Contents 1Introduction to the project 4
Space Norms and space standards
Download 412.01 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 1.37Lessons from collaborating universities
- 1.37.1Space allocation = f(number of students in the department, subject area).
- 1.37.2Space allocation = f(numbers of staff, numbers of students, subject area)
7Space Norms and space standards.At all the collaborating universities space managers use some system to judge, and to assert in the face of pressure for change, whether or not a subgroup of the HEI has sufficient space from which to carry out its functions. The space managers interviewed all perceived their space standards as an indispensable tool to back up negotiations for sharing out scarce space and capital resources in the face of continual demands for adjustment. This applies to both administrative space and academic space, although space management effort is often concentrated on the latter. Gerald Eve (2001) has carried out three annual surveys of a sample of office space, accommodating 74,000 employees. They are part of a programme aimed at providing office space benchmarking. The results show unequivocally that adopting space standards has “a significant bearing on occupational densities”2. However, there are different types of standards, and one based on status is less effective than one based on function or any other standard. Standards based on status gave the same density as using no standard at all. They conclude that the basis of the standards is important to their success. Since office space standards used at the collaborating HEIs relate to offices net of circulation and support areas, it is interesting to see the survey results for the equivalent space measure, referred to as ‘net occupational density’ by Gerald Eve. The averages for the 2001 survey are shown in Table . These densities are lower than those set by the UGC in the 1980s, which allowed for 13.5 sq.m. per academic FTE. However, the UGC document stated that this allowance included “small group space” i.e. tutorial space. Offices are regularly used for teaching at four of the collaborating institutions and this may at least partly explain the difference between current average office use and the UGC norm. Viewed in this light, the difference seems quite low. The UGC allowance of 7 sq.m. for non-tutorial staff, including researchers and secretaries, is low compared to current densities. Moreover, some of the respondents to the survey use open plan office layouts and new working practices such as hot-desking, hotelling and homeworking to reduce densities. These practices were unknown when the UGC set its standards, but need to be considered now as possible efficiencies. Table : Office net occupational densities
Sources: Gerald Eve (2001) and UGC (1987) The EMS report of data for 1999/2000 (IPD & GVA Grimley, 2001) shows that in contrast to the HEFCE norms, support staff actually occupy more space per FTE than do academic staff, as shown in Table . This may reflect the application of space controls such as space charging and space standards to academic departments, and the absence of similar controls on central administrative departments’ space use, which was highlighted at three of the collaborating universities. Table : Academic and support staff office NIA
Source: IPD & GVA Grimley, 2001 On average, organisations surveyed by Gerald Eve allocated 25% of space to storage, but comparable figures are not available for the sector. 1.37Lessons from collaborating universitiesThere are three ways of using space standards:
They fall into two groups. The first, of which the UGC norms are an example, use student numbers to drive space allocation, allowing for all other uses within the space allocated per student. The second uses a wider range of people, both staff and students, as the driver, allocating allowances of different space types for each type of person. There are many variations of these basic approaches, but the norms encountered at the collaborating HEIs are as follows: 1.37.1Space allocation = f(number of students in the department, subject area).There are two versions of this type of calculation:
These norms state a space allocation or ‘Notional Unit Area’ for each of 20 subject areas. The allocation is driven by numbers of three types of student:
The allocation provides a single space allocation for ‘departmental and academic’ space, and has to be adjusted according to the department’s student: staff ratio. The single space allocation covers:
In addition there are allocations per student for non-academic areas, including lecture theatres and libraries and allocations per student, varying for bands of less than 3000, 3000 to 6000, or over 6000 students. These allow for:
The norms are detailed. Some HEIs modify them up or down proportionately to allow for their particular objectives and circumstances. An example of the proportinal approach is described below at Section 1.38.
Standards are arrived at by analysing the space needs of each activity, in consultation with the users at departmental level, and allocating space accordingly. This approach is facilitated by the ‘Space Standards’ provided by the UGC (1987) in addition to the Notional Unit Areas. The UGC provided these as a supplementary check in applying the Notional Unit Areas for new buildings, but they are used in two of the collaborating universities to produce tailor-made space standards. The Space Standards give usable floor area allocations for
Figure : Constructing departmental space allocation from an analysis of space need Total academic staff required Total admin. and technical support staff required Total amount of office and support space required Teaching modules ? Hours per week of seminar, lecture theatre, lab. etc. for each module? Number of students taking each module ? Total amount of seminar, lecture theatre, lab etc. space required each week Figure shows the way that space needs are analysed, starting with students as the driver, and the total allocation for a department is built up on the basis of the UGC Space Standards. The resulting areas are in effect an updating of the UGC norms, tailored to a particular HEI. This more individual approach is resource intensive and slow to establish but is likely to be more representative of true need and reflects the circumstances, research and teaching style of the individual HEI. An example is described in Section 1.39. 1.37.2Space allocation = f(numbers of staff, numbers of students, subject area)c) The matrix approach Different amounts of each type of space are allocated for a particular subject area, according to the numbers of each group of students and staff. The space allocation for each type of person can be arrived at empirically, using efficiently run departments as a model. The resulting matrix reflects the needs, teaching style, research and particular circumstances of the institution. This approach is sensitive to the numbers of staff, since each net new arrival is ‘entitled’ to a certain floorspace allowance. This can be difficult to accommodate in research intensive environments where numbers of research students can fluctuate considerably, although research hotelling could reduce this problem. It works well at one teaching-orientated university. In practice the building blocks on which the UGC norms were calculated, such as 13.5 sq.m. of office space for each lecturer, are used in approaches b) and c). However, the calculations may assume different ratios of staff to students, and of specialised space to standard teaching and office space. Directory: estates estates -> Dear friends and neighbours estates -> King’s College Estates Records estates -> Catalogue compiled by Jude Brimmer from a card catalogue by Michael Stansfield at the King’s College Archive Centre, Cambridge, as part of the ‘Promotion of Public Access to the King’s College Estates Records’ project supported by the Heritage Lottery estates -> Fuel Card No Fuel Type Diesel/Petrol/Electric/Other Mileage Download 412.01 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||