FNL HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
Faculty Bulletin Board
MIT HomePage

Managing Space Changes at MIT

Lawrence S. Bacow

Recently I encountered a member of the Class of 1931 who had returned to the Institute for the first time since graduation. He remarked how little things had changed as he walked the hallways of the main building. Unfortunately, his observation is all too familiar for those of us who work and study here. I often walk past the classroom where I took Differential Equations in 1970. It has not changed at all since I was a student, and very little since it was last renovated in the 1940s. MIT students still encounter the same uncomfortable highback, black chairs and long, narrow, black tables. On warm days, the windows still must be opened, and noise from outside the room disrupts the class. We can do better. Many of our classrooms, offices, laboratories, and public spaces are in need of renovation. Some of these needed changes are being driven by programmatic evolution. New scholarship often requires new facilities. Similarly, the development of new educational technologies requires new teaching facilities. But we also have a backlog of deferred maintenance that simply must be addressed.

Two years ago, the Executive Committee of the Corporation authorized an additional distribution from the endowment to permit us to tackle these problems in a serious way. The budget for the Committee for the Review of Space Planning, known by the acronym CRSP, increased at that time from $3.5 million to $24 million annually. [CRSP membership includes myself as Chair, Bob Brown as Provost, John Curry as Executive Vice President, Victoria Sirianni as Director of Facilities, Doreen Morris as Assistant Provost for Administration, and John Dunbar as Space Administrator.] The Institute invests these funds for programmatic changes, a portion of which renew our physical plant as well. Departments, labs, and centers also contribute on average about $9 million annually in cost sharing for space changes, and the Department of Facilities allocates $15 million for non-space change infrastructure renewal. Projects in this last category include replacement of air handling units, fire- and life-safety improvements in the residential life area, roof replacement, façade repair, and dorm window replacement. Thus, in the aggregate, the Institute is now spending approximately $48 million annually to upgrade its physical plant. In addition, some of the new buildings we are constructing also represent efforts to address decades of deferred maintenance. As Bob Brown likes to observe, replacing Building 20 with the Stata Center is our largest "deferred maintenance" project on campus.

Two years ago, CRSP instituted a new process for allocating resources for space changes. We continue to try and improve this process as we receive feedback from the faculty. Under the old process, space change requests could be submitted at any time, and were addressed by CRSP in the order in which they were received. There were several problems with this process. First, it led to a crowded and undisciplined queue. People often competed to get to the head of the line. Without knowledge of future requests, CRSP could not assess the true opportunity cost of individual decisions. Second, the old process did not engage the Deans and VPs in helping to prioritize requests from their units. Since space change requests dribbled in throughout the year, most Deans and VPs just forwarded requests to CRSP for processing as they came in. Third, the old process often forced departments, labs, and centers to invest considerable resources of their own in developing plans to present to CRSP. CRSP had no way of supporting planning for space change requests independent of making major funding decisions. And fourth, because of the discrete nature of CRSP funding decisions, it was impossible to economize on infrastructure renewal by considering the renovation of multiple adjacent spaces simultaneously.

The new process instituted two years ago requires all space change requests for the following fiscal year to be submitted in a consistent format and at the same time in January. The request to CRSP must be accompanied by a letter typically written by the relevant department head, center or lab director. For changes to existing space, this letter describes the following: the research or function currently taking place in the space; the proposed future activity; the rationale for the change, including a description of the likely benefits of the change and the consequences of not undertaking it; an explanation of why this specific request is important to the mission of the department, lab, or center; and finally, a description of available sources of non-CRSP funding to support the change.

Upon receipt of all of these space change requests, Design and Construction Services of the Department of Facilities does a preliminary estimate of the cost of each project. This estimate is based upon a simple cost model. We categorize projects by type, i.e., classroom, office, wet lab or dry lab, and then, based upon an understanding of the per square foot costs of similar projects completed at the Institute, we do a rough estimate of what the job is likely to cost. This rough estimate is provided to the Deans and the VPs who are then asked to prioritize all the space change requests generated by their departments, labs, and centers. [While there is a high degree of variability between cost model estimates and actual costs for each individual project, in the aggregate, the cost model has proven to be quite accurate. As one would expect, some projects are overestimated, and others underestimated. As a practical matter, we cannot afford to design and bid each project submitted to CRSP. Moreover, we need some rough estimate of the likely cost of each project in order to make funding decisions. The cost model allows us to be reasonably certain that the aggregate cost of the approved projects will be within the overall CRSP budget.] After receiving input from the Deans and VPs, CRSP makes its funding decisions for the next fiscal year. These funding decisions are then shared with all of the Deans and VPs in a meeting of Academic Council in which CRSP explains its decisions. Each Dean and VP gets to see the entire CRSP allocation, as well as the prioritization given by their colleagues to specific space change requests. We have tried to make the decision-making process as transparent as possible.

In deciding what to fund, CRSP looks first to the priorities of the Deans and the VPs. In the past two years, CRSP has not funded any request that was not given the highest priority by the relevant Dean or VP. CRSP also looks to the past history of renovations in the relevant unit in allocating resources, to ensure that funds are distributed equitably. CRSP considers the intensity of current utilization of space as well as changes in the activity level within the unit (e.g., indirect cost recovery per NASF, research volume per faculty member, NASF per headcount, etc.). Finally, CRSP tries to economize on infrastructure funds by clustering projects. For example, it is much cheaper to renovate three adjacent offices, laboratories, or classrooms than to do three projects in three separate buildings.

Once approved, projects are taken to the next step so that a more refined estimate can be generated. A project manager is assigned, an architect is hired, the project is designed, and then it is competitively bid. CRSP typically does not formally approve a budget until after bids have been received. [One exception to this rule is when departments, labs, or centers seek funds for renovation of space for a new faculty hire. Often the unit will look for a commitment from CRSP for a space change before the faculty member has formally accepted his or her position. In such cases, CRSP will typically commit a fixed dollar amount to the project. (Since the project has yet to be designed, it cannot be bid.) The unit must then either design to this budget, or come up with additional funds from other sources if the project budget is to be exceeded. CRSP cannot afford to support open-ended commitments for space changes for new hires.] The final budget approved by CRSP includes construction costs, a project manager's fee (3-5 percent), and may include an architect's fee, typically 12-16 percent. All projects also include a construction contingency of 10 percent. This is intended to cover unanticipated costs encountered during the construction process.

Faculty are often surprised to learn of the cost of a relatively modest renovation. Why are space changes so expensive at MIT? There are a number of reasons. First, many of our buildings are quite old and renovating older buildings is expensive. Second, MIT is required to renovate to an institutional standard which incorporates more durable materials, equipment and finishes than any of us might put in our own homes. Third, we are often required, as part of routine space changes, to retrofit new mechanical systems into older buildings. This is always very expensive. Fourth, renovations to older buildings usually require making the building ADA compliant. Fifth, construction activity at MIT must be scheduled around the needs of adjacent users. Rarely is it possible to close down whole sections of a building in order to perform needed work. Instead, construction must be scheduled so as to minimize the disruption to classes, laboratories, offices, and other Institute activities. A significant portion of our construction must be completed in a relatively short period of time during the summer and during vacations. This often necessitates additional expenditures. Finally, we find ourselves in a very difficult construction market where costs seem to be escalating monthly.

Recently, CRSP commissioned a study to compare per square foot costs for renovating laboratories and offices at MIT with similar projects at neighboring institutions. While our costs may seem high, they are in fact in line with those expenditures incurred for comparable work at other Boston area universities.

Increasingly, CRSP is tackling more complicated and comprehensive projects. The recently completed Building 33 renovations for the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics included renovation not only of the offices and lab space in the building, but complete renovation of the entire mechanical systems for the building as well. CRSP is about to undertake a project of similar scale on behalf of the Department of Physics in Buildings 4, 6, and 8. This latter project will be undertaken in phases over a number of years. In the case of both Physics and Aero and Astro, these departments have raised considerable funds from donors to renovate their space and the Institute has provided matching funds to address improvements to infrastructure.

As we go forward in renovating more space at MIT, we must be far more attentive to managing the construction impact of these projects. We are all living in a massive construction site. We are building new buildings (the Stata Center, the new undergraduate residence, and the Sports and Fitness Center); we are renovating entire buildings like Building 18; and we are undertaking many smaller projects throughout the campus. Some of our earlier projects caused serious problems for their neighbors. We have tried to learn from these experiences. In our new projects, we are trying to be far more aggressive in both managing and mitigating construction impacts. Nonetheless, there will be disruption and we all must be patient. It is one of the prices we must pay to renew our working environment.

Over the course of the next several years, our campus will be transformed. We are already seeing the benefits of investments in new classrooms in the original main building. New laboratories are coming online in Buildings 2, 4, and 6, as well as in the Center for Learning and Memory and the Center for Cancer Research. Music and Theater Arts has relocated from cramped quarters in Building 14 to new space in Building 10. We are about to undertake major improvements to the public spaces in many of our lobbies and corridors. It is clear that we still have much to do. It will require patience by all concerned. It will also require substantially greater resources than we currently have available. We are committed to providing our students, faculty, and staff with the world class facilities that we expect from an institution of the caliber of MIT. It will take time, but we will do it.

* * *

Weekly updates on construction impacts published in both TechTalk and The Tech. Also, please check out the new Website for construction projects that details current activity, activity planned for the coming week, as well as mitigation measures scheduled. It can be found at http://web.mit.edu/facilities/www/construction/.

FNL HomePage
Editorial Board
E-mail FNL
FNL Archives
Faculty Bulletin Board
MIT HomePage