Managing space: a review of English further education … · Managing space: a review of English...

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Managing space: a review ofEnglish further educationand HE overseas

September 2006

2006/39

Managing space: a review of English furthereducation and HE overseas

Contents

Page

Executive summary 3

Introduction 5

The Learning and Skills Council approach 6

International review 15

Discussion and recommendations 21

Managing space: a review of English further education and HE overseas 2006/39 1

Executive summary

Scope of the studyThis study considers approaches to spacemanagement outside the UK HE sector, to seehow they might contribute to UK HE spacemanagement guidance. It investigates the methodused by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) toassess space needs in the further education (FE)sector in England, and researches examples ofhigher education (HE) space planning andmanagement in other parts of the world. Thestudy was commissioned by the UK HE SpaceManagement Group (SMG).

The LSC approachOur assessment of the LSC’s approach madeallowance for the differences in space needsbetween the HE and FE sectors, for example thespace requirements for research activity in highereducation institutions. The purpose of theexercise was to see if the principles behind theapproach could make an effective contributionto space management in HE and, if so, whetherany adaptations would be useful.

The LSC approach is driven by the number ofguided learning hours. Guided learning hoursare broadly the equivalent of teaching contacthours in HE. The LSC uses guided learninghours as the main driver because sector-wideresearch found that the size of colleges’ estatescorrelated closely with the number of guidedlearning hours delivered.

Its approach has two main components:

a. Advice on how individual colleges canbuild up a profile of their space needsbased on the number of guided learninghours, target rates of space utilisation andareas per workplace (for example in alecture theatre or a laboratory), dependingon the type of guided learning activity. Theprofile will vary according to each college’steaching and learning methods and thescope of its curriculum.

b. Formulae which can be used to calculatethe predicted size of a college’s estate. Theformulae are based on the performance ofthe top quartile of colleges in terms of theirspace efficiency in delivering guidedlearning hours.

International reviewOur international review focused on examples ofspace management guidance and methods inAustralasia, North America, Hong Kong andGermany. We found that a range of methods isemployed, including the publication of high levelratios of different types of space, space standardsand target utilisation rates. A number of themethods had similarities with the LSC approach.

Comparison and conclusions inrelation to UK HE guidanceMany of the space management concepts andmethods used by the LSC and researched in theinternational review are familiar to UK HEIs,although they may be expressed in differentterms. However, the majority of HEIs do notroutinely build up space needs profiles based onthe volume of activity to be delivered forcomparison with space available. Such amethod would be a useful addition to currentUK HE space management guidance byproviding a means for assessing the capacity ofthe existing estate, and whether there aresurpluses or shortfalls of particular types ofspace.

However, the availability of data to support suchan approach is an important consideration,particularly in terms of the number of contacthours. Two case studies carried out suggest thatavailability of sufficiently detailed information islikely to vary widely between institutions.

The SMG model for benchmarking the size ofHEIs’ estates, available atwww.smg.ac.uk/the_model, is already based on asimilar methodology to that used by the LSC toderive guidance areas. Research was undertakenduring the study to test the feasibility ofreplicating the LSC approach more closely,


but it was concluded that the multi-variableSMG model is at present a more powerfulexplanatory tool.

RecommendationsThree recommendations are made in the light ofthis study.

1. We recommend that a space managementtool is provided for the UK HE sector whichwould enable HEIs to develop a space needsprofile. Given the diversity of practicewithin the sector, it is proposed that thisshould be in the form of a frameworkgiving the structure of the method, withdefault settings which can be followed oroverridden by HEIs depending on their ownindividual circumstances. Further details ofsuch a method, in the form of a space needindicator framework, are set out in theSMG report ‘Review of space norms’(www.smg.ac.uk/resources).

2. We recommend that the SMG model isretained in its present form as a tool forbenchmarking the size of HEIs’ estates,pending any significant change in the effectof key drivers of estate size.

3. The LSC guidance on the total amount ofspace to be provided by colleges is based onthe performance of the most efficientquartile, in terms of the relationshipbetween numbers of guided learning hoursand total college floorspace. Bycomparison, the SMG model is based onthe average space performance predictedacross the sector for a given profile ofdrivers. It is recommended that additionalinformation is provided to HEIs in updatesof the SMG model in the form of spacepredictions based not only on the averageperformance, but also on the performanceof the top quartile for a given profile ofstrategic drivers. This would provide anadditional benchmark related to theperformance of the most space efficientinstitutions in the sector.

4 Managing space: a review of English further education and HE overseas 2006/39

Introduction

This publication is the outcome of a studyconducted by Kilner Planning and LondonEconomics. The brief for this study was twofold.The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) hasdeveloped an approach to help further educationcolleges in England to assess space needs. Oneobjective of this higher education (HE) spacemanagement study was to look at the extent towhich the approach could be applied or adaptedto HE. The brief was also to research examplesof international HE space management methodsand guidance, and to investigate whether otherapproaches could add value to UK HE spacemanagement guidance and practice.

The study is part of phase two of the SpaceManagement Project (SMP). The project is underthe direction of the UK HE Space ManagementGroup (SMG), supported by the four UKfunding bodies for higher education: the HigherEducation Funding Council for England(HEFCE), Scottish Funding Council (SFC),Higher Education Funding Council for Wales(HEFCW) and the Department for Employmentand Learning (in Northern Ireland) (DEL).

Scope of the reportThe report has three main sections. The firstfocuses on the LSC method. The secondinvestigates international practice. The final partdraws together the conclusions of the researchand discusses the scope for additions to the UKspace management toolkit.


Overview of the UK HE space management projectAll published reports, and previous research mentioned in this document, are available on the web at

www.smg.ac.uk.

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: a review of English further education September 2006

and HE overseas

Space utilisation: practice, performance and guidelines September 2006

Review of space norms September 2006

Space management case studies September 2006

Space management project: summary September 2006

The Learning and SkillsCouncil approach

From the outset of the research into the LSCapproach, it was recognised that there areimportant differences between the higher andfurther education sectors. A key difference is theresearch activity in HE. The focus of the studywas on assessing whether the principles behindthe LSC approach could make a contribution toeffective space management in HE.

This part of the report begins with anintroduction to the LSC approach, thebackground to its development and the way thatit is used in the English FE sector. It describes itsmain components and compares it with HEguidance and practice.

During the study, case study work was carriedout into the application of its main principles intwo HEIs. The findings of the case studies arediscussed, together with the outcome of somesector-wide modelling of space calculations usingstatistical methods similar to those employed bythe LSC.

Introduction to the LSC approachThe LSC approach provides guidance to collegeson how to assess how much and what type ofspace they need. The central driver underpinningthe approach is the volume and type of guidedlearning activity that needs to be accommodatedon site. This is measured in terms of the totalnumber of guided learning hours to be deliveredover the academic year. Guided learning hoursare defined by the LSC as:

‘All the times when a member of staff is presentto give specific guidance towards the learningaim being studied on a programme. Thisdefinition includes lectures, tutorials andsupervised study in, for example, open learningcentres and learning workshops. It also includestime spent by staff in assessing a learner’sachievements, for example in the assessment ofcompetence for National VocationalQualifications. It does not include time spent bystaff in the day to day marking of assignments or

homework where the learner is not present. Itdoes not include hours where supervision orassistance is of a general nature and is notspecific to the study of the learner.’

Guided learning hours are broadly the equivalentof teaching contact hours in higher education.Colleges collect this information to make anannual return to the LSC as part of theindividualised learner record for each student.

The approach to space needs has two maincomponents. The first is advice on howindividual colleges can build up a predictedprofile of their space needs using guided learninghours, which can then be compared with whatthey have now. It enables them to identify inwhat areas, for example in different types ofteaching space, there are shortages or surpluses.This could be described as the ‘bottom up’ partof the approach.

The second, or ‘top down’, component is thepublication of formulae in the form of guidanceareas on the overall amount of space to beprovided by colleges. The guidance areas arebased on the performance of the top quartile ofcolleges measured in terms of their spaceefficiency in delivering guided learning hours.This component allows colleges to see whetherthey have more or less space than the guidanceareas would predict for the volume of teachingactivity which they provide.

The LSC issues the approach to colleges asguidance. It is not mandatory. It is presented as atoolkit of the different components, whichcolleges can then use to help them plan andmanage their estates.

The tools allow an individual college tocompare:

• its actual area with the guidance area forthe college, calculated using LSC formulae

• the utilisation of workplaces in the collegewith a target level of utilisation

• the average area used to provide workplacesfor different activities compared with LSCguidance on workplace areas


• allocation of proportions of floorspace forvarious kinds of activity compared withLSC guidance on floorspace allocations

• the cost of overprovision of floorspace withthe benefits of reduced but more effectivelyemployed floorspace.

The guidance can inform the preparation ofproperty strategies. It is also used by the LSC asa basis for decisions on capital funding. The LSCpromotes efficient use of space and requires anincrease in effectiveness of use as a condition ofproject consent. The approach is applied in afinancial context where the level of fundingavailable to the sector assumes efficiency gains,and encourages colleges to use their premisesmore cost effectively.

Supplement A ‘Guidance on College PropertyStrategies’ to LSC Circular 02/20 notes:

‘(The) guidance can be used to assistmanagers in assessing how the college estatecan be more efficiently managed tocontribute to the improvement of facilitiesand finances. …The governors andmanagement of each college are expected tokeep their college’s estate under constantreview with the aim of improving itseffectiveness, its efficiency and its economy.…Each further education college is free toretain the amount and quality of studentand staff facilities it can afford to maintainin the long term.’

Background The LSC and its predecessor, the FurtherEducation Funding Council (FEFC), haveperiodically issued guidance on assessing spaceneeds since incorporation in 1993. The currentmethod is described in LSC Circular 02/20 andits supplements.

Prior to 1997, the FEFC advised colleges to usemethods which were based on student numbers(space full-time equivalents, FTEs) as a driver ofspace need and on levels of workplaceutilisation. On this basis, it generally followedthat the more students a college had, the largerits predicted space needs would be.

The LSC moved away from space FTE studentnumbers as the key driver of space needsbecause of the increasingly wide variation inwhat full-time attendance actually meant.Different teaching methods meant that furthereducation institutions (FEIs) with the same FTEstudent numbers could have very differentspace needs.

Instead, the LSC focused on the use of guidedlearning hours. It took the decision to base theassessment of space need on guided learninghours in the light of statistical analysis carriedout across the FE sector as a whole. The LSChad decided to investigate a range of variableswhich might explain the size of FEIs’ estates,including student numbers, income and thenumber of guided learning hours. It developed aregression model for assessing the effect ofdifferent variables and used sector-wide data.This form of analysis is very similar to theresearch into the key drivers of the size of theHE estate carried out in phase one of the SpaceManagement Project. This is described in theSMG report ‘Drivers of the size of the HE estate’and is used in the SMG model(www.smg.ac.uk/the_model) for benchmarkingthe size of HEIs’ estates.

The LSC modelling showed that the totalnumber of guided learning hours delivered by acollege was closely linked to the size of its estate:the more guided learning hours delivered, thelarger the estate was found to be. Thecorrelation was closer than with studentnumbers. Other factors, such as income, werealso found to be good explanatory variables, butnot as powerful as guided learning hours.

There have been major changes in the FE estatein England since incorporation. Total floorspace(gross internal area) fell from 9.1 million m

2in

1993 to 7.6 million m2 in 2003. Over the sameperiod, learner numbers increased from aroundthree million to four million. The LSC foundthat over the 10 years, most colleges cut theaverage on-site daytime guided learning hoursfor full-time students. In fact, the fall in the totalnumber of hours taught, as reflected in guidedlearning hours, offset the increase in student


numbers. This meant that despite the overallgrowth in student numbers, the need forfloorspace fell.

The LSC has a working party which keeps theapproach to assessing space needs underreview. It looks at trends in the number ofguided learning hours and the need forfacilities resulting from changes in the style andpattern of teaching and learning and theimpact of information technology. A study nowunder way is revisiting some of the spacestandards and categories which are used,although it is understood from the LSC thatthat the basic principles of the approach areunlikely to change.

The main componentsThe next two sections of the report describe themain steps entailed in following this approach.They are:

• building up the space profile

• sector-wide guidance for colleges.

Building up the space profile

The LSC advice focuses on calculating theamount of space needed to accommodate theguided learning hours to be delivered on-siteduring the daytime. The focus is on the coredaytime period on the grounds that this is whenmost of the teaching takes place. Therefore ifspace needs predictions can accommodate peakdemand, they should also be able to addressevening, weekend and out of term time activities.

The standard assumption in the guidance is thaton-site accommodation is available for 40 hoursa week over a standard 36 week learning year.Thus, there are 1,440 hours available forlearning during the year. The actual numbers ofhours available could vary depending on thepractice of individual colleges.

If all that time and all the space in an institutionwere used at 100 per cent efficiency, theminimum number of workplaces needed toaccommodate the hours of guided learningactivity would be the total number of guidedlearning hours divided by 1,440 (using the

standard assumption given above). This gives acalculation of the absolute minimum number ofworkplaces that would be needed to support theplanned activities. The higher the number ofhours that space is assumed to be available interms of either hours in the week or weeks inthe year, the lower will be the minimum numberof workplaces.

However, the approach recognises that 100 percent efficiency is not achievable. The actualnumber of workplaces needed will be greaterthan the minimum, to reflect the fact that not allworkplaces will be in use all the time. Thenumber to be provided can be calculated byapplying a target utilisation rate. For example, ifan institution calculated that the minimumnumber of workplaces it needed was 1,000, andthat it would aim for a target utilisation rate of40 per cent, the number of workplaces to beprovided would rise to 2,500 (1000/0.4). Thehigher the target utilisation rate, the lower thenumber of workplaces that will be needed, andconsequently the smaller the floor area that willbe predicted: for example, at a higher targetutilisation rate of 50 per cent, the number ofrequired workplaces will reduce to 2,000.

Once the target number of workplaces has beencalculated, the floor area to be provided is afunction of the number of workplaces multipliedby an area per workplace. The area perworkplace will vary depending on the type ofactivity carried out. For example, less space isneeded per workplace in classrooms comparedwith workshops or studios.

This method will generate a predicted floor areato accommodate a given number of guidedlearning hours. If the number of hours is forecastto change in the future, the method can also beused to project the corresponding change infloorspace needs.

This is the approach used to derive the teachingspace component of the total floorspace. Inaddition to this, an allowance needs to be madefor other types of space. The LSC approachmakes provision for these in terms of theproportions that each type of space mightcomprise to build up a total area for an


institution, although it recognises that this isbroad brush and that there is a lot of variationin the sector.

The predictions can then be compared withactual space available to assess:

• whether there is an overall surplus orshortfall in space

• whether there are mismatches between typesof space needed and space available

• how target utilisation compares with actualutilisation

• how the planned area per workplacecompares with the actual area.

All the calculations relate to the non-residentialgross internal area (GIA) of a college, but theyexclude:

• farm, equestrian and horticultural buildings

• third party leases for non-educationalpurposes

• parts of the floorspace provided forcommunity use, for example wherebuildings are provided to a larger scale thanwould be needed for college use and havebeen funded by an external body.

The individual steps to build up the profile are asfollows:

1. Calculate the minimum number of workplaces

Take the total on-site daytime hours of learningto be delivered and divide by the total daytimehours available during the teaching/learning year.

For example, if the institution has 2,000,000on-site daytime learning hours and there is a40 hour daytime teaching week and a 36 weekteaching year, the minimum number ofworkplaces would be 2,000,000 divided by1,440 (40 x 36), that is 1,389 workplaces.

2. Calculate the number of workplaces needed at

the target utilisation rate

Take the minimum number of workplaces andmultiply by the reciprocal of the targetutilisation rate.

For example, if the target utilisation rate is50 per cent, the number of workplaces neededwould be 1,389 multiplied by 2 (or1,389/0.5). This would generate a totalworkplace need of 2,778.

3. Calculate the breakdown of the total number of

workplaces needed by space type

Break down the total number of on-site daytimelearning hours into types of space needed usingthe space categories given in Table 1.

4. Calculate the areas needed to accommodate

these different activities

Multiply the total number of workplaces brokendown by space type by the areas per workplacegiven in Table 1. The space categories andworkplace areas in the table are based on adviceset out in Department of Education and Science(DES) Design Note 37. It is likely that these willbe revised in the light of recent research intocurrent practice in the further education sector.

5. Calculate the total teaching space need

Add together all the subtotals generated in Step 4.

6. Assess total institutional space

All the steps so far have focused on building upa profile of teaching space needs. The LSCapproach notes that the proportions of differenttypes of space in colleges are likely to be in theorder of those given in Table 2, although againthese proportions are under review.

Once the figure for total teaching space needshas been calculated, the predicted areas for theother types of use can be generated, as well asthe projected total for the institution as a whole.

7. Comparison of projected space needs with

actual space

By doing these calculations, a college candevelop an aggregate picture of how much spaceit theoretically needs and compare the result withthe actual space it has now. It can be used as aguide for identifying areas of over or underprovision and for considering how spacemanagement measures might be used tomaximise the effective use of space.


Sector-wide guidance areas for colleges

Once the LSC identified guided learning hours asthe most powerful explanatory variable of thesize of college estates, it developed guidanceareas for the total amount of space that collegesshould provide, based on assessment of the spaceperformance of institutions across the sector.This was done in the following way:

• the LSC estimated the relationship linking thegross internal area of colleges that it funded tothe driver of guided learning hours

• it identified the top quartile of spaceefficient institutions on the basis of thisrelationship

• it then re-estimated the model using the topquartile of institutions only

• it generated a predicted area for eachinstitution based on the re-estimated datafrom the top quartile

• it computed the sector-wide excess space bycomparing actual space provision with theprediction from the model.

On the basis of the modelling exercise, it wasconcluded that if all institutions could replicatethe performance of the most efficient quartile,30 per cent of the space in the LSC sector wouldbe surplus.


Table 2: Proportions of different types of space

Type of space Likely proportion of total GIA floorspace (%)

Teaching 43-50

Learning 10-17

Administration, catering and communal areas 15

Balance 25

Table 1: Breakdown of space categories

Room type m2 per workplace

General teaching rooms

1. Lecture theatres (or close seating arrangements) 1.0

2. Teaching in informal groups 1.8

3. Teaching with demonstration facilities 2.5

Specialised teaching rooms

4. Commerce and business (computer rooms) 2.7

5. Science and technology (laboratories) 3.0

6. Art and design studios (other than large scale work) 3.2

7. Crafts, large scale art and design, home economics, 4.5

carpentry, plumbing (workshops with benches)

8. Catering and hairdressing 6.5

9. Welding, motor vehicle work, installation trades 7.5

Learning

10. Resource based learning centres 2.5

The output from this modelling exercise wasused to generate guidance areas for collegesbased on the performance of the most efficientquartile. These are presented as formulae. Thereare two separate formulae because the LSCfound significant differences in the spaceprovision in sixth form colleges withoutvocational provision and all other colleges.

The guidance area formulae are:

Sixth form colleges:

Guidance area = 1,500 m2 plus 10 m2 perminimum number of workplaces

Acceptable upper limit = 1,500 m2 plus13 m2 per minimum number of workplaces

All other colleges:

Guidance area = 1,500 m2 plus 11.5 m2 perminimum number of workplaces

Acceptable upper limit = 1,500 m2 plus14.5 m2 per minimum number of workplaces

The 1,500 m2 in the formulae is theconstant from the regression carried outduring the modelling exercise. The

minimum number of workplaces iscalculated by each college by following themethod described above in the section on‘building up a space profile’.

The LSC encourages colleges to move towardsthese guidance areas per minimum number ofworkplaces.

The use of guidance areas enables the LSC andindividual colleges to calculate whether there isan overall surplus or shortfall of space. Theguidance areas specified in the formulae are keptunder review and could change to reflect trendsin learning and teaching practice.

Comparison with HE guidanceand practiceThere are clear differences between the space needsof the FE and HE sectors. The main one is the factthat there is research activity in higher education.There is also much greater diversity in institutionalmission and size in the HE sector. In addition, theLSC applies its approach to LSC-funded spaceonly. There is a much greater proportion of spacein the HE sector which is provided from other


Example of how a college can use the guidance areas

This example is taken from Annex F of LSC Circular 02/20 and its supplements.

College A is a general further education college that has 2,500,000 total guided learning hours a year.

There are 2,000,000 on-site guided learning hours which equate to 1,389 as the minimum number of

workplaces. The college has 2,000 full time students attending for an average of 750 hours a year. The gross

internal area of the college is 26,500 m2.

The college calculates its actual area per minimum number of workplaces as being:

26,500 m2 – 1,500 m2 = 25,000 m2

Area per minimum number of workplaces is 25,000 m2/1,389 = 17.99 m2

The LSC formulae for guidance areas for colleges indicate that the area of the college should lie in the range

of 1,500 m2 + 1,389 x 11.5 m2 = 17,474 m2, or 1,500 m2 + 1,389 x 14.5 m2 = 21,641 m2.

Compared with the LSC guidance areas, the college in this example has between 22 per cent and 51 per

cent oversupply of space. (The circular notes that whether or not this is tolerable depends on the financial

position of the college.)

sources and where the external funders may settheir own specifications for the amount and typeof space to be provided. There is also a lack ofaccess to sector-wide equivalents of guidedlearning hours.

However, many of the components of the LSCapproach are familiar to HEIs and are alreadyused by them to a greater or lesser extent.

Existing HE guidance

The importance of the link between hours ofactivity and numbers of workplaces available ishighlighted in the University of Newcastle uponTyne’s ‘Space Management Guidelines for the

HE Sector’ (2002). One of the principles of spacemanagement good practice in the NewcastleReport is:

‘Significant efficiencies will only result if thetotal teaching room capacity is related tothe total need for taught student hours.Efficiency will not result where there issubstantial spare capacity.’

Some of the closest similarities in terms ofguidance on building up a space needs profileare set out in the Education and Learning Wales(ELWa) publication ‘Space Management: AGood Practice Guide’ (2002) as the followingextract illustrates.


‘The first element in assessing space need is to assess the number of course groups within the department in

question, together with the range of functions demanded by those groups and the time in hours demanded

weekly or annually for each type of function.

The second element is to identify the size (or range of sizes) for those functions and outline specifications. The

combination of the two will then yield the overall functional space demand in time for the department.

Dividing the notional academic day length by the target frequency of use then provides the actual number of

hours to be allowed per function. Dividing the demanded hours for each function by the actual number of

hours available in the timetable will indicate the number of rooms that function required. An illustrative example

is provided below.

Element General teaching IT suite Total hours per week

Graphic design 20 hours 20 hours 40

Business studies 30 hours 20 hour 50

Total demand for 22 wk year 50 x 22 = 1,100 40 x 22 = 880 90 x 22 = 1,980

Academic year (40hrs/wk 22 wks) 880 880 880

Target frequency of use 70% 80% N/A

Actual number of hours available 616 704

Rooms required (demand/available) 1.79 1.25

Practical number of rooms required 2 2

Understanding the number of people in a course group then enables the size of each room to be calculated

through the use of, for example, standard capacity functions for each room type.

As an illustration of the above, certain design guidelines for general teaching note a requirement of 2.1 m2 per

person. Given a target course group size of 20 this would equate using the above tabular example to two

general teaching rooms each of approximately 42 m2. Similar formulae can be followed for other types of room

function. Calculations for circulation, plant rooms, toilets and other building functions can then be added to

the summation of academic requirements to provide a total figure.’

The advice recommended that additions forbalance areas and other ancillary functionswould be added to the figure calculated to get atotal space prediction. If an HEI followed thismethod of assessing space needs, it would bequite similar to the LSC method of building up aspace needs profile. It is also a method whichallows for institutional diversity in teaching andlearning practices.

Data availability

A key issue in HE is the availability of the datarequired to build up a profile of space needsacross an institution.

The core data needed are the following:

• total guided learning or contact hours perannum

• actual and timetabled space utilisation rates

• hours allocated to different types of space

• actual gross and net internal floor areasbroken down by type of space

• actual numbers of workplaces (in most casesthis will be the same as the number of seatsavailable although in some types of space,such as performance studios, a judgementwill need to be made about capacity)

• areas per workplace in different types of space

• breakdown of other types of space.

A summary of the likely availability of the datais set out in Table 3.

Although not all the estates data may be held insufficient detail initially, it is likely that manyHEIs could fill in the gaps relatively quickly,based on an inspection of the room stock.However, of all the data needed, it is the total ofguided learning or contact hours which is likelyto prove the most difficult to access and takemost time to compile for many HEIs.


Table 3: Summary of likely data availability

Data Availability

Guided learning/contact hours The data are not collected at sector level by HESA or the Funding Councils

and may not be centrally held within individual HEIs. They are likely to be

most readily available to HEIs with full central timetabling systems linked to

student records. In other cases, the data may be dispersed and available

from individual departments or course leaders.

Actual utilisation rates Many HEIs have some utilisation data based on the observed use of rooms,

but on average this relates to 51 per cent of the core teaching area based on

EMS data.

Scheduled utilisation rates These will be available from timetables. There is likely to be more

information on projected frequency rates as planned group sizes may not

always be recorded.

Actual gross and net internal The majority of HEIs have the information on total areas of space – how it is

floor areas broken down by type broken down by types of teaching space depends on the level of detail

of space held in estates information systems.

Actual numbers of workplaces Common sources are likely to be data collected as part of space utilisation

surveys and health and safety assessments of maximum capacities,

particularly of specialist rooms.

Areas per workplace in different These can be compiled by dividing room areas by the capacities

types of space calculated above.

Breakdown of space types This is likely to be available as part of the annual return for EMS

HEI space profile case studies

The case studies relate to two institutions. Oneof them is a multi-campus university. It ispredominantly a teaching institution. Theexercise focused on one campus spread overseveral sites, which houses faculties providingcourses in professional studies, music andhealthcare. Courses are modular in structure andstudents have a very wide choice of pathwaysavailable to them.

The case study took place at time when theuniversity was already reviewing its teachingspace needs as part of a zoning exercise across allfaculties and to inform the space needs for new,replacement accommodation for healthcare.Almost all the teaching space is included in thecentral timetable, and the university has areas forall its teaching rooms and capacities for almostall of them. Two semesters run for a total of 30weeks, and the daytime teaching is carried outover a 35 hour timetabled week. Although a lotof evening teaching takes place, this was excludedfrom the analysis in line with the LSC approachto concentrating on the core daytime hours.

Data were collected on teaching group sizes, andthe numbers of daytime teaching hours per weekand across the academic year, for a range ofteaching activities. Estimates had to be made forhours of activity in some types of specialistteaching spaces. The minimum number ofworkplaces was calculated assuming a total of1,050 hours available on the basis of the coreteaching week and the length of the two semesters.A target space utilisation rate of 40 per cent wasused to calculate the number of workplacesneeded, and the workplace areas from DesignNote 37 were used to generate predicted areas.The total predicted teaching area was found to beclose to the actual amount of space available onthe campus.

The second case study took place in a universitywith a more devolved system of management.Initially, the data needed to support the approachwere only available in relation to a limitedamount of centrally timetabled general purposeteaching space. However, after a period ofconsultation with faculties, it was possible to

arrive at an overview of the hours of teaching bycourses in different types of space. This couldthen be used to drive the space need predictions.Information was also collected on the areas perworkplace in a range of types of space.

Reviewing the scope for HE guidance areas

The SMG model for benchmarking the size of aninstitution’s estate provides guidelines on whatthe average size of an estate would be forindividual institutions given their own profiles ofdrivers, such as income, student numbers andlocation. This approach already has strongsimilarities with the method used by the LSC toderive guidance areas, but the SMG model isbased on the average performance across thesector rather than on the most space efficientquartile. Nor does it use guided learning hours.It is based on a wide range of drivers includingincome, numbers of students and location.

An exercise was carried out which sought toreplicate the LSC methodology and use of driversas far as possible for the HE sector. The way inwhich this was done and the modificationswhich were made during the exercise aredescribed in the steps below.

1. In the absence of sector-wide data onguided learning or contact hours, FTEnumbers by HEFCE price group byinstitution were used instead. This driverwas selected as a broad proxy for guidedlearning hours. The reason for doing so isthat price groups are based largely on theprinciple of similar resources for similaractivities, and activities include methods ofteaching as well as other factors such as useof equipment. Only on-site taught studentFTE numbers were used.

2. Estate management statistics returns providedata on non-residential internal areas ofHEIs on a gross and a net internal area basis.In order to replicate the LSC approach,research space was excluded from the totals.

3. The next step was to estimate therelationship between taught student FTEsby price group and the amount of non-residential, non-research area. It was found


that the equation explained about 83 percent of the variation in sizes of non-residential non-research estate.

4. The research then identified the quartile ofHEIs where the existing amount of non-research space was lowest relative to theamount predicted by the model based ontaught student FTEs by price band. Theoriginal relationship calculated in Step 3was then re-estimated using data only fromthis quartile, and space predictions weregenerated for each HEI.

5. The potential amount of excess non-residential non-research space in the sectorwas calculated by comparing the actualspace with the predicted space based onStep 4. The finding was that for the 148HEIs in the sample the total net internalnon-residential, non-research spaceamounted to 10,645,277 m2 and the totalpredicted area was 7,816,295 m2, or 26.6per cent less than the actual space.

The conclusions drawn from this exercise aredependant on the extent to which taught studentFTE numbers by price group can be regarded asa reasonable proxy for guided learning orcontact hours. There is uncertainty on this pointin the absence of any more detailed information.

However, the SMG model, which is based on arange of drivers, explains more of the variationin the size of HE estates than the use of taughtstudent FTE numbers by price group. It alsorelates to the whole of the net internalnon-residential estate including research space.It does not in its present form provide abenchmark based on the performance of the topquartile of space efficient HEIs. However, thatcould be done as well as, or in place of, thecurrent benchmark based on average predictedperformance for a given profile of drivers.

International reviewOur review of international HE spacemanagement guidance focused on Australasia,North America, Hong Kong and Germany.A range of terms are used in different countries,and not all of them are directly comparable toUK practice. For example, some countries usegross floor areas and others use net assignableareas as core measures.

AustralasiaIn Australasia, the Tertiary Education FacilitiesManagers Association (TEFMA) provides spaceplanning guidelines for HEIs. The currentversion includes:

• high level ratios for general planningpurposes

• standards and benchmarks

• space utilisation

• space planning guidelines byschool/department/discipline.

High level ratios

High level ratios are an amount of space fordifferent types of use driven by student loadusually measured in terms of equivalent full timestudent units1, and the actual figures andpercentages given are based on data provided byinstitutions in the sector. They are intended to be amacro planning tool, and provide benchmarks on:

• total university gross floor area (GFA) perequivalent full time student unit (EFTSU),with 15 m2 being considered averageperformance

• proportions of different types of spacewithin institutions and average m2 perEFTSU as shown in Table 4.


1 Equivalent full time student units are defined in the TEFMA guidance as a value representing thestudent load for a unit or part of a unit of study, expressed as a proportion of the workload for astandard annual programme for students over a full year of study

The ratios also cover:

• library and cafeteria per space per EFTSU

• academic space broken down by disciplineexpressed in m2/EFTSU in both broadcategories and with subdivision of these intofurther sub-categories. The broad categoriesare shown in Table 5.

Standards and benchmarks

TEFMA gives allocation guidelines for particulartypes of space, most different office occupants,and by function. For example, a Dean isallocated 18-20 m2 of usable floor area (UFA)with an additional 16 m2 UFA in a laboratory ifrequired. Usable floor area is defined as floorarea measured from the inside face of walls andexcluding common use and non-habitable areas,such as corridors and stairs.


Table 4: Breakdown of different space types

Group/category % of total campus space UFA/total campus EFTSU (m2)

Academic 43-57 4.5-6

Administrative 9-12 1-1.2

Commercial 2.8-4.2 0.3-0.4

General teaching 12 1.2

Library 10 1

Student services 4-8 0.4-0.8

Other 8 0.8

Table 5: Space breakdown by academic category

Category Area per student unit m2/EFTSU

Natural and physical sciences 10

Information technology 2

Engineering and related technologies 10

Architecture and building 6

Agriculture, environmental and related studies 5

Health 14

Education 3

Management and commerce 1

Society and culture 3.5

Creative arts 6

Food, hospitality and personal services 6.5

Guidelines are also provided for different HEfunctions, including general teaching space,laboratories and studios. Some examples aregiven in Table 6.

Space utilisation

Utilisation surveys are recommended, and themethod set out is similar to the National AuditOffice approach. The TEFMA guidelines giveindicative good practice space utilisation rates.These are based on a typical teaching week of67.5 hours over five days including evening aswell as daytime teaching.

Part of the analysis of audited results can be acomparison against these targets.

Space planning guidelines byschool/department/discipline

A model in spreadsheet format is provided byTEFMA to assist in calculating space needs.This includes:

• disciplines (with different amounts of spaceallocated to each discipline)

• staff space

• staff ancillary allowance

• student space according to level of study

• undergraduate space if central classtimetabled space is used

• student ancillary allowance.

These factors are put into a grid to build up anindicative space envelope.


Table 6: Sample space allocations

Allocation by function Size m2/EFTSU

Lecture theatre 1.5-1.7

Science laboratories 5

Storage and preparation areas 1

Studios – ceramics 6

Storage 1

Table 7: Indicative good practice utilisation rates

Space type Target room frequency % Target room occupancy % Target utilisation %

Lecture theatre 75 75 56

Classrooms/tutorial room 75 75 56

Computer laboratories 75 75 56

Laboratories 50 75 37.5

Workshops 50 75 37.5

Studio 75 75 56

Music/Drama room 80 75 60

Meeting rooms 45 75 34

Other methods

In addition to these guidelines, many HEIs inAustralia and New Zealand use spacemanagement methods which focus on effectiveuse of timetabling and space charging.

North AmericaDifferent US states and individual institutionshave a range of approaches, but many are basedon a room use methodology which is used tobuild up a profile of space need. Thismethodology has three main components.

1. Space planning standards: usually expressedas an area allowance (usually in assignablesquare feet, ASF) for different categories ofspace. The standards are often used asguidelines for projecting current and futurespace needs and for comparison with actualspace availability. Utilisation standards arelinked with space planning standards tocalculate space factors. Space factors canthen be multiplied by weekly student clockhours or contact hours to predictrequirements for different types of space.

2. Space utilisation standards: measures ofweekly room use hours based on scheduleduse and assumptions about occupancy rates.

3. Space programming or design standards:similar to space planning standards but

usually applied on a more prescriptive basisin the design of new projects.

For example, an HEI would assess its overallneed for classroom space using 1 and 2 above bycalculating a space factor and then multiplyingthat factor by the weekly student clock hours(similar to contact hours) for classroom space.A hypothetical example for a calculation ofclassroom space is given below. The assumptionsused in the calculation are:

Student station size in a classroom – 18 ASF(or 1.67m2)Weekly room hours – 35 hours ofscheduled use Student occupancy ratio – workstations areassumed to be occupied on average for 65%of the time when the room is in useWeekly student clock hours – taken fromthe HEI’s planning and analysis database

On this basis:

18 ASF (student workstation size) = 0.79 ASF 35 (weekly room hours) x 65% (space factor)(student occupancy ratio)

The space required for classrooms is then thespace factor (that is 0.79 ASF in the examplegiven above) multiplied by the total number ofweekly student clock hours for classrooms. Thus,if there were a need to deliver 200,000 hours ofteaching in classrooms each week, thecalculation would be:


Table 8: Sample space standards

Type of space (example) Space standard in net assignable square feet per workstation

Square metre equivalent is given in brackets

Seminar room 20 (1.86)

Lecture theatre 12 (1.12)

Class laboratory 70-120 (6.5-11.15)

Computer laboratory 35 (3.25)

Office (director) 160 (14.86)

Office (faculty staff) 135 (12.54)

Office (staff) 110 (10.22)

Office (clerical workstation) 75 (6.97)

Office (post doctorates) 6 (6.32)

Office (doctoral students) 44 (4.1)

200,000 (total weekly student clock hours forclassrooms) x 0.79 ASF = 158,000 ASF (or some14,679 m2 of usable space)

This approach is commonly used for differentcategories of teaching space. For teaching andfor other activities, there are guidelines built intothe standards on how much space is needed fordifferent types of activities (see Table 8).

CanadaIn Canada, many provinces and institutionsfollow a similar approach to the one describedabove. The Council of Ontario Universities doesso, and it produces triennial surveys of the spaceuse and provision in its 18 universities. InJanuary 2003, it reported on changing patternsin space use over a period of 22 years. It foundthat there was relatively little change in theproportions of types of space. Classroom spacehad decreased slightly; laboratory space hadfallen from 8.7 to 5.8 per cent of the total, andacademic office and related space had increasedby 1.2 per cent.

However, space per student had fallen from 11.6net assignable square metres (NASM) in 1980-81to 9.7 NASM in 2001-02. Also, the gap hadwidened between actual space per student asgenerated with the state’s space standards andspace available. On the basis of space factors,the gap between the predicted amount of spaceand the actual amount of space per student grewfrom 0.5 NASM in 1977-78 to 2.7 NASM in2001-02. By 2001-02, the space needcalculations were generating 12.5 NASM perFTE student compared with space available of9.7 NASM per FTE. The 2001 calculations ofneed are based on an assumption that rooms willbe used for teaching for 34 hours per week.

Hong KongIn the 1990s, the University Grants Committee(UGC) of Hong Kong carried out a major studyassessing space and accommodation needs forthe eight UGC funded institutions. The finalreport was issued in 2000.

This work has a close resonance for the UK for anumber of reasons:

• at the time that the project was undertaken,the Hong Kong UGC and HEIs were usingthe UK UGC space norms

• there were concerns that these were out ofdate because they had not been revised since1987, and there was awareness that theywere no longer recommended by theFunding Councils for use in the UK

• there was also concern that the norms,which were based on HE practice in the1970s and 1980s, did not reflect changingpedagogy, curriculum developments and theimpact of IT on space needs and use

• the HEIs in Hong Kong were highlydifferentiated in terms of mission, size andtypes of estate, with some on denselydeveloped urban sites and others with muchlarger campuses. The report, the Space andAccommodation Study, noted: ‘The diversityof Hong Kong’s higher educationinstitutions creates a challenge for thedevelopment of an assessment methodologyapplicable to all its institutions.’

Against this background, the objective for thereview was to:

• recommend a methodology acceptable tothe UGC for a macro-level assessment of theadequacy of UGC funded institutions’ space

• make an assessment using that methodologyso that the UGC could use the results inassessing requests for additional space andcapital projects.

The study concluded that there were two mainoptions: revise the norms or switch to a roomuse method, similar to that often used in NorthAmerica.

The study decided against revising norms.

Instead, the study recommended that the UGCshould adopt:

• a room use based method

• planning standards


• standards that should include all netassignable space for the purposes ofcalculating space requirements andcollecting space data

• calculations of over/under provision ofspace using the standards as guidelines andnot as absolute predictors of need

• standards as one indicator to be consideredalongside other factors, such as condition,bad fit and suitability.

Using this method, the review calculated whethereach of the HEIs had an over or under provision.Most had the latter. Further work is now beingcarried out to revise the standards in the light ofa planned change from a three to four yeardegree programme.

GermanyIn Germany in 2003-04, there were 365 HEIswith a total of 19,625,000 HNF (hauptnutzflächewhich broadly corresponds to square metres ofnet internal area) and 2,019,831 students, givingsome 9.72 HNF per student.

General guidelines are set out by the federalgovernment and detailed policy is theresponsibility of the 16 regional states. HEIs usedto have very little autonomy, with correspondinglyfew incentives to manage space. There has been a

move to increase the responsibility of individualinstitutions, with several models now operating.Institutions may be tenants of their estates withownership vested in the state, HEIs may beowners with an estates budget, or they may havefull responsibility for all aspects of their estatesincluding buying and selling property. Combinedwith reforms in the HE funding system as awhole, these changes have led to a much strongerfocus on space management.

National guidelines on space planning

If regional states want federal support for majorbuilding projects, they have to follow nationalplanning procedures. These include subjectrelated space standards primarily focused on thespace needs per student FTE. These are shownin Table 9.

There are additional allowances for somespecialist institutions and some researchactivities:

• up to 16 HNF for researchers in humanities,natural sciences and engineering(theoretical)

• up to 27 HNF per researcher inexperimental natural sciences

• up to 23 HNF per researcher inexperimental engineering.


Table 9: Subject-related space standards in Germany

Subject Universities Universities of Teacher Specialist

(HNF per applied sciences* training arts and music

student place) (HNF per HEIs (HNF HEIs (HNF

student place) per student place) per student place)

Humanities 4-4.5 4

Natural sciences, 15-18 12

theoretical medical

subjects, agriculture,

forestry

Veterinary medicine 31-37

Teacher training 5.4

Arts and music 12

* Universities of applied sciences are similar to former UK polytechnics.

Regional state guidelines

Some regional states have their own guidelinesfor standards for different types of space suchas offices. In a number of cases, the Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS) (the highereducation information system which provides arange of services to institutions includingassistance with space needs, planning andmanagement) has worked with regional statesor individual institutions to refine subjectspecific space standards.

Assessing space needs

HIS has developed the work on space guidelinesto generate a parameter model. This combinestypes of space – for example for offices,laboratories or classrooms – with numbers ofstudents and staff by faculty. The results areexpressed in terms of the overall amount ofspace needed by a faculty and also in terms ofamount of space per student, per member ofacademic staff etc.

Space charging

As yet, space charging is not widespread,although there is growing interest. Where HEIsdo charge for space, there is a variety of modelsin place. Most of the models are based oncalculations of space need and space available,with charges being levied on the excess. Thereare differential charges for different types ofspace. Faculties which return space get a bonus.In many cases, the charges are symbolic and donot reflect the costs of occupation, althoughsome states/HEIs have been developing modelswhich cover all space costs.

Discussion andrecommendationsThis section draws together the main findingsfrom the review of the LSC approach andinvestigation into some international HE spacemanagement guidance. It discusses theirimplications for UK HE space management, andmakes recommendations in the light of theconclusions of the review and in the context ofthe other research areas covered by the SpaceManagement Project.

Summary of findingsThe LSC approach to assessing space needs hastwo main components, which are both driven bythe number of guided learning hours to bedelivered. The first enables colleges to build up aspace needs profile which can then be comparedwith the amount and type of space available.

During the study, two case studies wereresearched to assess the feasibility of building upprofiles of space needs in HEIs using thismethod. In one case study, where there was ahighly centralised timetable linked to studentrecords, it was found that it was feasible. Theinstitution in the second case study had adevolved system of management, and the dataneeded to support the approach were not readilyavailable. However, after a period ofconsultation with faculties, it was possible toarrive at an overview of the hours of teaching bycourses in different types of space, which couldthen be used to drive the space need predictions.

The second component comprises guidanceareas based on the most space efficient quartileof colleges in the sector. These provide guidanceon the overall amount of space to be providedby colleges. They act as benchmarks formeasuring individual colleges’ performance andfor tracking change in the FE sector estate inEngland as a whole.

During the study, statistical modelling replicatingthe method of analysis employed by the LSC wascarried out to explore the feasibility ofdeveloping guidance areas for the HE sector. Inthe absence of any sector-wide HE equivalents ofguided learning hours, taught student FTEnumbers by HEFCE price group were used as aproxy. It was concluded that a model forpredicting space need based on this single driverwas not as powerful as the SMG model forbenchmarking the size of the estate. This isbecause it did not explain as much variation inthe size of HE estates as the SMG model whichis based on a range of variables. If sector-widedata on the equivalent of contact hours were tobecome available in the future, this finding couldbe revisited, but until such time it is concludedthat the SMG model provides a more robust


benchmark. In addition, the SMG benchmarkincludes research space, whereas the LSCapproach was not designed to do so.

The review of international practice investigatedspace planning and management guidance inAustralasia, North America, Hong Kong andGermany. It found a variety of methods in place.In some cases, such as in the guidelines issued byTEFMA in Australasia, high-level ratios areprovided for general planning purposes. Theserelate to proportions of different types of spaceand to areas of types of space per student. Thereare also standards and benchmarks, for exampleon target space utilisation rates for differenttypes of space. In North America, space planningstandards have commonly been used to calculatespace needs. These use the same coefficients as inthe LSC approach, but are expressed differently.In Hong Kong, the UGC decided to move awayfrom norms based on those developed by theUGC in the UK, and instead to adopt a room useand space standard method similar to that oftenused in North America.

In many cases, where information is given in theinternational guidance on areas of space perstudent, they suggest more generous spaceallowances than are actually available in the UK,although any comparison needs to allow forcertain differences in definitions both of studentnumbers and areas of floorspace.

Most international space planning guidelines arederived from peer group comparisons ratherthan a detailed analysis of space needs byfunction. Nor are they driven in general by agoal of seeking the most efficient practice,although there are exceptions such as the targetspace utilisation rates issued by TEFMA. TheLSC approach is significantly different from theinternational examples and UK practice in onekey respect. That is in the basis for the college-wide guidance areas given to colleges. Theguidance areas are derived from the spaceperformance of the most efficient quartile ofinstitutions, and other FEIs are encouraged tomove towards their performance.

It would be feasible to develop a similarapproach in HE. Much of the background workhas already been done in the research into thedrivers of the size of the HE estate. The mainchange needed would be to set the benchmark atthe level of the most efficient quartile instead ofat the level of average performance in the sector.

Conclusions for UK HE spacemanagementAlthough a number of the space planningsystems that we reviewed stress that they areguidelines, there is a danger that they can beinterpreted as absolute predictors of need. Butmethods such as the space planning guidelinesused in North America are highly sensitive tochanges in the parameters on which they arebased. Even tweaking the areas per workplaceand varying the utilisation assumptions can havea major impact on an institution-wide basis.

Moreover, the methods do not make allowancefor factors such as poor fitness for purpose andmismatches between group sizes and roomcapacities within existing estates. The spacepredictions generated by these systems will oftenneed some moderation to take account of thecharacteristics of the stock of accommodation,where it is unlikely that they can readily beadapted.

Nevertheless, many, if not all, of the spaceplanning and management concepts used by theLSC and found in the international review arefamiliar to UK HEIs. They are already used bythem to manage space to a greater or lesserdegree, even if they are expressed in differentterms. In recent years, the closest UK guidance isprobably the ELWa 2002 report which containsa method of building up space needs from hoursof teaching to be delivered.

A number of the methods for calculating spaceneeds profiles outlined in this paper, for examplethe methods recommended by the LSC and theHong Kong UGC, follow a sequence of stepsthat begin with the volume of activity to bedelivered, measured in terms of numbers ofhours, and then predict the amount of spacerequired by applying target utilisation rates and


areas per workplace. The methods are notcomplicated, but they depend on havingsufficient data about planned hours of activityand about the existing estate. Core data include:

• contact hours for different types of teachingactivity

• numbers of workplaces

• areas per workplace for different categoriesof space

• target scheduled hours of different types ofspace

• target occupancy rates for workplaces

• actual utilisation information to informselection of targets.

If the data are not routinely collected by, or easilyaccessible to, staff responsible for spacemanagement, it can be difficult and timeconsuming to get the aggregate picture. In thecase of the UK, institution-wide data are notalways available on contact hours to be delivered,numbers of workplaces and areas per workplace.Of these, it is the hours of different types ofteaching activity to be delivered which is likely tobe the most time consuming to compile for manyHEIs unless they already have highly centralisedtimetabling systems linked to student records.

However, knowing what has to be delivered andwhether there is capacity to do so are corebuilding blocks for effective space management.Guidelines on how to build up space needs fromthe first principles of what type and volume ofactivity needs to be accommodated would be auseful addition to the range of space planningand management methods available to UK HEIs.

In addition, institutions may be uncertain aboutappropriate target utilisation rates, especially forspecialist teaching space, and they may onlyhave partial utilisation data. They may also beunsure about appropriate areas for differentkinds of workplaces. Both projected utilisationrates and workplace areas were implicit in theUGC and Polytechnics and Colleges FundingCouncil (PCFC) space norms, and the SMGreport ‘Review of space norms’ discusses thefeasibility and appropriateness of providing

updated space norms along the lines of thoseissued by the UGC. That report concludes thatan appropriate approach would be to provide aspace need indicator framework which providesHEIs with the basic method for building up aspace needs profile.

RecommendationsOur main recommendations arising from thereview of the LSC approach and examples ofinternational guidance are as follows.

1. Many of the methods researched providethe basis for space need calculations basedon the volume and type of activities that areto be delivered within an institution. It isrecommended that a space management toolis produced for the UK HE sector whichfollows these principles. However, given thediversity of practice within the sector, wepropose that it should be a frameworkwhich supplies the structure of the method,with default settings which can be followedor overridden by HEIs depending on theirown individual circumstances. Furtherdetails of such a method in the form of aspace need indicator framework are set outin the SMG report ‘Review of space norms’.

2. The SMG model currently providesbenchmarks for the size of HE estates. Thestatistical analysis carried out as part of thisstudy sought to replicate as far as possiblethe LSC approach to formulating guidanceareas. It found that the proxy of FTE taughtstudent numbers by HEFCE price groupprovided a significant explanation of therelationship between those numbers and thesize of the non-residential non-researchestate. But, it is not as powerful anexplanatory tool as the current SMG modelfor benchmarking the size of the HE estate.It is recommended, therefore, that the SMGmodel is retained in its present form,pending any significant change in the keydrivers of estate size, such as the impact ofthe introduction of variable fees or thesector-wide information on the effect ofdifferent teaching and learning methods.


3. The LSC approach to providing guidanceareas on the total amount of space to beprovided by colleges is based on theperformance of the most efficient quartilein terms of the relationship betweennumbers of guided learning hours and totalcollege floorspace. By comparison, theSMG model is based on the average spaceperformance predicted across the sector fora given profile of drivers. It isrecommended that additional informationis provided to HEIs in updates of the SMGmodel by supplying space predictions basednot only on the average performance andbut also on the performance of the topquartile. This would provide an additionalbenchmark related to the performance ofthe most space efficient institutions in thesector for given profiles of drivers.


Managing space: a review of English further education … · Managing space: a review of English...

Documents

Transcript of Managing space: a review of English further education … · Managing space: a review of English...