Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
In this session, Abilene Christian University, University of Nebraska at Kearney, and New Mexico State University will share with you the steps they have taken to harness vast amounts of facilities and financial data to create facilities intelligence. Additionally, they will share how they have used this knowledge to provide strategic decision making support not only within their respective facilities organizations but also with senior administration and across the broader campus community. In a time of limited resources and competing demands, the value of validated data has never been greater. Through a process of independent third party validation, benchmarking, and analysis they have been able to position their organizations for success. The creation of a common vocabulary allows information to be communicated effectively from the boiler room to the board room, thus helping their institutions understand both the impact of historic decisions and what the impact of future decisions may be on campus facilities. Much like institutions analyze the ROI of their endowments, this data-driven, fact-based analysis allows campuses to understand the interrelation of annual stewardship, asset reinvestment, operating effectiveness, and customer service; and how decisions in one of these areas can either positively or negatively impact other areas.
Citation preview
Virginia State UniversityWagner College
Washburn UniversityWellesley College
Wesleyan UniversityWest Chester University of
PennsylvaniaWest Virginia Health Sciences Center
West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University
Western Oregon UniversityWestfield State University
Wheaton College (MA)Whitworth University
Widener UniversityWilliams College
Williston Northampton SchoolWorcester State University
Xavier UniversityYeshiva University
Youngstown State University
Fact, Fiction, or CrapHow is Your Facilities Data?
About Sightlines
Who Does Sightlines Provide Value To?
400 + College and University
campuses, in 44 states rely on Sightlines to improve their
facilities management.
Contextthrough
benchmarking
Common facilities
vocabulary
Consistent analytical
methodology
Facilities Database45,000 buildings
1.2 Billion square feet50,000+ workers
177M MMBTUs of energy
Finance Database$17B in annual
operating and capital
Capital Renewal Database
Lifecycle data on 5000 buildings
250M GSF
Carbon DatabaseAccess to 600+ campus carbon
programs
Based on Industry-Leading DatabasesChanging the way higher education looks at facilities
• Sightlines collects and assembles data on campus to quantify, verify, and qualify facility performance.
Measure
• Through the benchmarking process, institutions have the capability to create custom comparisons that help them understand context and performance.
Benchmark
• Sightlines synthesizes an institution's verified data to develop strategic directions for change.Analyze
• Sightlines continues to support each campus through the member website, educational webinars, and ongoing consultation with staff.
Membership
The Sightlines process
Changing the Conversation O
pera
tions
Suc
cess
ROPA Radar Chart
Annual Stewardship
Ass
et
Rei
nves
tmen
t
Operating
Effectiveness
Service
Target
Actual
Optimal
The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life
“Keep-Up Costs”
AnnualStewardship
The accumulated backlog of repair /modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs”
Asset Reinvestment
The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management
OperationalEffectiveness
The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery
Service
Ass
et v
alue
cha
nge
An integration of formerly unrelated partsTracking change over time to identify strengths & opportunities
1. Stewardship falls2. Failures increase3. Customer satisfaction
decreases4. Increases operational
demand5. Capital investment driven by
customers. Space wins over systems.
6. Backlog increases
1. Increase Stewardship2. Limit failures3. Increased customer
satisfaction4. Decrease operational
demand5. Increased PM6. Reduce backlog
Campus profile
> Type: Private, comprehensive university> Founded: 1906> Located in: Abilene, TX> Enrollment: 4,600 undergrad/800 grad> Size: 1,966,315 GSF> Mission: To educate students for Christian
service and leadership throughout the world> 21st-Century Vision: To become the premier
university for the education of Christ-centered, global leaders
Challenges
> Change in Leadership> New President – 2010
> New Senior Leadership Team
> More data driven
> Historical Data Spotty
> Master Planning Process
> Deferred Maintenance/Backlog/Capital Renewal/ Broken Stuff/Honey Do List
> New Facilities Leadership
Tech rating impacts:• Energy Consumption• Maintenance Staffing• Replacement Values• Stewardship Targets• Operational Demand
Determining Peers
Density Factor Impacts:• Churn on Campus• Drives Custodial• Maintenance Demand
Private, small town or near mid size city, 1-2.5M GSF
12% 13%
25% 26%
45% 45%
18% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ACU FY12 Peers
% o
f Tot
al C
ampu
s G
SF
Campus Age by Category
Under 10 10-25 25-50 Over 50
Campus age profile – Impacts investment profile63% of space is considered in high risk for life cycle failures
Buildings Under 10Little work. “Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal.
Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come due.
Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due.
Failures are possible.Highest risk
High Risk High Risk
How much should we spend?ACU spending well under target
$13.4
$5.2$3.9
$1.1
$5.8
$2.9
$0.1
$0$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9
$10$11$12$13$14$15
3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need(Equilibrium)
Functional Obsolescence(Target)
FY12 Actual Spending
$ in
Mill
ions
Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program
FY12 Stewardship TargetsReplacement Value = $448M
Life Cycle need is discounted to account for programmatic shifts and the churn of space
Industry Standard Sightlines RecommendationsSightlines Recommendations ACU Actual Spent
Gap Widening = Backlog is increasing
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mill
ions
Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target
Env/Mech Space/Program
$2.3M$3.7M $4.6M
$4.9M $5.7M
Total 5 year deferral = $21.2M
Backlog grew40% to $147.6M
between FY08 and FY13
Capital Spending vs. Peers
$3.38Peers
5Y avg.
$1.25ACU
5Y avg.
Both ACU & peers are spending less on total projects
-70%
-44%
Capital Spending by Package = Adding credibility
34%
13%27%
22%
4%
ACU Spending FY12
FY12 $/GSF Investment$0.82
11%
24%
12%
45%
8%
Peers 5Y Spending Average
Average $/GSF Investment$3.42
31%
24%10%
33%
2%
ACU 5Y Spending Average
Average $/GSF Investment$1.25
74%
Facilities Operating Budget = Comparing ResourcesDaily service lags, planned maintenance is on par with peers
Off the Chart Maintenance CoverageFacilities staff delivers superior results with fewer resources
Peer: $0.18
DB: $0.21
Institutions ordered by technical complexity
ACU: 211,158
ACU: $0.19
Peer: 105,072
DB: 90,040
Peer: 16.5
DB: 11.2
ACU: 20.2
Inspection Score 1-5
ACU: 3.9/5.0
Campus Peers: 3.8/5.0
Distribution of Coverage
DB: 90,040 Small private institutions: 90,209 ACU: 211,158
Intuition to FactData helped support our intuitions
> Having a 3rd party collect, quantify, verify, and qualify data validated the feeling and added credibility to the facilities staff
> We learned what data is important to measure & monitor
> Data presented to the senior budget staff
> Increased credibility in facilities.
> And…. $7 Million additional in Capital Renewal and funding for FCA
Campus profile
> Type: Public, Residential, Comprehensive University
> Founded: 1905> Located in: Kearney, NE> Enrollment: 5,442 undergrad/1658 grad> Size: 1,966,315 GSF> Vision: The University of Nebraska at
Kearney will achieve national distinction for a high quality, multidimensional learning environment, engagement with community and public interests, and preparation of students to lead responsible and productive lives in a democratic, multicultural society.
Key to such improvement will be: clear focus on mission imperatives, fidelity to historic core values, and continuous and rigorous self-appraisal or assessment of outcomes.
Yesterday….. Questions being asked
Issues• Lots of data, limited information.• Non-validated data• How do we use it?• Are we on track?• Is our data fact or fiction
Desires• Needed clean data• Validation to separate fact from
fiction.• Tools to change the discussion on
campus.
Physical Profile
Age profile for UNKUNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average
16%
27% 26%
31%
19%
23%
32%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 - 10 10-25 25-50 50+
% o
f GSF
Renovation Age of UNK’s Campus
UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond
17%27%
25%
18%
29%
38%
29%17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
UNK ‐ Composite Peer Average
Campus Age Profile vs. Peers
Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years
1.1M GSF 874K GSFSize:Renovation Age: 37.1 years old 34.9 years old
Age profile for UNKUNK’s age profile is well distributed; Revenue Bond space is younger on average
65%
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
UNK ‐ Composite Peer Average
Campus Age Profile vs. Peers
Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years
High Risk
Moderate Risk
Low Risk
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
$/GSF
<10 Years 10 – 25 Years 25-50 Years
% of C
ampus G
SFCampus’ detailed age distributionYoung space on campus will soon be aging into a more demanding age range
Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age)
* Life cycle costs based on the average tech 3 academic space.17% 25% 29%
Amortization
State AidedRevenue Bond
Over 50 Years29%
Capital Investments
Total capital spendingTotal FY12 spending was $1.9M
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Millions
Total Capital Spending
State Aided Revenue Bond Non‐Facilities/New Space
$10,580,036 $17,821,668 $29,899,331 $6,695,813 $3,349,940 $1,913,315
Avg: $11.7M
Annual stewardship investment vs. targetState Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
$10.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mill
ions
Sustaining NAV
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Space/Program
Sustaining NAV Target Need
Equilibrium Need
Annual Stewardship Funding vs. Target
State Aided Revenue Bond
Envelope/Mechanical
Total project spending by funding sourceState Aided performance vs. Revenue Bond
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
$7.0
$8.0
$9.0
$10.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mill
ions
Sustaining NAV
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Sustaining NAV Target Need
Equilibrium Need
Total Funding vs. Annual Stewardship TargetState Aided Revenue Bond
Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
07 08 09 10 11 12
Total funding vs. target compared to peersPeers have funded consistently more than UNK over the last six years
Recurring capital Planned maintenance One-time capital
% o
f Tar
get
Peer Average
Avg: 133%
UNK – Composite
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
07 08 09 10 11 12
Avg: 53%
Decreasing Net Asset Value
Sustaining or Increasing Net Asset Value
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80
$2.00
Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code
$/G
SF$/GSF by type of project
FY07-FY12 Avg.
UNK - Composite Peer Average
Project spending by type Revenue bond has invested a lot into safety, while state aided is more balanced
Asset Reinvestment BacklogFailing to reach target spending recently has caused backlog to grow rapidly
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
Peers UNK - State Aided UNK - Revenue Bond
$/G
SF
Total Backlog ($/GSF)
07 070712 1212
Operations Overview
Facilities operating budget compared to peers
Energy consumption remains above peer averageLower unit costs than peers avoided over $550,000 in energy costs in FY12
Stationary FuelElectricity
Maintenance operationsSpace is harder to maintain at a high level due to low capital investment
Institutions ordered by technical complexity
Peer: 78,864 DB: 86,312 Peer: 14.2 DB: 11.9
Peer: $0.16 DB: $0.17
Inspection Scores:
0 1 2 3 4 5
General Repair
Envelope 3.4
3.7
3.9
4.0
UNK Peers
Custodial operationsCustodians have less personnel but more materials resources to keep campus clean
Peer: 34,088 DB: 36,339 Peer: 20 DB: 22.1
Peer: $0.11 DB: $0.11
Institutions ordered by density factor
Inspection Scores:
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness 3.9 4.4
UNK Peers
Grounds operationsGrounds department is utilizing less resources than peers
Peer: 25.5DB: 21.2 Peer: 12.3DB: 7.8
Peer: $311DB: $588Institutions ordered by grounds intensity
Inspection Scores:
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grounds 3.7 4.0
UNK Peers
UNK Actions Taken and Future Strategy
• Reassigned custodial staff to bridge supervision gap• Determined maintenance staffing was appropriate,
leveraging work order system to drive more effective completion and communication
• Defining expectations.• Leveraging our strengths- outsourcing our
weaknesses. • Focusing on being really good at less things.• Providing VP with tools to increase administrative
engagement and to make the case for additional funding
New Mexico State University
42
> Type: Public, Land Grant, Extensive Doctoral/Research University
> Founded: 1888> Located in: Las Cruces, NM> Enrollment: 17,651> Size: 5,619,456 GSF> One of only two universities in the nation
to reach the platinum (highest) level of service to NASA’s Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program.
Good Old Days?
Physical Profile
Campus Age ProfileComposite campus: 4.6M GSF
8%
14%
44%
34%
14%
34%
40%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
< 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50
% o
f Tot
al G
SF
NMSU – CompositeConstruction vs. Renovation Age
Construction Age Renovation Age
65%
Buildings Under 10Little work .“Honeymoon” period.
Low Risk
Buildings 10 to 25Lower cost space renewal updates and
initial signs of program pressures Medium Risk
Buildings 25 to 50Life Cycles are coming due in envelope and mechanical
systems. Functional obsolescence prevalent.Higher Risk
Buildings over 50Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures
are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed.Highest risk
13 yearsTaken off NMSU’s age
due to major renovations
Lifecycle Cost by Age of Space9% approaching period of increased maintenance need, 4% nearing end of lifecycle
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
$/GSFG
SF
Average Life Cycle Costs by Age of Space (Renovation Age)
14% 34% 40% 12%Under 10 Over 5025 to 5010 to 25
4% of space will reach end of
lifecycle within five years9% of space will
age into a higher risk category
within five years
Amortization
Building IntensityComposite Campus Building Intensity is 147
Sutherland Village: 200 buildings Tom Fort Village: 100 buildings
Each building = 712 GSF
Institutions ordered by density.
I&G Housing
More small buildings on campus generally means:
- More components (e.g. systems, roofs) resulting in additional capital needs- More sites to service increases operational demand
Capital Investments
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mill
ions
Annual Stewardship Investment vs. Target
Env/Mech Space/Program
Annual Stewardship - CompositeDeferring an average of $7.9M/year to the backlog
Average deferral: $7.9M/year
Deferred since FY05: $63.5M
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
$35.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mill
ions
Total Capital InvestmentOne-time spending has helped to sustain NAV in I&G space
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Capital InvestmentI&G Housing
Capital Spending vs. PeersProject spending by GSF is less than peers
$4.28Peers
8Y avg.
$2.92NMSU8Y avg.
NMSU spent $1.36/gsf less than peers. Based on composite campus size, this translates into $6.2M
less spent than peers.
Project Mix vs. PeersNMSU focused on space, less on envelope & mechanical needs
8%
24%
30%
31%
7%
I&G Project MixFY08-12
30%
13%
6%
50%
1%
Housing Project MixFY08-12
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
Envelope Systems Infrastructure Space Code
$/G
SF
$/GSF by Project Type5-Year Average (FY08-12)
NMSU 5Y avg. Peers 5Y avg.
Operations Overview
Facilities Operating Budget5Y Daily Service average is $1.87/gsf, below FY12 peer average
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
A B C D NMSUComposite
F G H I J
Facilities Operating Budget
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
Regionally AdjustedRegionally adjusted, NMSU spends closer to peers
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
A B C D NMSUComposite
F G H I J
Facilities Operating Budget – Regionally Adjusted
Daily Service Planned Maintenance Utilities
NMSU original: $3.44NMSU, regionally adjusted: $3.54
Original peer average: $6.10Adjusted peer average: $5.46
Daily Service – Regionally AdjustedResources available to NMSU F&S are still scarce vs. peers
$3.37Peers FY12
$1.92NMSU FY12
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00Daily Service – Regionally Adjusted
Given NMSU’s composite campus of 4.6M GSF, daily service budget is smaller by $6.7 million.
Maintenance StaffingStaffing levels in line with peer average, higher materials per GSF used in FY12
Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating.
0 1 2 3 4 5
General Repair
Envelope
Inspection Scores:
NMSU Peers Database
Custodial StaffingLower supervision level, overall lower cleanliness score
Institutions ordered by ascending density.
Inspection Scores:
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness
NMSU Peers Database
Grounds StaffingSignificantly fewer materials available to staff, lower inspection scores
Institutions ordered by ascending grounds intensity.
Inspection Scores:
0 1 2 3 4 5
Grounds
NMSU Peers Database
Energy ConsumptionReduction in energy use saves NMSU $646k vs. FY11
Saving $646k by consuming less fuel in FY12 vs. FY11
Institutions ordered by ascending tech rating. NMSU composite: 6th of 10.
Future…
Closing Remarks
ROI = The Multiplier Effect of Reinvested SavingsMeasuring the impact of proactive costs vs. reactive
$1 per GSF Invested in Stewardship** …$3 per GSF in Capital Backlog Need
Is equal to
…$2.73 per GSF in Annual Operating Costs*
Is equal to
$1 per GSF Invested in Planned Maintenance
Another investment impact is....
* Analysis developed by Marq Ozanne, Ph.D. of OZANNE Customer Analytics Group** Analysis developed by analyzing the Sightlines facility database of project costs
If you remember, remember this…
• Independent Third Party Verification
• Consistent & Credible Collection Methodology
• Tie Investments to Outcomes
• Track Annual Performance Metrics
• Common Vocabulary
• Single Platform
• Improve Strategic Decision Making
Annual Stewardship
Ass
et
Rei
nves
tmen
t Operating
Effectiveness
Service
…Credibility & Perspective to Drive
Transformational Change
National Trends
66
#1 Space Getting OlderBoth groups have increasing percentage of over 50 year old space
46% 45% 44% 44% 43% 42%34% 34% 33% 32% 31% 29%
14% 15% 15% 16% 17% 18%23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(%) Square Footage over 25 years old(Renovation Age)
25 to 50 Years of Age Over 50 Years of Age
Public Private
#2 Privates recovered from recession faster than publicsBoth private and public campuses commit more annual funding
$1.0 $1.2 $1.3 $1.1 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.8 $2.0
$3.0
$4.0 $4.2
$3.6 $3.7 $3.5 $3.5
$4.0 $4.0
$2.8 $3.0
$3.2
$-
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
$6.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Capital Investment into Existing Space
Annual Capital One-Time Capital
PrivatePublic
#3 Where Capital Dollars are SpentBoth Public and Private Investing More Into Core Building Systems and Components
15%
30%
15%
31%
10%
2007 Public13%
26%
13%
41%
7%2007 Private
Total Project Spending
16%
32%
16%
28%
8%
2012 Public
16%
25%
16%
37%
7%
2012 Private
#4 Publics have high backlog, but slower growthPrivate institutions backlog is less, but growing at a faster rate
$84 $85 $86 $87 $91 $94
$66 $68 $68 $68 $74 $77
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
$120
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/G
SF
Backlog $/GSF
Public Private
#4b Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Inspection ScoresCorrelation between Building Age, Backlog and Campus Appearance
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
0-25 26-39 40+
Campus Appearance
Average of General RepairImpressionAverage of Exterior
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
0-25 26-39 40+
$/G
SF
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Average of Backlog Lump Sum GSFAverage of Backlog Maint/Repair/GSF
(Scale of 1-5)
Backlog of need grows exponentially in older spaces
General repair and exterior appearance decline as
buildings age and backlog of need increases
#5 Public and Private Institutions Have Flat Growth
$4.15 $4.35 $4.45 $4.22 $4.33 $4.41 $4.24 $4.41 $4.44 $4.44 $4.50 $4.51
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$/G
SF
Daily Service
Public Private
Daily Service includes: people, costs and expenses for Maintenance, Custodial, Grounds, & Administration
#5 Increasing Maintenance Coverage
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GSF
/FTE
Maintenance Coverage
Public Private
#5 Increasing Custodial Coverage
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
30,000
32,000
34,000
36,000
38,000
40,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GSF
/FTE
Custodial CoveragePublic Private
76
Questions & Comments
Thomas Huberty(203)682-4981
Glen Haubold(575) 646-2101
Corey Ruff(325) 674-2665
Lee McQueen(308) 865-1700
![[Group3]crap detection](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/559362661a28aba3478b467f/group3crap-detection.jpg)
