Home Forums General Forum Capital program priority setting

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • Brian Hughes
      Post count: 2

      We are looking to develop a priority scoring system for our capital budget at Niagara College. We have in the past classified our individual projects as priority 1,2,3 and presented the overall plan to our Exec Team for approval. Our Exec Team is asking for additional information on the projects to help them to evaluate the priorities. We would like to include items such as sustainability, energy efficiency and a risk assessment. We would like to know if there are any examples of this type of priority setting in use by others.
      Any examples would be greatly appreciated.

      Thank you,
      Brian Hughes

    • Rich McEvoy
      Post count: 66

      Hi Brian
      I can’t speak to the overall capital project prioritization but can share how we look at the deferred maintenance component which may help as I’m sure there are similarities.
      We look at 3 levels: 1. Building/ 2. Assets & Systems/ 3. Recommendations
      1. Buildings are assessed for usage type which have been assigned scores (Academic 100; Admin 50; Residential 50; Other 30; Site 20)
      – essentially, Academic buildings have higher priority

      2. Assets/ Systems are assigned multiple scores for each uniformat code;
      a) Condition (Critical 5,…., Excellent 1) Note: These are assigned at the time of the building condition assessment
      b) Consequence of Failure (Life Safety 100; Campus Shutdown 100…. , Occupant Discomfort 10, Minor Concern 10)
      c) Severity (Serious 100 …. Minor 40)
      d) Accessibility (Will improve 100; Not likely to improve 1)
      e) Level of Green Improvement (Significant Green Energy & Carbon Reduction 100; Significant Green Energy 80; Significant Carbon Reduction 80;… No improvement 1)

      3. Recommendations (in SLAM, from Building Assessments)
      – scores are assigned to individual recommendations by our internal Committee to break ties. If 2 competing recommendations have similar scores from the previous calculations, our cross-functional group can usually discern which has the higher priority and assigns a score accordingly.

      Scores are assigned automatically for 1) and 2). Our committee assigns scores for 3) during monthly review meetings as required. All scores are recorded in SLAM for transparency. The higher the collective score, the higher the priority.

      I hope this helps.


Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.