Education matters Winter 2014 www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters

www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
Education
matters
Winter 2014
Contents
Foreword1
Case study: Redefining the possible at U of T2
Unlocking potential: Determining the highest3
and best use of your assets
6
In conversation with Steven Gasser, The University of Calgary
Rising deferred maintenance costs: Prioritizing10
now to plan for the future
Contacts
12
Welcome to
Education matters
Education institutions are increasingly under pressure to do more with less and
many have found a way to do this through improved asset management. Hidden
within your assets – be they real estate, land, fleet or physical resources – are
opportunities for people, process and technology improvements that can increase
service delivery while reducing costs. And when those assets represent more than
the second largest expense category for your organization, understanding your real
estate asset lifecycle needs can unlock enormous long term value. In this edition
of Education matters, we explore some of the key issues education institutions are
facing within Real Estate Asset Lifecycle Management (REALM) by looking at what
some of Canada’s leading institutions are doing to address those challenges.
Our first article explores what the University of Toronto is doing to capture
unrealized value in two of their main St. George campus locations. The next article
expands on this theme by looking at some key steps to consider when exploring
ways to get greater value out of your building assets.
In our regular Q&A feature, Todd Rodgers, PwC’s Director of Real Estate Asset
Lifecycle Management had a conversation with Steven Gasser, Associate VicePresident of Facilities Management at the University of Calgary to share how
they’re addressing their real estate asset challenges. Through an upgrade of their
Total Infrastructure Facilities Management system (TIFM), they’ve found ways to
improve service delivery, reduce costs and meet their sustainability goals.
In the final article and video that you can access through our digital edition, Chris
Campbell, a manager in our Consulting and Deals practice focused on REALM,
discusses how education institutions can address their deferred maintenance costs
by prioritizing projects and planning for the future.
While we’ve focused this edition on REALM for Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs), the same leading practices can be applied at the primary and secondary
school level. Many school boards have significant asset holdings, which can create
value and revenue generation options as well.
Facilities management doesn’t have to be viewed as an expense. In this series of
articles and case studies, we’re showcasing how leading education institutions are
using their assets as a strategic opportunity for change and revenue generation.
We’re passionate about helping education institutions address their asset
management challenges, so please feel free to contact a member of our team to
talk about how we can work together.
Sincerely,
Domenic Belmonte
Partner, PwC, National Education Lead
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
1
Case study:
Redefining the
possible at U of T
The backdrop
With 82,000 students per year and three campuses to manage, the
University Operations group at the University of Toronto (U of T)
needs to act like a small city when it comes to capital planning and
facilities management. As the operations management arm of one
of Canada’s oldest universities – the group also has the challenge of
keeping facilities on par with the university’s global reputation as
a leader in post-secondary education and research while operating
under tight fiscal constraints.
Capturing unrealized value
U of T’s main St. George campus is
located in the heart of downtown
Toronto. Following the development of a
campus master plan, U of T’s University
Operations group identified two aging
buildings on the campus that no longer
met the needs of the university from
either a teaching or administration
perspective. Given the central location
of these buildings, there was little doubt
the university could drive more value
from the two sites; the real question was,
“How?”.
Evaluating the possible value of the
two buildings took investigation – from
analyzing development and zoning trends
in the neighbourhood to evaluating
nearby condo and commercial property
transactions. Current trends provided
a window into the existing market in
the area, while zoning history provided
boundaries for potential redevelopment.
Together, this investigation gave the
university a clear picture of the highest
and best use of the two properties – and
the significant gap between the buildings’
existing and possible future values.
Are your facilities providing
highest and best use value
to your organization?
In fact, the evaluation suggested that the
two sites provided only 40% site coverage
compared to the highest and best use
vision– building a strong business
case for redevelopment to create new
education, administration and student
residential space.
Redeveloping the sites to their highest
and best use value would come with a
hefty price tag. With significant budget
pressures and uncertain government
funding – such investment seemed
prohibitive. So U of T did what it does
best: looked for creative solutions to its
property conundrum.
Rather than seeking direct funding
from the government or from donors,
the university examined the viability of
working with private sector developers
on the sites, and at different models that
could potentially be used to achieve the
university’s strategic vision on a limited
budget and with reduced development
risks. The central location of the
buildings suggested that there would
likely be considerable interest in such
joint development opportunities.
U of T continues to determine how to
go about realizing the additional value
projected by these two sites – but one
lesson it’s already learned: redefining
the value of these aging and under
used buildings could help offset the
investments it needs to make to continue
providing the world-class education and
research it’s known for.
To continue the conversation, contact:
Ron Bidulka
Managing Director, Consulting
[email protected]
416 687 8138
2
Education matters: Winter 2014
Unlocking potential:
Determining the highest
and best use of your assets
Space on many
campuses is at a
premium – and it often
takes years, if not
decades, of planning
to get new space
developed.
There’s no doubt universities and colleges
in Canada are facing increasing budget
pressures. With global competition for
students growing and funding from
governments decreasing or uncertain,
most education institutions are trying to
find ways to generate the revenue needed
to fund their strategic and operational
initiatives.
For many, this means exploring ways
to build or expand joint partnerships
and to attract more money from
individual donors. The problem is
that with every institution in the same
boat, the competition for dollars is only
getting higher – making a unique value
proposition critical for attracting funds.
Flashy, large-scale projects may be able
to attract funding but few donors are
interested in supporting day-to-day
maintenance and renovation efforts.
Same old, same old just isn’t going to
work when it comes to raising money
given the current operating environment
for post-secondary education.
Universities and colleges need to think
creatively about where value can come
from – starting with their own backyard.
It’s highly likely that schools could find
significant value hiding within their
existing assets.
But how can asset value be hidden?
Simple. Given many colleges and
universities are half-a-century or more
old – it’s likely that some aging assets
have either outlived their usefulness or
are providing less than their potential
value to the institution. Value in this case
refers to density – the amount of space
that’s currently utilized by an asset on a
specific property versus the amount of
space that could be used by the asset.
Also important is what the space is being
used for, because depending on where
the property is located, different uses
of space could drive more value and
possible revenue than others.
This is most likely the case for older
assets located in large to mid-sized cities
where zoning by-laws change regularly
and institutions that may have built on
a small scale have the ability to build
upwards. Even in less-urban areas,
facility assets may not be realizing their
best value. New or planned commercial
developments, sports facilities and
transportation options in a particular
region can create pockets of opportunity
for institutions, no matter where they’re
located. The key is identifying those
opportunities and knowing when
to strike to take advantage of any
development potential.
But universities and colleges are in the
business of education and research – not
real estate development. So how can you
make sure your organization is capturing
the full value of your assets?
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
3
Know where you’re going
Looking at the value of your assets starts
with understanding where you want to
be. For leading institutions, this involves
developing a campus master plan that
sets out where the school wants to be
in ten or twenty years, how student
enrollment will change, what facilities
will need to be renovated or developed
and how the campus will expand if
needed. In cases where institutions have
undeveloped properties, the plan may set
out how these will be developed. In other
cases, the plan might outline where and
how new properties will be purchased
for academic, administrative or student
residential use.
If your school doesn’t have a campus
master plan – you should make it a
priority to develop one. A campus
master plan lets you set out your growth
expectations so that you can maximize
the timing of any capital investments you
need to make to achieve your strategic
objectives.
A critical part of this plan would
involve projecting growth and space
requirements specifically from a facilities
perspective. Space on many campuses is
at a premium – and it often takes years,
if not decades, of planning to get new
space developed. Knowing what space
may be required gives you an opportunity
to create higher value assets – either
through changes to your existing asset
base or through net new builds or
purchases.
4
Education matters: Winter 2014
Know your assets – and what you
don’t or won’t need
Once you know where you want to be
in the future and how you expect to
evolve and grow to get there, you should
be able to determine what facilities
aren’t meeting your current needs – or
project when facilities might outlive
their usefulness. It’s these older and
potentially redundant buildings that
should be the focus of any valuation
work.
Determine the highest and best
use of surplus or redundant
properties
One of your biggest challenges might be
determining what the best use and value
of your older or redundant assets might
be. While you may expect properties to
hold value based on location, there are
numerous factors that might positively or
negatively affect asset value (e.g. zoning,
transportation, nearby commercial
and residential developments). In
development, timing is often one of the
most misunderstood aspects of creating
value.
Few universities or colleges maintain the
internal expertise necessary to conduct
robust real estate valuation analysis or to
structure joint ventures or public-private
partnerships on specific initiatives. This
is where hiring a third-party advisor
with significant real estate advisory
experience can help. Subject matter
specialists understand how to determine
best use and value of properties and can
help you identify possible options for
your assets – and the costs associated
with each option. An advisor can also
help you determine the best time for
you to develop the property in order to
maximize value to your institution.
Depending on the options identified, a
third-party advisor can also work with
you to help finance the development.
Given the cash constraints of many
universities and colleges, this could
include working with you to determine
whether developers might be interested
in your proposed development projects
– and what deal structure or structures
would best suit such an arrangement.
Create a strategy to realize the
true value
Once you understand the highest and
best use of your surplus or redundant
properties, you should create a
development strategy outlining how you’ll
move forward with realizing the value
hidden in your assets. This plan should be
fully aligned with your strategic objective
and your campus master plan.
Like with any strategic
project, successful
implementation is
essential in order to
capture the potential
value identified.
One key element of the development
strategy will be managing it through to
completion. Depending on the maturity
of your facilities management team, this
might mean identifying an internal lead
to act as the project manager throughout
implementation and to facilitate any
activities related to the strategy. If you don’t
have the expertise in-house to manage
implementation of the strategy, you should
consider hiring such expertise. A strong
development and construction focused
project manager can help ensure that
activities stay on track and can work with
all stakeholders to make modifications to
the development plan should the need
arise.
Depending on the number and scale of
your potential projects, you may only need
to contract support for a short-period
of time rather than hiring a full-time
individual with this type of specialized
expertise.
Go for it
Once you’ve done all your homework,
it’s time to get the project done. Like
with any strategic project, successful
implementation is essential in order to
capture the potential value identified. To
help with implementation, understand
how progress will be monitored, measured
and reported on within your institution.
It should be the project manager’s role to
keep the proper stakeholders informed
over the course of the project and to raise
any issues that occur on an as needed
basis.
Final thoughts
Whether you’re a university, a college, or
another education institution, knowing
what assets you have and whether
they are fit-to-purpose or achieving
their highest or best value should be
an important component of your asset
management planning and development
process.
Evaluating older, outdated and
redundant buildings for hidden value
could help you generate the additional
revenue you need to provide world-class
educational and administrative facilities
for your students, faculty and staff.
To continue the conversation, contact:
Ron Bidulka
Managing Director, Consulting
[email protected]
416 687 8138
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
5
In conversation with Steven Gasser –
the University of Calgary
One example of how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are
addressing the challenges of managing their real estate assets is
at the University of Calgary. PwC’s Todd Rodgers, Director of Real
Estate and Asset Lifecycle Management, had a conversation with
Steven Gasser, Associate Vice-President of Facilities Management
at the University of Calgary about some of their challenges and
opportunities. Here’s an edited version of that conversation.
University of Calgary
by the numbers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6
Education matters: Winter 2014
Founded in 1966
31,800 students
4,800 staff and faculty members
152,000 alumni in 151 countries
14 faculties
200+ academic programs
85+ research institutes and
centres
$282.8M in research income
71 Canada Research Chairs
Third largest post-secondary
footprint in Canada
10.2M sq. ft. of space in 140
buildings across eight sites
Deferred maintenance backlog
(5 year): $ 538M
Facilities Management and
Development role
at the University of Calgary:
Facilities Management and Development
is responsible for creating, maintaining
and renewing the buildings and spaces
that enable the research, teaching and
administrative activities of the University
of Calgary (UofC).
With over 947,000 sq. m. [10.2 million
sq. ft.] of land and 140 buildings spread
across eight sites, strategic planning is
essential for the careful alignment of
resources for all areas the university
owns and operates. Bringing together
the skills of architects, engineers,
project managers and trades, Facilities
Management and Development provides
quality environments in support of the
overall goals and objectives of the UofC.
Knowing what space may be required
gives you an opportunity to create
higher value assets.
Q.
Q.
With our campus planning team, we’ve
been analyzing the space we have today
and what we’ll need in the future. We’re
now uploading that data into our Total
Infrastructure Facilities Management
system (TIFM). From there, we’ll build
out scenarios to determine the best
use for our facilities now and into the
next planning cycle. We have to be
able to create more flexible learning
environments, so that when you’re
looking at the next five year planning
cycle, we can adjust our spaces more
effectively.
In 2009, we were facing budget
challenges just like we are today.
However, we were also undergoing an
administrative review to become more
cost effective. One of the opportunities
identified and approved by the Executive
Leadership Team was to undergo a
transformation of the ARCHIBUS TIFM
System. Their expectation is that the
establishment of robust, scalable and
repeatable processes and data, best
practices, methodologies, standards,
metrics and benchmarks for facilities and
physical infrastructure management will
provide opportunities for:
What challenges do higher
education institutions face
in managing their real estate
assets today?
It’s really difficult with old buildings
to be able to move quickly and adeptly
with increasing student and research
demands. Trying to balance that with
the replacement of buildings that have
reached the end of their lifecycle is also a
real challenge.
With tighter budgets,
why did you decide to go
ahead with your TIFM ARCHIBUS
implementation project now?
• financial discipline
• Total Cost of Ownership in assessing
facilities’ value
• understanding our value to our
customers
That’s why we took on this
transformative project. Process
improvements would allow us to costrecover some of the impacts of these
reductions. However, if you don’t have
the data, how do you get better at what
you’re doing?
Having been involved in selecting a
TIFM system in the past, I knew that
ARCHIBUS was a top quadrant facilities
software platform. Our staff had been
working with ARCHIBUS in previous
versions since 1998. They understood
it and relied on it, so we didn’t want to
change what was familiar to them.
Through an analysis of modules that
would help our business develop and
improve most dramatically, we selected
a three-phased program. The first phase
concentrated on developing the models
to help our business get the most rapid
response and the shortest ROI. What
we got out of it were documented,
updateable, end-to-end processes that
have been kept ‘evergreen’ since.
• assessing and enhancing the Return
on Investment (ROI) of facilities assets
through higher utilization, especially
when combined with continuous
improvement
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
7
Q.
What benefits have you seen
since this implementation?
We’re able to track external work by
contractors and make comparisons
with their work, time, labour and cost,
compared to our own staff. We’ve
aligned ourselves with the Asset Lifecycle
Model for the Total Cost of Ownership.
Our target operating model comes
from the Association of Physical Plant
Administrators (APPA), which does a
great job of describing the process of
managing building and physical assets
through their lifecycle.
By leaning out our processes, we have
significantly improved performance-decreasing our total time on task from
an average of 70 days to 17 days. By
eliminating paper though the use of
web and mobile based technology,
we removed the delay in movement
of paper from one desk to another,
reduced the administrative work to
close files and greatly decreased the
lag in the interdepartmental billings
or chargebacks. We’ve made a direct
connection and alignment with our
Service Level Agreement (SLA) and the
Service Desk Application in ARCHIBUS.
As a result, we’ve created greater
transparency with our customers. They
get full access to their work requests.
They receive an email notification at the
beginning and the end of the request,
but can also log on and see their work
request while it’s in their queue.
Through this project we have also
provided paperless tracking to our
technicians. We’ve created an application
on their smartphones, so they can enter
their time, cross reference notes and
complete the work request while they’re
responding on the job. Technicians
can create sub-work requests for other
craftspeople electronically—eliminating
hand-offs on desks. In the first four
months using our electronic time-slip
quick entry workflow, we saved six reams
of paper. This is a clear business process
improvement, reduction in cost and
ecological footprint, all while meeting
our business and sustainability goals.
It’s a pure triple bottom line example of
efficiency—right at the technician and
administrative level. Eliminating the
paperwork for the task and work request
has reduced our average time on task
from 70 days to 17 days.
Asset Lifecycle Model
Programming
Project Management
Utilization
Space
Management
Space planning
Replacements
Capital
Asset
Management
Improvements
Retrofits/Upgrades
8
Education matters: Winter 2014
Project
Delivery
Management
Operations
Management
Design
Construction
Operations
Planned maintenance
User requested needs
Repairs
Q.
Taking a look across
Canada, Facilities
Management is generally
considered too costly or too slow
to respond to issues. How has this
project impacted the reputation
of Facilities Management?
When I started five years ago, there was a
lot of disagreement about responsibility
– who pays for what, and who has which
responsibilities. We went through a
process to develop a SLA with support
from the Dean’s council. With the SLA up
on our website, clients can read it at their
leisure. Most of our work requests will
get routed to specific technicians and the
billing will be deducted by account codes.
We’re now working hard administratively
to get a connection between our TIFM
and enterprise reporting system for the
actual costs attached to work requests.
Data would be updated every night to
ensure our work requests and activities
are increasingly transparent with up-todate prices available to clients, finance
and service teams. This is helping us
build trust with our customers and our
finance people.
It’s increased our transparency. With a
reference number, customers can follow
their work request for all projects by
status in the end-to-end process. This
has improved our image on campus
significantly. With departmental and
faculty representatives and the ability
to monitor requests online, clients don’t
have to phone the facility manager.
Teaching them how to use this software
has eliminated a lot of back and forth
communication.
It’s increased our transparency. With a reference
number, customers can follow their work request for
all projects by status in the end-to-end process. This
has improved our image on campus significantly.
Q.
How have you been able
to incorporate the voice
of the customer into your
implementation?
We completed customer surveys at
the end of the fiscal year and we’re
now developing a work request-based
customer satisfaction survey. Using
the Net Promoter Score system, each
completed work request will require a
rating of one to 10 and have a comment
box. A score of nine to 10 is successful.
Seven to eight is good, but a review of
the process will be conducted. A score of
six and below will result in a corrective
action report to complete a root-cause
analysis. A standard operating procedure
will allow us to improve on every work
request and create a dashboard for
managers to see how they’re regularly
scoring. This will really start improving
customer service in the maintenance and
operations area.
Q.
As demands continue
to climb, education
institutions are cutting costs and
finding efficiencies—especially
for facilities management. In
most institutions, facilities
management is the largest
operating budget. What do you
think the future looks like and
how should senior leaders adapt?
One of the major areas of opportunity
is in space utilization. We need to get
the province and administration to
understand and deliver on the master
plans so that everyone recognizes
the common goal of how we use the
buildings. If we can align demands for
the future with our energy performance
initiatives and our refurbishment
initiatives, we can put our best
investment foot forward. This is where
the big dollars are—if you don’t have
a good idea about the utilization and
faculties plan you won’t be in alignment
and you’ll spend your money in the
wrong places.
To move forward on goals, executives will
need KPIs to show them where they’re
making improvements, benchmarking
and monitoring what’s happening
across the organization. They need
dashboards at the executive, manager
and supervisor levels. Also, the financial
and asset management systems must be
connected– for increased transparency at
the executive level and alignment with
the CFO. Your strongest ally is the CFO
and this is a key strategy. With their trust
in your ability to use money wisely and
put aligned programs together, they’ll
be able to help you move very large
initiatives forward.
All of this is connected to global
sustainability. At any level, we need to be
unified in our support for sustainability
initiatives. We must use our money
wisely, reduce our impact on the
environment and continue to produce
future leaders. Putting all of this together
is a large task—it can all be done if you
have the right business processes in
place, the right architecture behind you
and a platform to use as a tool.
To continue the conversation, contact:
Todd Rodgers
Director, Consulting
[email protected]
403 509 7309
ARCHIBUS provides this data, which
allows us to consistently be on top of
who’s moving where. Though it takes
a lot of work up front, people can start
doing ‘what-if’ scenario planning for
the next five year period—saving a lot
of money moving forward. This is a
big win if it’s in alignment with energy
performance initiatives—of course, going
back to the triple bottom line.
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
9
Rising deferred
maintenance costs:
Prioritizing now to plan
for the future
Dramatic growth in education enrolment and the demand to
meet that growth has been a challenge for Canadian education
institutions for more than half a century.
Between 1955 and 1974, new postsecondary institutions opened at a rate
of one every two weeks and at about
the same time, total post-secondary
enrolment increased more than sixfold.
The demand continues to grow today
as the Association of Universities and
Colleges of Canada (AUCC) projects
enrolment to increase by 125,000
students or 14% by 2020.
While this is a testament to the value
Canadians place on higher education
– it leaves a major challenge for cashstrapped colleges and universities. With
lower funding levels and increasing
student, faculty and research demands,
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
have had to defer facilities maintenance
costs year-over-year. And while the
construction of new, more modern
facilities continues, reinvestment in aging
facilities hasn’t kept pace.
10
Education matters: Winter 2014
The issues
The average age of most Ontario university
facilities is over 30 years. Critical
elements like heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems, which are costly
to renew or replace are deteriorating
in condition. The associated deferred
maintenance costs (or the expenditures
for operations and maintenance that can’t
be conducted within the current year)
continue to climb. They may present
health and safety risks and can impact an
institution’s ability to compete and attract
faculty and students. As the delivery of
education continues to change, there’s a
limit to what can be done to modernize
many of Canada’s oldest academic
facilities. With an estimated $3.6B required
to eliminate these costs across Canada,
making informed and future-looking
decisions about maintenance projects
will have a significant impact on your
institution’s bottom line.
Where do you start?
The first step to prioritize your capital
dollars is to understand your current
state. What makes up your deferred
maintenance costs? Can you easily identify
which projects to defer when there are
funding constraints? What’s the current
space utilization and allocation across
the campus and what opportunities
are there for improvement? To take
this first step, you need to have a true
understanding of the baseline of current
costs and the condition of your facilities
before you can evaluate improvement
opportunities. To mitigate risk, reduce
costs and accommodate growth, having the
appropriate facilities data and information
to support your strategic campus plans is
critical.
Do you have accurate data?
A systemic problem for HEIs is in defining
the current state of their facilities and
using that information to justify investment
decisions. A contributing factor is the
quality of the underlying data. Many
campuses collect data in different formats,
or the data is fragmented between
departments. Having a true, holistic view
of accurate data is key to prioritizing where
capital needs to be invested now and into
the future.
In order to have a complete
understanding of facility
lifecycle costs across the
campus, you need to have
the right technology and
processes in place to help
you achieve your goals.
Processes and technology
improvements
Once you have accurate and trustworthy
data, you can start to determine what
projects can be prioritized or deferred into
future years’ budgets. Business processes
and an integrated technology platform
need to be put in place to help you make
these informed decisions. Do you have
the right technology in place so that your
facilities management systems can capture
and report on the right information? In
order to have a complete understanding of
facility lifecycle costs across the campus,
you need to have the right technology and
processes in place to help you achieve your
goals.
Expertise
It comes down to prioritization
Education institutions are just as resource
constrained as they are financially
constrained. Bringing in an experienced
advisor with cross-functional knowledge in
all aspects of the facilities lifecycle can help
you prioritize your deferred maintenance
expenditures, identify opportunities for
improved space utilization, and implement
the right technology to support facilities
management business processes.
These beautiful, historic, heritage sites are
not only difficult to maintain, but difficult
to change as the delivery of education
evolves. But there are steps that can be
taken to address these challenges and
ensure stakeholders’ expectations are
met. Getting the right people involved,
implementing the right technology and
capturing the right data will help ensure
the most important projects are addressed
now, to help you plan accurately for the
future.
To continue the conversation, contact:
Chris Campbell
Manager, Consulting
[email protected]
416 268 7642
What is driving the need for REALM in the education sector
Trend
Driver
Rising backlog of deferred maintenance costs
Capital funding increases must be justified to adapt existing
infrastructure to current demand as well as future enrolment growth
Aging infrastructure / deteriorating condition
The average age of Ontario university buildings is over 30 years,
with a Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating of 0.10 (poor condition)
The ration of generated space vs.
inventory continues to decline
Existing university space inventory has not kept pace
with enrolment or COU requirements.
Multiple stakeholders managing disparate asset systems
Homegrown systems and disparate data models lead to challenging
reporting processes and a lack of standards
Increasing financial constraints
Need to do more with less
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
11
Who to call
Domenic Belmonte
Partner, National Education Lead
416 687 8660
[email protected]
British Columbia
Mike Harris
Partner, Consulting
604 806 7711
[email protected]
Winky Whelan
Managing Director, Consulting
604 806 7832
[email protected]
Alberta
Jean McClellan
Partner, Consulting
403 509 7578
[email protected]
Manitoba and Saskatchewan
Kevin Berry
Director, Consulting
204 926 2439
[email protected]
12
Education matters: Winter 2014
Ontario
Maurice Chang
Director, Consulting
416 941 8435
[email protected]
Bruce Webster
Partner, Consulting
416 815 5250
[email protected]
Dale S. Zorgdrager
Partner, Assurance
519 640 8008
[email protected]
Quebec
Sebastien Bellemare
Partner, Assurance
514 205 5311
[email protected]
Sebastien Doyon
Partner, Consulting
514 205 5382
[email protected]
Atlantic
Craig MacDonald
Director, Consulting
902 491 7418
[email protected]
Editorial committee
Domenic Belmonte
Maurice Chang
Sebastien Doyon
Craig MacDonald
Mike Harris
www.pwc.com/ca/educationmatters
© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the Canadian member firm, and may
sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. 3399-20-0314