Although business and academe are becoming ever more entwined in a common goal to mould the minds of the future, their way of working differs fundamentally. Ricky Taylor explains why the transition to a leaner, meaner estate in academia may be more challenging than in other sectors.
Higher education in the UK has changed tremendously over the past three years.
Government spending cuts and higher student tuition fees have put many institutions under massive financial strain.
This has led to a fundamental shift on both sides. Students now expect more in terms of academic delivery and the facilities they study in, and the staff — academic and non-academic — are expected to deliver more with less. Institutions are expected to deliver in a far more customer-centric way, with the student at the heart of everything they do. Given this, the dynamic between teacher, student and facilities has become very interesting.
The corporate sector has long since embraced the idea of new ways of working and seen many tangible and intangible benefits from embracing such techniques. Organisations have reaped rewards from committing to understanding their cultural behavioural and using facilities to support business drivers and objectives. Businesses understand the impact on the bottom line from a leaner estate, a more productive workforce and better profit lines.
The public sector has been slower on the uptake of such radical workspace ideas, but is now catching up with its corporate counterparts. Organisations such as the NHS are enabling a better value-for-money approach through leveraging best practice workspace design and facilities management.
Doing more with less
Much of the efficiency gain comes from the shift in culture — from staff owning offices, desks, printers and the like to adopting a model in which assets are shared at a much higher proportion. Time use studies tend to indicate that offices are only ever occupied 30 to 40 per cent of the time and many organisations now realise the value of using these spaces to build high-quality shared working environments that support the business. The trade-off is that staff are given access to open-plan workspaces that may be booked for set periods of activity while being able to enjoy the benefits of access to many other work settings that may be more appropriate. The overall effect is that space is used more effectively and efficiently. Estates directors and facilities managers can do more with less.
The higher education estate is made up of several key elements — teaching and seminar space, academic departmental space, research departmental space, administrative space, catering facilities, sports facilities, laboratories, and student recreational facilities. These elements are fundamental to running a university’s operations. So where can space efficiencies be made to create a leaner estate that meets the needs of staff and students? The answer lies in the areas of academic departmental space, administrative departmental space and departmental research space.
If following the tried-and-tested corporate methodology, the answer appears simple. Typically, most academic department space is made up of academic offices ranging in size from 12-18 sq metres. Given that we know offices are only ever occupied 30 to 40 per cent of the time and probably less so in academia (as lectures take place in other spaces), there seems a clear path for action. This would see a remodelling of the academic workspace to embrace fewer individual offices and more shared resources to release valuable real estate. This approach has worked for other sectors, so why is academia resisting this?
A singular occupation
My work within the sector has led to a set of observations that may shed light on some of the factors that disable a transition to more effective and efficient workplaces in higher education.
One of the biggest factors that come into play has actually very little bearing on how well space is planned or on how colourful and stimulating the environment is, but is more related to a human resources challenge. Within any field of study there exists only a handful of pioneering and authoritative academics at one time. This means that universities across the globe are recruiting from a very small international talent pool. Having a top line-up of academic minds in a faculty can be the make-or-break factor in attracting research funding and recruiting the best students.
For example, two universities may have a post to fill within a department. The salaries are comparable, the research excellence and reputation are also comparable. But one university is in a city in the UK, the other in a suburban state in the US. Where the contrast becomes apparent is that the deciding factor may well come down to the standard of the estate and facilities on offer. Suddenly, the size and quality of the office accommodation is important. Is it a tiny broom cupboard with limited natural light, or is it a well-proportioned office with ample natural light and a host of other office work settings at the lecturer’s disposal?
Other considerations will be how well connected the department is, and whether faculties are co-located or dispersed across the campus. If we consider this challenge it is apparent that on a tiny island like the UK, in a city like London where space is at a premium, you may find yourself in a situation where recruitment becomes harder based on the building stock available.
Seeking enlightenment
Another important distinction is that of academic career progression. When reflecting on the corporate model, you could generalise by saying an employee’s progression within a company is strongly connected to the performance of the team to which they belong. A coaching phrase springs to mind — “One team one goal”. So communicating the shared objectives and building the team around the common denominator is the order of the day. New ways of working and shared work settings are aligned to that model of behaviour.
But this is not the case when looking at the career progression of an academic. In fact, it is the polar opposite. Progression is solely based on the individual, on his quality of ideas and how well they can be expressed within academic circles and how well received this thinking will be when it is peer reviewed. So sharing information before publication is not on the agenda. If this is true, we can see that the academic’s life revolves around formulating and delivering lectures to students with a specified number of hours designated to office meetings with students.
Marking and assessing work and writing research papers are highly individualistic activities that require concentration. In The Responsible Workplace (1996), spatial agency DEGW identified four main types of office based on different levels of interaction and autonomy. From what we perceive of the academic work pattern, it becomes clear that interaction is low in the traditional sense, with high levels of autonomy. This provides a very useful insight into the suitability of the individual cellular office for an academic faculty and the perceived resistance by faculty staff to move to a different accommodation model.
This leads to the importance of the physical design of office space for academics. It has become apparent that certain design interventions have been very poorly received over the years, namely the introduction of fully glazed partitioning of academic offices. The need for transparency and natural light penetration has been well understood in the corporate world for many years. However, is this thinking in keeping with the academic model? Do the principles of transparency, openness in communication and ease of access fit the work style of an academic?
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), as developed by Bandler and Gringer, sets out a well-structured approach to understanding internal representational systems and how we communicate. A distinction that has become apparent through working with academics is that much of the active thought process occurs within the field of vision directly in the front of them. This would imply that the thought process is driven through creative imagination, which manifests as an image or a series of images.
This rationale would support many of the behaviours observed. For example, the continuing resistance to glazed partitioning in academic offices. For many teaching staff visual distraction can have a negative effect on thought processes and state of mind required. So being able to see through a glazed partition in to a corridor with people milling about may not be appropriate for the professor who is on the brink of forging the breakthrough in cancer research. This phenomenon also explains why many academics prefer to have their desks facing a wall.
One of the most controversial conversations that can be heard throughout the corridors of higher education establishments is about office size. Space planning of any environment really boils down to what elements need to be included in the setting. When considering what a reasonable provision is, one can argue that it has been proved on countless occasions that a space of about 10-12 sq metres is more than adequate for a single-person office. But one of the distinctions that always arises is about how big the academic office should be. From a built environment perspective this is sometimes governed by the column grid on which the building has been built.
Much of the debate springs from the fact that the world of academia still operates on a culture entrenched in hierarchy and the office politics that go with this. This can be very difficult for departmental heads to manage and also difficult for estates and planning to untangle when taking the brief. When faced with large capital projects expenditure it is imperative that all these matters are brought to the top of the agenda to begin the process of cultural change and also to ensure that the planning brief is right.
A further distinction to add to the complexity of deciding on office size is that academics seem to have a very deep-seated attachment to their book collections. Often these are personal collections that have been amassed over many years. These books are an important statement about who they are, and they form an important part of their identity and thinking processes. This point is often misunderstood and overlooked by planners as the challenge to accommodate a vast array of bookcases can suddenly add a large space to the size of the office required. Again, the answer seems simple — digitisation. For many organisations this solution is still some way off in the future, with budgetary and infrastructure considerations to be factored in.
Faculty chats
A key factor for many universities is research and the funding attributed to research programmes. Typically, these programmes have a limited life cycle and can be unpredictable in growth and facilities requirements. For many academic departments it is becoming more and more critical that research groups are established close to their host departments. This can raise a number of planning challenges, especially when hosting departments are looking for integration of programmes that can ebb and flex as the situation evolves.
This creates the need for spaces that are highly flexible and that can be reconfigured at short notice with minimal cost and resource implications.
The development of hubs for all research activity has been tested in a number of institutions but has received mixed reviews. Some departments have reported that the dislocation of research activity from the main departmental community has affected the quality of output, while others have appreciated the interaction with other faculty areas leading to a cross-pollination of ideas. Chance encounters at the tea urn have meant that staff from different faculty areas have been able to talk informally about subjects in a totally different way and that has led to progress. Research and development in higher education will continue to become more important as universities become more self-reliant in terms of marketing themselves and generating income.
The university estate takes in a host of activities and is home to a diverse mix of people ranging in age, faith, ethnicity, and political and social standing. Facilities and the management of the estate is becoming more critical than ever as we strive to progress in a tough economic climate and changing social parameters. Changing hearts and minds will be the key to unlocking the potential of the estate.
As the younger generation of academics moves through the system maybe we will see a change in some of the behavioural patterns that have forged the requirements of built space. The answer may become clear as we learn more about the pedagogy of teaching and the process of learning.
For now, the priority is about getting the brief right and understanding those whom we are trying to help to develop the brightest minds. The overriding question should be how our academic buildings support the educational establishment’s strategic goals and vision.
