Contoh Project

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Case studies

September 2006

2006/41

Space Management Project: case studies

Contents

Page

Executive summary 3

Introduction 5

1. Queen Margaret University College – The Relocate Project 7

2. University of Newcastle upon Tyne – Versatile research buildings 17

3. Sheffield Hallam University – Promoting effective utilisation 27

Annex 1: The Devonshire Building space management policy 34

Space Management Project: case studies 2006/41 1

Executive summaryThis report brings together three case studieswhich explore different aspects of spacemanagement in individual institutions. It wasprepared for the UK Space Management Projectby independent consultants Kilner Planning, withassistance from senior estates professionals fromthe featured institutions, below. The case studiesfocus on issues which were highlighted as beingof particular interest to many institutions duringthe survey of space management practice inPhase One of the Space Management Project andin feedback from Space Management Groupseminars. They are:

• Queen Margaret University College – The Relocate Project

• University of Newcastle upon Tyne – Versatile research buildings

• Sheffield Hallam University – Promoting effective utilisation.

The participating institutions have widedifferences in mission and size. The aim of thecase studies is to provide an insight into howeach of the three institutions has approachedparticular space management issues, includingthe tools and processes employed and what theimpact has been of the measures which they haveemployed.

Queen Margaret University College

Queen Margaret University College (QMUC) isbuilding a new campus at Craighall, on theoutskirts of Edinburgh, to replace its existingsites. It is the first new university campus to bebuilt in Scotland for over 30 years.

The current estate is in poor condition, inflexibleand not fit for purpose. The new campus aims tohave attractive, efficient and versatile space, whichis both environmentally and financiallysustainable. This is a case study of work inprogress. It focuses on the decision-making processleading to relocation and rationalisation. It looksat how the college decided how much space itneeds and how it is approaching the introductionof major change and new ways of working.

The new campus is now under construction andit will have over 30 per cent less net internalnon-residential floorspace than the existingestate, now spread over three separate sites. Thereduction in space is based on the results of adetailed space modelling exercise whichgenerated a predicted profile of future spaceneeds. Projected increases in utilisation are a keydriver behind the planned efficiencies in theprovision of teaching space.

This case study is likely to be of particularinterest to higher education institutions (HEIs)that are considering:

• rationalising all or part of their estates andreplacing outdated space with new facilities

• planning future space needs and how toachieve efficiencies in space use

• ways of building versatility into their spaceto allow for future change.

University of Newcastle upon Tyne

The case study at the University of Newcastleupon Tyne is based on the university’s recentexperience of planning and managing two newresearch buildings: the Paul O’Gorman Building,which provides accommodation for the NorthernInstitute for Cancer Research; and theDevonshire Building, which houses the Institutefor Research on Environment and Sustainability(IRES), the Informatics Research Institute andthe E-Science Research Centre. Both buildingsprovide office and laboratory space.

The study may be of interest to HEIs thinkingabout:

• creating more multi-disciplinary or genericresearch space which can be used by severaldifferent groups at the same time or bysuccessive groups

• how people working in the buildingsperceive the impact of their newenvironment on job satisfaction andresearch activity

• how to evaluate the effect of new workingenvironments on research output.


The Newcastle case study begins with an outlineof the university’s estate strategy and spacemanagement policy which put both buildings incontext. It describes the objectives and criticalsuccess factors for each building. Occupierperception surveys provided a useful insight intopeople’s views about the new buildings in termsof comparison with their previous workingenvironments and the effect of the new buildingson their research. The information gained fromthis type of survey can be used to inform futureprojects and space management methods.

Sheffield Hallam University

The third case study at Sheffield HallamUniversity describes how the university adopteda strategy of rationalisation, reinvestment andrenewal across the estate. It focuses on two spacemanagement methods used: on space charging,and how space utilisation data are collected andused to plan and manage space.

Space charging was introduced as a strongincentive to encourage effective use of space. Alarge volume of utilisation information iscollected on a rolling basis, which providesdetailed information on how space is being usedand can be used to track the way that spaceneeds are changing. The space charging systemmeans that departments are interested in thedetailed utilisation findings, which can help themto decide if there is space which they no longerneed, and as a corollary, do not wish to becharged for.

The case study is likely to be relevant to HEIsinterested in:

• using space charging as a spacemanagement tool

• encouraging effective utilisation of teachingspace

• ways of collecting utilisation data

• using utilisation data to assess space needs.

4 Space Management Project: case studies 2006/41

IntroductionThis publication is the outcome of research carriedout by independent consultants Kilner Planning.The brief was to investigate general or specificspace management topics through case studies atindividual higher education institutions (HEIs).

The research is part of Phase Two of the SpaceManagement Project. The project is under thedirection of the UK Higher Education SpaceManagement Group (SMG), supported by the fourUK funding bodies for higher education: the HigherEducation Funding Council for England, ScottishFunding Council, Higher Education FundingCouncil for Wales and the Department forEmployment and Learning (in Northern Ireland).

This report brings together three case studieswhich explore different aspects of spacemanagement in individual institutions. The casestudies focus on issues which were highlighted asbeing of particular interest to many institutionsduring the survey of space management practice1

and in feedback from SMG seminars. They are:

• Queen Margaret University College – The Relocate Project

• University of Newcastle upon Tyne – Versatile research buildings

• Sheffield Hallam University – Promoting effective utilisation.


1 Findings from the survey are contained in the SMG report, ‘Review ofPractice’, available on the SMG website at www.smg.ac.uk

Overview of the UK Higher Education Space Management ProjectAll published reports are available on the web at www.smg.ac.uk under Reports/tools.

Phase One Review of practice July 2005

Drivers of the size of the HE estate July 2005

The cost of space July 2005

Phase Two Promoting space efficiency in building design March 2006

Impact on space of future changes in higher education March 2006

Managing space: Review of English further education and August 2006

HE overseas

Space utilisation: practice, performance and guidelines August 2006

Review of space norms August 2006

Space management project: case studies September 2006

Space management project: summary September 2006

Case study 1

Space Management Project: Case Studies 2006/41 7

The RelocateProjectQueen MargaretUniversity College

IntroductionQueen Margaret University College (QMUC) isbuilding a new campus at Craighall, on theoutskirts of Edinburgh, to replace its existingsites. It is the first new university campus to bebuilt in Scotland for over 30 years.

The current estate is in poor condition, inflexibleand not fit for purpose. The new campus aims tohave attractive, efficient and versatile space,which is both environmentally and financiallysustainable. This is a case study of work inprogress. It focuses on the decision-makingprocess leading to relocation and rationalisation.It looks at how the college decided how muchspace it needs and how it is approaching theintroduction of major change and new ways ofworking.

This case study is likely to be of particularinterest to HEIs that are considering:

• rationalising all or part of their estates andreplacing outdated space with new facilities

• planning future space needs and how toachieve efficiencies in space use

• ways of building versatility into their spaceto allow for future change.

Overview of QMUCQMUC is a small institution. In 2003-04 it hada headcount of around 4,000 students (3,377full-time equivalents, FTEs) and 500 staff FTEs.Its turnover was in the order of £21 million. Thecollege has two faculties: Health and SocialSciences, and Business and Arts. Each faculty ismade up of two schools. The Faculty of Health

and Social Sciences includes the School ofHealth Sciences and School of Social Sciences,Media and Communication; while the Faculty ofBusiness and Arts contains the School ofBusiness and Enterprise and School of Dramaand Creative Industries.

There are also a series of research centresincluding the Scottish Centre for Research intoSpeech Disability and the Centre for Nutrition.

The college is currently based on three campusesin Edinburgh. It has a total of 26,519 m2 of netinternal non-residential floorspace (net internalarea, NIA, or 32,980 m2 gross internal area, GIA).

It moved to the Corstophine site in Edinburgh in1969-70 into what was then new, purpose-builtaccommodation. At that time, there were around500 student FTEs. Most of them were studyinghospitality courses and the campus was designedwith a high proportion of specialistaccommodation, such as teaching kitchens.There were some additions to the Corstophinesite in 1980. Otherwise it has remainedsubstantially unchanged, although by the mid-1990s, student numbers had grown to around3,000 FTEs, and the course profile haddiversified into health and drama.

The decision to relocate

Problems with the estate became increasinglyevident during the 1990s. These were:

a. The very poor condition of the estate atCorstophine – the college found that its estateperformed worst in a sector-wide conditionsurvey in Scotland.

b. There was a mismatch between room sizesand types available at Corstophine and whatwas needed for the current and plannedportfolio since the campus had been plannedprimarily as a base for catering andhospitality courses, and these specialist spaceswere unsuitable and difficult to alter forhealth and drama uses.

c. Condition was not such a problem at theLeith site but the age and listed status of theestate meant that it was inflexible in terms ofspace use.

d. There was duplication of facilities because thefaculties and schools were split across sites.

e. Utilisation surveys reported consistently lowlevels of utilisation, but there was a shortageof the type of facilities needed to meet thecollege’s teaching and research needs.

f. The amount of space per student FTE wasgenerous across the estate, but given theinflexibility of much of the accommodation, itwas difficult to remodel to achieve higherrates of utilisation.

In 1997 the college’s estate strategy concluded that itwould not be cost effective to invest in the existingestate and that it would be preferable to consolidatethe activities of the two main campuses in a newlocation. The desire was to have an estate which wassmaller and more flexible.

It was also important to the college that the newestate would be environmentally and financiallysustainable. Financial sustainability was necessaryin terms of the initial capital cost, because the newcampus would be largely funded from the disposalproceeds of the Corstophine and Leith sites. But itwas also important from the point of view of thefuture recurrent costs of running the estate andbeing able to keep the new campus fit for purposeand in a sound state of repair.


Following growth in student numbers, the college

acquired a second site in Leith in 1993. This was

a secondary school, and the main building is

listed. The Faculty of Health and Social Sciences

is split between Leith and Corstophine.

The third site is called the Gateway. It is aformer theatre, and it was taken on in 1997with the expansion of the college’s drama andtheatre arts. The School of Drama and CreativeIndustries operates from both the Gateway andCorstophine sites.

The profile of the broad categories ofaccommodation within the non residential estateis show on Figure 1.

The Corstophine campus

The Leith campus

Studies conducted in 1997 concluded that itshould be possible to substantially rationalise,and reduce non-residential floorspace byaround 35 per cent. This would change thestudent:floorspace ratio from around 10 m2 ofnet internal non-residential floorspace perstudent FTE to some 5.6 m2. The main leversfor achieving this change were anticipated tobe: a move to open plan offices for manyacademic and administrative staff; a significantincrease in utilisation especially of generalpurpose teaching space; and making specialistteaching areas as flexible as possible toaccommodate a range of uses.

QMUC began the process of finding a suitablesite for relocation, planning the size andcomposition of the new campus, seeking fundingand starting the development. Four sites wereshortlisted in 2001 and evaluated against a rangeof criteria. Staff and students were given theopportunity to visit each of the sites. The site atCraighall was selected as the best performing.The aim was to begin building in 2005 and tooccupy the new premises in time for the 2007-08academic year. Dyer Associates was selected asthe architect for the masterplan and the design ofthe new campus buildings.

The Gateway campus was originally excludedfrom the relocation project on the grounds thatthe School of Drama and Creative Industriesneeded specialist facilities, including theatrespace, and would benefit from remaining in acity centre location. But this decision wasrevisited in 2005 when a condition survey foundsignificant deterioration in the fabric of thebuildings and services on the site. There werealso serious problems with legislativecompliance. Further option appraisals werecarried out, taking account of the conditionfindings, the valuation of the site and existingand future space needs and allocation.

It was decided that the best option would be tominimise any further expenditure on theGateway campus and to relocate the School’sactivities to the new campus at Craighall. Thisdecision was made on the condition that themove would be cost neutral at worst with theGateway sale proceeds covering the capital costof the relocation and replacement facilities. Italso had to have minimal impact on the brief forthe new campus which by that time was alreadywell advanced. The relocation from the Gatewaymeant that all QMUC’s existing sites would bevacated and that all the academic schools wouldbe based on the new campus.


Other 37%

Specialist 20%

IT & library 12%

Lecture & classrooms 12%

Admin/office 19%

Figure 1: Profile of the estate


IntegrationQMUC is a small, professional, high quality,accessible institution at the leading edge ofinterdisciplinary education. The campus masterplanshould reflect this integration and move away fromthe compartmentalisation of the current campus.

FlexibleQMUC is a modern, dynamic institution with aprogressive academic plan including growth instudent numbers, a developing ICT strategy and anambitious research programme, therefore buildingdesign and layout need to consider ease ofexpansion and alteration.

MaintainableIn designing the campus, careful account must begiven to minimising future costs of operating,maintaining and repairing the accommodation.Specifications for building structure, fabric andservices should provide measurable value formoney for the life expectancy of theaccommodation.

Environmental considerationsThe campus will be the first new university campusin Scotland for 30 years and must give priority toenvironmental considerations.

Space utilisationThe design of the campus and the internal layoutof the buildings should be such that they optimiseutilisation and maximise efficiency in use. Thisshould be considered as a key priority in relationto environmental efficiency in that efficient use ofthe buildings themselves minimises the buildrequirements.

QMUC will operate a central timetabling and roombooking system within the new campusresponsible for management of all space otherthan office facilities.

Classroom/lecturesAccommodation models should provide modularteaching spaces closely related to average classsizes, with the capability of addition or subdivisionto suit changes in class sizes as well as variationsin teaching techniques. A 300-seat lecture theatreis envisaged but current utilisation figures suggestthat for this to be sustainable it should be designedfor multi-purpose activities.

Specialist spaceA number of departments utilise specialist labs,studios and training rooms for core course functions.In the new model, specialist space should be genericby nature, capable of more than one activity withsharing potential. It should, where possible, beutilised for interdisciplinary, integrated activity.

Admin/office/supportA cultural change will be required with thedevelopment of academic and support staffaccommodation. Areas of open plan space shouldbe introduced particularly in support staff areas.These flexible working spaces can be supportedby meeting rooms, study space, social space andgroup storage.

IT/libraryThese functions will be combined to form a newlearning resource centre suitable for traditionallearning but primarily organised for the developmentof electronic learning. This will be situated at thecore of academic activity and this QMUC resourceshould be utilised for both formal and informallearning activities. Formal learning should beprovided within quiet study space and informallearning located in open plan areas.

Expansion and alterationHigher education is ever changing, is influenced bymany external factors and needs to react to marketchanges and government policy. The new campusbuildings must be designed to facilitate thesestrategic changes through flexibility and expansionboth internally and externally.

Design concepts in the brief for the new campusFrom the outset, QMUC wanted the new campus to embody a series of design concepts, including thefollowing which are particularly relevant to space management.

Space management policyA college-wide space management policy wasintroduced in 2004. It was decided that this wasneeded to provide a consistent and transparentbasis for allocating and managing space pendingrelocation. It also paved the way for the muchgreater degree of central control of spacemanagement that will be operated on the newcampus.

The college looked at the proportions ofdifferent types of space across the estate andconcluded that the proportion of centrallybookable classrooms and lecture spaces at 12 per cent was low compared with sectoraverages, whereas the amount of specialist spaceat 20 per cent was high. A central objective ofthe policy was to increase the amount of spaceincluded in the central timetabling system.

The current space managementpolicy

Strategic Emphasis on accurate and detailed planning data on future growth to enable space

management to be targeted tooptimum effectiveness.

The timetable A reduction in the number of specialistrooms, combined with the extension ofthe central timetabling system to coverall teaching spaces. An increase in thenumber of utilisation surveys to one persemester. The calculation of a cost perhour per room which could be leviedwhere booked use is not reflected inactual use as recorded in surveys.

Space Introduction of space standards for standards office accommodation to be applied

when alterations and refurbishmentsare not carried out (intended asguidelines not entitlements), including:

• heads of subjects/seniorlecturers/assistant heads – individualoffices at 11.5 m2 per person

• lecturers – shared offices at 7.5 m2

per person

• administrative staff – 7.5 m2 in openplan areas or individual offices at 9 m2

per person.

Modelling future space needsThe decision to relocate was underpinned by theassumption that it would be possible to achieve asubstantial reduction in space on the newcampus. The original assumption back in 1998was that consolidation of the Corstophine andLeith campuses could generate a space saving ofat least 35 per cent and that the reduced areawould still provide enough space toaccommodate strategic plan growth projections.This was based on a review of the profile ofexisting space and how it was used. The reviewproposed that the space reduction would bedriven by a series of principles:

a. Eliminating duplicated space: the removal ofduplicated space from the Corstophine andLeith campuses, e.g. boardrooms andfaculty support areas.

b. Rationalisation: classroom and lecturetheatre provision to reflect planned classsizes and likely reductions in contact timeand consequently hours of use of teachingrooms. There could be scope for reductionsin the amount of specialist space with theprovision of multi-disciplinary laboratoriesand centralised servicing on a singlecampus. Administrative and academic officespace could be reduced with different typesof working areas and an element of openplan working.

c. Utilisation: achieving significant increases inthe utilisation rate of general purposeteaching space and some increase inspecialist space would reduce the overallamount of teaching space needed.

d. Maximising space efficiency through spacerelationships and academic groupings:having a central core of administration andmeeting rooms; having a central teachingfacility with lecture and classrooms groupedtogether; having laboratories and otherspecialist areas and their support servicesgrouped together; co-locating IT and libraryfaculties in a learning resources centre.

These principles were worked through in detailfor different types of space.


Teaching space

QMUC carried out a detailed analysis of generalpurpose and specialist teaching space needs.However, instead of relying on externally derivedor sector-based norms, QMUC went back to thefirst principles of what type of teaching spacewould be needed, for how many hours, at targetutilisation rates. This approach is similar to themethod of calculating teaching space needs usedby the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in thefurther education sector in England. It also hassimilarities with the guidance to assessing spaceneed given in the Space Management Groupreport, which reviews the role of space norms(‘Review of space norms’ available atwww.smg.ac.uk/resources). The exercise was ledby the vice principal (learning and teaching) andthe estates and facilities department, supportedby an external consultant, Stellae.

The exercise calculated on-campus teachingspace needs during the core day time period of0900-1700, on the grounds that if the day timepeak load could be accommodated, it would alsobe possible to meet the less intensive eveningrequirements as well. Assuming the core daytime period of 40 hours per week for 30 teachingweeks in a year meant there were 1,200 hours ofcore on-site day time hours available for teachingover the academic year. This was the frameworkwithin which teaching space needs were to beaccommodated.

The next step was to collect categorised data tobuild up the space needs profile:

• hours of teaching, broken down by type ofactivity (the number of contact hours oncourses multiplied by the number of students)

• a breakdown of those hours by differenttypes of teaching space

• area per workplace in different types of space

• target utilisation rates for different typesof space.

A change in any of these variables would affectthe predicted amount of teaching space. Forexample, an increase in contact hours would

generate a greater demand for space, or thelarger the area assumed to be provided perworkplace, the greater the area predicted.Conversely, the higher the target utilisationrate, the smaller the area of space that wouldbe generated.

QMUC already had some of these data to hand.Because the college had carried out detailedspace utilisation surveys, it knew the number ofworkplaces in different types of teaching spaceand the area per workplace in general purposeteaching rooms and in specialist spaces, such aslaboratories and studios. It also had informationon what levels of space utilisation were found inpractice and how these varied between generalpurpose and specialist rooms. It could identifythe differences between actual use andtimetabled use.

However, it did not initially hold all theinformation needed on hours of teaching indifferent types of space centrally. It was difficultinitially to get full details of the on-site day timeclass hours per student for each module and theclass contact hours per member of staff. Thecollege knew what was timetabled, but not allthe teaching space was included in a centralisedsystem, nor did the college know how closely thehours that were timetabled matched the hoursmaking up individual courses. In addition, it wasplanning for the future and it did not want torely solely on a space prediction based onexisting teaching practices. The strategic planenvisaged increases in student numbers, andchanges in the portfolio and course delivery. Itwas important that the space needs assessmentcaptured the combined impact of these changes.

In this context, the exercise looked not only atwhat was timetabled, but also took a strategicview of how patterns of teaching might changeacross the curriculum. Space needs predictionswere also crosschecked against the space needcalculations derived from actual observed usemoderated with assumptions about levels ofnon-attendance. The assessment was thenrefined through detailed discussions withindividual schools.


On working through the other variables, thecollege found that there were unlikely to beany significant space savings in terms of areasper workplace. These were averaging around 2 m2 per workplace across general purpose andspecialist space. In fact in some specialistspace, it was concluded that the areas shouldbe increased.

However, the results from utilisation surveyshighlighted potential scope for space efficiencies.Average levels of utilisation were running ataround 18 per cent, but some rooms wererecording rates above 30 per cent and a smallerproportion exceeded 40 per cent. The fact thatrelatively high rates of utilisation were alreadyachieved in parts of the estate was seen asevidence that more intensive use of space couldbe feasible, subject to effective timetabling andplanning the right match of room sizes andgroup sizes. It was assumed that average rates ofutilisation in general purpose rooms would risefrom less than 20 per cent to over 40 per cent. Inspecialist rooms the target utilisation rate was setat 30 per cent.

Different scenarios were modelled and reviewedwith the schools. The final profile was based ona mix of general purpose room sizes. Most hada capacity of either 30 or 60 people, with three150 seat lecture theatres and one 250 seatlecture theatre.

Following the decision to include the School ofDrama and Creative Industries in the relocationproject, space needs had to be recalculated. Ingeneral purpose teaching space, this was done byloading the additional student class teachinghours onto the previously modelled number andsizes of rooms. It was found that projectedfrequency rates were getting to the point wherethere were concerns about whether they wouldbe sustainable. There followed a period ofiteration for room sizes and frequency rates todetermine which was the best balance.

The move of the School of Drama and CreativeIndustries from the Gateway to Craighall willlead to a range of savings in teaching related

space. When the use of existing space atGateway was analysed, it was found that somespecialist types of space which occupied largeareas of floorspace had low levels of utilisation,such as workshops and production space. Giventhe principle that the Gateway relocation had tobe cost neutral, it was decided that the theatrewould not be replaced. Instead, the school wouldlease or hire facilities for productions as needed,and production support to cover props andwardrobe would be provided in leased space off-site. The result of these decisions, combinedwith new layouts for staff offices and fewersupport spaces generated a reduction in the spaceneeded on the new campus. There is just over4,000 m2 existing space at Gateway which willbe reduced to some 1,800 m2 including the off-campus production support warehouse (butexcluding any production space which will behired as needed).

Overall, even with planned growth in studentnumbers, the effect of this space modellingprocess and in particular, the impact of increasedutilisation assumptions, was to reduce the totalamount of teaching space on the new campus byover 25 per cent. The total amount of teachingspace is now around 8,265 m2, and this isprojected to reduce to some 5,963 m2.

Learning resource centre

Conversely, the college is proposing an increasein learning resource centre floorspace from 3,715 m2 in the existing estate to 4,442 m2 onthe new campus. It will consolidate all thelearning spaces in a central wing of the newacademic building. The learning resource centrecombines the library, academic computingservices and audio-visual services. The proposedspace allows for increasing proportions of non-contact time on courses.

In keeping with the campus philosophy, thebuilding is designed to be sustainable, with lowrunning and maintenance costs and to beadaptable in the future to allow for changes infunction and technology.


Office accommodation

Office accommodation is an area where spaceefficiencies are planned for the new campus. Atthe present time, QMUC has around 5,300 m2

of office space. In total, there are about 420 FTEoffice-based staff (academic and support), givingan average area per FTE of 12.6 m2, while theactual space per person is very variable. Thelayout and standard of offices vary across thethree sites, and office areas are difficult toremodel given the inflexibility of the existingbuildings. As a result, some people have agenerous allocation of space and others are verycramped. Most academic staff have their ownindividual offices.

Office provision has been one of the mostcontentious aspects of the design of the newcampus. In the early stages of the design process,different options were considered for new officelayouts. With growth in staff numbers, initialcalculations of total space needs based onindividual cellular offices generated a total officespace requirement that was greater than theamount of space now used as offices on theexisting sites. This was not affordable within thebudget available for the development, andalternative open plan, flexible spaces wereconsidered. These were also felt to support thetwin design philosophies of wanting toencourage academic integration and providespaces which could be easily adapted toaccommodate changes in the future.

There have been a lot of discussions with staffabout how the new types of office space couldwork in practice. A range of different scenarioswas developed for consultation. The final choiceis to have a layout where almost all officeaccommodation is provided in one wing of thebuilding which is separate from other uses, suchas teaching areas. Feedback from consultationsshowed that staff were keen to keep areas forconcentration and areas for collaborationseparate. The layout includes some quiet boothsfor concentrated study, meeting rooms andinformal meeting areas. Most of the office

workplaces will be provided in an open flexiblearea (over 300), although there will be a smallnumber of individual cellular offices (about 13).The great majority of staff will have their owndedicated desk with just a few people, mostlyvisiting lecturers, using hotdesking arrangements.

Space allocations vary in the new layout, but theaverage will be substantially less than in theexisting estate. Within the open plan flexiblespaces, the area per workplace will averagearound 6.5 m2. The area for the cellular officesis generally around 9.5 m2 per room. Meetingrooms are additional to this.

Versatility

QMUC recognised throughout the design stagesthat given the rate of change in higher education,it was very likely that the new campus buildingswould need to be adaptable. It sought to build inflexibility in terms of office staff layouts so thatnumbers could vary without structuralalterations being needed and in the way in whichthe main building could be extended if necessary.

A test of the concept of versatility has arisenalready with the late decision to bring the Schoolof Drama and Creative Industries based at theGateway site into the project after the scheduleof accommodation to provide for the relocationfrom Corstophine and Leith had been agreed andthe design for the building was complete. Thenecessary changes were achieved by extendingthe area of flexible office accommodation andadding the additional general purpose teachingdemand onto the stock of rooms already plannedand allowing for increase in the total area ofgeneral purpose space. Performance studios werelocated with sports facilities.

Sustainability

Sustainability, both environmental and financial,was an important concept in the design of thenew campus.

The long-term financial sustainability of thecampus was also important from the outset. Oneof the reasons that space efficiency was a critical


success factor was that the new estate needed tobe affordable not only in terms of its initialconstruction but also in the longer term.

Recurrent costs are likely to be lower as a resultof the planned reduction in the size of the estate.Other factors such as the energy efficient designof the campus will also play a role, but QMUCrecognises that there will not necessarily be areduction in the on-going costs per square metre.This is due to the fact that in the past 35 years,since the college first moved to Corstophine,expenditure on the estate has not always been atthe level needed to keep it fit for purpose and ingood condition. The plan for the future is tocontinue to use the estate efficiently and therebymaintain a higher level of income generation persquare metre, which in turn will support theinvestment needed to upgrade the estate on aregular basis.

The college has assessed its existing estate andthe new campus in the context of the SMGmodel for benchmarking the size of the non-residential net internal floor area (SMGModel of the Affordable Estate atwww.smg.ac.uk/the_model). The current estatehas 26,519 m2 of net internal non-residentialarea. The model predicts that on average, givenQMUC’s profile of drivers and current use ofspace management tools, it could have anestate 13 per cent smaller than its current one.If the college started space charging and had100 per cent of its teaching space centrallytimetabled, the predicted estate size using themodel falls to 17,581 m2. The model’sprediction is close to the planned size of thenew campus, of 18,379 m2.

Summarya. The new campus now under construction

has been planned to deliver a significantreduction in the total net internal non-residential area. It will have over 30 percent less space than the existing estatewhich is spread over three separate sites.This is very close to the initial targets setwhen the decision to relocate was made in1998. The area per FTE student will reduceby over 40 per cent.

b. The reduction in floor area will generate ahigher income per square metre, which inturn will help to support a financiallysustainable estate.

c. QMUC went through a detailed spacemodelling exercise to generate the predictedprofile of future space needs. This is stillbeing fine tuned. The college went back tofirst principles to assess how many hours ofteaching activity would be needed indifferent types of space at target levels ofutilisation. Such an approach is similar tothe method recommended by the LSC.

d. Projected increases in space utilisation are akey driver for achieving planned efficienciesin the provision of teaching space. Thetimetable will be central to the effectivedelivery of the predictions.

e. The current estate is highly inflexible, andthe need to build in versatility to thedesign of the building as a whole and tothe layout of individual spaces within wasviewed as vitally important from theoutset. The new building has already hadto change at a late stage in the designprocess with the decision to incorporatethe college’s third site into the relocationproject. So far, the QMUC project teambelieves that the design conceptsunderpinning the new campus are provingto be robust.



An impression of the new campus at Craighall

Table 1: Changes in space allocations at QMUC

This table shows how the college’s space is projected to change with the move to the new campus.

Current Proposed new Type of space estate (m2) campus (m2) Difference (m2) Difference (%)

Total NIA 26,519 18,379 -8,140 -30.7

Total GIA 33,046 24,165 -8,881 -26.9

NIA space per student FTE 7.9 4.5 -3.4 -43.0

GIA space per student FTE 9.7 5.9 -3.8 -39.2

Some space categories

Teaching 8,265 5,963 -2,302 -27.9

Learning resource centre 3,715 4,442 727 19.6

Offices 5,282 4,511 -771 -14.6

Case study 2


Versatile researchbuildings University of Newcastleupon Tyne

IntroductionThis case study is based on the University ofNewcastle upon Tyne’s recent experience ofplanning and managing two new researchbuildings: the Paul O’Gorman Building, whichprovides accommodation for the NorthernInstitute for Cancer Research; and theDevonshire Building, which houses the Institutefor Research on Environment and Sustainability(IRES), the Informatics Research Institute andthe E-Science Research Centre. Both buildingsprovide office and laboratory space.

The study is likely to be of interest to HEIsthinking about:

• creating more multi-disciplinary or genericresearch space which can be used by severaldifferent groups at the same time or bysuccessive groups

• how people working in the buildingsperceive the impact of their newenvironment on job satisfaction andresearch activity

• how to evaluate the effect of new workingenvironments on research output.

It begins with an outline of the university’s estatestrategy and space management policy which setthe context for both the Paul O’Gorman andDevonshire buildings and describes:

• the objectives and critical success factors foreach building

• the characteristics of the spaces that peoplehave moved from

• people’s perceptions of the effect of the newenvironments on research

• the perceptions of people working in thebuildings and their views on how the newspace matches or differs from theirexpectations.

Strategic context for the newbuildingsThe university wanted to secure an affordableestate which is financially sustainable in the longterm. The objective was to reduce the size of thenon-residential estate and to provide betterquality, fit for purpose space.

The overall target was to reduce existing grossinternal non-residential floorspace by over 10 per cent (some 35,000 m2) through adisposal/rationalisation programme. There wasthe recognition, however, that in some areas lossof poor quality space would be partly offset withnew fit for purpose accommodation capable ofbeing used more efficiently and effectively.

University space managementpolicyThe university first adopted a space managementpolicy in 2002. It has been applied widely acrossthe estate, including in the planning andmanagement of research buildings such as the PaulO’Gorman Building and the Devonshire Building.

The policy states that a series of criteria will betaken into account in making decisions on spaceallocation and investment across all types of space:

a. As a general rule, space is to be flexible,multi-user, shared, large, open plan andnon-specific to individuals or individualactivities as far as possible, in order to‘future proof’ the investment againstchange. This is more applicable and easilyachieved in new builds or majorrefurbishments, but even cellular spaceshould be shared wherever possible.

b. Space is to be shared both within, and ifappropriate, outside the university.

c. Users who demonstrate good spaceutilisation and long-term strategic thinkingin terms of space use will receive preferencewhen investment and space allocationdecisions are made.

d. Space objectives are to be critical successfactors for estate investment projects. Spaceefficiency should be an objective of newbuild developments.

In 2005, research space comprised 42 per cent ofall net usable non-residential floorspace acrossthe university. It is a strategic objective in thespace management policy to use research spacemore efficiently and effectively. For researchspace, the space management policy’s generalprinciples are:

a. Open plan space is preferred for purelyresearch space, to achieve integration and alively ‘buzz’. Where space is for sharedresearch and other academic use, althoughopen plan offices are preferred, sufficientquiet offices are needed to interviewstudents in private.

b. Laboratory space should not be convertedto other uses, such as office use, withoutcareful consideration, owing to theinvestment made in services.

c. Researchers should not hold duplicate spacein schools if they also have space in aninstitute, for example in the DevonshireBuilding.

d. Duplication of research facilities is to beavoided where they can be shared betweengroups or faculties.

e. Investment in new or refurbishedlaboratories should be directed towards thelargest and most flexible multi-user facilitiespossible to ensure that they remain fit forpurpose into the future.

f. Write-up/office space in research institutesmay not be required to be cellular anddedicated if staff/research students spendmost of their time in the lab. Open plan

hotdesk arrangements are more economicaland should be considered. Space for newresearch staff must be planned andresourced properly and in adequate time todesign and procure it.

g. The desire for the co-location of activitiesneeds to be justified and balanced by theadded value that will result. Diversity ofinteraction is required rather than a ‘silo’approach, and flexibility is required todeliver the research strategy.

The following sections discuss the PaulO’Gorman and Devonshire Buildings in turn.

The Paul O’Gorman BuildingThe Paul O’Gorman Building is a new researchfacility occupied by the Northern Institute forCancer Research. The building was designed byarchitects, Faulkner Brown. It was completedand first occupied in 2004. The opportunity toconsolidate and provide new space for the cancerresearch teams was made possible throughfunding from Science Research Investment Fund,Cancer Research UK and the Foundation forChildren with Leukaemia.

A series of critical success factors for thebuilding was identified at the design stage:

• the institute must aid and promote cross-group working to enable research to be ofworld class standards

• the institute must be recognised bygovernment, the medical profession and theMedical Research Council as well aspotential benefactors as a place for highquality medical research

• the building must encourage interactionwith the commercial world

• the building must be flexible in terms of itsstructure and services design to facilitateday to day changes in research groupconfiguration.

Previous accommodation

The building was designed to replace outdatedfacilities dispersed over separate locations.


People were working in cramped conditions inrooms which were often cold and with littlenatural light. Some of the space was extremelypoor in terms of condition and has since beendemolished.

In the old accommodation, each research teamhad its own individual laboratory. Some werelocated close together, and the research groups inthese had a history of collaborating and sharingexpertise and equipment. In other cases, teamswere used to operating independently.

Staff had their own allocated spaces in officesand write-up areas. Senior laboratory-based staffhad their desks in shared offices next to thelaboratory where their research team was based.Other laboratory-based staff had their ownindividual carrels at one end of the laboratories.

Ways of working in the Paul O’GormanBuilding

The building was designed to provide spaceswhich would be shared by different researchgroups in order to encourage an increasedawareness of each other’s work, an interchangeof ideas and sharing of expertise. The central

objective was to create large high quality sharedlaboratory space. Office and write-up space wasprovided as open plan areas, partly to encouragemixing between research groups and partly forspace efficiency reasons driven by the amount offunding available for the building.

It is a three-storey L-shaped building with a netinternal area of 2,235 m2. The ground floor ismostly made up of meeting rooms, the entranceand reception. The top two floors of the buildinghave research laboratories on one side and officeareas on the other. Laboratories and ancillaryspace account for 1,270 m2 of space within thebuilding. Office areas comprise 540 m2. Otheruses include a coffee area, meeting rooms andstorage. The number of occupants in the buildingvaries from time to time. It is currently around125 people.

There are two large laboratories on the first andsecond floor. These main laboratories are sharedbetween research groups. As groups expand orcontract, they can have more or less laboratoryspace without the need to reconfigure thebuilding. There are also smaller specialistlaboratory areas.


The Paul O’Gorman Building

Within the office areas, some desks are allocatedto senior research and administrative staff. Theyhave their own desks around the edges of anopen plan office area. They also have their ownset of storage drawers known as ‘knowledgelockers’ for all paperwork and a dedicatedlaptop computer for their use. In all, somewherearound 20 per cent of occupants have their owndesk.

The majority of laboratory-based staff sharewrite-up desks in open plan office areas. Theyhave a single drawer in a knowledge lockerwhich is on the same floor as the laboratory inwhich they work and close to their research teamleader. They can use any write-up desk.Additional storage is provided off-site. As withthe laboratories, the office areas do not need tobe reconfigured as individual research groupsgrow or contract.

Meeting rooms are provided for discussions.There are several large meeting rooms on theground floor, one of which is also a coffee area.There are also small meeting rooms within theoffice areas, which are intended to providespaces for people to move into when they wantto have a confidential conversation or adiscussion without disturbing other people.

As yet, there is no written space managementpolicy for the building, although the open planareas need active management. There is a notalking rule within the office areas to minimisedisturbance, and write-up areas should becleared at the end of each session.

Occupier perceptions

An occupier perceptions survey of the newbuilding was carried out by Mary Lou Downieand Peter Fisher from Northumbria Universityand SEA Consultants2. It provides an insight intowhat people thought the new building was goingto be like before they moved in and how theyactually found it once they occupied the new

space. It also provides information on howpeople feel the new environment affects researchand what they think about the different types ofspace within the building.

A sample of staff was interviewed before andafter moving into the building, followed by aquestionnaire of all staff a year after the move.There was a 73 per cent response rate to thesurvey covering a range of different jobcategories, including management, researchers,students, support staff and technicians.

The study set out to explore the relationshipbetween new working practices and the type ofspace provided, and to consider the impact thishas on research success. It explored questionssuch as:

• how do shared laboratories contribute to orimpede research?

• how do research staff use open plan officeareas?

• how do research staff use hotdesk facilities?

• how does the nature of the work influencestaff perceptions of the space’s suitability?

When the interviews were carried out beforepeople moved into the building, there was someanxiety about how the new office and write-upareas would work. People were moving fromprivate working areas into open plan spaces, andin many cases, they would no longer have theirown desks. Some people did not want to move.Interviews at this stage found that staff had lowexpectations of their current workingenvironment. Their priorities were commitmentto their research and team cooperation, and theyexpressed little dissatisfaction with the quality oftheir accommodation, even though in some casesit was very poor, as it was cramped and had littlenatural light.

Despite the concerns about how the new spacewould work, a year after the move, the


2 ‘The Paul O’Gorman Building, The Northern Institute of Cancer Research, Occupier PerceptionsSurvey’, M L Downie and P S Fisher, School of the Built Environment, Northumbria University andDr C A Rose, SEA Consultants, January 2006

conclusion from the occupier perceptions surveywas that it was a highly successful building interms of occupier satisfaction. Some of thedetailed findings are set out below.

Perceptions about the building’s contributionto research

There was strong support for the idea that themove had increased people’s research networksand the majority of occupiers surveyed thoughtthe building had helped them to make new linksand generate new research ideas. However, themost significant factor was considered to be thefact that the building brought previouslydispersed groups together under one roof, ratherthan the particular characteristics of the newspace.

Just over half of respondents believed thebuilding helped to retain staff, and two-thirdsfelt that it contributed to their job satisfaction.

Perceptions of working in the laboratories

The new building provided for laboratories to beshared by research teams which had previouslyhad their own separate laboratories. The surveyfound that 65 per cent of respondents agreedthat bringing together different research groupsin large shared laboratories works well.

The survey asked occupiers questions about themain laboratories and the specialist laboratoryareas. Just over 50 per cent of respondentsagreed that the main laboratories helped them todo better research. Most of the rest were neutralon the issue. There was strong support for therange of facilities and the working environmentin the specialist laboratories.

The characteristics that people liked most aboutworking in the laboratories were the level ofnatural light, the amount of workspace andaccess to the right equipment. Very fewsuggestions were made for improvements to thelaboratories. Those that were made focused onstorage issues.

Perceptions about the office and write-upareas

Before moving into the building a large numberof people had expressed reservations about howthe open plan offices and shared write-up areaswould work. A year after occupation, the surveyfound that two-thirds of respondents felt that theoffice areas met their needs, with one-fifthdisagreeing and the rest remaining neutral.

People working in the building were splitbetween those who found the new officearrangements conducive to concentration (45 percent) and those who did not (34 per cent).Although most people agreed that there was co-operation to keep noise to a low level, there werestill concerns from some about disturbance frompeople moving about the building and fromother people’s telephone conversations.Conversely, others found it hard to concentrate,because it was too quiet. In some cases, adistinction was made between the levels ofconcentration needed for writing up papers andtheses and for more routine laboratory work.

Among people who used the hotdesks, the surveyfound that one in five always used the same deskand one in three usually did so. The mainreasons for choosing a particular desk were firstof all, proximity to their laboratory, and then tofriends and colleagues.

Overall, the majority of respondents consideredthe allocation of desks and the use of write-upareas to be well-managed, although somedissatisfaction was expressed. Some peoplereported that moving desks and paperworkregularly was disruptive, and others wereconcerned that it was inappropriate that anumber of desks were always taken by the samepeople. They felt that there should be a stricterpolicy to prevent this.


Perceptions about meeting rooms and otherspaces

The survey found concerns about the adequacy ofsmall meeting rooms within office areas to meetthe needs of people for short discussions andmeetings. They were conscious of inadequatesound proofing, which was a problem for thepeople using the meeting rooms and for theoccupants of the adjacent office areas.

The coffee room, which is also used as a meetingroom, was intended to provide a space for workand social interaction, but little evidence wasfound from the survey that this space is felt tohelp with the exchange of research ideas.

Other perceptions

Respondents’ views on a range of issuesassociated with working in the new building aresummarised below.

In addition, the view of the director of theinstitute is that both internally and externally thebuilding has a positive impact on how theinstitute is perceived by people from outside, andthat it promotes the reputation of the institute.

The Devonshire BuildingThe Devonshire Building houses IRES, theInformatics Research Institute and the E-ScienceResearch Centre. It was designed by architects,Dewjoc, and was first occupied in 2004. Sincethen, it has won many awards including theRoyal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)award for sustainability and for building of theyear, a Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA) award and a BRE EnvironmentalAssessment Method (BREEAM) award.

It shares a number of characteristics with thePaul O’Gorman Building in that it was designedto bring researchers together and to create anenvironment where different research groupscould share similar types of space which wouldbe flexible enough to accommodate changes inthe size and composition of research teams.


Views of people working in the Paul O’Gorman Building

General building issues Summary of responses

‘The building‘s open plan layout helps me to 55% agreed with the statement, 15% disagreed and 29%get to know people.’ were neutral.

‘The lack of privacy concerns me.’ 25% disagreed, with the balance split between those who agreed that it was a concern and those who were neutral.

‘I feel safe in the building.’ 92% agreed, one person disagreed and the remainderwere neutral.

‘The building is flexible and can 15% disagreed, with others split between those who accommodate change.’ agreed that it was flexible and those who were neutral.

‘The good quality environment helps attract Just over 50% agreed, less than 10% disagreed and theand retain staff.’ remainder were neutral.

‘The building contributes positively to my Two-thirds agreed, less than 10% disagreed and the restjob satisfaction.’ were neutral on the issue.

Data provided by the ‘Occupier Perceptions Survey’ by M.L. Downie and P.S. Fisher of the School of the Built Environment,Northumbria University and C.A. Rose of SEA Consultants, January 2006.

There are also differences. The people who movedinto the Devonshire Building came from a muchwider range of backgrounds. It brought togetherpeople from different schools and subject areasacross traditional sciences, e-science and socialscience. They were based in numerous locationsacross the university. In some cases, it was one ortwo people from a department, whereas in others,such as biology, large groups relocated, whichfreed up substantial areas of poor quality

accommodation which in turn would permitscope for rationalisation and disposal.

The number of people working in the buildingfluctuates. There are currently around 150 whouse the building as their primary workplace withmore people using it from time to time on ahotdesking basis.

Objectives and critical success factors

The Devonshire Building was designed tofacilitate cross-disciplinary working and delivercultural change in the way that research isundertaken. It was based on the philosophy thatphysically bringing people together in placeswhere they can share and exchange ideas wouldfoster creativity and communication. In turn,such interaction would improve research. Theuniversity already had a strong reputation inenvironmental research across a number ofschools. The intention was to create a criticalmass of research staff engaged in this area withina single building.

During the design stage, a series of criticalsuccess factors was defined through workshopsand interviews with key stakeholders.


The Devonshire Building

Critical success factors identified at the design stage

Cultural change The building must facilitate cross-disciplinary working and enable cultural change resulting in improvedresearch output. The building must act as a hub with spokes reaching out into faculties.

Research output The building must result in the creation/winning of new research initiatives and projects i.e. additionalresearch grants. Facilitated by the building, less experienced staff must develop and improve theirprofile/research experience.

Flexibility The building must be flexible in terms of its structure and services i.e. able to be reconfigured quicklyand cost effectively to meet changes in future user requirements.

Image The building must enhance the university’s campus and create a good image to industry and the public.

Operational The building must represent good space management. Space utilisation across the university must notbe adversely affected by the building i.e. users must not operate two offices or laboratories – theremust be no unnecessary duplication of facilities.

Research output The building must be recognised by government and industry as a place for high qualityenvironmental/e-science research. The building must encourage interaction with the commercial world.

Environmental The building needs to be demonstrably ‘green’ i.e. meet best practice in environmental standards.

Extendibility The building should interface appropriately with the rest of the development site as well as the existingbuildings around it, as a further building is intended to be developed on the site at some time.

Composition of the building

The building provides 3,290 m2 of net internalnon-residential floorspace arranged over sixfloors around a central atrium. The ground floorhas the main reception, a management suite,conference centre, virtual reality centre and café.This floor was designed to encourage strongerlinks with business.

On the upper floors, there are open plan officeareas on the south side of the building andmodular laboratories on the north side. Theoffice areas were designed for hotdesking. Intotal, there is some 1,230 m2 of laboratoryspace, 900 m2 of office area and nearly 400 m2

of meeting and conference rooms. On each ofthe upper four floors there are six single officeswith areas of around 7-8 m2, and a smallnumber of pod offices which can be shared bygroups, but almost all the office area is openplan. There are 40 open plan desks per floorwithin areas of around 160 m2.

Ways of working in the Devonshire Building

A separate space management policy wasdeveloped for the Devonshire Building which is inAnnex 1. The policy sets out the research visionand occupancy plan as well as the spacemanagement principles to be applied in thebuilding. Researchers wishing to occupy thebuilding must satisfy criteria relating to evidence ofresearch excellence, and continued occupation willbe linked to annual reviews of research outcomes.

The policy emphasises that the integrity of theopen plan design is to be maintained with noalterations to be carried out to create morecellular offices. It also states that multiple officeswill not be allowed, in terms of staff having anallocated office space in the Devonshire Buildingas well as an office in their school. If they wishto retain their school office, they must hotdeskwhen they work in the Devonshire Building.

Occupier perceptions

A study of occupier perceptions of theDevonshire Building based on a postalquestionnaire sent to all users of the buildingwas commissioned by the university’s director ofestates and conducted by a team from theuniversity’s School of Architecture, Planning andLandscape assisted by Mary Lou Downie fromthe University of Northumbria3. Its aim was toassess how the critical success factors which hadbeen set at the beginning of the project werebeing achieved. There was a 32 per cent responserate to the questionnaire.

The study was carried out within a year of firstoccupation. As such, the findings were thereforerecognised as being an interim result and thatperceptions may continue to change withincreased length of occupation of the buildingand as its management evolves. It focused onassessing people’s reactions to the building as aplace to work and how these were changing asthe project was developing. In particular, thestudy looked at:

• whether people liked open plan spaces

• whether people preferred the new buildingor their previous accommodation

• whether occupants felt that the building hador would facilitate:

- interaction between disciplines

- new research

- new collaborations

- additional research proposals

- more effective use of resources andequipment through shared access

- more pooling of finance to buyequipment

- better productivity.


3 Devonshire Building, User Perspective Survey, University ofNewcastle Upon Tyne March 2005

The study concluded that there was positivemovement towards achieving the critical successfactors, but that some aspects of the workingenvironment, such as hotdesking and noiselevels, needed careful management to enable it tofulfil more of its potential. When asked whatthings people liked best about the new building,the most common answers were good lighting,lots of other disciplines occupying the space andit being an environmentally friendly space.Among the unpopular aspects were noise, lack ofstorage space and privacy. The other findingswere as follows.

Perceptions about the building’s contributionto the research profile

There was agreement among a majority ofrespondents that their network of researchcontacts had increased, but this varied betweendifferent categories of staff. There was strongeragreement from academic staff and techniciansthan from researchers, while PhD students didnot think that their networks had increased.

There was also general agreement that thebuilding has a high profile and that it enhancesthe university’s campus. The majority agreed thatthe building has great potential to create a multi-disciplinary culture and to be an exciting placeto work. Most respondents were proud to beassociated with it but were uncertain that itmade a contribution to their research activities.

Perceptions of the laboratories

Most respondents preferred to use a laboratoryspace designated for their group and did notthink that using laboratories on each floor wouldhelp them to make new research contacts. Therewas agreement that there should be more sharingof research equipment.

Perceptions about the office areas

Most respondents worked in the open plan officeareas. In general, the longer respondents hadbeen in the building, the more positive they were

about the office working environment. Themajority considered desk space and space formeetings to be adequate, but there was somedissatisfaction about levels of noise and lack ofpersonal storage space and privacy. Hotdeskingwas generally unpopular and where possiblepeople liked to use the same desk in thehotdesking areas.

Summarya. Both the Paul O’Gorman and Devonshire

Buildings have created new types ofworking and research environments withinthe university.

b. Similar objectives and critical success factorswere defined for each building at the designstage. They included promoting multi-disciplinary, integrated research, fosteringsuccess in winning research funding, andcreating flexible buildings which couldrespond to future change.

c. Occupier perceptions surveys were carriedout to seek the views of people working inthe buildings. It is recognised that views arelikely to continue to evolve, and as such thesurveys give a snapshot of ‘work inprogress’. Nevertheless, they have beenvaluable in providing insight into people’sthoughts about how the buildings work andthe effect they think it has on their research.It has also been helpful to get feedbackfrom a cross section of users, rather thanjust managers or the design team.Information from surveys such as these canhelp to inform future projects and spacemanagement methods.

d. In both cases, the surveys found that themajority of people agreed that it hadincreased their research contacts and thatthe buildings enhanced the researchreputation and profile of their institutes. Butthey were less certain that there had been animpact on research activities.


e. Indeed, it is difficult to get any firmevidence of a link between the newbuildings and research funding. Partly, thisis because it is still quite early days, but alsobecause there is a range of variablesaffecting the receipt of funding, many ofwhich depend on factors which are not onlyexternal to the building but to theuniversity.

f. The buildings were planned in the contextof the university’s estate strategy. The linkto the strategy is easier to track with thePaul O’Gorman Building since it wasalways a more self-contained project. It metthe objective of vacating poor quality space,some of which has been demolished, andconsolidating into new fit for purposespace. With the Devonshire Building, peoplemoved from a wide range of locations, oftenfrom small pockets of space within muchlarger buildings. In many of these cases,scope for rationalisation can only berealised in the longer term.

g. Both buildings have followed the principlesof the university’s space management policy,and an additional policy has been developedfor the Devonshire Building. It has beenfound that the more shared space that iscreated; the more important it is to have anactive policy to manage the shared space.

h. In addition, the process of introducingchanges in the type of working environmentis almost as important as the new type ofspace that is provided.

i. Both buildings required local administrativeresource to help manage them.


Other 9%

Vacant 8%

Other support 9%

Offices 31% Library 9%

Core research 2%

Core teaching 32%

Case study 3


Promotingeffective utilisationSheffield Hallam University

IntroductionThis case study looks at space managementmethods at Sheffield Hallam University. Itfocuses on space charging and how spaceutilisation data are collected and used to planand manage space.

The case study is likely to be relevant to HEIsinterested in:

• using space charging as a spacemanagement tool

• encouraging effective utilisation of teachingspace

• ways of collecting utilisation data

• using utilisation data as a tool for assessingspace needs.

In order to set the context for the discussion ofspace management methods, the case studybegins by outlining some key statistics about theuniversity and its estate, and it describes how theuniversity adopted a strategy of rationalisation,reinvestment and renewal across the estate.

Overview Sheffield Hallam is a large university. It hasnearly 22,000 student FTEs and 2,700 FTE staffbased on campus. The university has an annualturnover of around £150 million. It is based onthree sites: the City campus in Sheffield citycentre; the Collegiate campus in the suburbs; anda smaller site in the city at Psalter Lane.

The non-residential estate has a gross internalarea of 157,490 m2 and a net internal area of112,707 m2 (as at 2005). The proportions ofdifferent types of space are shown in Figure 3.The proportion of vacant space includes spaceawaiting refurbishment.

Figure 3: Estate profile by space type

Information from the 2006 Estate ManagementStatistics (EMS) Report shows that SheffieldHallam’s income per square metre at £1,280 isnearly 15 per cent above the median of £1,116.It has 5.2 m2 of net internal area per studentFTE compared with a sector median of 8 m2, anaverage of 9.6 m2 and lower quartile of 5.8 m2.The core teaching area per taught student FTE is1.7 m2. The sector median is 2.7 m2, the averageis 3.6 m2,and the lower quartile is 2.1 m2.

The SMG model can be used to compare the sizeof the university’s estate with what might bepredicted on average given factors such as itsincome, the size and composition of the studentbody, its location, how much core teaching spaceis centrally timetabled and whether or not itcharges for space. Sheffield Hallam currentlycentrally timetables around 30 per cent of itsteaching space and it operates a comprehensivespace charging system. The results from themodel indicate that the university hassubstantially less space than might be predictedgiven its current use of space management tools.In particular, the amount of core teaching spaceand research space are less than predicted.

Table 2 sets out summary utilisationinformation. Sheffield Hallam’s space utilisationratios are all based on surveyed use rather thanplanned or timetabled use.

BackgroundThe university has pursued a strategy of estaterationalisation for over 10 years. Onincorporation in 1992, Sheffield Hallaminherited a mixed property portfolio. Much of itwas in poor condition. Some was historic, andpart was leased with some of the highest rentspaid in Sheffield. In total, there were around120,000 m2 of net internal non-residential spaceover five sites. The academic vision was toincrease student numbers and to provide arobust breadth of course provision. Majorrestructuring was planned to change from 26departments to 12 schools.

Estate strategyThe university formulated its first estate strategyand looked at whether it would be cost effectiveto move everything to the Don Valley. Otheroptions were either to focus on a few campusesin the city or to spread out across a number ofsmaller sites. The decision was made toconcentrate on a small number of city-basedcampuses. Total relocation was an attractiveoption but ruled out because it wasunaffordable.

Some of the university’s governing body andsenior management had first hand experience ofhow problems in heavy industry in the region


Table 2: Sheffield Hallam’s utilisation ratios compared to the sector

Teaching space Sheffield Hallam Sector lower Sector median Sector upper utilisation ratios (%) quartile (%) (%) quartile (%)

Utilisation rate 37 19 26 36

Frequency rate 59 47 54 64

Occupancy rate 62 41 49 63

Proportion of core 80 25 80 83teaching space to which rates apply

Source: EMS Report 2006

had resulted from lack of investment andforward thinking. They did not want to see thepattern repeated in higher education. Theirobjective was for the university to have aprogramme of reinvestment in infrastructure,and to make sure that the investment would beable to deliver the type of higher educationneeded in the future. As such, it was not just amatter of updating and modernising, but ofdeciding what higher education should be like inthe future and how best the vision of growthcould be achieved. This included a hard look atwhat should be taught and how it should bedelivered. This had important implications forthe estate, not only in terms of the amount ofspace that was available, but also its quality,fitness for purpose and flexibility.

Reviewing space needsThe next step was to work through the spaceneeds of the restructured schools and assess whatwould be required to accommodate the plannedgrowth. This was done through a detaileddialogue with the schools.

It soon became apparent that each schoolwanted to grow and to have improved facilities.In order to meet everyone’s aspirations, theuniversity would have doubled in size. This wasnot viable. There had to be a rethink. Theuniversity went back to first principles to findwhat the schools really needed, as opposed towhat they wanted, to deliver their teaching andresearch. This was detailed work. The startingpoint was collecting data on the amount andcomposition of the space that schools wereoccupying as well as timetabling and utilisationinformation. It also involved getting informationon what courses consisted of in terms ofnumbers of hours of teaching and other activitiesand what types of facilities were required.

A key source of information was course validationmaterial. This provided the basis for discussionswith staff which covered what type of studentexperience the university wanted to provide andhow methods of delivery might change in thefuture, and in turn how this might have an impacton amount and type of accommodation.

Example: the School of Engineering

The School of Engineering is an example of howthis approach was taken forward. It was one of theearliest major projects. The objective was to bringtogether two engineering groups which were inseparate buildings on the same site. Initialdiscussions about what would be needed in aconsolidated location suggested that the amount ofspace would have to increase very substantially.Not only was this unaffordable, but staff also hadwidely differing expectations, for example in termsof office accommodation. It was difficult to getsome to take a broader view of what engineeringneeded as a whole rather than concentratingseparately on individual areas of activity.

The university decided that the way forward wasto talk to academic and administrative staff toidentify what was wrong with their existingspace, what worked well and whether there wereaspects of poor practice hampering the way spacewas used. Were custom and practice leading tomissed opportunities for using space effectively?

A lot of the discussion centred on the way thatspecialist space was used. Much of this spacecontained large pieces of equipment. Coursevalidation material showed that teachingpractices were changing. Different engineeringcourses varied, but in general, the number oftaught hours per week was falling. The mainimpact was on hours of teaching in specialistfacilities. These findings were reinforced by theresults of utilisation surveys, which revealed thatlarge areas of specialist space were not oftenused. There was also a need to incorporatecomputer taught elements in courses and newtechnological developments which were replacingmore traditional styles of teaching. Theutilisation data together with information on thetype and numbers of hours of teaching to bedelivered provided the basis for a review ofwhether facilities were essential, or whethersome of the teaching activities and equipmentcould be relocated to share space with otheruses. Where some types of specialist space wereused very infrequently, there was a discussion ofwhether staff and students could use alternativeoff-campus facilities.


This exercise helped build a profile of space needsfor engineering in the consolidated location.Wherever possible, large multi-functional spaceswere provided, with glass panels in the walls withthe corridors. The main purpose of the glasspanels was to make the process of teaching andlearning more open and visible, but it also hadthe benefit of making the rooms easier tomanage. Engineering experienced a markedincrease in recruitment following the opening ofthe new facilities, and in general the feedbackfrom students about the accommodation wasenthusiastic. Overall, there was a reduction of 40 per cent in the space occupied.

This approach has been applied widely to otherprojects across the university. The university’sstrategy of progressively renewing and upgradingspace is implemented chiefly through a series ofproject boards. These are usually led by a pro-vicechancellor with membership drawn fromacademic, finance and facilities staff. The objectiveis to have an open process working through whatspace is needed and whether it is affordable.

The process is supported by the availability ofrobust information on the performance of space,including extensive space utilisation data, andthrough a full awareness of the costs of spacedriven by the space charging system. Spacecharging and the role of space utilisation arediscussed in turn below.

Space chargingSpace charging has been in operation at SheffieldHallam for nine years. It is a key spacemanagement tool for the university. Itencourages academic schools and departments tothink carefully about how much space they need.The cost of space forms part of annual businessplan discussions. When members of staffconsider new initiatives, they can build theprojected space costs into the business case anddecide whether or not it will be financiallyfeasible; if not, the facilities directorate can workwith them to look at alternative solutions whichcould be affordable.

The charge is calculated annually as a total costwhich covers:

• the actual operating costs

• a sinking fund for renewal and replacement(depreciation)

• debt repayments.

For 2005-06, the three components amounted on average to £150 per m2 of net internal non-residential area.

There is a weighting according to type of space.The categories represent different capital andrunning costs:

• general purpose teaching rooms

• offices

• ‘light’ laboratories

• ‘heavy’ laboratories

• teaching kitchens.

The charge levied is also weighted by campus toreflect the average quality of space in eachlocation. The charge for space at the City campusis 100 per cent. It is 95 per cent at Collegiatecampus, and 90 per cent at Psalter Lane.

The charge is levied at a departmental level.Departments are charged for all the space theyhave, for example for departmental offices andspecialist teaching space. There are no discountsfor bad fit: nor are there premiums for newbuildings. They are also charged for their shareof central space. The charge for central space ismade using a series of drivers. For example, thecosts of the learning resources centre are chargedon the basis of the number of student FTEs bydepartment. The costs of central administrativefunctions, such as human resources, areapportioned by the numbers of staff in eachdepartment, and the charge for pooled teachingspace is done on the amount of time the space isbooked (not used) by departments.

Annually, each department is provided withdetails of how much space they occupy and whatthe charge will be for the coming year. Ifdepartments have a need to review their space tomeet changing academic requirements, this isgenerally assessed as part of the annual businessplanning cycle and is a matter for negotiation.Data from utilisation surveys are taken into


account in considering requests. Space that isreturned to the university must either be suitablefor an alternative use or capable of beingmothballed without having an impact on otherareas. Occasionally, when space is left vacant asa result of this process, it is then no longercharged to the department which vacated it.Instead, its costs become part of the overheadwhich is recharged across the university.

Space charging is also linked to delegated budgetmanagement and the cost of space is anoverhead like staff salaries and linked to incomefrom students, research and consultancy. Asignificant effect has been the way that staffreview space held against needs and actively planto make better use of the resource. A key impacthas been a more responsible and proactiveapproach to the business portfolio. New businessstreams will often be weighed up against spaceand staff costs to review viability and impact.Space charging, along with the briefing process,has led to an increase in the amount of flexiblespace across the institution.

Space utilisationThe university uses space utilisation data toinform space management and allocation and tohelp to plan space needs for new projects.

Method

The university has collected utilisation data forover 10 years. Over that time, there has been anincrease in the number of rooms audited. Now, itregularly collects data on over 500 rooms. Allpooled teaching rooms and most specialistteaching space are audited. Rooms are added asrequested by departments. Offices have beensurveyed occasionally, but they are not done on aregular basis. The learning resources centre is notincluded, since its use is monitored and reportedon as part of the collection of the Society ofCollege, National and University Libraries’(SCONUL’s) annual statistics.

Surveys are carried out very frequently. In thefirst semester of 2005-06, a total of 557 roomswere surveyed and some 95,000 checks weremade 0900-1700 Mondays to Fridays. This is anaverage of over four weeks’ data for each room,although in practice some rooms were surveyedmore often than others. On the City campus,some data were collected nearly every week.Audits took place over seven weeks at theCollegiate campus and over a one-week period atPsalter Lane. A breakdown of the scope of datacollection over the semester is given in Table 3.

The university finds that collecting the data sofrequently builds up a clear picture of how space


Table 3: Breakdown of data collected by Sheffield Hallam

Possible Type of No. of No. of Days Weeks number %

Campus space rooms checks audited audited of checks achieved

CityPool 111 24,286 55 11 48,840 49.7

Specialist 165 33,736 72,600 46.5

City totals 276 58,022 121,440 47.8

CollegiatePool 70 14,725 36 10 20,160 73.0

Specialist 88 19,258 25,344 76.9

Collegiate totals 158 33,983 45,504 74.7

PsalterPool 4 99 5 1 160 61.9

Specialist 119 3,060 4,760 64.3

Psalter totals 123 3,159 4,920 64.2

Grand totals Pool 185 39,110 69,160 56.6

Specialist 372 56,054 102,704 54.6

Overall 557 95,164 171,864 55.4

Source: Sheffield Hallam University Room Use Audit Report Semester One 2005-06

is being used. It also helps to avoid the argumentthat the week selected for the audit isunrepresentative for some reason.

The surveys are organised by the facilitiesdirectorate. Students are employed as surveyors.The university has switched from a paper basedsystem of recording the results to using handheldcomputers and downloading the data into adatabase for analysis.

Using utilisation data for space managementand planning

The facilities directorate produces a detailed,factual report on the results each semester. Theresults are made available to all departments,and they are now provided electronically so thatthey can be used interactively. A new timetablingsystem, to be introduced shortly, should alsoallow for improved data comparisons.

The information can also be presented visually,which provides a useful way of highlightingdifferences between areas of relatively high andlow utilisation. It shows the different sizes ofrooms and the patterns of utilisation rates withinbuildings. Figure 4 illustrates an example taken

from the Health Building. It shows which roomswere covered by the audit and the relative ratesof utilisation recorded in them.

The facilities directorate considers that theinvestment in collecting utilisation data has beenwell repaid by the insight it gives into how spaceis being used across the university and the waythat patterns of use change over time. The datahelp to show the effect of changes in teachingand learning practice. In some departments,student numbers have gone up, but utilisationlevels have gone down, reflecting reductions inclass contact time. In other instances, rooms arefound to be in use at times when they are nottimetabled, often by students engaged in self-directed learning.

When requests are made for additional space, thedata provide a benchmark for evaluation. Theyenable ‘what if’ scenarios to be developed whereschools have initiatives for growth and a keyquestion is whether or not that growth can beaccommodated in existing space. Back in 1999,the university avoided replacing 25 rooms in aleased building after analysing utilisation dataand setting targets for increased utilisation. As


Figure 4: Health Building utilisation rates

Below 30%

30-49%

50-69%

70% and over

student numbers have grown in some parts ofthe university, there have been requests forcorresponding increases in space, particularlyspecialist space. By tracking the actual patternsand intensity of use of facilities, however,utilisation data have demonstrated that theseperceptions may not be borne out. In anotherexample, a request was made from thearchitecture department for an additional 400 m2 of specialist space. The utilisation datawere used to inform changes to the timetable,and it was found that it would be possible tomeet the department’s needs without increasingthe amount of space and the corresponding spacecharge.

There is also an important link with timetabling.The semester reports include information on theuse of pooled rooms by school. Survey resultsare compared with the predicted use from thetimetable to identify the scale and pattern ofdifferences. The information can be fed back totimetablers to assist in planning the timetable.This helps to minimise the gap betweentimetabled and observed use. The gap betweenthe two rates is usually less than 10 per cent.

Summarya. Sheffield Hallam University has a

longstanding strategy of rationalisation,reinvestment and renewal of its estate.

b. Space charging was introduced as a strongincentive to encourage effective use ofspace.

c. There is a regular dialogue between thefacilities directorate and departments abouttheir space and how teaching and learningpatterns are changing the types of spacewhich are needed. This is informed by thedetailed and up-to-date information onutilisation collected on a regular basis.

d. The space charging system means thatdepartments are very interested in knowingthe detailed results of utilisation surveys asthese help them to decide if there is spacethey no longer need and, as a corollary, donot wish to be charged for.

e. The volume of utilisation information whichis collected provides a robust and rollingpicture of how space is being used. In turn,this means that it is generally trusted andrarely disputed.

f. The information forms an essential part ofthe briefing process for projects and thebasis for a review and dialogue about thesuitability of space for specific purposes.

g. When new academic initiatives are plannedor departments request additional space, theproposals are evaluated to see if they areaffordable in terms of the cost of space.They are also reviewed in the context ofutilisation data and timetabled use toexplore the scope for consolidating existingspace without compromising academicquality.


Annex 1: The Devonshire Buildingspace management policyThe university has an adopted spacemanagement policy which provides the contextfor the space management of the EnvironmentalResearch Institute in the Devonshire Building.However the institute has particularcircumstances pertaining to the way its researchis to be managed, which are reflected in thedesign and layout of the building and require itto have its own space management policy andmeans of space allocation and review.

1. Research vision and occupancy plan

Separate documents set out the terms ofreference for the institute as a centre ofexcellence both in its research activities and as ahub of high quality facilities to support spokes ofresearch elsewhere. The vision is that thebuilding is occupied on a project basis byresearch groups led by individuals who haveRAE grade 5 and 5* ability, operating at thehighest international level. The rationale behindthe concept is one of cultural change andcreating a new collaborative way of working. Itis not therefore to be used as a decant buildingto re-house groups or in order to facilitate moveselsewhere. The focus must always be on qualityof research activity.

Researchers wishing to occupy the building mustsatisfy certain criteria. A business case approachwill be taken to assessing eligibility. This mustdemonstrate evidence of research excellence(with scientific validation) and willingness toengage with the scientific research vision of theinstitute, including commitment to itscollaborative atmosphere and space managementprinciples. Research outcomes will be reviewedannually by the Faculty of Science, Agricultureand Engineering) and continued occupation willbe linked to on-going excellent research projects.

2. Space management principles

The management of the space in the building iskey to the institute’s success as it will be used asa control to achieve the scientific researchobjectives. It is suggested that a group acts as

gatekeeper to allocate and review spaceoccupation and enforce the following principles.

The integrity of the open plan design is to bemaintained, with no alterations to be carried outeither to existing cellular offices or to create morecellular offices. The environmentally friendlyaspects of the building are to be maintained.

Only core research staff leading research groupswill be allocated cellular offices.

Lead research staff allocated cellular offices mustgive up their offices in schools. Multiple officeswill not be allowed. If the researcher wishes toretain an office elsewhere, then they musthotdesk in the institute. Schools must undertaketo find an office for the researcher as and whentheir project is completed and they need toreturn to the school.

Research teams will occupy open plan offices andshared laboratories. ‘Hot labs’ will house 16individuals per floor while there are 40 open plandesk spaces per floor. As an example of how thiswill work, in any one group of say 10-15individuals at any one time it is envisaged that five-to-six may be working on experiments and the restmay be checking data or working in the office.

Staff will be able to continue to occupy thebuilding while they have productive researchprojects as assessed in the annual review.

A clean desk policy will be operated forhotdesks. Staff will be randomly co-located tomaximise research collaboration possibilities.

The meeting room and pods will be used formeetings to minimise disruption to others inopen plan offices. There will be one meeting podper floor.

Staff personal storage is envisaged to be lockablecupboards with perspex doors to encourageactive management of possessions.

3. Space allocation and review group

This is suggested to be:

• the Director of the Environmental ResearchInstitute

• the Director of Estates

• the Director of Business Development.


The group will be responsible for approvinginitial space allocation on a business case basisagainst clear criteria and also for annual androlling review of continuing occupation. It willbe supported in its annual review by the annualfaculty review of research outputs. The rollingreview will consider the status of groups ascurrent projects come to an end and decide onthe position with regard to continuingoccupation, with reference to the academicprojects plan as set out by the institute’smanagement and strategy board.

4. Occupation criteria

• group leaders to be of RAE Grade 5 or 5*ability

• group members may be RAE Grade 4 if ledby 5/5*

• independent scientific validation of researchexcellence is required

• a business case must be made foroccupation of institute space

• projects must accord with the institute’sscience vision and business plan

• projects must be financially viable

• researchers must be willing to engage withthe collaborative ethos of the institute andabide by its space management principlesand policy.


Documents

Contoh Project