPSS stepwise regression ANOVA values…………………………………186 Table 17: SPSS stepwise regression coefficients…………………………………….. 186 Table 18: SPSS stepwise regression, excluded variables…………………………….. 187 Table 19: SPSS stepwise regression, colliniarity diagnostics………………………... 187 Table 20: SPSS stepwise regression, residuals statistics ……………………...……... 188 Table 21: Sustainability best practices scores by USG type………………………… 198 viii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Continuums of intermediate process methods of assessing sustainability progress for different types of CSR standpoints……………………………. 15 Figure 2: Entities and flows of a built facility system………………………………… 39 Figure 3: Facilities management roles in organizational sustainability in higher education institutions: a synthesis from the literature……………… 42 Figure 4: Sample sustainability best practices rating sheet for USG institutions…… 65 Figure 5: SPSS stepwise regression residuals histogram………………………….… 189 Figure 6: SPSS normal P-plot of regression standardized residuals………………… 189 Figure 7: SPSS stepwise regression residuals scatterplot …………………………… 190 Figure 8: Student FTE v. SBP scores, research universities…………..……………… 199 Figure 9: Student FTE v. SBP scores, regional universities……………...……………199 Figure 10: Student FTE v. SBP scores, state universities……………….………….… 200 Figure 11: Student FTE v. SBP scores, 4 year state colleges…………..……………. 200 Figure 12: Student FTE v. SBP scores, 2 year state colleges……………………….. 201 ix LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 3BL Triple Bottom Line AASHE Association of the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education BOR Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia BSC Balanced Score Card BTU/SF British Thermal Units per Square Foot CAS Complex Adaptive Systems CSR Corporate Sustainability Report CST Critical Systems Thinking ESCO Energy Services Company FM Facility Management FMs Facility Managers FPI Facility Performance Indicators FPIS Facilities Performance Indicators Survey FTE Full Time Equivalent GEFA Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority GRI Global Reporting Initiative GSF Gross Square Feet HE Higher Education ISO International Organization for Standards LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design PPV Public-Private Venture x SBP Sustainability Best Practices SBPS Sustainability Best Practices Scores SFTE Student Full Time Equivalents SPI Sustainability Performance Indicators TBL Triple Bottom Line ULSF University Leaders for a Sustainable Future USG University System of Georgia xi SUMMARY Sustainability in organizations is difficult to define and measure, but public and private organizations alike are increasingly reporting sustainability performance through the use of various sustainability assessment methods and frameworks such as those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and others (Bernhart & Slater, 2007). Facility Managers (FMs) need to understand not only how their facilities perform in terms of the established methods like the Kaplan and Norton Balanced Scorecard