Day Hall Construction - Article Example

Day Hall ConstructionExecutive SummaryBuilt in 1958, Day Hall is still standing strong; however, as most buildings that are 54 years old, renovations are necessary, especially to the communal bathrooms. According to our student satisfaction survey, in which we contacted 50 students, 31 students claimed that the bathrooms at Day Hall are below average. There are many problems with that, for the bathrooms should be kept at a higher standard for students, being that the first-year students living in Day Hall should have as easy of a transition as possible.

We set out to alleviate the hardships that residents in Day Hall are currently facing, as broken bathroom equipment, cleanliness, and privacy are our main issues of focus. After consulting with FixIt Zone manager, JD Tessier, we have arrived at three viable options for the renovation for Day Hall. Our first option is to implement a renovated bathroom area with individual bathrooms doors, with fully renovated bathroom equipment (toilets, showers, sinks, etc.). Our second option is to create renovated, semi-private bathrooms, which will emphasize on increased privacy through increased dividers between showers and sinks.

Our last option, which is also the cheapest, is to replace the existing bathroom parts of Day Hall, for many of the showers and sinks are unfunctionable.Labor Availability (15%)Cost of Renovation (10%)Complexity of Project (20%)Consistency with Goals (30%)Implementation Period (25%)Opt 185163013Opt 2126102515Opt 315881020In evaluating our three options, we performed thorough research by distributing the student survey, consulting with JD Tessier, and communicating with the Residence Director of Day Hall, David Grimes, and Office of Residence Life Director Terra Peckskamp, our client, via email.

To supplement our findings, we based our recommendation off of 1) Availability of manpower, 2) Cost of renovation, 3) Adaptability to the new bathroom style, 4) Consistency to the goals of the organization, and 5) Implementation period. In evaluating the criteria, our consulting group came to the conclusion that Option 1 aligns most with our criteria and our client’s values. We recommend that Day Hall proceeds with implementing individual bathroom areas, to enhance student satisfaction and the ease of transition.

Introduction Constructed in 1958, Day Hall at Syracuse University houses approximately 607 students and 14 resident advisors. Together, there are 16 communal bathrooms shared by the 8 floors of residents in Day Hall, which has affected the cleanliness and the lack of working parts in bathrooms. Mainly, all of Day Hall’s bathrooms were last renovated in the 1960s, as there has only been one recent renovation to one side of the building with the introduction of a new wing in 1990. Renovation to the bathrooms will facilitate the ease of transition for the many Syracuse University first-year students living in Day Hall, as a sense of community amongst the first-year students has developed over the years.

Adapting to a new college environment is tough enough, which is why bathroom privacy, cleanliness, and functionality should be emphasized to help students cope with the new environment. Privacy is a pressing issue in transitioning to college life, but is more relevant in the communal bathrooms in Day Hall. Not only does lack of privacy create an uncomfortable environment for residents, but living with communal style bathrooms are more difficult for students to adjust to, as it can take a while for a resident to adapt to the lack of convenience and safety he or she felt while at home.

Not only do messes and faulty parts put residents at an inconvenience, but students living with communal bathrooms are more vulnerable to health risks. Up to this point, communal bathrooms are an adequate set up for dorms that are waiting to undergo renovation. However, we feel that to improve the overall experience for first year residents, the bathrooms can be enhanced to include freedom of disturbance and reliability as part of our individual, semi-private, or renovated bathroom options. In order to gain a stronger grasp on the needs of the student body, Terra Peckskamp, the Director at the Office of Residence Life, has immersed herself in the student culture by interacting with students through many committees, such as the Mentor RA Group.

In doing so, she has been able to create a warm, welcoming environment for students. An integral factor in student’s comfort and satisfaction lies in the bathrooms conditions in the dorms, which Ms. Peckskamp was very interested in discussing. To enhance the future conditions of the communal bathrooms at Day Hall, we have outlined our method of research and three potential alternatives that would improve the attitudes of Day Hall residents of their bathrooms. Criteria- (What are the corresponding percentages to each criteria?) In determining which of our options would be most suitable for the situation at hand, we identified several criteria to guide our research and evaluation.

We, the SU Bathroom Corp., have identified the following criteria as part of our guidelines because we believe that there are certain logistics that greatly dictate how feasible it is to implement each of our options. We must stay cognizant of the potential monetary, time, labor and physical restraints that thorough renovation projects create. Additionally, we found it of equal importance to place great emphasis on the perspectives of Syracuse University and its students, for we are ultimately working to create an enhanced environment for the students.

Below contains a detailed explanation and weight of each of the criteria that we have chosen. · Labor Availability (15%)- To complete a renovation project as complex and essential as bathroom reconstruction, extensive labor must be ensured to complete the project in its entirety. Specifically, it is imperative that the renovations do not take longer to complete than expected, for otherwise, it may conflict with the school term and be delayed even further. Thus, it is imperative that enough laborers are hired to complete the project, as projects propose more challenges for workers and become more difficult to complete the more difficult the task is.

This criteria applies to the amount of labor present after construction is completed, as well, for conscientious maintenance will be needed to preserve the condition of each option. · Cost of renovation (10%)-In determining the feasibility of each option, the cost of renovation is extremely important to look at, for the benefits of each option must justify the costs that are associated with them. Conveniently, Syracuse University sets aside a substantial budget, to fund necessary renovations, like bathroom reconstructions.

Thus, there are not many monetary limitations that exist in this scenario, but of course, cost is always a factor in determining which option is optimal for both the students and university. Highly expensive projects can lead to tuition spikes or an imbalance in the budget, which can provide for greater problems in the future. During our consultation with JD Tessier, he stated that to improve the lives of students at school, high costs can certainly be justified. · Complexity of project (20%)- In completing renovation to the bathrooms in Day Hall, JD Tessier, Manager at the FixIt Zone, advised that the complexity of the project must abide to the allowed monetary, time, and labor constraints.

Being that many dorms are different in their original footprints and piping, some projects may be too complex to complete, or in some cases, initiate. Our research will based on how feasible it is to complete each viable option without too much difficulty, for reconstructing a bathroom area varies greatly in difficulty in comparison to replacing the bathroom parts. The complexity of the project is an integral factor in our feasibility study, for it is directly related to most of the other criteria and is usually the first aspect looked at by the Syracuse University labor staff in deciding whether to begin a project.

· Consistency to the goals of the organization (30%)- Our objectives, as SU Bathroom Corp,. is to provide Syracuse University and its students with a healthier and happier environment, to enhance student transition and satisfaction. Being that our client, Terra Peckskamp, emphasizes her studies and involvement on creating a more inclusive and comfortable environment for students, especially those in their first year, we have evaluated each option in determining how well it fulfills our ultimate goals.

In simple terms, this criteria will be used to dictate how well the renovation option makes students feel right at home. · Implementation period (25%)- Time restraints are imperative to consider the option to continue with, for the construction must be completed by the time the students are back on campus, for construction cannot take place while students are living in the dorm. In the past, renovations have been partially completed partially in the worst case, and then continued during the next break.

However, we believe this is an inefficient system, and we would rather stay away from any possible incongruity within the residence hall. In most scenarios, the more thorough the project is , the longer it takes to implement. MethodsIntro-Visited Day Hall Bathrooms Knowing specifically what is wrong with Day Hall options was critical to creating three feasible options. As a team we visited and inspected the communal style bathrooms. Upon visiting the bathrooms we discovered faulty shower heads, clogged sinks, and dirty or missing toilets/urinals.

This stage of research led us to the development of option three: the replacement of bathroom parts. -Survey After visiting Day hall Bathrooms and developing option three, as a team we decided our next step was to develop viable options parallel student opinions. Gauging student satisfaction we developed a survey th1-10 satisfied with day hall bathroomshow comfortable with communal bathrooms 1-31-10 bathroom privacy1-5 maintinance of bathroomshow reliable are sinks showers toilets 10/14 neutral or lessrate condiditon of tiling and condiditon of floorwhich renovation option do you prefer.

-Talking to JD Tessier-Talking to David Grimes-Communications with Athletic Trainers In order to gather a general consensus of what the students of day hall want from their bathroom experiences we made an online survey of 8 questions. Each questions was a calculated on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10 asking their satisfaction or their projected satisfaction. Once we gathered the results of the survey we were able to continue the research phase with our three viable options.o Two of the questions were directed at the general satisfaction of day hall.

o Two of the questions regarded preference in bathroom renovation style (e.g. individual or semi-private), with the other asking their thoughts on the current state of the communal bathroom. · We then continued to contact Terra Peckskamp, the residence director of day hall, who directed us to David Grimes.· We then continued to contact David Grimes, who is the Assistant Resident Director, directed us to JD Tessier. · Once we were referred to JD Tessier, the manager of Fixit we conducted a phone interview with him.

We were able to receive numbers for renovations on private bathrooms and basic renovations.· We continued to contact the Residence Director and Assistant Residence Director of Ernie Davis Hall as they have the newest renovation information.· Once we had the general information from the students, Residence Directors, and Assistant Residence Directors, we used JD Tessier’s information to calculate rough estimates of the three options we have. We then compared these numbers to those that Ernie Davis paid to check for reliability.

FixIt Perception-After a 30-min interview with JD Tessier, manager of FixIt, it appeared he was most concerned with the satisfaction and comfortableness of the students, despite the time and monetary restrictions. Thus, he prefers to implement the individual bathroom option when physically possible. Client Perception-Terra Peckskamp, Director of the Office of Residence Life (ORL), has immersed herself in various roles that stress student happiness and the transition of students into college life.

That being said, she expressed the most interest and satisfaction in the individual bathroom option, for it helps college students assimilate easier into the new environment. Student Perception-In determining the perception of students of the current bathrooms, we conducted a survey that received 50 responses of current Day Hall residents. Of the 30 students as part of the sample, 37 students expressed that they would like the individual bathroom option, with 10 and 3 votes going to the semi-private bathroom and replacement of bathroom parts options, respectively.

­­­­Overview of Alternatives In enhancing the privacy, safety, and comfortableness of the bathrooms in Day Hall, we have narrowed down the possible options to three alternatives that we believe will benefit students the greatest during their transitioning into college. Based off of our survey and conversation with our client, Terra Peckskamp, we have determined that the three best options would be to either: 1) build individual bathrooms in Day Hall; 2) transform the communal bathrooms into semi-private bathrooms or; 3) Replace all of the toilets, showers and sinks while maintaining the communal bathroom style.

To display the costs and benefits of each alternative in an organized manner, the chart below depicts the important features and differences between the three options. Evaluation of Alternatives: Option One: Creating Individual Bathrooms In hope of making students feel more comfortable while transitioning into college life, we would like to reconstruct the Day Hall restrooms. Creating individual bathrooms will ensure privacy and will make the students feel more comfortable in their living situation.

The reconstruction would take a total of twelve weeks to complete and would cost a total of $3,000,0000-$5,000,000 million, with $45,000 being used for piping and architecture. There will be individual restrooms on every floor of Day Hall, resulting in a total of 70 individual bathrooms. Day Hall was built in 1958 and has not undergone any drastic reconstruction since then. Clearly outdated, replacing all the equipment and reconstructing the bathrooms will be a major advantage for students who live in Day Hall.

This option would require the most labor because of its high demand for manpower. It is a complete reconstruction of the bathrooms. This option is also very costly, so it has a very low criteria rating. It is also a complex project, but it is doable and definitely feasible. Based on our criteria, this option was mostly based upon meeting the goal of the university. They are incredibly focused on making first year students feel comfortable during their transition into college. Making the bathrooms completely private will make students feel more comfortable using them and will definitely assist in making their transition easier.

It has the lowest implementation period rating of the three because of its complexity and demand for labor.Considering that other Syracuse dormitories have undergone bathroom renovations, we are aware of the student satisfaction that has occurred because of that. Day Hall is currently on the list to undergo renovations at some point and this would certainly be option that would result in student satisfaction. Seeing that we are also concerned with the cleanliness of the bathrooms and the health of the students, redoing the bathrooms will lessen the health risk.

CostTimeStudent Preference Option 1$3-$5 Million12 Weeks74%Option 2$2,000,0008 Weeks20%Option 3$500,0004 Weeks6%Labor Availability (15%)Cost of Renovation (10%)Complexity of Project (20%)Consistency with Goals (30%)Implementation Period (25%)Opt 185163013Opt 2126102515Opt 315881020Option Two: Creating Semi-private BathroomsAs some point during their freshman year, students yearn for a moment of privacy, which is difficult to find when living in such close quarters with other freshman. This is very prominent in the use of the bathrooms where students need to share them with all the other students on their floor.

Therefore, we have created an option that will result in semi-private bathrooms. This option has the most average ratings out of all the criteria. For the labor availability, this does not have an extremely high demand but it does involve a decent amount of reconstruction. These bathrooms will be designs so that there is one bathroom for every 4-6 people. Students can have their privacy back while using the restrooms. The total cost of reconstructing the communal bathrooms into semi-private bathrooms would be about $2,000,000.

This reconstruction would take place during the summer and would take about 8 weeks. These bathrooms This would help improve the comfort of the students with the bathrooms in Day Hall and would also make them less prone to any health risks. New equipment will upgrade the modernity of Day Hall and will definitely be a major factor in improving student satisfaction.CostTimeStudent Preference Option 1$3-$5 Million12 Weeks74%Option 2$2,000,0008 Weeks20%Option 3$500,0004 Weeks6%Labor Availability (15%)Cost of Renovation (10%)Complexity of Project (20%)Consistency with Goals (30%)Implementation Period (25%)Opt 185163013Opt 2126102515Opt 315881020Option Three: Replacement of Showers, Toilets, and SinksThe equipment in Day Hall bathrooms is most definitely outdated.

We have noted the amount of student complaints with the functionality of the showers, toilets, and sinks in the communal bathrooms. This option would require less maintenance to the Day Hall bathrooms and would upgrade student satisfaction. Based upon our criteria, this option will improve the health risks because the equipment will be This option would require about four weeks to be completed and would cost about $500,000 in total. It will be a total of $225,000 for the replacement of tiles, toilets, sinks, and showers.

We will be upgrading to the equipment that is used in the Ernie Davis bathrooms. The bathrooms will still be communal style bathrooms but all of the equipments within them will be replaced. Students will be able to trust that they will have a clean, functioning shower when they go to take one. CostTimeStudent Preference Option 1$3-$5 Million12 Weeks74%Option 2$2,000,0008 Weeks20%Option 3$500,0004 Weeks6%Labor Availability (15%)Cost of Renovation (10%)Complexity of Project (20%)Consistency with Goals (30%)Implementation Period (25%)Opt 185163013Opt 2126102515Opt 315881020ConclusionIt is apparent that the building materials of the Day Hall washrooms have been worn-out due to time and continuous usage since 1958.

This could have contributed to the current challenges faced by students in these washrooms. In addition, changes in various societal facets are other factors that have created a need for change in the washrooms structures, within the Day Hall Structure for instance; heightened issues of personal privacy compelling students to demand for private washrooms as compared to earlier periods where people used to share such washrooms freely. The research conducted above indicated that most students prefer taking showers or bathing in closed or rather private bathrooms; however, the most challenging issue with this option is the fact that it is associated with relatively higher costs as compared to the second and the third option.

In addition, the research indicated that the application of option one is associated with various benefits despite the fact that it has a higher implementation cost. Another apparent issue that arose from the results is that option two and three are also associated with certain benefits; however, the major difference between exhibited between option one and the other two options emanates from the long term benefits as well as their degree of meeting the goals of the project. That is, the first option is quite expensive, but has a better long term benefits and is meets the goals of the project in a more appropriate manner as compared to the second and the third options.

However, due to limited funds the third option will still be viable and appropriate in the case that all the spoilt materials are removed and replaced with new ones for instance; replacement of tiles, taps, toilets, sinks as well as showers. Despite the fact that significant number of students does not support the third option, we were compelled with economic circumstances to implement it. RecommendationOur research indicated that majority of freshmen college students prefer privacy in the bathrooms in their early years in college.

Majority of the students in the college also prefer certain amounts of privacy in the bathrooms, however, from our analysis it is apparent that provision of complete privacy in the bathrooms will entail the use of material and time, making the process more expensive. The second option provides a relatively cheaper renovation method that seems to meet the requirement of most of the students. That is, it provides partial privacy that is needed by most students and is relatively cheaper as compared to the first option.

Majority of students do not prefer the third option; it is therefore prudent that the second option be provided with a high sense of consideration in order to meet the goals of the project.