APPENDIX D

Case Studies

These organizations participated in case studies for this research:

• Houston Airport System (HAS)
• Jackson (Mississippi) Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA)
• Kansas City International Airport (MCI)
• Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC)
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA)
• The Pennsylvania State University—University Park Campus

Implementing Strategic Asset Management at Three Airports: Houston Airport System (HAS)

1. Organizational Highlights

Houston Airport System serves the fourth largest city in the United States. It is a three-airport system that served nearly 60 million passengers in 2019, pre-COVID, and contributed over $36B to the local economy. The three airports include: George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), William P. Hobby Airport (HOU), and Ellington Airport (EFD), also referred to as the Houston Spaceport.

In 2019, IAH served more than 45.2 million passengers and HOU served more than 14.4 million. IAH covers 10,000 acres with five runways and HOU covers 1,304 acres and has three runways. Recent and planned capital improvement projects at IAH include the redevelopment of the International Terminal D with more gates to handle large, wide-body aircraft and consolidated check-in; Terminal A modernization including curbside capacity improvements; rehabilitation of taxiways at all three airports; Central Utility Plant improvements; and Spaceport development.

The following vision and mission statements are from the 2020–2024 Strategic Plan: (https://www.fly2houston.com/sites/default/files/2021-03/HAS-Strategic-Plan-FINAL.pdf)

• Vision: Establish Houston Airport Systems as a 5-star global air service gateway where the magic of flight is celebrated
• Mission: We exist to connect the people, businesses, cultures, and economies of the world to Houston.

2. Overview of Asset Management Program and Project Closeout Asset Information Handover

Asset management is the responsibility of a small group of individuals who are tasked with managing the asset data, ensuring this data is accurate, and facilitating capital program development. These individuals collaborate with staff from Asset Engineering, Design, Maintenance,

5. Asset Data Requirements

Houston Asset Management staff generally feel they obtain needed asset data, especially when they are included as stakeholders during the project planning, design, and construction process. There have been instances when Asset Management was only included toward the end of a project. When this occurs, they must ensure their required asset data is provided as part of the deliverables by discussing their needs with the project manager, which does not always prove successful.

Typically, the asset data that field technicians have available is quite thorough and consists of make, model, type, and even warranty and repair information on a particular piece of equipment.

The asset classes that are of import to HAS staff include Central Utilities Plants, People Mover Systems, Underground Utilities, Building Systems (e.g., HVAC), FAR139 Pavements, Commercial Properties, and Fleet. These asset classes were chosen as the most comprehensive while also maintaining the division of duties among various stakeholder and maintenance groups across each of the three airports.

A standard form to request asset data updates is provided to be filled out, including fields such as Asset Description, Section Responsible for Maintenance, Manufacturer, and Serial Number. When many assets are added at one time (such as for a new construction project), this relevant information can be sent in a spreadsheet to be uploaded into the EAM. A published operating procedure documenting this as a formal process does not exist.

A standard naming convention has been developed that is used to create unique codes for equipment records. Most assets use the first letter of the airport name, followed by the first letter of a category and then the first letter of the appropriate group, followed by Class, and GIS asset identification number. A period (“.”) is used between each designation. However, for assets previously assigned a barcode number, that number becomes the asset ID number instead of the GIS identifier.

There is an Asset Register, but it does not exist as a standalone publication and is therefore only available for viewing by users with access to the EAMS.

The current percentage of closed maintenance work orders helps HAS track its goals. The remaining service life of the assets and maintenance closing codes are being implemented to better enable staff to understand maintenance trends.

HAS conducts periodic condition assessments of the assets by asset category, which helps maintain accurate and up-to-date data within the CMMS. Additionally, staff conducts audits of the maintenance team to make better additions, deletions, or updates as needed.

HAS actively incorporates GIS information that is synchronized with a spatial system they refer to as ASIS (Airport Spatial Information Services). This system includes maps and equipment coordinates.

HAS utilizes the current data to understand the service life of assets, predict maintenance life expectancies, track workflows, and locate trending troubleshooting issues. Closed work order counts by asset class and type of maintenance (e.g., preventive or corrective) are reported via Cognos, a report writer embedded with Infor (the CMMS). Labor hours required to complete work orders, the time to complete identified work, work order totals by department and airport, work orders by type, and status of work are each reported upon.

HAS uses multiple methods to ensure that constructed asset data is collected from new projects, including staff review of drawings, documenting asset information in the worksheets of a spreadsheet application, and importing the asset data directly from BIM and COBie files.

In general, an asset is known as any equipment item in the organization that requires periodic maintenance that can be tracked and logged on a scheduled or as-requested basis.

6. Effective Practices/Challenges

Effective Practice: HAS works diligently to manage its physical assets, creating a specific Asset Management division that has the sole responsibility to oversee and manage the airports’ assets. The Asset Management division uses asset programs such as the recently released On-Call Asset Management Contract, to assess the facilities and infrastructure at each of the three airports. HAS engages airport consultants to conduct assessments for an array of facilities including parking structures, buildings, infrastructure, runways, roadways, utilities, and other facilities.

Effective Practice: HAS tracks the age and the current condition of its assets and identifies a financial condition index (FCI) of many asset types across the three airports. This data is captured and archived within the EAMS as well as in a spreadsheet that is kept internally for review and presentation. Staff establishes an asset’s remaining useful life based upon a numeric condition rating referred to as the Actual Condition Index (ACI) and the FCI. Using these two metrics, staff can conclude whether it is feasible (or not) to invest in the asset facility to further extend its remaining useful life. As with any asset, there comes a time when it is not financially feasible or perhaps technically feasible to upgrade and extend asset life. This is the point where a decision is made to either repair or replace the asset.

Effective Practice: Since the asset maintenance data is in the cloud, it is available to anyone in the organization with a login to EAMS on a desktop or mobile device and can be utilized and updated in the field on demand.

Challenge: The biggest missed opportunities have been regarding the inclusion of HAS maintenance staff during the facility commissioning and assessing asset conditions. They have been doing a better job of including maintenance personnel in these projects so staff, supervisors, and management can gain firsthand experience and knowledge about the built environment that is also pertinent to their roles and responsibilities in maintaining the life of the assets.

Challenge: User familiarity, particularly for those users who do not regularly access EAMS.

Asset Management and Information Handover the Way Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport (JAN) Gets It Done

1. Organizational Highlights

Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) is a subsidiary of the City of Jackson, Mississippi. The Authority is governed by a Board of Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor of the City of Jackson for five-year terms. The Authority operates two airports: Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport (JAN) and Hawkins Field (HKS).

Prior to the pandemic, JAN saw approximately 900,000 passengers per year and, in 2022, was seeing close to 1,200,000. JAN consists of approximately 3,900 acres that house a 250,000 square foot terminal, four miles of runway, another eight to ten miles of taxiways, and 22 miles of roadways.

JAN is home to the Mississippi Air National Guard 172nd Airlift Wing. The Mississippi Army National Guard 185th Aviation Brigade (Theater) operates out of HKS.

The master plan was developed in 2010; this plan indicated that JAN needed a new terminal building, a new tower, an extension to the runway, and a new rental car center. At that time, JAN was experiencing 70 percent of the current passenger volume. When this master plan was developed, Southwest was not even a carrier at JAN, but is now the busiest carrier.

2. Overview of Asset Management Program and Project Closeout Asset Information Handover

JAN has not kept up with technology and in 2022 was attempting to implement improvements that included updating critical processes such as asset management. Currently, JAN works with paper and pencil (and a spreadsheet application) for work order management. JAN has not implemented GIS (does not have ESRI) or any capabilities that come close to managing BIM or COBie data; however, JAN does have a BMS-Metasys. The airport does use Airport Safety and Operations Compliance System (ASOCS) software for airfield inspections.

JMAA uses Munis Financial Management as its ERP system. ERP is the “engine that runs everything” from human resources to inventory to the project management module, which captures the constructed assets and expenditures related to ongoing projects. This software tool is used for inventory, human resources, financials, and project management; staff is attempting to document their existing constructed assets into this software system. Munis is designed to handle public sector needs.

JMAA needs better asset management processes and procedures than it has today.

3. JMAA’s Core Mission, Vision, and Objectives

JMAA’s mission, vision, and core values are (https://jmaa.com/corporate/about-jmaa/):

Mission: Connect Jackson to the world, and the world to Jackson

Vision: Be the Airports of Choice

Core Values:

• Customer Focus: Provide best-in-class customer experience.
• Continuous Improvement: Set high goals, measure performance, and advance.
• Communication: Encourage productive dialogue and generate information.
• Collaboration: Work together to build the strength of the team including strategic partners.
• Commitment: Exhibit a sense of ownership and pride in the Authority.

4. Planning, Design, and Construction Standards

JMAA does not have specific standards for its design and construction projects. JAN is planning for a new $800 million terminal and tower. Staff would like to have appropriate standards and processes in place that will bring JMAA “into the 21st century” and help communicate their wants and needs when it comes to new construction projects.

5. Closeout Procedures

JAN has yet to standardize requirements for project closeout. All construction data is manually captured and documented in Munis, but this is difficult as JAN does not have the staff to support the data capture and input, nor has the staff been assigned to incorporate any updates that might occur throughout the life of a constructed asset.

6. Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Requirements

JMAA does not have a CMMS. Preventive and corrective maintenance work orders are tracked in a spreadsheet. Most of JAN’s maintenance is outsourced; there are several on-call contracts, with about 15 people conducting maintenance activities. These contracts are assigned to cutting 3,900 acres of grass and helping to maintain several million square feet of buildings, the HVAC systems, plumbing, passenger boarding bridges, four miles of runways, and another eight miles of taxiways. There are another 25 miles of roadways that are at the airport and adjoining properties. Most electrical work, even on the airfield, is performed by in-house personnel.

JMAA has an in-house custodial staff of about 15 people.

7. Asset Data Requirements

When JMAA was asked about an actual inventory of their constructed assets, the response was that the accounting department keeps this type of information in a spreadsheet. Beyond this list and the spreadsheet that tracks work orders, there is little other definition of what it is JMAA manages and maintains. There is $175 million worth of constructed assets that should be tracked for JMAA to make more informed capital planning and maintenance management decisions. Staff is currently in the process of setting up a more formal replacement program with the ability to also monitor repair and maintenance activities on an ongoing basis. The current plan is to utilize the existing Munis system. Numerous assets are beyond their intended design life and should be replaced.

8. Effective Practices/Challenges

JMAA is currently planning a large concessions renovation program and is in the process of issuing a request for proposals (RFP). Once that occurs, staff members expect to identify a new concessions program vendor, and that entity will take over all concessions positions: retail and restaurants. As part of this program, staff members will get to review concessions drawings and discuss the type of assets that will become a part of any concessions construction project. The intent is that the successful vendor will have a minimum requirement to invest a certain dollar value per square foot of renovated concessions space, and the contract will also contain a renewal clause stating that the assets have to be refreshed on a specific timetable, all as a part of their agreement.

As of today, JMAA does not have specific standards or processes and procedures to ensure that with a new terminal, they could accept and automate the data management process through planning, design, construction, commissioning, and project closeout. There is a need to develop almost everything, from standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure construction projects design and build what staff wants to manage and maintain, to processes that define how asset data for newly constructed assets is handed over to maintenance staff and how these newly constructed assets are added to an asset inventory list so that JMAA can track their aging process and plan for future renewal investments.

Currently, JMAA does not know how many assets they manage; numbers range from 2,000 to 4,000. For many of their planning activities, the staff relies on a model of these assets based on theory and square footage of the terminal. There is little trust in any of the existing as-built documentation staff have on hand.

A real challenge has to do with maintenance; they are heavily challenged to do all the work that needs to be done.

9. Resources

The airport lacks resources, and several individuals wear multiple “hats.”

10. Conclusions

JAN staff members understand asset management and the standard processes and procedures they should have in place to appropriately manage and maintain the airport; these documented processes just don’t exist. Some conclusions:

• Development of standardized processes and procedures and enforcement of these requirements would benefit future project closeout and the obtaining of accurate data associated with asset information handover.
• The organization would benefit from defining asset management as a “culture,” thereby encouraging the various stakeholders throughout the planning, design, and construction processes to help ensure that future maintenance and management of the built environment will occur seamlessly.
• As JMAA begins to implement recommendations from the 2010 master plan, these contracts should address asset management and include appropriate requirements to help ensure that staff get the data needed to better manage and maintain the assets, whether or not a CMMS is acquired. Gaining such information about a potential new terminal or tower, moving forward, will help JMAA acquire standardized processes that will better enable a seamless transition of constructed asset data, no matter how large or small the project is.
• To facilitate a mindset shift toward more strategic asset management, the highest levels of the organization should clearly communicate and support asset management as its culture—this is evident with the interim chief executive officer. With his focus, asset management will eventually become a part of everyday roles and responsibilities.

Implementing Strategic Asset Management and Data Governance at Kansas City International Airport (MCI)

1. Organizational Highlights

Kansas City International Airport (MCI) was built by the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and opened in 1972. It reports low congestion and a small number of flight delays.

The MCI complex spans more than 10,000 acres, and its three runways can accommodate up to 139 aircraft operations per hour. Uncongested air and ground space, short taxi time, and a low weather-related closure/cancellation rate are why MCI consistently ranks among the lowest in delays of all U.S. airports. Three runways (two of them parallel with 6,575 feet of separation), a Category III instrument landing system, and other features help keep operations smooth in even the worst of weather. New surfaces on the runways, taxiways, and terminal aprons, along with ongoing infrastructure improvements, enhance the airport’s efficiency and convenience to air carriers.

2. New Terminal and Support Facilities

MCI is constructing a new, single terminal. Travelers will be met with upgraded technology, amenities, and more convenient gate access. The new, 39-gate terminal features dedicated arrival and departure levels, covered parking in an adjacent garage, moving walkways, and consolidated security checkpoints, all designed for easy navigation. The new terminal will feature glass passenger boarding bridges at all 39 gates, providing views of the surrounding airfield as

For airports not using asset management software, maintenance crews might have to go investigate a broken asset, travel back to an office to pull up details on a computer, look up a part number on a different site, and then order it. With MCI’s new system, managers will receive alerts that let them know when maintenance is due as well as improve response times for urgent maintenance needs. Before mobile access is established, however, data must be assembled, and strategic plans set for every asset that will be managed. That includes establishing a naming system for sites, rooms, and assets for clear labeling. The heavy lifting needed on the front end makes a strong case for filling a role to manage all the moving parts during design and construction.

Historically, plans have been packaged in hard copy, in three-ring binders, or some digital file folder structure consisting of pdf-type files. MCI wanted the project closeout handoff to be organized in a way so that they could receive this information and not have to reshuffle it for purposes of getting it documented in the EAM system. Establishing a business process that defines what information is required during construction and for project closeout should make the project closeout process run more smoothly. A lot of airports spend years searching for and reshuffling project closeout information to make it useful for asset management and maintenance.

MCI secured the services of a large team to help develop the asset management pilot of the maintenance facility, which included the large-scale software implementation, data integration, and migration of data from COBie to Maximo. This team developed and managed the process, including strategy development, testing, and staff training. Technicians completed test migrations of data and attributes to ensure everything was aligned and mapped properly for the airport.

MCI staff understood that if the data was not set up properly, it would not be useful to them.

4. Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie)

In 2005, a group was formed to help develop the U.S. national-level BIM standard. This group also initiated COBie, to improve asset information, including how it is documented during the design and construction phases of a project and, ultimately, as with more traditional project closeout methods, handed over to the project owner for operations and maintenance purposes. This is little different than buying a new car and receiving the handbook. The intent at the time was to help reduce, if not eliminate, the hard-copy construction documents typically associated with project closeout—the red-lined versions of paper drawings and specifications and the three-ring binders of manufacturers’ literature, among other items.

COBie can assist facility owners by capturing and recording project data such as equipment lists, product data sheets, warranties, spare parts lists, and preventive maintenance schedules. The data can be organized so facility owners can add and delete information as needed. However, there will be a gap if users request a level of detail that does not match the COBie data filing structure; resolving such a gap will require manual manipulation.

If an airport elects to utilize COBie data sets, it is important to understand the requirements and bring all stakeholders to the table to ensure each department communicates the level of data detail it needs to make its respective jobs easier. Transfer of data is extremely important, and simple mistakes will cause the data to become inaccurate. Upfront planning becomes crucial to ensure that the data is in a usable format.

In terms of process and communication, MCI staff understood that involving all stakeholders from project inception was key. If everyone’s not at the table helping develop the process and define the data requirements, someone could get shortchanged, and the team would have to supplement the data set with manual processing. Incorporating all potential needs will save time in the end.

5. Planning, Design, and Construction Processes

At MCI, the planning, design, and construction stakeholders for all new projects include staff from Engineering, Operations, Maintenance, and Information Technology departments. They typically participate during project planning. There is a documented SOP for the planning process known as the Project Delivery Standard. Kansas City’s defined design standards and specifications are also a part of this Project Delivery Standard.

Due to the foresight of MCI staff in establishing the new maintenance facility as a pilot during its design and construction, the required standards and procedure documentation were developed prior to the planning, design, and construction of the new terminal. These documents include the BIM Project Delivery Standard, Construction Phase Requirements documents, and Commissioning Phase Requirements documents. The contract documents utilized by MCI now cite adherence to these documents as a part of the project closeout process.

6. Closeout Procedures

The standards and procedures that were developed during the pilot project, which outlined exactly what would be required during project closeout, were delivered to all stakeholders, architects, engineers, and construction firms at the onset of the project. The key to getting what MCI staff asked for was the implementation of data drop points, or milestones, throughout the project that included payment holdbacks. At each data drop milestone, an end-to-end data review was conducted, and if the standards were not followed, the data would be returned for updates and the review cycle would begin again. Payments were held back until full data quality review and acceptance were completed.

For the maintenance facility project, MCI hired a third-party firm to oversee the management of project closeout and help ensure that the requirements were being adhered to, the documents were followed, and the data was complete and accurate. The construction team also had staff who reviewed the BIM data to ensure its accuracy and completeness prior to submitting project closeout document requirements to MCI (owner’s representative).

7. Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Requirements

MCI’s goal is to integrate BIM into the design and construction process to take better advantage of the holistic building model and construction coordination and ultimately use the BIM for facility management. To successfully implement BIM and complete data turnover in support of operations and maintenance activities, MCI developed processes and workflows that facilitate the exchange of BIM model data and integrate the operations and maintenance requirements (e.g., manufacturers’ manuals, warranties) into the CMMS. This process provides project stakeholders with a delineation of roles and responsibilities detailing the scope of information to be shared, relevant business processes affecting the stakeholders, and supporting software requirements.

During project construction phases, material suppliers typically submit product data, wiring diagrams, and similar submittals that will be associated with the applicable assets within the asset register. This register lists the assets from the BIM model that are of import to MCI and will be imported into the EAM. A single asset could have multiple associated documents listed in the register. In addition, multiple assets may share the same operations and maintenance documents. The result is that many relationships exist between assets and the operations and maintenance documents. These relationships can be accommodated within the register and will not require replication of the operations and maintenance documents within the CMMS to meet the specified requirements. For example, if two fan coil units identified as FAN COIL UNIT-385729 and

SLC acknowledges they need to implement and follow standardized data management processes and procedures when it comes to project closeout to better enable receipt of requested documentation and ensure its accuracy. It is understood that as-builts are not always as-built, such documents are not always accurate, and it does not matter what the medium (e.g., BIM) might be.

6. Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Requirements

Maintenance is a part of SLC’s strategic plan. There is a Director of Maintenance with supporting staff.

SLC has on-site staff responsible for conducting maintenance activities; however, SLC also makes use of third-party contractors to support the in-house staff.

The main challenge for SLC maintenance staff is the preventive maintenance work orders (tasks). They currently have more corrective or reactive work orders than preventive.

SLC staff do not believe they have all the asset data needed to effectively conduct maintenance and management of the constructed assets, nor do they believe that the data they do have is accurate. Getting the asset data required during project closeout (asset turnover) is one of the biggest “missed opportunities” for their maintenance operations.

7. Asset Data Requirements

SLC desires to have accurate asset data for all its capital assets that staff manage and maintain; this data should reside in its EAM software system (Maximo). Currently, no documented or formalized process for adding asset data attributes to Maximo exists. An asset hierarchy and asset data register have been developed, but they are not published, so not all stakeholders are aware of them.

SLC has not yet fully defined a constructed asset identification, structure, taxonomy, and naming convention (for all desired asset classes).

Maintenance staff is responsible for ensuring asset data remains accurate and up-to-date.

SLC does not currently require GIS location identifiers for its constructed assets.

SLC does not currently integrate its various software tools (e.g., Maximo with GIS, Kronos, Unifier).

SLC does not currently maintain either CAD or BIM files.

Asset data is input manually, not imported electronically, into Maximo.

8. Effective Practices/Challenges

SLC is still trying to ensure that all its asset data is documented within Maximo. Staff want to see an integration of various software tools used for asset management and maintenance.

9. Resources

The airport lacks resources to “police” the project closeout process and the accuracy of the data that is received. No staff member is currently assigned to this task.

10. Conclusions

Salt Lake City is still in its infancy with the recent implementation of Maximo and the continual ARP construction. Some conclusions are the following:

• Development of standardized processes and procedures and then enforcement of these requirements would benefit future project closeout and receipt of accurate data associated with asset information handover.
• The organization would benefit from defining asset management as a “culture,” thereby encouraging the various stakeholders throughout the planning, design, and construction processes to help ensure that future maintenance and management of the built environment will occur seamlessly.
• While the contracts for the existing ARP cannot be changed and SLC staff will have to do the best they can gaining the necessary data and information on their new terminal complex, moving forward, the organization can begin to develop and follow standards that will better enable a seamless transition of constructed asset data, no matter how large or small the project.
• To facilitate a mindset shift toward more strategic asset management, the highest levels of the organization should clearly communicate and support asset management as its culture. The supporting standardized processes would then become a part of everyday roles and responsibilities.

Implementing Strategic Asset Management at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), Port of Seattle

1. Organizational Highlights

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) is a part of the Port of Seattle (PoS). The airport, situated in King County, Washington, is the sixth largest city in the state, and the county’s fifth largest employer.

SEA served an average of 136,000 daily passengers as of 2018 and is currently ranked as the tenth busiest airport in North America. The facility was originally planned to handle a half million passengers. However, per Airports Council International (ACI) North American Airport Traffic Report data, reflecting 2020 statistics, SEA served over 20 million international and domestic passengers. In June 2022, SEA was recognized as the “Best Airport in North America” at the World Airport Awards held in Paris, France (Skytrax).

The PoS touts its “Century Agenda,” which outlines the strategic vision for both the aviation and maritime business groups. In turn, every activity and the mission and objectives of SEA staff are in support of this strategic vision.

2. Overview of Asset Management Program and Project Closeout Asset Information Handover

SEA has conducted asset management activities since 2011 affecting roughly 50 percent of the SEA infrastructure. SEA staff is currently revisiting this asset management program and intends to move the program forward by redefining the processes and procedures (including available software tools), utilizing industry best practices, and integrating georeferenced asset management data and work order history information within the PoS’s Maximo CMMS. One objective is to mature the renewal and replacement strategies as well as maximize asset life, reducing SEA’s overall cost of ownership.

3. Planning, Design, and Construction Processes

Stakeholders for SEA’s project planning include multiple internal groups and divisions (e.g., Operations and Property Management) and some PoS groups, such as the commissioners. Staff also considers the tenants and activists as external stakeholders; nearly everyone in some way is involved with project planning.

Two departments, Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) and Aviation Maintenance (AVM), identify asset management and maintenance needs by knowing what assets they manage (own/operate) and maintain, the condition of each asset, asset use or function, and other important attributes. Capital Planning will group SEA’s needs and identify project scope, schedule, and budget. The Construction Management department monitors construction activities, and Safety, Security, and Environmental groups subsequently monitor their areas of expertise.

The Project Management Group (PMG), F&I, Port Construction Services (PCS), and the Procurement office (CPO) are responsible for hiring design and construction firms.

The PoS has developed a set of CAD standards that are adhered to by all design firms for SEA projects. This CAD standard describes the information necessary to maintain drawing uniformity, neatness, proficiency, and quality. The PoS maintains that this standard generally conforms with standards and requirements published by the American Institute of Architects, the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), and others. In addition, and available publicly on the PoS website are sets of discipline-specific design standards and specifications in accordance with CSI’s MasterFormat classification system. These documents are made available to design and construction firms during the development of SEA projects.

SEA’s already-developed design guidelines address constructed asset design and construction requirements and include the following documents:

• Architecture Guidelines and Standards, 2023
• Civil System Standards, 2023
• Communications Systems Standards, 2021
• Cooking Equipment Ventilation Standards, 2023
• Dining and Retail Design Guidelines, 2017
• Electrical System Standards, 2023
• Landscape Standards, 2023
• Low Impact Development Guideline, 2018
• Mechanical Systems Standards, 2023
• Radio Frequency Standards, 2005
• Rental Car Facility (RCF) Tenant Design and Construction Standards, 2012
• Security Standards, 2020
• SEA Signage Standards, 2023, and the SEA Signage Master Plan, 2020
• Stormwater Management Manual, 2017

Within the published Architecture Guidelines is an entire section dedicated to maintainability. The maintainability standards were drafted with the intent of supporting total cost of ownership; maintainability; sustainability; and a safe and efficient work environment in order to maintain the Airport, its functions, and the assets of the PoS. Several requirements related to maintainability are defined within these standards.

However, even with such standards in place, the project design and construction process is not always followed. Staff sees design as a creative process and therefore doesn’t think it is important to have repeatable processes in design.

SEA staff have begun to make use of BIM, and some are knowledgeable about its use and would like to have it become a part of the formal, project closeout process. However, there is skepticism that BIM will be useful specifically for maintenance staff purposes.

There is an extensive geospatial program and group that supports PoS’s GIS; however, no published standard exists outlining GIS requirements. The thoughts surrounding the use of digital twins are relatively new. While staff can see the benefits of such digital twin use, there is uncertainty about what content, level of detail, and process/procedure will provide a net benefit. Having a perfect digital twin (e.g., each nut/bolt) is too much; having “boxes” that represent buildings is too little. Currently, any “sweet spot” is yet to be defined, and there is disagreement about and limited understanding of how SEA staff would make use of a digital twin.

Utilities are surveyed during the construction process and prior to these asset types being covered by the construction process.

Generally, the PoS is a consensus-driven organization for decisions addressing a multitude of stakeholders. For significant projects or major programs, upper leadership is almost always involved and makes final decisions.

There is a “lessons learned” process during which project design teams identify what went well or incorrectly. During this process, the project manager shares with other project managers. A log is maintained for future reference.

4. Closeout Procedures

Many traditional project closeout submittals are prepared during construction, even though submission is not required until closer to the end of a project. These documents might include record documents, operations and maintenance data, manufacturers’ certifications, and reports from inspections and testing. The requested submittals vary by project but typically include startup information, training, metering data, detailed as-built drawings, CAD files, and attributes describing new assets (e.g., make, model, serial).

SEA defines a submittal log during the design phases that lists the submittals required for the project. The construction management team then monitors the submittals throughout construction, instead of waiting until the project ends to collect and review these documents. For example, when staff reviews a product submittal, the manufacturer’s operations and maintenance requirements are also reviewed. SEA reviews the submittal log to ensure that the information has been submitted prior to closeout; however, the resident engineer makes sure that the data is entered into the construction management system. The dissemination of information from this construction management system to other operating systems remains a challenge.

Project closeout submittals are not limited to physical information. SEA also requires that the contractors conduct walk-throughs, develop “punch lists,” and provide orientation and training on newly acquired equipment demonstrating system startup and proper use. Other project closeout activities include metering, testing, and actual transfer of the final as-built information.

The PoS has staff with the specific responsibility of managing adherence to project closeout requirements. Unfortunately, while this staff monitors the transfer of information from contractors to PoS, quite frequently the information does not reach the staff within F&I and AVM (the appropriate people).

To help ensure that closeout submittals are relatively accurate, the submitted information is reviewed by the engineer of record, resident engineer, and construction manager or another subject matter expert.

SEA staff feel they receive approximately 75 percent of requested project closeout documents.

5. Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Requirements

There is a Director of Aviation Maintenance at SEA. AVM includes on-site, employed maintenance staff who support all aspects of the built environment at SEA. The SEA maintenance staff is organized by craft and includes electricians, plumbers, airfield technicians, equipment operators, semi-skilled workers, painters, locksmiths, and laborers. SEA also outsources some maintenance activities.

Currently, the main challenge SEA and AVM staff experience is the organization and transfer of information across internal departments and stakeholders. AVM is expected to maintain an item of equipment without necessarily knowing the expectation for the useful life of the piece of equipment.

An asset inventory does exist within the CMMS but only for those asset items that are actually maintained by AVM staff. This system contains preventive maintenance tasks and issues work orders to help ensure that such maintenance activities occur. As with most organizations, emergencies happen, and then AVM staff address these system/equipment failures as emergent or corrective maintenance work.

Maintenance strategies and preventive maintenance tasks and schedules are typically based on the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance plan, historical data, and the institutional knowledge of AVM staff. When developing the preventive maintenance tasks for a newly acquired asset, this staff will typically decide that it should be maintained in the same way as a similar or like item of equipment. The exception to this rule is when an asset is anticipated to have high functional use based on high passenger traffic locations at the airport. For such assets, the frequency of performing preventive maintenance work would be higher.

For more than 10 years, the AVM staff have been using mobile technology and hand-held applications to ease the issuance and completion of work orders. Other leading-edge technologies such as digital twins, IoT, and predictive analytics are being piloted.

The quality of the asset data readily available within the CMMS is relatively low. There are numerous gaps in the data, and several fields available within the software are empty. It was also noted that there are inconsistencies in naming conventions for assets, which reduces users’ ability to filter and sort the data.

Conversely, on a positive note, AVM typically is invited to planning and design meetings for nearly all projects. AVM has an internal team that is dedicated to being a part of capital programs. These individuals are tasked to oversee and advocate for AVM. The biggest benefit is having that seat at the table. AVM staff have become a resource for the SEA project managers to help solve problems.

AVM has become the “eyes and ears” for the PoS.

6. Asset Data Requirements

The CMMS is currently being used as a work order management system by AVM. Because the CMMS could serve F&I as well, it will need to be expanded to ensure that asset data addresses those attributes important to F&I, as well as containing records for all constructed assets at the airport. The data that resides in this system is only related to those assets that are maintained by SEA staff.

AVM has developed what is known as “asset onboarding” or the “CMMS form.” This document is a workbook in a spreadsheet application that typically is populated by the contractor because it is a contractually required submittal for project closeout. The intent is that it be a part

Within E Builder, there are two types of work managed: Maintenance and Projects. The determining factor for defining a Project is the requirement of a permit or design. Any work that is a “like-for-like” replacement is classified as Maintenance and is a work order within the Maximo system.

For design and construction projects, the specifications that outline the closeout requirements are from the CSI 3 Part Specification. They provide their own Division 00 but otherwise follow those guidelines.

When introducing a new asset into the system, the contractor makes the initial submittal and saves the barcode. This is then taken in by PSU and sent to the reliability team, which checks for errors. If all looks good, a barcode is applied to the asset. All relevant documents, such as warranty paperwork and pictures, are also uploaded by the contractor. All contractors used for design and construction are consistently used, giving PSU the advantage of having stronger relationships with their contractors.

For some assets, there is mapping to show the approximate location, but no GIS/spatial integration is used for this yet. The Space Management team does use a geospatial tool to create a reference map of the space, but this is used only temporarily. Any outside assets are mapped by the Mapping Team. There are plans to incorporate GIS data as an attribute to the assets, but this will be visited once existing data is cleared up.

Contractors are also required to remove an asset from the system if it is being removed or replaced with a different asset. This is a straightforward process within E Builder; however, this step is sometimes missed by contractors. The contributors do their best to remind the contractors of this step when it is forgotten, but there is no existing enforcement for this now.

3. Project Closeout

When construction is complete, the contractors must package, classify, and upload all documents needed for closeout directly into the E Builder system. Enforcement of this being done in a timely manner is a current hot topic at PSU. PSU has an advantage in hiring the same contractors consistently, so a relationship has been built to where this can be done in good faith, and documents are received on time. PSU also has a system in place where one requirement for final payment is the timely delivery of all closeout documents. However, there have been several occasions where PSU had to ask contractors for this information. The gatekeepers of the information coming in and out can see what is missing/incorrect, but the project manager has responsibility for fixing the issue. Project managers do not always stay on top of this at present, which causes closeout delays.

4. Secondary Tools

As far as other systems, the advancement of Maximo is also a current point of focus. PSU is looking to mature the use of Maximo for maintenance requests and the MRO inventory management. Also, the automatic transfer of data after a project or work order is a goal; as today this is a manual process.

For capital projects of more than 10 million dollars, a BIM model is created. Construction uses this to identify what will become assets in the future register and to identify and budget custodial resources. This model is not kept permanently for viewing purposes once construction is complete. The BIM model is also used to budget and allocate resources for custodial services. Floor surfaces, square footage, number of fixtures, and other BIM data are leveraged to budget appropriate resources for maintenance.

5. Resources

PSU has dedicated full-time staff that help maintain these projects. The two staff members interviewed for this research were the head Reliability Engineer and the head Reliability Planner. These two groups work cohesively and have developed an effective partnership, which has been a significant factor in PSU’s asset maintenance overall at the University Park campus. The Reliability Engineer group deals with development of an overall, high-level, maintenance strategy for the assets. The Planner group is responsible for onboarding assets and identifying/acquiring spare parts.

These Reliability Engineer and Reliability Planner teams work together to synchronize an asset’s overall maintenance strategy. The planners provide details to the reliability engineers, who in turn provide the strategy for the planners to implement. Together, these groups also handle the monitoring and management of project managers and contractors throughout a project’s timeline.

6. Conclusions

When interviewees were asked if PSU was happy with the current state of its asset management program, the consensus was as follows:

• This is a system that has plenty of pain points; however, PSU is finally getting to a point where things are electronic, consistent, and standardized, so overall it is a popular one.
• The biggest issues at present are the on-time uploading of documents needed, the timely removal of assets when it is time to remove them from E Builder, and managing and converting data into E Builder and the supporting systems.