Space and strategy – the big picture 30 April 2012 Sam Williams Space Planning & Strategy Manager and Jayne Bannis

1. Space and strategy – the big picture 30 April 2012 Sam WilliamsSpace Planning & Strategy Manager and Jayne BannisterSpace Planning Officer

2. Contents • Space planning at Lincoln • Learning Landscapes – the four Es • Efficiency – making it all fit in • Effectiveness – making it all fit for purpose • Expression – the idea of the University of Lincoln • Experience – benefiting students and staff • The campus as a network of places • Getting there: human-scale interventions • Low cost, high impact: specific proposals

3. Space planning at Lincoln

4. Strategic objectives To continuously improve our learning environment based on personal engagement with all students through quality research-engaged teaching and learning where students create and develop new knowledge in collaboration with their lecturers To promote an internationalised culture of enterprise and innovation across our communities - locally, regionally and internationally, working closely with employers To develop and promote purposeful knowledge and research and develop innovative practices working to support the changing environment To help students develop into highly engaged, employable and creative-thinking graduates who contribute to the development of the society and economy To create a financial environment to allow us to invest in our future

5. Space Planning & Strategy team mission: Optimise the University’s space in support of the University’s objectives

6. Key parameters for space planning • Availability – how much space, or more correctly how much capacity, is optimal, and how much exists? • Quality – how efficient, effective and expressive are the spaces? • Utilisation – how, when, why, by whom, and to what extent are the spaces theoretically and actually used? • Impacts – what are the strategic benefits, costs, and other results which flow from the spaces?

7. Institutional competencies for space planning • Describe current conditions (footprint, allocation, use, cost, suitability etc) • Share this information with stakeholders • Understand the reasons for current conditions • Predict future conditions given planned changes • Optimise conditions to support organisational goals

8. Spatial milestones – physical • 1996 – Brayford campus opens • 2001 – University of Lincoln founded • 2012 – sale of final Hull property • 2012 – Riseholme FE transfer • 2013 – Cathedral consolidation • Further developments to be confirmedOur entire history has taken place in the blink of an eye, from many universities’ perspectives

9. Spatial milestones – organisational • 2008 – Space Planning & Strategy Manager role established • 2010 – Learning Landscapes in Higher Education project report published by University of Lincoln and DEGW • 2010 – Space Planning Officer role created • 2011 – current Strategic Plan released • 2011 – first Space Management Policy approved • 2012 – first space management information system (Planon) introduced

10. Efficiency

11. The estates pigeonhole “Understandably the focus of [estates] professionals is on the reduction of risk and the timely completion of projects within budget. They have never been required to serve as the educational visionaries for the institution – which is precisely what is required when looking to create a ‘new generation learning environment’.”Peter Jamieson (2008) Creating New Generation Learning Environments on the University Campus

12. Expression Learning Landscapes The experiences of students and staff in University spaces will be shaped by the interactions between three agendas which are in constant tension and must be balanced: efficiency, effectiveness, and expression (the idea of the University). Student and staffExperiences Efficiency Effectiveness Neary, Williams et al. (2010) Learning Landscapes in Higher Education (http://learninglandscapes.lincoln.ac.uk)

13. Why do some data suggest the University has too much space while others suggest the opposite?

14. Lincoln is not alone… “The most immediate tension between academics’ everyday experiences and those of estates planners – at least in the UK – is that to most tutors there never seems to be enough space for teaching and learning in our universities and colleges. However, simultaneously, space occupancy levels in [these] institutions are again and again evidence of chronic under-usage.”Jos Boys (2011) Towards Creative Learning Spaces: Rethinking the Architecture of Post-Compulsory Education

15. From the strategic plan…

17. Hazards Properties Work Orders People Spaces Assets

18. What is Planon? Planon is a software suite (like Microsoft’s Office software suite). Office supports people working with documents, spreadsheets, presentations, emails etc. Planon supports people working with properties, assets, spaces, work orders, hazards etc.

31. Measuring space utilisation National Audit Office & UK HE standard Frequency(average% slotsfilled) x Occupancy(average % seatsfilled) = Utilisation (%) e.g. 71.7%(28h / 39h) x e.g. 54.2%(13 / 24 seats) = e.g. 38.8% Observed utilisation over 35% = “good” (!) Observed utilisation under 25% = “poor”

33. The four space utilisation gaps Gap 1 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled frequency Gap 2 – timetabled vs. observed frequency Gap 3 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled occupancy Gap 4 – timetabled vs. observed occupancy 4, 2, 3, 1

34. Gap 4 – timetabled vs. observed occupancy This can be improved by increasing attendance. In the February / March 2012 utilisation surveys, timetabled occupancy was 44% but observed occupancy was only 23% (i.e. only 52% of expected students were present).

35. The four space utilisation gaps Gap 1 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled frequency Gap 2 – timetabled vs. observed frequency Gap 3 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled occupancy Gap 4 – timetabled vs. observed occupancy 4, 2, 3, 1

36. Gap 2 – timetabled vs. observed frequency This can be improved by reducing “no shows”. In the February / March 2012 utilisation surveys, timetabled frequency was 65% but observed frequency was only 55% (i.e. 15% of timetabled events did not take place).

37. The four space utilisation gaps Gap 1 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled frequency Gap 2 – timetabled vs. observed frequency Gap 3 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled occupancy Gap 4 – timetabled vs. observed occupancy 4, 2, 3, 1

38. Gap 3 – target vs. timetabled occupancy • This can be improved by better matching between available rooms and timetabled group sizes. This is a function of two processes: • Optimal room size mix provision by Estatesii) Optimal group-to-room matching by Timetabling

39. Central pool room size mix as of April 2012 Each horizontal line represents one room

40. Central pool room size mix as of April 2012

41. The four space utilisation gaps Gap 1 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled frequency Gap 2 – timetabled vs. observed frequency Gap 3 – target (“good”) vs. timetabled occupancy Gap 4 – timetabled vs. observed occupancy 4, 2, 3, 1

42. Gap 1 – target vs. timetabled frequency This can be improved by adjusting the number of rooms and / or the number of slots available. The planned reduction in central pool room quantity for 2012/13 will bring timetabled frequency closer to 70%. However, differential demand for teaching slots will need to be managed aggressively as a result…

45. The fifth gap: timetabling system coverage The CMIS system and therefore the University’s capability to analyse theoretical vs. actual utilisation extends only to a fraction of University space. Estates and Registry colleagues have identified 160+ additional spaces on the Brayford campus which could be timetabled and booked through CMIS. Phase 1: the Timetabling & Room Bookings team is now working with space occupiers to transition these spaces, in line with the University space management policy approved in October 2011. Phase 2: there are major usability problems with current booking systems and an ICT project is now underway to procure or develop a better University-wide booking system.

46. In-situ, on-demand booking solutions Room Wizard - Steelcase Meeting Monitor - QED Meeting Monitor on iPad - QED

47. Summary: five major levers for improving our space efficiency • Improve student attendance • Sharing and booking: changes to culture, systems and processes • More aggressive demand smoothing • Redesign and refit of inefficient spaces • Transition away from individually “owned” desks for staff (see Delft)

48. Focusing on experience

49. Expression Student and staffExperiences Efficiency Effectiveness Neary, Williams et al. (2010) Learning Landscapes in Higher Education (http://learninglandscapes.lincoln.ac.uk)

50. Pedagogy Comfort Access Aspirations Density Location Furniture Finishes The physical space Spontaneity Community Servicing Scheduling Technologies Demography Lifestyle Terms of use Focus Not just space planning, but place planning