Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process
-
Upload
mkthink-strategy -
Category
Education
-
view
3.148 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 0 -
Understanding Your Customer:A Data-Driven Design Process
Archie Porter, Registrar, University of San FranciscoNate Goore, Principal, MKThinkLaura McCarty, Director of Project Management, University of San Francisco
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 1 -
Session Overview
• University of San Francisco Overview
• Classroom Situation Overview
• Customer Data-Driven Design Process
• Case Study: 2004 Classroom Renovation
• Conclusions
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 2 -
University of San Francisco
• Established in 1855• Private, Catholic, Jesuit• Located on 55 acres in San Francisco• Enrollment is approximately 8,300
– Baccalaureate– Master's– Doctorate– Law
“Educating Minds and Hearts to Change the World"
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 3 -
The University is Implementing a long-term Master Plan in Support of its Institutional Goals
• Meet needs of projected enrollment
• Support adjacency requirements that promote academic excellence
• Enable flexibility to accommodate changing pedagogies
• Improve efficient use of existing space
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 4 -
Auditorium (>101 seats) 4
Large Classroom (60-100 seats) 5
Medium Classroom (36-60 seats) 35
Small Classroom (21-35 seats) 27
Seminar Room (<21 seats) 7
TOTAL 78 109,310
Lone MountainClassrooms 31Square Feet19,188
Sch. of EducationClassrooms 15Square Feet 9,644
UnderhillClassrooms 1Square Feet 400
CPSClassrooms 3Square Feet 1,400
HarneyClassrooms 8Square Feet 7,382
CampionClassrooms 9Square Feet 5,963
CowellClassrooms 10Square Feet 9,409
Memorial GymClassrooms 1Square Feet 944
Room Type Number Total SF
The Lone Mountain Classrooms Are the Largest Block of Classrooms on Campus
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 5 -
…and Have Been in use since 1937
• Limited changes and renovations• Historic character
Insert original conditions photos
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 6 -
There Has Always Been a Perceived Shortage of Classrooms on Campus
• Existing Rooms don’t meet faculty requirements
• Rooms reserved for special uses
• Desirable time slots create scheduling conflicts
How should we get ahead of the problem?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 7 -
Renovation Projects Have Traditionally Been Reactive
• Need based on anecdotal information
• Project scope defined by available budget
• Program driven by available space
• Limited user participation
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 8 -
The Redesigned Process Emphasizes Critical Success Factors
• Need based on anecdotal information
• Project scope defined by available budget
• Program driven by available space
• Limited user participation
• Needs defined through rigorous analytics– Quantitative– Qualitative
• Project scope determined by need
• Program determined by quantitative analysis– Enrollment/Growth– Schedule issues– Facility issues
• Extensive user participation through entire process
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 9 -
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
The product development processExample
Bicycle manufacturer
• Declining sales of mature product– Popular model, limited changes over past 10 years
• Increase and stabilize sales
• Redesign and release updated model
Issue
Objective
Strategy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 10 -
Bicycle Manufacturer: Product Development Process
TestDefine Criteria
• Sales data• Customer
information• Competitive
analysis
• Design options• Features
• Declining Sales
Data Collection and Analysis
Develop Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
• Improve performance
• Improve reliability• Lower price
• Focus groups• Prototypes at trade
shows• Pre order testing
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 11 -
Bicycle Manufacturer: Product Development Process
TestDefine Criteria
• Redesign based on user feedback
Data Collection and Analysis
Develop Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
• Test effectiveness of modifications, redesign if needed
MeasureResultsManufactureDesign
Modifications Market
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 12 -
We adapted this process to the redesign of the Lone Mountain Classrooms
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 13 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 14 -
Classrooms will have to accommodate a growing population and changing teaching methods
• Accommodate Growth and Classroom Demand
– Undergraduate population growth of up to 15% by 2009*
– Emphasize residential campus culture
• Modernize Classroom Experience
– Technology support for lectures, discussion, lab
– Qualitative improvements: light, air, acoustics, storage
• Embrace Changing Pedagogies
– Emerging role of PC as teaching tool
– Small group breakout sessions
• Manage Financial Resources Efficiently
*2002 Strategic enrollment plan
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 15 -
These Goals Defined Specific Issues for the Lone Mountain Classrooms
• Improve Utilization
• Improve Occupancy
• Support Pedagogical Requirements
• Foster interaction among students and faculty
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 16 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection
and AnalysisDesign
PrototypeIdentify
Key Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 17 -
We collected information from many primary and secondary sources
• 2002 Strategic Enrollment plan
• Previous need studies and surveys
• Registrar reports• Best practice research
– Regional university benchmarking
– Standards (CPEC, DoE FICM)
• Building surveys
Academic EnvironmentNeeds
BuildingOpportunities
Quantitative Qualitative
• Previous need studies and surveys
• Individual, departmental interviews and workshops
• Student input: Focus Groups, Interviews, observation
• Faculty Input• Best practice research
• Previous planning studies
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 18 -
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Room Size (seats)
Roo
m U
tiliz
atio
nUtilization Analysis:Correlation Testing
Auditorium(>100 seats)
Seminar(< 21 seats)
Small(21 –35 seats)
Medium(36 –60 seats)
Large(61 –99 seats)
AnalysticMethods
(hou
rs/w
eek)
Is there a relationship between room size and
usage?
Is there a relationship between room size and
usage?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 19 -
Utilization Analysis:Peak Loading
Monday
Tuesday
36%
70%
37%44% 45%
54% 54%
0%
10%20%
30%
40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%
8-10 10-12 12-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10
Util
izat
ion
TotalCAMPIONCOWELLEDUCATIONHARNEYLONE MOUNTAINOTHER
24%
89%
32%
78%
54%
68%
54%
0%
10%20%
30%
40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%
8-10 10-12 12-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10
Util
izat
ion
TotalCAMPIONCOWELLEDUCATIONHARNEYLONE MOUNTAINOTHER
AnalyticMethods
(% in
use
)(%
in u
se)
Are Resources Being Scheduled Effectively?
Are Resources Being Scheduled Effectively?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 20 -
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Building
Roo
m U
tiliz
atio
n
Utilization Analysis:Room Location Effect
Cowell Harney Campion School of Education Lone Mountain
Lower Campus Upper Campus
AnalyticMethods
(hou
rs/w
eek)
Is there a relationship between room location
and usage?
Is there a relationship between room location
and usage?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 21 -
362
1446
258
207
1808
WRH USF Best Practice
294
1176
1470
210168
WRH Capacity
109.1
852.5
1468.3
175.8118.7
WRH
Utilization Analysis:Valuation
Seminar (< 21 seats)
Small (21 –35 seats)
Medium (36 –60 seats)
Large (61 –99 seats)Auditorium (>100 seats)
Weekly RoomUse HoursAvailable3,276Current
Weekly RoomUse Hours
2,69129.835.3
42.0
30.2
15.5
Weekly RoomUse HoursAvailable
(USF Best Practice*)4,081
Equivalent ofAdding 17 Classrooms at current utilization
Equivalent ofAdding 39 Classroomsat currentutilizationUtilization
34.5 h/wk
Utilization42 h/wk
Utilization51.7 h/wk
*Top 10% performing rooms based on utilization
WRH CPECStandard
AnalyticMethods
What Is the Economic Value of Improving
Utilization?
What Is the Economic Value of Improving
Utilization?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 22 -
92
682
1366
305
554
Seats
Occupancy Analysis:Effective Inventory
106
769
1653
382
554
Seats
48352
766
138151
Cum Avg Class Size
Seminar(< 21 seats)
Small(21 –35 seats)
Medium(36 –60 seats)
Large(61 –99 seats)
Auditorium(>100 seats)
Current Seats3,464
Seats in Use1,455
Adjusted Seats @20 sf/seat2,999
AnalyticMethods
Planning standards recommend a minimum of 20s.f. per seat in classrooms without fixed seating
What Is the Effective Seat Usage?
What Is the Effective Seat Usage?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 23 -
Occupancy Analysis:Room Capacity Efficiency
15
28
47
76
139
713
2228
38
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
seminar small medium large auditorium
Room Size
Average Seats per room
Average class size
AnalyticMethods
Are the right rooms being used for the right
classes?
Are the right rooms being used for the right
classes?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 24 -
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Room Size (seats)
Occupancy Analysis:Room Size and Occupancy Correlation
Auditorium(>100 seats)
Seminar(< 21 seats)
Small(21 –35 seats)
Medium(36 –60 seats)
Large(61 –99 seats)
Sea
t O
ccu
pan
cy(B
ased
on
ave
rage
occ
upa
ncy
wh
en r
oom
is in
use
)
AnalyticMethods
Are Smaller rooms more full?
Are Smaller rooms more full?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 25 -
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Building
Occupancy Analysis:Occupancy/Location Correlation
Cowell Harney Campion School of Education Lone Mountain
Lower Campus Upper Campus
AnalyticMethods
Sea
t O
ccu
pan
cy(B
ased
on
ave
rage
occ
upa
ncy
wh
en r
oom
is in
use
)
Do certain buildings have fuller classes?
Do certain buildings have fuller classes?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 26 -
Occupancy Analysis:Valuation
48352
766
138151
Cum Avg Class Size
76
549
1180
273
396
CPEC Standard Seats in Use
Seminar (< 21 seats)
Small (21 –35 seats)
Medium (36 –60 seats)
Large (61 –99 seats)Auditorium (>100 seats)
Seats in UseDuring Scheduled
Classes1,455
36%
46%
46%
45%
Occupancy54%
27%
Seats in Use1,913
Occupancy71%
Equivalent of55 Classrooms (44 seat avg.) at current occupancy levels
AnalyticMethods
What is the Economic Value of fuller classrooms?
What is the Economic Value of fuller classrooms?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 27 -
Current Room Utilization (34.5 hours per week)
Increase utilization to Avg. utilizationOf top 60% utilized rooms (42 hours per week)
Increase utilization toUSF best practice – Avg. utilization of top 10% utilized rooms(51.7 hours per week)
Add toInventory
108
Include 30 additional rooms @10 hrs/week, 20 occupied seats per room hour
An Overall Valuation Suggested Capacity Could Be Doubled With no Additional Space
Number of Available Classrooms
Currently Scheduled Rooms
Current Situation
50,197 Weekly ‘Seat in Use’ Hours
Total Capacity
112,438 Weekly ‘Seat in Use’ Hours
Room Occupancy54%71%
Incr
ease
Uti
lizat
ion
ImproveOccupancy
78
Roo
m U
tiliz
atio
n (h
ours
/wee
k)
34.5
42
51.7
Currently Seat Occupancy
CPEC Occupancy Standard (71%)
88
AnalyticMethods
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 28 -
ROOM 244A
-DOOR
The Analysis then Focused On Identifying Drivers of Room Performance
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 29 -
Internal Benchmarking Analysis:Qualitative Feature Correlations
Top Five
Bottom Five
12
14
15
21
18
Avg. Class Size
5232484Education 104
5442718Education 102
5435774Lone Mountain 358
5549811Lone Mountain 344
7954972Education 40
Weekly hours in use
SeatsSize (sf)Room
8
10
27
16
11
Avg. Class Size
1310112Lone Mountain 342
1512273Lone Mountain 343
161201,290Cowell 113
1625835Cowell 226
1935684Lone Mountain 152
Weekly hours in use
SeatsSize (sf)Room
• Proximity to parking lot and elevator, easy to move teaching materials
• Breakout rooms
• Size and proportion ideal• No adjoining rooms, limited outside noise
• Size and proportion ideal• No adjoining rooms, limited outside noise
• Size and proportion ideal • Good location near entry
• Size and proportion ideal • Good location near entry
• Bad acoustics – sound transmission from auditorium
• Often reserved for other uses
• Often reserved for other uses
• Too small, poor layout• Bad acoustics
• Too small, poor layout• Bad acoustics
Faculty Feedback
AnalyticMethods
What Are the Characteristics of Top
and Bottom Performers?
What Are the Characteristics of Top
and Bottom Performers?
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 30 -
Room Features Were Categorized and Measured Across Campus…
Classroom Environment Presentation Tools Network Connectivity
Quantitative
• Occupancy
• Number of Seats
• Tiered ?
• Floor level ?
Qualitative
• Acoustic Quality
• Lighting Quality
• Climate (HVAC)
• Furniture Quality
• Layout Quality
• Sightlines
• White Boards• Black boards • # Ctr. Screens• Side Screens • Selective Light
Control • MM Podium • Podium PC • Podium VCR • Digital
Projectors • Monitors • Overhead
Projector • Slide projector
• # Network Connections
• ISDN
• Analog lines
• Cable
AnalyticMethods
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 31 -
…And Correlated Against Utilization…
High Significant No Correlation
• Occupancy
• Number of Seats
• Floor level (negative)
• Side Screens
• Podium VCR
• Digital Projectors
• # Network Connections
• Tiered ?
• Acoustic Quality
• Lighting Quality
• Furniture Quality (negative)
• Selective Light Control
• MM Podium
• Podium PC
• Cable
• Climate (HVAC)
• Layout Quality
• Sightlines
• White Boards
• Black boards
• # Ctr. Screens
• Monitors
• Overhead Projector
• ISDN
• Analog lines
Classroom Environment
Presentation Tools
Network Connectivity
AnalyticMethods
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 32 -
…And Occupancy
High Significant No Correlation
• Occupancy
• Number of Seats
• Side Screens
• Floor level (negative)
• Acoustic Quality
• Lighting Quality
• Layout Quality
• MM Podium
• Podium PC
• Podium VCR
• Digital Projectors
• Cable
• # Network Connections
• Tiered ?
• Climate (HVAC)
• Sightlines
• Furniture Quality
• White Boards
• Black boards
• # Ctr. Screens
• Monitors
• Overhead Projector
• Selective Light Control
• ISDN
• Analog lines
Classroom Environment
Presentation Tools
Network Connectivity
AnalyticMethods
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 33 -
The Correlations Defined the Drivers of Room Performance
Correlations
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Average Room in Use Hours
Perc
ent O
ccup
ancy
Number of SeatsSide ScreenPodium VCRDigital ProjectorsNetwork Connections
TieredAcoustic QualityLighting QualitySet Light ControlMM PodiumPodium PCCable
Layout Quality
Climate (HVAC)SightlinesWhite BoardsBlack Boards#Ctr. ScreensPodium DVDMonitorsOverhead ProjectorPASlide ProjectorISDNAnalog Lines
Furniture Quality
Floor Level
P<.001
P>.05
AnalyticMethods
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 34 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 35 -
Criteria Were Established Through a Set of Design Standards
Intent:
• To facilitate and promote effective classroom-based learning.
• To provide adequate flexibility to allow for a range of teaching styles.
• To accommodate a variety of audio/visual presentations and interactive teaching technologies.
• To optimize the use of space through classroom environments designed to accommodate specific ranges of class sizes.
Design Criteria:
• Aspect ratio should not exceed 3:2• Slab to slab partitions with sound insulation
to maximize acoustic qualities• Visibility into classrooms through clear and
obscured glass.– Side lites– Lite in door
• Natural light is preferred when space plan permits in small/medium sized rooms
• General lighting provided by indirect fluorescent fixtures; directional lighting as required
• Opening windows in small/medium sized rooms preferred
• Easily moved tables and chairs for quick reconfiguration of classroom
Classroom with movable seating and multiple writing surfaces is ideally suited to flexible configurations
Conference rooms should range from a 1:1 aspect ratio for large rooms to a 3:2 aspect ratio for small rooms in order to optimize communication
Recommended:
Rooms exceeding a 3:2 aspect ratio result in long, thin spaces unsuitable for effective group interaction
Avoid:
Criteria
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 36 -
LightingDaylight is the ideal way to bring light into a space. It conserves energy and enhances the learning environment by creating a connection between exterior and interior. Whenever possible and feasible, natural lighting is recommended as a supplement to indirect artificial lighting.
AcousticsThe acoustical properties of a classroom are one of the most important factors contributing to its usage. Unwanted sound must not enter a classroom from adjoining spaces; at the same time, sound must reverberate appropriately within the room to ensure all students can hear the instructor, audio/visual media, and other students.
FurnitureMovable tables and chairs offer the greatest flexibility and comfort. They also allow for quick reconfigurations of the classroom by the instructor and students. Tablet chairs should be avoided due to their limiting proportions and right-handed bias. Fixed seating is also not recommended in small and medium sized classrooms.
TechnologyToday’s classroom experience is constantly evolving as new technologies enter the classroom. Wherever possible, presentation hardware, power access, and network access should be provided.
Natural light and ventilation, and movable tables with chairs
Recommended:
Avoid:
Indirect artificial lighting, movable tables with chairs and multiple wall-writing surfaces
Uncomfortable, cramped tablet seats and fixed seating (in all but large lecture halls)
Surfaces which will reflect and/or transmit sound into adjoining rooms; direct downlighting
The Standards Defined Important Environmental Aspects of the Rooms…
Criteria
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 37 -
Level
1
2
3
4
5
Network
• Instructor’s station
• Instructor’s station
• Instructor’s station• Wireless Access Point(s)
• Instructor’s station• Student desks/floor
mount or Wireless Access Point
• Instructor’s station
AC Power
• Instructor’s station• Perimeter wall
• One presentation station• Perimeter wall
• One presentation station• Perimeter wall
• All presentation stations• Accessible power to desks
• All presentation stations• Accessible power to desks
Presentation and ComputerEquipment
• Available PC cart with LCD projector• Screen• VCR and monitor• Adjustable lighting control
• Lectern with media-switching control panel• Computer with CD-RW and DVD player• Laptop connection• Overhead mounted LCD projector• Enhanced speakers with colume control• Document camera• Screen• VCR with direct screen projection• Adjustable lighting control• Remote control for computer and LCD projector• Television
• See Level 2
• See Level 2• Student PC workstations or laptop connection• Optional wireless cart
• Interactive videoconferencing with control to switch among receiving sites
• Tabletop omni-directional microphones• Object projection camera• Presentation media switching control panel with
PC/laptop connection• Monitors (preview, broadcast, remote)
Description
• Fixed access to networked resources and available projection equipment for a single presenter
• Fixed network and dedicated computer and presentation media equipment for a single presentation station
• Level 2 with wireless access to networked resources for instructors and students
• Networked computer and presentation media equipment for each station in the classroom
• Level 2 with flexible students seating, interactive teleconferencing capability and enhanced audio and video resources
…As Well As Technology Standards
Excerpted from “Classroom Technology Upgrades” Planning Initiative, January 2003
Criteria
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 38 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 39 -
20’-0”
15’-0
”
Standard Plan Design Criteria• Lighting
- Natural lighting- Overhead indirect lighting- Directional lighting on blackboard/
whiteboard surfaces• Acoustics
- Minimize sound transmission from hall,other rooms
- Sound absorbing materials- Insulated wall sections
• Furniture- Blackboard/ Whiteboard: 12’x4’ min. with
continuous chalk rail and clip rail- Projection screen- Movable tables- Task chairs
• Technology/ Power- Minimum: Access to networked
resources by instructor (level 1)- Preferred: Fixed network and dedicated
computational and presentation mediaequipment for instructor (level 2)
- Power on each wall• Finishes
- Floor: Carpet- Walls: Paint- Ceiling: Acoustic tile- Exterior window coverings: Miniblinds
and blackout shades• Ventilation
- Natural ventilation preferred
Usage
• Small interactive classes• Accommodates up to 15 people
(18 preferable)• 3:4 ideal proportion• 300 sf
Planning Criteria
• Integrate with larger classrooms• Locate on building perimeter• Locate near faculty offices
Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis
Prototypes
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 40 -
28’-0
”
25’-0”
10’-0
”
25’-0” • Lighting- Natural lighting- Overhead indirect lighting- Directional lighting on blackboard/
whiteboard surfaces• Acoustics
- Minimize sound transmission from hall,other rooms
- Sound absorbing materials- Insulated wall sections- Sufficient reflectivity for students in rear
to hear• Furniture
- Blackboard/ Whiteboard: 16’x4’ min. withcontinuous chalk rail and clip rail(preferably two)
- Projection screen- Movable tables- Task chairs
• Technology/ Power- Fixed network and dedicated computational
and presentation media equipment forinstructor (level 2)
- Power on each wall• Finishes
- Floor: Carpet- Walls: Paint- Ceiling: Acoustic tile- Exterior window coverings: Miniblinds
and blackout shades• Ventilation
- Natural ventilation preferred
Usage
• Flexible environment accommodatinglecture, discussion, breakout groups
• Easily reconfigurable by instructor,students
• Accommodates up to 35 people (40 preferable)
• 1:1 proportion• 700 sf min. (classroom)• 120 sf (breakout rooms)
Standard Plan Design Criteria
Planning Criteria
• Plan in groups of 2 - 4• Integrate breakout rooms,
storage, and informal meetingspace into planning module
Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis
Prototypes
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 41 -
48’-0
”
50’-0”
• Lighting- Overhead zoned direct/ indirect lighting- Directional lighting on blackboard/
whiteboard surfaces- Dimmer control for all zones
• Acoustics- Minimize external sound transmission- Room designed to optimize acoustics- Amplified lecturer station
• Furniture- Fixed tiered continuous tables- Wide teaching counter housing document
camera, screen controls, lighting controls,and video equipment
- 2 projection screens, sectional whiteboard- Task chairs
• Technology/ Power- Fixed network and dedicated computational
and presentation media equipment forinstructor (level 2)
- Multiple networked projectors- Power on front wall and in tables
• Finishes - Floor: Carpet- Walls: Paint- Ceiling: Acoustic tile/ drywall
• Ventilation- Mechanical ventilation systemsUsage
- Large class lecture hall- Accommodates up to 80 - 120 people- 1:1 ideal proportion- 1,600 – 2,400 sf
Design CriteriaStandard Plan
Planning Criteria
- Provide adequate interactionand storage space in immediatevicinity
Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis
Prototypes
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 42 -
30’-0
”
38’-0”
30’-0
”
• Lighting- Overhead zoned direct/ indirect lighting- Directional lighting on blackboard/
whiteboard surfaces• Acoustics
- Minimize external sound - Sufficient reflectivity for students in rear
to hear• Furniture
- Wide teaching counter housing documentcamera, screen controls, PC connection,lighting controls, and video equipment
- 3 projection screens, sectional whiteboard- Tables configured to allow for lecture,
discussion, group and individual work- Task chairs
• Technology/ Power- Recessed floor power and telecom/ data
boxes- Fixed and networked computational
and presentation media equipment withspecific architecture and softwaredesigned for media-delivered instruction,for instructors and all stations (level 6)
• Finishes - Floor: Carpet- Walls: Paint- Ceiling: Acoustic tile
• Ventilation- Mechanical ventilation systems
Usage
- Collaborative studioenvironment housingboth individual/ groupwork and lecturemodes independentlyor concurrently
- Sufficient circulationspace for instructor’s movement through class
- Accommodates up to30 people (35 preferable)
- 3:4 ideal proportion- 1,140 sf
Design CriteriaStandard Plan
Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis
Prototypes
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 43 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 44 -
The Prototypes Were Tested Through a Variety of Methods
• Focus group reviews – Room Configurations– Technology Support
• Full scale mock-ups– Audio/Video setup with Smart Box– Furniture configurations– Lighting control– Breakout Rooms
Results of the Testing Were Used to Refine the Prototype Designs
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 45 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
DesignOccupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 46 -
The Analysis, Prototypes, and Testing Directly Feed the Architectural Design Phase
• Application of standards/prototypes to existing environment– Modifications to idealized prototypes to accommodate physical
constraints– Leverage opportunities found in existing environment
• Limited rework and redesign– Approvals already received during earlier phases– Clear understanding of project intent
Design
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 47 -
The Renovations focused on Rightsizing the Classrooms…
Original Conditions Redesigned
Design
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 48 -
…Adding Breakout Rooms…
Original Conditions Redesigned
Design
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 49 -
…And Creating Informal Interaction Space
Original Conditions Redesigned
Design
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 50 -
The Improvements Also Focused on Specific Functional and Environmental Issues
• Lighting– Improve lighting level and eliminate glare– Provide zone control
• Improve acoustic conditions– Reduce in-room reverberation– Eliminate adjoining room transmission
• Additional wall writing surfaces
• Presentation/Display technology in all rooms– Projector– Screen– DVD/VCR– Laptop Connection Station– Remote control
Design
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 51 -
Maintaining the Identity and Character of the Space Was Critical to the Success of the Project
Design &Construction
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 52 -
Original Elements were Restored and Reused…Design &Construction
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 53 -
…While New Functional Space Types Were Created…
Design &Construction
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 54 -
…With an Emphasis on Natural Light and Ventilation
Design &Construction
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 55 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResults
ConstructionArchitecturalDesign Occupy
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 56 -
Post-Occupancy Analysis
• Critical step of process: feedback loop
• Measure results
• Assess overall success of project
• Understand what worked, what didn’t
• Analyze value of key features and criteria
• Apply learnings to future projects
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 57 -
For the Post Occupancy analysis, We Conducted Another Round of Data Collection
• Qualitative– Observations– Focus Groups (faculty)
• Quantitative– Enrollment Data– Course Scheduling– Survey (students and faculty)
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 58 -
The Analysis Focused on Five Measures of Success
• Overall Satisfaction
• Noticeability of Improvements
• Perceived Impact of Features
• Relative Feature Impact
• Dollar-Adjusted Impact
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 59 -
Classroom users Were Satisfied with the Results
In general the new classroom meets my needs.
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
Strong
ly Agre
eSom
ewha
t Agre
eSom
ewha
t Disa
...Stro
ngly
Disagre
e
In general the newclassroom meets myneeds.
MeasureResults
Satisfaction = Validation of Project
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 60 -
The Most Noticeable Improvements had an Immediate Impact on Usage
• Aesthetic Improvement
• Technology upgrades
• Acoustics
MeasureResults
Noticeability = Good PR
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 61 -
Individual Features Received Positive Responses
The interaction space (padded seating area) is useful.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Strong
ly Agre
eSom
ewha
t Agre
eSom
ewha
t Disa
gree
Strong
ly Disa
gree
The interaction space(padded seating area) isuseful.
The quantity of tables and chairs in the classroom is...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Not Eno
ugh
About R
ight
Too M
uch
The quantity of tablesand chairs in theclassroom is...
How important is the flexible and configurable seating in your classrooms?
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Very Im
porta
nt
Impo
rtant
Somew
hat Im
porta
ntNot
Impo
rtant
How important is theflexible and configurableseating in yourclassrooms?
There is enough blackboard and whiteboard space.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Stro
ngly
Agree
Somew
hat A
gree
Somew
hat D
isagre
eStro
ngly
Disagre
e
There is enoughblackboard andwhiteboard space.
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 62 -
The Relative Feature Impact Assessed the Importance of Features to a Successful Room
• Conjoint Analysis• Respondents select degree of preference between room pairs with varying
features• Analysis determines relative degree of preference of individual features
ROOM FEATURE RELATIVE FEATURE IMPACT
Moveable Tables and Chairs (vs. other forms of seating) .33Natural light/ventilation through operable windows .29Permanent A/V equipment, no computer (vs. carts) .17Carpet (vs. bare floors) .07Whiteboard/Blackboards front and back (vs. front only) -.05
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 63 -
Relative Feature Impact Was Mapped Against Feature Cost…
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 64 -
…Leading to a Prioritization of Features for Future Projects
Avoid
Low Priority
Evaluate
High Priority
MeasureResults
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 65 -
TestDefine CriteriaData Collection and Analysis
Design Prototype
IdentifyKey Issues
MeasureResultsConstructionArchitectural
Design Occupy
Inform Future Projects
MeasureResults
Post-Occupancy Value Comes from Application of Findings to Future Efforts
© Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved.SM - 66 -
Conclusions
• Adapting a Product Development Process optimizes design for user satisfaction
• Decisions are based on comprehensive data collection and analysis, not anecdotal information
• Key decisions made early in process avoids costly changes
• Measuring results informs future projects