Nominations and applications are now being taken for APPA’s 2019 institutional and individual awards: Award for Excellence, Sustainability Award, Effective and Innovative Practices Award, APPA Fellow, Meritorious Service Award, and Pacesetter Award. The deadline for consideration for the 2019 awards is November 30, 2018. Awards nominations submitted after November 30, 2018 will be held and considered in the 2020 award cycle.
Please use the navigation below to scroll through pages
The APPA Award for Excellence is designed to recognize and advance excellence in the field of educational facilities. Originally established in 1988, the Award for Excellence is APPA's highest institutional honor and provides educational institutions the opportunity for national and international recognition for their outstanding achievements in facilities management. The award is designed to highlight the essential role of facilities operations in the overall institutional mission and vision. Award for Excellence nominations are evaluated using the same criteria applied through the Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP) in the areas of: leadership; strategic and operational planning; customer focus; information and analysis; development and management of human resources; process management; and, performance results. Nominated institutions also submit to a site review conducted by an awards evaluation team, when appropriate. The Award for Excellence designation is valid for a period of five years.
Nominations are now being taken for APPA's 2018 institutional and individual awards: Award for Excellence, Sustainability Award, Effective and Innovative Practices Award, APPA Fellow, Meritorious Service Award, and Pacesetter Award. The deadline for consideration for the 2019 awards is November 30, 2018. Awards nominations submitted after November 30, 2018 will be held and considered in the 2020 award cycle.
The Award for Excellence is open to any APPA Institutional member. Multi-campus or state systems may submit applications for system-wide or individual operations.
Institutions that wish to be considered for the Award for Excellence must submit application materials to APPA no later than November 30, 2018.
Final evaluation regarding the Award will be made some time in April/May and will be submitted for approval to APPA's Board of Directors. Award recipients will be recognized at APPA's annual conference banquet in August of the same year. Other AFE recognition actions will be included to provide additional exposure for the award recipient, including the request for each winning institution to provide the committee with a NO MORE than three (3) minute digitized video on your institution.
The criteria have been designed to provide a systems perspective for facilities management. Successful management of the overall facilities enterprise requires synthesis and alignment of the organization's various components. Successful award applicants will be those who demonstrate the ability to look at the organization as a whole, focus on what is important to the enterprise, and concentrate on key linkages with the goal of improving overall performance and satisfying customers.
When addressing the criteria, applicants should stress results, creating value, satisfying customer needs, and identifying key linkages. More specific points related to each of the seven criteria are given in the table further below in this document or are available for download.
Section | Topic | Points |
Section 1.0 | LEADERSHIP The facilities organization's senior leaders should set direction and establish customer focus, clear and visible values, and high expectations in line with Campus mission, vision, and core values. Leaders inspire the people in the organization and create an environment that stimulates personal growth. They encourage involvement, development and learning, innovation and creativity. |
150 points |
Section 1.1 | Leadership roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. | |
Section 1.2 | The leadership system is understood by and communicated among all levels. The leadership system includes mechanisms for the leaders to conduct self-examination, receive feedback, and make improvements. | |
Section 1.3 | The organization has clearly aligned its mission, vision, and values statements with those of the Campus. Regularly communicates with employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. | |
Section 1.4 | Facilities management leaders spend time on a regular basis with their customers and front-line staff. | |
Section 1.5 | Performance measures at each level of the organization are clearly defined. | |
Section 1.6 | Senior leaders establish and reinforce an environment where shared values support self-direction, innovation, and decentralized decisionmaking. | |
Section 1.7 | Informed of current trends and practices in the industry. | |
Section 1.8 | A succession plan is in place to ensure continuity of leadership. | |
Section 2.0 | STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL PLANNING Strategic and operational planning consists of the planning process, the identification of goals and actions necessary to achieve success, and the deployment of those actions to align the work of the organization. The facilities organization should anticpate many factors in its strategic planning efforts: changing customer expectations, business and partnering opportunities, technological developments, evolving regulatory requirements, and societal expectations, to name but a few. |
150 points |
Section 2.1 | A strategic plan exists that includes the goals and objectives of the department. | |
Section 2.2 | The strategic plan was developed with participation from internal and external stakeholders, approved by the administration, and effectively communicated. | |
Section 2.3 | Customer needs and expectations serve as major drivers for setting strategic direction. | |
Section 2.4 | Goals and key performance measures are understood by all and periodically reviewed. | |
Section 2.5 | Performance measures at each level of the organization are used to meet goals. | |
Section 2.6 | A budget is developed with input from staff that reflects historic expenditures, an analysis of needs, effective allocation of available resources to support the organization's goals and objectives, and seeks new and innovative measures to leverage resources. | |
Section 2.7 | Standards have been defined for overall operational performance, built environment, and landscape. | |
Section 2.8 | A campus master plan in place, current and utilized for decision making. | |
Section 2.9 | The operational units participate in the development of the construction program and are active participants in the acceptance of completed projects. | |
Section 2.10 | Strategies and processes are in place to ensure continuity of functions in the event of staff turnover or other disruption. | |
Section 2.11 | Emergency response plans are in place, current, and communicated to facilities employees and the campus community as required. | |
Section 3.0 | CUSTOMER FOCUS Customer satisfaction is a key component of effective facilities management. Various stakeholders (faculty, students, other administrative departments) must feel their needs are heard, understood, and acted upon. Various tools must be in place to assure customer communication, assess and assimilate what is said, and implement procedures to act on expressed needs. |
150 points |
Section 3.1 | Surveys, tools, and other methods are used to identify customer requirements, expectations, and satisfaction levels. | |
Section 3.2 | The roles, responsibilities, and services provided by the facilities department are well defined, communicated, and understood within the department and by all communities served. | |
Section 3.3 | Levels of service are set to exceed customer expectation and are defined in terms that can be understood by the administration, building users, and facilities staff. | |
Section 3.4 | The communities served know how to obtain, monitor progress, and evaluate the services offered. |
|
Section 3.5 | Customer feedback is used to build positive relationships, drive processes, and effect improvements. | |
Section 3.6 | Campus users have a clear understanding and positive view of the services provided by the facilities organization. | |
Section 4.0 | INFORMATION and ANALYSIS Information and analysis is used to evaluate performance and drive future performance improvements. Of interest are the types of tools used (for example, peer comparative data clarified and validated through benchmarking), and how the tools are used to enhance organizational performance. Various aspects of information include facilities inspections/audits, financial/expenditure reports, utility data, and other relevant measures and indicators. |
100 points |
Section 4.1 | A systematic process is in place for identifying and prioritizing performance indicators, comparative information, and benchmarking studies for the most critical areas. | |
Section 4.2 | Benchmarking results, comparisons, and performance indicators are tracked and used to drive action within the organization. | |
Section 4.3 | The department ensures that data and information are communicated and accessible to all appropriate users. The required data and information have all the characteristics users need, such as reliability, accuracy, timeliness, and appropriate levels of security and confidentiality. | |
Section 4.4 | An effective facilities inspection or audit program is in place that provides a regular appraisal of facilities conditions, identifies maintenance and repair needs, and quantifies facilities maintenance resource requirements. | |
Section 4.5 | An expenditure report is available to managers on a regular basis and is used to effectively evaluate and control expenditures in assigned sub-units. | |
Section 4.6 | An effective system of measuring and recording utility data is in place and is used to establish trends, minimize costs, promote energy conservation, and encourage environmental preservation. | |
Section 4.7 | The organization has a process to ensure that hardware and software systems are user-friendly, reliable, up-to-date, and meet the needs of all users. | |
Section 5.0 | DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES An organization's success depends increasingly on the knowledge, skills, innovative creativity, and motivation of its employees and partners. This criterion addresses the ways in which the facilities organization ensures a continuing learning environment through communication, policies, recognition, training, professional development opportunities, and other methods. |
100 points |
Section 5.1 | Staff positions are properly classified and allocated in adequate numbers to meet the standards for the targeted level of service. | |
Section 5.2 |
Training programs provide for new employee orientation and technical skills enhancement for all staff. |
|
Section 5.3 | An effective communication system exists within the department to ensure that each employee knows his or her role in the department, the role of related areas, and the overall role of the department. | |
Section 5.4 | Safety policies and procedures have been established, written, and communicated to all staff. | |
Section 5.5 | Accident records are maintained and used to reduce accidents and identify tasks for special attention. | |
Section 5.6 | The organization promotes employee development and professional development through formal education, training, and on-the-job training such as rotational assignments, internships, or job exchange programs. | |
Section 5.7 | Career development is supported through involvement in job-related and professional organizations, and opportunities to advance within the department. | |
Section 5.8 | Work performance and attendance tracking measures are in place, are understood by staff members, and are used by supervisors to assess performance. | |
Section 5.9 | The organization utilizes both formal and informal assessment methods and measures to determine employee well being, employee satisfaction, and motivation. Assessment findings are linked to performance results to identify priorities for improving the work environment, employee support climate, and the supervisor's effectiveness (coaching). | |
Section 5.10 | Employee recognition programs are in place for individuals and groups ( may include community service). | |
Section 5.11 | Processes are in place to determine the effectiveness of recruitment and retention programs and to identify areas for improvement. | |
Section 6.0 | PROCESS MANAGEMENT Effective process management addresses how the facilities organization manages key product and service design and delivery processes. Process management includes various systems such as work management, performance standards, estimating systems, planning and design of new facilities, recruitment and retention programs, and other key processes that affect facilities functions. |
100 points |
Section 6.1 | Processes are in place to ensure that departmental facilities and equipment are adequate for the provision of effective and efficient services. | |
Section 6.2 | An effective work management system is in place to identify, report , correct, and document substandard conditions and maintenance requirements. | |
Section 6.3 |
Work authorization and scheduling procedures have been established that are consistent with the identified role of each work unit and achieve an equitable distribution of resources. |
|
Section 6.4 |
An effective preventive maintenance (PM) program is in place to provide regular inspection and servicing of facilities equipment to assure maximum service life, reliability, and operation. |
|
Section 6.5 |
An estimating system is used that provides accurate estimates of labor and material requirements in order to plan and schedule the execution of work and to determine the causes of significant deviations between actual costs and estimated costs. |
|
Section 6.6 |
Design guidelines that incorporate such elements as energy consumption, operating costs, environmental concerns, maintainability, sustainability, accessibility, and safety have been prepared, updated and utilized. |
|
Section 6.7 | The delegation of budgetary responsibilities for management of sub-units of the budget is effective in controlling expenditures. | |
Section 7.0 | PERFORMANCE RESULTS The facility organization's performance as it can be assessed through campus appearance, employee satisfaction and motivation, effectiveness of systems operations, customer satisfaction, financial results, and supplier/business partner results. Where feasible, it is helpful to have measurement tools in place to assess performance in these areas. |
250 points |
Section 7.1 | The appearance of the buildings and grounds is in keeping with the surrounding community and the stated image of the institution. | |
Section 7.2 | The condition and cleanliness of facilities are in keeping with the image and standards adopted by the institution as well as activities associated with its mission and programs. | |
Section 7.3 |
Building systems and infrastructure are maintained and operated at a level of reliability that contributes to the successful implementation of the institution's mission and programs. |
|
Section 7.4 | Funding resources are effectively used and are adequate to support a level of facilities maintenance that prevents the deferral of major maintenance and repairs. | |
Section 7.5 |
Staff is highly motivated and productive, taking pride in the accomplishment of their duties. |
|
Section 7.6 | Customer satisfaction measures ensure that the levels of service are consistent with customer needs and requirements and within the facilities department's capability. | |
Section 7.7 | Managers and supervisors stay in touch with the needs of higher education. | |
Section 8.0 | OTHER CONSIDERATIONS At the request of the Institutional Representative this section would include any items or subjects that are not covered by the criteria in Sections 1 through 7. These items may include those things that are specific to the campus. |
Points as appropriate |
A complete award submission consists of the following parts:
1. Completed application form.
2. An introductory abstract of no more than 200 words.
3. Narrative of no more than five pages each for the eight criteria described below or in this downloadable document.
4. A list of supporting materials for each of the eight criteria. This is simply a listing of the documentation that supports statements made in the narrative. DO NOT INCLUDE THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR SUBMISSION. Instead, you should be prepared to make the listed documents available to evaluators during the site visit.
View an excerpt from a sample Award for Excellence submission. A full copy of the sample document can be obtained by contacting your regional representative to the Professional Affairs Committee.
2018
Georgia Institute of Technology
Montclair State University
Pima County Community College District
University of Arizona
2017
Universidad Panamericana Mexico
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
2016
New Mexico State University
The Ohio State University
University of Texas at San Antonio
2014
Philadelphia University
Soka University of America
University of Michigan
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
2013
Texas Tech University
University of Arizona
2012
Harrisburg Area Community College
Pima Community College
University of Colorado Boulder
2011
No Recipients
2010
Arkansas State University
University of Nevada Las Vegas
2009
Philadelphia University -- View the video (32MB) AVI
University of North Florida -- View the video (33MB) AVI
University of West Georgia -- View the video (29MB) AVI
2008
No Recipients
2007
California State University, San Bernardino -- view the video (18MB)
Harrisburg Area Community College -- view the video (20MB)
North Carolina State University -- view the video (19MB)
University of Central Oklahoma -- view the video (28MB)
Utah State University -- view the video (16MB)
2006
Smithsonian Institution
University of Alabama, Birmingham
University of Michigan
2005
University of Florida
2004
Emory University
University of Memphis
2003
Iowa State University
University of Maryland, Baltimore
2002
No Recipients
2001
Texas Tech University
University of Cincinnati (OH)
University of Miami (FL)
2000
Duke University (NC)
University of Southern California
1999
East Carolina University (NC)
Georgia State University
Memorial University of Newfoundland
1998
No Recipients
1997
University of Arkansas
1996
Miami University (OH)
University of Toledo (OH)
1995
Griffith University (Australia)
University of Oklahoma
University of Michigan-Housing Division
1994
James Madison University (VA)
1993
Saint Mary's University (TX)
University of Virginia
University of Michigan Housing Division,
Categories: Campus Condition & Appearance, Energy Conservation Programs
1992
No Recipients
1991
Fayetteville State University (NC), Small Campus International Winner
University of California/Berkeley, Large Campus International Winner
Regional Winners:
Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology (Ontario), Large Campus Category
Northern Arizona University, Large Campus Category
South Mountain Community College (AZ), Small Campus Category
University of North Dakota, Large Campus Category
University of Tulsa (OK), Small Campus Category
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Large Campus Category
1990
United States Military Academy (NY), Small Campus International Winner
Texas Tech University, Large Campus International Winner
Regional Winners:
New Mexico Military Institute, Small Campus Category
Rutgers University (NJ), Large Campus Category
Southern College of Technology (GA), Small Campus Category
University of California/Riverside, Large Campus Category
University of Puget Sound (WA), Small Campus Category
University of Tulsa (OK), Small Campus Category
University of Utah, Large Campus Category
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Large Campus Category
1989
Waukesha County Technical College (WI),Small Campus International Winner
Vanderbilt University (TN), Large Campus International Winner
Regional Winners:
California State University/Sacramento, Large Campus Category
The Colorado College, Small Campus Category
Fitchburg State College (MA), Small Campus Category
Mercer University/Atlanta (GA), Small Campus Category
The Ohio State University, Large Campus Category
Saint Mary's University (TX), Small Campus Category
Texas Tech University, Large Campus Category
University of California/San Francisco, Small Campus Category
University of Colorado, Large Campus Category
University of Vermont, Large Campus Category
1988
Medical College of Georgia, Small Campus International Winner
Brigham Young University (UT), Large Campus International Winner
Regional Winners:
The Colorado College, Small Campus Category
Georgia State University, Large Campus Category
Michigan State University, Large Campus Category
Rochester Institute of Technology (NY), Large Campus Category
Saint Mary's University (TX), Small Campus Category
University of Idaho, Large Campus Category
University of Maryland/Baltimore, Small Campus Category
University of Oklahoma, Large Campus Category
APPA's Sustainability Innovation Award in Facilities Management is designed to recognize and promote unique and innovative sustainable practices in the educational facilities and campus environments. It is awarded to educational institutions that have implemented a significant or transformative program and/or processes that enhance service delivery, lower costs, create a green and/or sustainable environment, or otherwise benefit the educational institution supporting student success and environmental stewardship.
The Sustainability Innovation Award in Facilities Management is open to any APPA Institutional member. Multi-campus or state systems may submit applications for system-wide or individual merit.
Institutions that wish to be considered for the Sustainability Innovation Award in Facilities Management must submit electronic application materials to APPA no later than November 30, 2018.
Final evaluation regarding the Award will be made some time in April/May and will be submitted for approval to APPA's Board of Directors. Award recipients will be recognized at APPA's annual conference banquet in August of the same year. Other sustainable recognition actions will be included to provide additional exposure for the award recipient, including the request for each winning institution to provide the committee with 5 to 15 photos of sustainability practices on their campus.
Award nomination entries must describe either one new program or a significant restructuring of an existing program or process. Up to five ranked submissions will be eligible for a non-cash award.
Up to five winners may be selected. Winning entries will receive special recognition at APPA's annual conference, on the APPA website, and in the Facilities Manager magazine.
Sustainability Innovation Award: In keeping with the concept of sustainability, the actual award will be represented in the following format;
A complete award submission consists of the following parts:
2018
University of Calgary
Central Michigan University
James Madison University
Simon Fraser University
San Jose State University
2017
The Ohio State University
University of British Columbia
Arizona State University
University of Washington Bothell
San Mateo County Community College District
2016
Portland Community College
Elon University
George Washington University
Colorado State University
Ohio University
University of Michigan
University of Virginia
Spelman College
2015
San Diego Community College District
Slippery Rock University
2014
Black Hills State University
North Carolina State University
Penn State University
San Mateo County Community College District
UCLA
University of Rochester
2013
Duke University
Oberlin College
Philadelphia University
University of Colorado/Boulder
University of Iowa
2012
American University
Emory University
University of British Columbia
University of California, Irvine
University of Prince Edward Island
APPA's Effective & Innovative Practices Award recognizes programs and processes that enhance service delivery, lower costs, increase productivity, improve customer service, generate revenue, or otherwise benefit the educational institution. Award nomination entries must describe either a new program or significant restructuring of an existing program or process. Winning entries will receive special recognition on both APPA's website and in APPA's Facilities Manager magazine. |
Projects displaying a high level of innovation and adaptability/transferability for implementation at other schools have the best chance of being favorably ranked.
Up to five ranked submissions will be eligible for an award.
Entries are judged on a point system based on:
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Read the 2005 Effective and Innovative Practices Award Summaries in Facilities Manager.
2004
Read the2005 Effective and Innovative Practices award applications.
While most awards recognize past achievements, the APPA Fellow designation brings with it both recognition for specific accomplishments to date and expectations for continued involvement in APPA's leadership program through research and mentoring. The Fellow is APPA's highest individual achievement award. Nominees must demonstrate active membership in APPA for a minimum of ten years; graduation from APPA's Institute for Facilities Management; completion of APPA's Leadership Academy; completion of an approved research project under APPA's Center for Facilities Research; authorship of an article submitted for publication by APPA; and submission of two references from colleagues in the educational facilities profession that describe the individual's successes and dedication to the field.
Nominations are now being taken for APPA's 2018 institutional and individual awards: Award for Excellence, Sustainability Award, Effective and Innovative Practices Award, APPA Fellow, Meritorious Service Award, and Pacesetter Award. The deadline for consideration for the 2019 awards is November 30, 2018. Awards nominations submitted after November 30, 2018 will be held and considered in the 2020 award cycle.
While most awards recognize past achievements, the APPA Fellow designation brings with it both recognition of specific accomplishments to date and expectations for continued involvement in APPA's leadership program through research and mentoring. This is APPA's highest individual achievement award.
In order to be eligible for the designation of APPA Fellow, individuals must:
Please use the checklist above to ensure that you have satisfied all the necessary requirements for APPA Fellow prior to submitting your application. Proof of graduation from APPA programs is required (copies of certificates serve as proof) and all applications are reviewed by the Awards and Recognition Committee to ensure that they are complete. APPA Fellow recipients must be approved by the APPA Board of Directors.
No recipients
John Morris
Glenn Smith
No recipients
No recipients
William M. Elvey
Jack K. Colby
Maggie Kinnaman
Mohammad H. Qayoumi
Alan S. Bigger
No recipients
No recipients
Christopher K. Ahoy
Donald J. Guckert
Gary L. Reynolds
Edward D. Rice
Each year, APPA members bestow the Meritorious Service Award upon the individual member or members who have made significant, life-long contributions to the profession of education facilities management. APPA's highest award for individual service, the Meritorious Service Award is given to no more than three individuals each year. Individuals must have been an active member of APPA for a minimum of ten years; attended and participated in meetings and other functions at the international level; and demonstrated continued and distinguished service to the association.
Nominations are now being taken for APPA's 2018 institutional and individual awards: Award for Excellence, Sustainability Award, Effective and Innovative Practices Award, APPA Fellow, Meritorious Service Award, and Pacesetter Award. The deadline for consideration for the 2019 awards is November 30, 2018. Awards nominations submitted after November 30, 2018 will be held and considered in the 2020 award cycle.
To be eligible for the Meritorious Service award, nominees must meet the following criteria:
2018
Emmet Boyle
Glen Haubold
Chuck Scott
2017
Shelton Riley
Jodie Sweat
Keith Woodward
2016
J. B. Messer
Glenn Smith
Daniel Young
2015
David W. Gray
Anthony (Tony) Guerrero
Jeri Ripley King
2014
Marion Bracy
Don Guckert
Tom Harkenrider
Jay Klingel
2013
Dave Button
John P. Harrod, Jr.
Michael R. Johnson
2012
Tony Ichsan
Brian Worley
Mark Hunter
2011
Fred Plant
John Morris
Eakle Barfield, Jr.
2010
Kevin Folsom
Mary Vosevich
Norman Young
2009
Robert J. Carter
Robert S. Hascall
Theodore J. Weidner
2008
Darrel Meyer
2007
Polly Pinney
Sam Polk
Terry Ruprecht
2006
Harvey D. Chace
Cheryl Gomez
Michael Sofield
2005
Philip L. Cox
Vickie D. Younger
2004
Christopher Ahoy
Mohammad H. Qayoumi
Leo Yanda
2003
Alan Bigger
Edward Rice
2002
Jack Colby
Maggie Kinnaman
2001
Greg Fichter
Larry Quick
Joseph Rubertone
2000
Howard A. Wells
Robert A. Getz
Chris Christofferson
1999
James E. Christenson
Sam Ragusa
James O. Roberts
1998
Ron Flinn
John Harrod
Ron Hicks
1997
Thomas F. Vacha
George F. Krell
1996
Patrick Apel
Gary L. Reynolds
1995
Frederick L. Klee
E. Diane Kerby
1994
Norman H. Bedell
William J. Humble
William J. Sharp Jr
1993
W. Clay Adamson
Pieter van der Have
Maurice Pawsey
1992
Douglas K. Christensen
Charles W. Jenkins
G. Thomas Wells
1991
Dean H. Fredericks
Donald L. Mackel
1990
John A. Heinz
Dorsey D. Jacobs
Henry L. Shelby
1989
William A. Daigneau
William S. Mutch
Mohammad H. Qayoumi
1988
Joe J. Estill Jr.
Alan D. Lewis
H.C. Lott Jr.
1987
Herbert I. Collier
G. Don Shepherd
1986
Jack Hug
1985
William D. Middleton
1984
Harold C. Babcock
Paul T. Knapp
Richard C. Neidhard
H. Val Peterson
1983
Rex O. Dillow
William W. Whitman
1982
John K. Armour
Charles W. Butler
Thomas B. Smith
1981
Charles C. Braswell
Sheldon L. Kempton
Philip W. Koehler
1980
William R. Dickson
William S. Gardiner
1979
Harold J. Anderson
William V. Domke
John H. Sweitzer
1978
Eugene Leaver
H. Stanley Palmer
1977
V. Burt Cowman
John Gabe
Henry L. Yeagley Jr.
1976
Charles S. Dawson
John E. Tronoff
1975
Nestus H. Gurley
Philip G. Rector
William M. Stanton Jr.
1974
Lloyd Durow
Peter P. Welanetz
Martin F. Whalen
1973
Gene B. Cross
Gerald P. Hawk
Bruce Rutherford
1972
Calvin C. Greene
George C. Moore
Walter H. Wiegand
1971
Harry M. Bucholz
Harry F. Ebert
Clyde B. Hill
1970
O. Jean Gratton
Richard A. Kendrick
Ted B. Simon
1969
Raymond Halbert
Robert L. Houston
Irwin I. Wright
1968
Elbridge Bacon Jr.
L. Terry Suber
Walter W. Wade
1967
Howard Badgett
Ken Hayter
Francis McGuire
1966
Alva Ahearn
J. McCree Smith
James J. Wenner
1965
Richard Adams
Wilber Zellner
1964
E.T. Clarke
Otto Kohler
1963
Anthony Lazzaro
Roy Lund
1962
Henry Pearson
Carl M.F. Peterson
George Weber
1961
Jack Adwers
M.F. Fifield
R.F. Gingrich
1960
E.J. Behler
Wesley Hertenstein
Walter M. Roth
1959
W.A. Davenport
C.S. Havens
W.P. Wetzel
1958
Sam Brewster
Paul Elleman
A.F. Gallistel
The Pacesetter Award is designed to encourage participation in APPA among those who have already made significant contributions at their regions or chapters. Up to seven Pacesetter Awards may be given each year.
To be eligible for the Pacesetter Award, nominees must meet the following criteria:
2018
Jessica Abbott
Markus Hogue
Dave Irvin
Jason R. Wang
2017
Rebecca Griffith
Robert A. Boyette
Lee McQueen
Julius R. Williams
Michael Hamilton
Emmet Boyle
Winnie Kwofie
2016
John Ferris
Dana Gillon
Daniel Wooten
2015
Chris Kopach
James (Jay) Williams, Jr.
David Woodson
James Harrod
David Hatch
Lisa Potter
Richard (Rick) Battistoni
2014
Jerry Carlson
Andrew P. Christ
Dan Park
Steve Peary
Dana Peterson
2013
Bob Andrews
Greg Clayton
Tony Guerrero
Glen Haubold
Chuck Scott
Chris Snow
Lindsay Wagner
2012
Lynne Finn
Brandon Baswell
Richard Davis
Chris Eagan
David Handwork
Sue-Anna Miller
Bob Cornero
2011
John Ott
Rick Storlie
Michael O'Connor
Mike Anthony
Kevin Hansen
2010
Ben Elisondo
Daniel Gearan
Kristie Kowall
Viron Lynch
Juan Ontiveros
Matthew M. Taylor
2009
Scott Burns
Ruthann Manlet
David Millay
John Wong
2008
Jeri King
Terry Major
Bob McMains
Tommy Moss
Willie Suter
Brian Wormwood
2007
James Barbush
Marion Bracy
Ron Brooks
Michelle Estep-Frederick
Clay Shetler
Mark Shively
2006
Mark Hunter
Nancy Hurt
Fred Long
John P. Morris
Arthur E. Sykes
L. Scott Turley
Keith Woodward
2005
Anita Bailey
David Brixen
Harvey Chace
Darrel Meyer
Frederick W. Plant
Jewell Winn
2004
Kevin Folsom
Craig Bohn
Paul Smith
Al Stoverink
2003
J. Annette Bardouille
Robert J. Carter
Neal R. Swarnes
2002
Christopher K. Ahoy
Brooks H. Baker, III
Sam L. Polk
Earl Smith
Tom F. Stepnowski
Mary Vosevich
2001
Robert Bertram
Jeff Buenting
Linda Carter
Terry Ruprecht
L. Wayne White
2000
Don J. Briselden
David A. Cain
Brian Fenn
Donald L. Hufford
Carol Trexler
V. Randall Turpin
Theodore J. Weidner
1999
Vickie DeWitt
Becky Hamilton
Hildo Hernandez
Joseph Kish
Robert Lashaway
Dave Sims
2018
Emmet Boyle, Chuck Scott, The University of Arizona Leadership Team, The Kopach Family
2014
Members of the Standards and Codes Council: Brooks Baker III, Richard J. Davis, P.E., J.D., Mark Goska, David Handwork, Clint Lord, Dana Peterson, Alan Sactor, Theodore Weidner, John Bernhards
2013
APPA Emerging Professionals: David Cain, Amy Carnahan, Kunal Chitre, Ben Elisondo, James Harrod, John Herrera, Kristie Kowall, Casey Martin, and Lindsay Wagner
APPA Institute Deans: Lynne Finn, Don Guckert, and Jay Klingel
2012
Alan Bigger
Polly Pinney
Dave Button
Kunal Chitre
Michael O'Connor
Suzanne Healy
APPA Regional Relationship Task Force: Mike Johnson, Bill Elvey, J.B. Messer, Chris Kopach, Chuck Scott, Darrel Meyer, Mary Vosevich, Glenn Smith, John Morris, Norm Young, Shelton Riley, William Nelson, Kathleen Schedler, and Larry Blake
2011
Mike Johnson
Lalo Gomez
Melinda Nelson
J.B. Messer
Trilogy Team: Alan Bigger, Tom Becker, Tom Flood, and Casey Wick
2010
David Gray
Joe Metzger
Dan Whitezell
BOK Editorial Team: Maggie Kinnaman, Jack Hug, Bill Daigneau, Darryl Boyce, Gary Reynolds, Anita Dosik and Steve Glazner
2009
Spencer Hall
2008
Chris Ahoy
Jeff Campbell
Jim Haley
2007
Bob Carter
Jack Colby
Reenen du Plessis
Mike Sofield
2006
Brooks Baker
Bill Bell
Rod Rose
Terry Ruprecht
2005
Pat Apel
Charlie and Ann Jenkins
2004
Douglas Erickson
Michelle Estep
James Roberts
Vickie Younger
FMEP Review Team
2003
Sam L. Polk
Center for Facilities Research Advisory Council
Supervisor's Toolkit Task Force
2002
David Cain
Chong Hie Choi
Ted Weidner
2001
Jack Dempsey
Kevin Folsom
William Gardiner
Maragaret Kinnaman
Mo H. Qayoumi
2000
Don Briselden
David Cain
Doug Christensen
Bill Daigneau
Larry Givens
Steve Glazner
Maggie Kinnaman
Tom Harkenrider
Jack Hug
Laura Long
Lander Medlin
Dave Riddell
Pete vander Have
1999
Hod Wells
1998
Cotrenia Aytch
Don Briselden
Don Guckert
Jay W. Klingel
Andria J. Krug
Mohammad H. Qayoumi
Medea M. Ranck
James O. Roberts
Katherine J. Smith
Emily C. Wren
1997
W. Clay Adamson Jr.
Douglas K. Christensen
John P. Harrod Jr.
1996
James O. Cole
Tina Myers
Diana Tringali
Pieter J. van der Have
1995
Patrick H. Apel
Lee and Joan Newman
James and Rose Marie Payne
1994
Gary L. Reynolds
1993
Kenneth Hall
Wayne E. Leroy
1992
Robert A. Getz
1991
Charles W. Jenkins
Walter A. Schaw
Winthrop M. Wassenar
1990
Robert W. Collins
1989
Rex O. Dillow
1988
William D. Middleton
1986
Herbert I. Collier
William V. Domke
This award will be presented to an individual member who has made significant, albeit life-long contributions to the profession of education facilities management and who has demonstrated the principles of ethical leadership in all that he or she does. This individual adheres to the highest ethical standards of honesty, integrity, and consistency. He or she maintains an unwavering commitment to do good, holding steadfast to his/her beliefs, yet is always capable of giving more for the benefit of all. By demonstrating respect for different ideas, teachings, and cultures, this individual is a consummate professional, sought after role model and mentor, and the ultimate ambassador for the entire profession within the education enterprise.
The Distinguished Leadership and Ethics Award is given at the discretion of the current APPA Presidential Triad.
2014
Doug Christensen
In 2009, APPA's President Mr. Bill Elvey, created a new set of awards called the "Unsung Heroes" award. Annually, regional presidents are asked to suggest a worthy individual(s) who work tirelessly for their region, chapter, and/or the profession, but whom have gone unnoticed to date and are worthy of receiving an award from the president of International APPA. These individuals are recognized as "unsung heroes" during the Awards Ceremony at the APPA annual conference and further recognized at their regional or state conference the following fall.
Cathy Blanchard (SRAPPA)
Brandon Dugan (MAPPA)
Layna Johnson (RMA)
Patty Smith (ERAPPA)
Kevin Gallinger (ERAPPA)
Scott Turley (CAPPA)
ERAPPA - Dianne Gravatt
CAPPA - Sue-Anna Miller
MAPPA - Jim Hubbard
PCAPPA - Dan Park
RMA - Cloriza Lomeli
CAPPA - Mike Miller
ERAPPA - Peter Buchhiet
ERAPPA - Bob Britton
MAPPA - Phyllis Gillis
PCAPPA - Tony Ichsan
RMA - Lisa Potter
SRAPPA - Anthony Yamada
CAPPA - Thomas Lee
ERAPPA - Neal Lespasio
MAPPA - David Miller
PCAPPA - Brian Worley
RMA - Erik Van de Boogaard
SRAPPA - Jay Klingel
ERAPPA - Bob Britton & Jerry Hill
MAPPA- Christine Douglas
CAPPA - Doug Riat
SRAPPA - Tony Yamada
RMA - Shawna Rowley & Joe Metzger
PCAPPA - none
David Gray
Shari Philpott
Phil Rouble
Terry Pellerin
Kris Ackerbauer
Eligible articles are those written by a full-time employee, from any department, of an APPA member institution. In addition, articles written by APPA Members Emeritus who are not affiliated with a business partner firm may be eligible for award consideration. If an article has more than one listed author, all authors must be full-time employees of an APPA member institution or a Member Emeritus to be eligible for the award. Eligible institutions must be Institutional or Affiliate members at the time of publication.
Selection Guidelines
The Information and Research Committee administers the Rex Dillow Award and assesses each of the eligible articles based on the following five categories:
Each category is given equal weight in its contribution to the article's overall rating.
2018
Josh Logan and Nancy Hostetler
Read Exploring the Benefits of a Strong Internship Program
2017
Ryan M. Kmetz
Read Designing a Resilient Campus
2016
Keith Woodward
Read Facilities and School Security
2015
Eric Gregory
Read Commissioning and Emory's Sustainable Performance Program
2014
Richard L. McDermott
Read Alright Already! Let’s Stop Answering the Wrong Question About Deferred Maintenance
2013
Donald J. Guckert and Jeri Ripley King
Read Creating a Shared Context for Value-Based Collaboration & Decision Making
2012
John Cannon
Read Exceeding Expectations
2011
William A. Daigneau
Read Portfolio Based Management
2010
Joe Whitefield
Read Deferred Capital Renewal as a Spoiler for Campus Programs
2009
Frederic J. Gratto
Read Give Me Liberty or Give Me Brick
2008
Kate Van Sant and Patricia Stewart
Read Pandemic Preparation: Hoping for the Best, Preparing for the Worst
2007
William A. Daigneau
Read Megatrends and Myths: Facilities Management Practices in Higher Education
2006
Roger E. Rowe
Read After-Action Reviews: A Process for Continuous Improvement
2005
Leonard Friesenhahn
Read The University of Texas Sewer Rehab: Using Trenchless Technologies
2004
Richard W. Robben
Read Quality Measurement in a Facilities Management Environment
2003
Donald J. Guckert and Jeri Ripley King
Read The High Cost of Building a Better University
2002
Walter K. Simpson
Read A Facilities Manager's Guide to Green Building Design
2001
David Gonzales
Read It Takes a Revolution - A Case Study of Facilities Service Improvements at UCSB
2000
William A. Daigneau
Read Charting the Future: A Research Agenda for APPA
1999
John G. Dempsey and Gretchen Wesenberg
Read The Design Partner
1998
William A. Daigneau
Read Product Based Management
1997
Walter Simpson
Read Environmental Stewardship and the Green Campus
1996
Ksenia Jaroshevish and William Merck
Read Pre-Design Planning
1995
Walter Simpson
Read Recharging Campus Energy Conservation: ESCOs and Demand Side Management at SUNY Buffalo
1994
Harvey H. Kaiser
Read Putting the Facilities Audit to Work
1993
Mark Pastin
Read Power, Influence, and Survival in Difficult Times
1992
James E. Christenson
Read Maintenance Management for the 1990s
1991
Paul Banks and Carolyn Harris
Read The Library Environment and the Preservation of Library Materials
1990
Teresa S. Hargett and Robert C. Osborn
Read Cornell Recycles: A Major University Commitment
1989
William S. Mutch
Read The 1988 Olympic Winter Games: The University of Calgary Involvement
1988
Harvey H. Kaiser
Read Capital Needs in Higher Education
1987
Douglas K. Christensen
Read Integrating Capital Studies Within Physical Plant Operations
The Eagle Award and Rising Star Award are presented to an individual business partner who, on behalf of their company, has found unique and effective ways to partner with APPA on projects, initiatives, and programs to advance the educational facilities field.
Our Annual Meeting Sponsorship awards are determined by the following criteria for the event:
Visionary Award | $40,000 Support Package and above. |
Diamond Award | $20,000 Support Package |
Platinum Award | $16,000 Support Package |
Gold Award | $9,500 Support Package |
Silver Award | $5000 Support Package |
Bronze Award | $4,000 Support Package |
Philadelphia University
Soka University of America
University of Michigan
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Read the 2005 Effective and Innovative Practices Award Summaries in Facilities Manager.
Read the 2005 Effective and Innovative Practices award applications.
No recipients
John Morris
Glenn Smith
No recipients
No recipients
William M. Elvey
Jack K. Colby
Maggie Kinnaman
Mohammad H. Qayoumi
Alan S. Bigger
No recipients
No recipients
Christopher K. Ahoy
Donald J. Guckert
Gary L. Reynolds
Edward D. Rice
Marion Bracy
Don Guckert
Tom Harkenrider
Jay Klingel
Jerry Carlson
Andrew P. Christ
Dan Park
Steve Peary
Dana Peterson
Members of the Standards and Codes Council: Brooks Baker III, Richard J. Davis, P.E., J.D., David Handwork, Clint Lord, Dana Peterson, Alan Sactor, Theodore Weidner, John Bernhards
APPA Institute Deans: Lynne Finn, Don Guckert, and Jay Klingel
Josh Logan and Nancy Hostetler
Read Exploring the Benefits of a Strong Internship Program
2017
Ryan M. Kmetz
Read Designing a Resilient Campus
2016
Keith Woodward