Page 61 - FINAL Combined CB2_Neat

Looking Ahead
Our FY 2018 Practice Vision, prepared in September 2017 and included below, acknowledges that
the challenges faced in FY 2017 will continue to influence our approach. In Illinois there are some
signs of improvement, including rumors of a capital funding bill after the general election in
November 2018. The Higher Ed Practice will also benefit from the firm’s geographical expansion
strategy, providing access to states with healthier economies and demographic growth.

We continue to grow a diverse portfolio of work and strong client references with our recently
completed projects. These increase our credibility with clients and potential teaming partners. Our
core Higher Ed team remains in place, and Paul Luzecky, who joined FGM in October, brings higher
ed experience that will be of benefit in our efforts to break into the Missouri market.

Higher Education Practice Vision
FY 2018

I. VISION
FGM is considered a trusted partner in the design and management of college and university projects.
With dwindling resources and concerns over the long term health of many higher education institutions,
especially in Illinois, clients and potential teammates seek us out due to our experience, expertise,
process, and well-deserved reputation for satisfying clients by delivering quality projects on time and
on budget.

Success for FGM in the Higher Education practice means that we are building our Higher Ed credentials
by 1) serving as the Architect-of-Record with nationally-recognized designers on large, complex
projects; 2) enhancing our portfolio with smaller programming, planning, and design opportunities at
top tier institutions; 3) securing architecture retainer contracts when appropriate; 4) self-performing
moderate-sized projects; and 5) developing significant expertise in one or two building types, enabling
us to pursue work as a design architect at institutions geographically remote from our offices.

II. SWOT ANALYSIS
A. Strengths
1. Senior Leadership in Management and Interior Design (J. Chronister, D. Yandel, and C. Stolt +
occasional participation by S. Raskin and T. Kwiatkowski)
2. Technical Expertise (D. Yandel, K. Kim, A. Harvey)
3. Portfolio of Completed Projects
4. Architect-of-Record Experience
5. Repeat Clients: UIUC, NU, Wheaton, SIUE, and CDB
6. Familiarity with Higher Ed clients and their processes
7. Interior Design services, including FF&E
8. Management and Technical Expertise – and some Planning – with Student Housing
9. Portfolio includes two “transportation education” projects (SIUC TEC and Olive-Harvey TDL)
10. Resilient Design and WELL Building capabilities

B. Weaknesses
1. No Architectural Design Principal with significant Higher Ed credentials
2. No primary Higher Ed leader in SO Region and, therefore, a generally reactive approach to BD
3. Not much of a bench, personnel-wise
4. Utilizing AOR experience in pursuing full-service projects
5. Limited geographical reach (without Architectural Design component)
6. Historic profitability and work load (peaks and valleys) challenges; no “bread and butter” work
7. “False starts” with practice in St. Louis/Missouri

C. Opportunities
1. Renewed effort to build St. Louis/Missouri practice
2. Milwaukee office could open up additional opportunities, both AOR and self-performing, in a
more fiscally sound state; projects could be easily resourced from Chicago
3. Potential Western Michigan opportunities (with IMEG)
4. Texas acquisition would provide access to growing market
5. Public Safety/Higher Ed collaboration