uk higher education space management project - · pdf fileuk higher education space...

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Review of space norms

September 2006

2006/40

Review of space norms

ContentsPage

Executive summary 3

Introduction 6

HE space norms: their role and development 7

Use of norms today 8

Outline of UGC and PCFC space norm methodology 9

Estimation of norms implied by current estate size and student numbers 10

Conclusions on feasibility of updating norms 13

Framework for indicating space need 16

Annex 1: UGC and PCFC space norm methodology 19

Annex 2: Framework for indicating space need: sample spreadsheets 22

List of abbreviations 26

Review of space norms 2006/40 1

Executive summary

Purpose of the study

The UK Higher Education Space ManagementGroup commissioned this study to research thescope for providing updated space norms for thehigher education (HE) sector.

Background to space norms

Space norms are usually expressed as an‘allowance’ of non-residential space per student.The allowance is made up of different types ofspace, such as general purpose and specialistfacilities, and other non-teaching facilities, such asoffices. It varies according to academic discipline.

Norms used to be published by the UniversityGrants Committee (UGC) and the Polytechnicsand Colleges Funding Council (PCFC). They werebased on observations and assumptions abouthow students in different disciplines were taught,such as how many hours and what type ofteaching activity was needed, staff:student ratiosand areas per workplace, for example the areaper student in a lecture theatre or a laboratory.

They were widely used both by individualinstitutions and by the UK HE Funding Councilsfor a range of purposes, including assessments ofinstitutions’ capacity to accommodate studentgrowth and to inform the size of new buildingprojects. Norms were never intended to be seenas requirements for, or entitlements to, space.

The UK HE Funding Councils have not publishedany new or updated space norms for over 15years. Space management guidance in the 1990smoved away from a space norms or standardsapproach to space planning and management,towards the view that each higher educationinstitution (HEI) should decide for itself theamount and type of space that it needed.

Despite the length of time since norms were lastupdated and the policy shift away from them,they continue to be used by many HEIs. Thesurvey of space management practice carried outin Phase One of the Space Management Project(‘Review of practice’ 2005/25 atwww.smg.ac.uk/Phase_1_reports) found thatsome 45 per cent of respondents used UGC or

PCFC norms or space weightings, often withmodifications. Space norms often provoke strongviews, both from those in favour and from thoseagainst. Feedback from the Phase One surveysuggests that while some HEIs do not wantupdated norms, others would welcome them.

Estimation of updated UGC and PCFC norms

Since the last update of norms, there has been adecline in the amount of space available per full-time equivalent (FTE) student. Although the sizeof the HE estate has increased, it has not keptpace with the growth in student numbers. Eitherspace is being used more efficiently, or academicactivities are being delivered differently, or both.

This study estimates the updated equivalent ofUGC and PCFC norms based on the size of theestate and numbers of staff and students acrossdifferent disciplines using data from 2003-04.

This was done for two reasons:

• to provide an updated ‘broad brush’ re-estimation of UGC and PCFC norms forthose HEIs which have continued to findthem useful

• to assess the scale of the change that hastaken place when measured in terms ofperformance against norms: we made acomparison between a reference year (1991-92) and 2003-04.

This exercise was broad brush only because ofsome differences in definitions and dataavailability between the two years. We have setout the re-estimated norms in this report and ouranalysis found that on average the sector isoperating at 80 per cent of the prediction basedon UGC norms and at just under 80 per cent ofthe PCFC norms.

Conclusions on the feasibility of updatingnorms

In this study we investigated the feasibility ofupdating UGC and PCFC norms by examiningthe way in which the norms were originallyderived. Both UGC and PCFC norms were afunction of series of coefficients, including:

• total hours of on-campus contact orlearning hours per week per student


• breakdown of those hours into differenttypes of activity, for instance lecture theatrehours, seminar hours and laboratory hours

• total hours that space is available per weekto be used, for instance 40 hours

• predicted frequency and occupancy rates forspace use, that is planned utilisation

• space standards per workplace in teaching,learning, research and support spaces

• definition of discrete subject groups ordisciplines

• staff:student ratios by discipline or subjectgroup

• professorial:other academic staff ratios bysubject group

• academic:support staff ratios by subject group.

Across the sector, the coefficients have changedsince the norms were devised. We exploredwhether it would be feasible to update them on asector-wide basis, and if there was still sufficientconsistency between HEIs to enable such asector-wide approach to be useful.

We concluded that it would be technicallyfeasible to construct new norms, but that thechanges that have taken place in HE and thediversity across the sector render it difficult toselect a range of coefficients for their calculationwhich would be applicable across the board.Given this diversity we do not think it isappropriate to recommend a single set of normsfor use across the sector.

However, we also concluded that the conceptsunderlying the development of norms should be

retained, because the principles of basing anassessment of capacity or space need on whatactivities are to be delivered and how that mightbe done are still relevant. Without an assessmentof this type, it is difficult to know whether anHEI, or any organisation, has broadly the rightamount and type of space.

Framework for calculating indicative spaceneeds

In this study we developed a method to calculateindicative space needs which shares much of thegeneral approach that underpins UGC and PCFCnorms. However, the method assists HEIs inestimating space needs based on their ownparticular profile of academic activity andmethods of delivery. This approach is likely to beof most interest to HEIs which would like tobetter understand the capacity of their estates; tostart from first principles in getting an insightinto what type and how much space may beneeded; and to model the effect of changes instudent and staff numbers.

The method is intended to be flexible andtransparent. It takes the form of a frameworkwhich can be used to generate indicative spacepredictions for types of space and by studentFTE for all or part of an HEI, based on staff andstudent numbers and a series of defaultcoefficients to assist calculations. HEIs canoverride the default settings if they consider thatalternatives would better reflect their owncircumstances and requirements. The moregenerously the coefficients are set, the greaterwill be the estimated indicative space calculation,and vice versa.

4 Review of space norms 2006/40

Key components

1. Input data on student and staff numbers, and To be provided by HEIscontact hours and some space categories

2. A series of coefficients generating indicative Default range provided which can be modified space profiles for most space categories by HEIs

3. Output calculations Generated by the interaction of 1 and 2 for a rangeof space types

The output can then be compared with existingspace provision. It is also possible to comparethe indicative space profile generated by theframework with the sector-wide analysis, whichis incorporated in the SMG model forbenchmarking the size of the estate andcalculating the cost of having an estate kept ingood condition and fit for purpose. The model isavailable to HEIs on the SMG web-site,www.smg.ac.uk/the_model.html.


IntroductionThis report by Kilner Planning and LondonEconomics to the UK HE Space ManagementGroup sets out the results of a study into thefeasibility of providing updated space norms forthe higher education sector.

The study is one of a series of research projectscarried out as part of the UK Space ManagementProject (SMP) under the direction of the UK HESpace Management Group (SMG). The SMG issupported by the four UK funding bodies for highereducation: the Higher Education Funding Councilfor England (HEFCE), Scottish Funding Council(SFC), Higher Education Funding Council forWales (HEFCW) and Department for Employmentand Learning (in Northern Ireland) (DEL).

This report outlines what HE space norms areand why they were developed. It explores viewsfor and against their use, and looks at howsubstantial numbers of higher educationinstitutions (HEIs) continue to use them, ormodified versions, despite the last updates beingsome 15 years ago. It outlines the way spacenorms used to be calculated, and provides abroad brush re-estimation of University GrantsCommittee (UGC) and Polytechnics and CollegesFunding Council (PCFC) norms on the basis ofthe current staff and student numbers andfloorspace across the sector. The report then setsout the conclusions from the research intofeasibility of developing updated norms. For HEIsinterested in this aspect of space management, itdescribes a framework which can be used to givean indication of space needs based on an HEI’sindividual profile of academic activities.


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 under Reports/tools.

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 project: case studies September 2006

Space management project: summary September 2006

HE space norms: their role anddevelopmentThe term space norm is often used in HE todescribe an allowance of space for a given set ofactivities. It is usually expressed in square metresof non-residential space per student in differentacademic disciplines. The allowance comprisesdifferent types of space, such as general purposeand specialist teaching facilities and other non-teaching areas, such as offices.

The UGC began to use space norms in the 1960sfollowing the Government’s decision to expandprovision for higher education. It issued a seriesof publications on them until the late 1980s.Many of these were part of the UGC’s ‘Notes onControl and Guidance for University BuildingProjects’, or NOCAG.

From the outset, norms were never intended tobe entitlements to a specific amount of space,nor were they a rigid, formulaic approach toassessing space need. They were introduced toprovide a common system of helping to assessthe capacity of existing accommodation and ofdefining the scale and composition of newbuilding projects designed to accommodategrowth. The function of university space normswas set out in the UGC publication, ‘Planningnorms for university buildings’, 1974:

‘They are used for two main purposes: first inthe establishment of unit area allowances onthe basis of which expenditure limits for newbuilding or adaptation are set; and secondlyas providing an initial yardstick for theassessment of capacity of existing buildings.In neither case are they used as bluntinstruments. ... So far as the assessment ofcapacity is concerned, the norms ….essentially provide a point of departure forthe process of assessment, not a rigid formulafor the calculation of capacity.’

The UGC norms were based on surveys in the1960s and 1970s about how institutions plannedand used space. They distilled a wide range ofinformation and assumptions about course

composition and study patterns into a series ofspace allowances. Elements of the norms wereupdated by the UGC from time to time, but theunderlying interaction of the coefficients uponwhich they were based remained largelyunchanged. The last major update of the UGCnorms was published in 1987.

When the PCFC was established in England in1989, it developed its own separate guidance onnorms. These were published in 1990. The samemethod was used to develop the norms, but thearea allowances by discipline were different,reflecting the teaching methods used for differentactivities by PCFC institutions.

No new or updated norms have been publishedby the Funding Councils since 1990. Over time,the Funding Councils’ role in providing capitalfunding diminished, and they stopped issuingadvice on appropriate amounts and compositionof space. Instead, they took the position thateach institution should decide for itself howmuch space it provided and how that spaceshould be organised.

The HEFCE Circular 1/93, ‘Strategic estatemanagement’, signalled a move away from aspace norms/standards approach to spacemanagement. It commented that the Council wasreviewing the performance indicators it would usefor considering efficiency in estate use ‘and mayconsider replacing current space standards withweightings indicating the relative space needs ofthe different academic subject categories and typesof research activity’. It subsequently undertook anexercise to determine space weightings betweendifferent subject or cognate groups. The resultswere contained in a report, by Touche Ross andGrimley in 1995, ‘Space weightings’. That studyprovided some insight into how space was beingused by discipline across the sector as a whole,but it did not address the question of how tocalculate space need.

The National Audit Office study of spacemanagement in HEIs in Wales in 1996commented that norms were widely perceived as


being outdated and not reflecting currentpatterns of teaching delivery. It noted:

‘ ...(HEIs) are complex, diverse, multi-facetedorganisations and the size, cost and nature ofthe estates in which they operate and theprofile of academic activity undertaken withinthem varies enormously. Therefore, attemptsto calculate universal measures of the spacerequirement have proved insufficiently flexibleto be meaningful and do not provide a soundbasis for planning capital developments.’

Since that study 10 years ago, there has been nofurther sector-wide investigation into spacenorms.

Use of norms todayDespite the length of time since norms were lastupdated and the policy shift away from them,norms have continued to be used by manyinstitutions. They use them for a range ofpurposes, primarily to assess space needs, plannew space and as a management tool to assistthe allocation of space between users anddepartments.

As recently as 2003-04, the SMP survey of spacemanagement practice across the sector foundthat some 45 per cent of respondents used UGCor PCFC norms or space weightings, often withmodifications. Others had developed their ownnorms, while 13 per cent of respondents did notuse any set method for determining how muchspace was needed. UGC norms were used morecommonly than PCFC norms, as illustrated inFigure 1.

As the SMG Phase One report, ‘Review ofpractice’, noted, 27 per cent of HEIs use othermethods as well or instead of norms andweightings. Institutions that use other methodsfrequently use norms or weightings as well.Where sources were given for these, the mostcommon were standards or norms which weredeveloped by the institutions themselves, advicefrom consultants, external sources, such asWellcome Laboratory Guidelines, and formerDepartment of Education and Science (DES)design notes. In some cases, institutions haddeveloped reference areas, which wereinstitution-specific space norms similar inapproach to the UGC formula.


Figure 1: Types of space norms/standards in use

0

5

10

Num

ber

of

inst

itutio

ns

15

20

25 24

UGC norms PCFC norms Space weightings

Mix of UGC/PCFCweightings

No setmethod

Other

5

30

35

40

17

28

18

37

In the survey, institutions were asked if theymade adjustments to the standards/norms in use.Thirty four per cent said yes. Most of theexamples given were reductions.

Arguments for and against norms

Comments made during the survey andsubsequently at SMG seminars on the output fromPhase One showed that there are some strongly-held and divergent views on the value of norms.

Those who find them useful cite advantagessuch as:

• their objectivity and transparency

• their credibility with, and acceptance by,space users

• even if they do not provide the completeanswer, they are at least a good startingpoint

• they are a means of benchmarkingperformance

• having a common system avoids the needfor everyone individually to ‘reinvent thewheel’

• they are reasonably easy to use

• they give some guide to relative space needsbetween different departments and users.

Conversely, HEIs not in favour of normscomment:

• although it might not have been the originalintention, they are too often seen as rigidand prescriptive

• they are a blunt instrument and theirinflexibility led to them quickly becomingoutdated

• they do not deal with bad fit or the qualityof space

• they cannot capture the diversity of thesector

• rather than having externally generatedstandards, it should be up to eachinstitution to decide how much space it hasand what that is made up of

• other space management tools, such asspace charging, can be used to determinewhat is financially sustainable and toencourage effective and efficient use, andthat in turn drives the amount of space tobe provided.

Against this background, we set out to assess thescope for providing updated norms for use asone of a wide range of space management toolsavailable to HEIs.

Outline of UGC and PCFC spacenorm methodologyReviewing the methodology used to derive theUGC and PCFC norms is an essential startingpoint for assessing the feasibility of developing anew sector-wide system and identifying what keyfactors would need to be updated. In this sectionwe give a summary of key issues with furtherbackground information set out in Annex 1.

The UGC norms had three main components:

• departmental academic areas

• non-departmental academic areas

• non-academic areas.


Examples of institutions’ usage ofstandards/norms

‘...PCFC norms with a reduction in thegeneral and specialist elements of each normby 50 per cent and 30 per cent respectively,with the exception of one school thatprimarily uses specialist teaching space forcourse delivery’.

‘UGC norms are adjusted to the institutionalstaff:student ratios. Results of norms areexamined for a band of –10 per cent to –30per cent of adjusted UGC norms, with –20per cent as a performance target.’

‘...devised own space reference areas basedon UGC standard area per workplace buttake account of hours of instruction given toundergraduates’.

The departmental academic areas werecalculations of notional unit areas expressed interms of square metres of usable space per FTEstudent for some 20 subject groups, such asHumanities and Engineering. Added to thesesubject-based calculations were university-wideallocations for non-departmental academic areas(lecture theatres and libraries) based on studentnumbers. Allocations for the non-academic areaswere also based on student numbers, withdifferent allocations depending on the size of theinstitution.

The notional unit areas for each subject groupwere derived from observations and assumptionsabout how students in each subject groupstudied and were taught. These included:

• how many hours of, and what type of,activity needed to be delivered

• the size of the teaching group

• the staff:student ratios

• how many hours the space was available forstudy

• what areas per workplace were needed fordifferent activities.

Different assumptions were used for differentdisciplines. The interaction of these inputmeasures, or coefficients, generated a series ofallowances for different types of space, which inturn were distilled into a single square metrefigure, or notional unit area per student FTE bysubject group. The non-departmental academicareas were calculated using similar principles.

The PCFC methodology was based on similarprinciples, but varied the assumptions aboutplanned utilisation and areas per workplace, inpart because of different delivery methods andspace standards in the polytechnics and collegessector in England. The norms were alsoexpressed as a single area allowance for studentsin each of the nine PCFC programme areas,which rolled up all types of academic and non-academic space together.

Estimation of norms implied bycurrent estate size and studentnumbersIt is clear from trends in Estate ManagementStatistics (EMS) data and from the spacemanagement survey that HEIs are operating witha reduced amount of floorspace per student FTEand that where they still use norms, they oftenadjust them downwards by substantial margins.Either space is being used more efficiently, oractivities are being delivered differently, or both.

This study estimated the updated norms at whichHEIs were implicitly operating based on the sizeof the estate and numbers of staff and studentsin 2003-04. This was done for two reasons:

• to provide an updated broad brush re-estimation of UGC and PCFC norms forthose HEIs which have continued to findthem useful

• to assess the scale of the change that hastaken place when measured in terms ofperformance against norms – in effect anassessment of how the efficiency factor atwhich the sector is operating has changedover time.

The exercise also included a comparison with areference year to determine how far performanceagainst norms and efficiency factors has changedacross the sector and, where possible, to seewhat the changes have been for individual HEIs.

We chose 1991-92 as the reference year becausemany institutions at that time were using UGC orPCFC norms. It was the first time that reasonablyrobust data were available on floorspace for muchof the sector. Both the UFC (Universities FundingCouncil) and the PCFC carried out floorspacesurveys in 1991. Also, the Pearce Report, ‘Capitalfunding and estate management’, which raised theprofile of space management and the cost ofspace, was issued in 1992.

The main data sources for the reference year arethe space audit of the PCFC sector carried out bysurveyors Geddes Sampson, the PCFC’s


calculations of space need in 1991-92, andassessments prepared by the UFC in 1991 tosupport the work of the group involved in thePearce Report. Data for 2003-04 are taken fromthe Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)and EMS.

The calculations are only broad brush owing tosome changes in definitions between 1991-92and 2003-04 and lack of data on some aspects.For example, there are differences between thedefinition of usable space used in the UGCnorms, space net of circulation in the PCFCnorms and net internal area as given in EMS. Forthe UGC calculation, there is no informationavailable on the amount of equipment-dominated space, and no allowance has beenmade for special collections and reserve bookstores in libraries. The calculation of space FTEstudent numbers for the PCFC calculations isapproximate as HESA does not collect data onevening only students.

In order to carry out both the UGC and PCFCcalculations for 2003-04, HESA cost centre datafor staff and students were mapped onto UGCsubject groups and PCFC programme areas. Nochanges were made to any of the coefficientsused to derive the original norms, with theexception of updated academic staff:studentratios for the UGC norms. This change wasmade because NOCAG stated that notionalacademic unit areas for subject groups wouldneed to be adjusted to reflect up-to-date ratios.As such, this modification was a recommendedcomponent of the methodology. Other than that,there was no alteration to any of the underlyingassumptions about hours of instruction orpatterns of use.

UGC norm estimation

There is some data available on UGC normcalculations for 1991-92 from analysis done tosupport the Pearce Report working group. Itfound that in 1991, across the sector (just over60 universities), there was a 7 per cent excess offloorspace on average across all subject groupscompared with a norm-based calculation ofteaching space need. The calculations were morerobust for some subject groups than others. Inparticular, analysis of pre-clinical and clinicalsubject groups was complicated by therelationship with the Department of Health.

For 2003-04, an estimation of implied normswas made for all HEIs, including former PCFCinstitutions, which had the necessary HESA andEMS data. HESA data were used to calculateupdated staff:student ratios for the subjectgroups. A total of 97 institutions were analysed.At the aggregate level, it was found that HEIswere operating with 80 per cent of the predictionbased on UGC norms, excluding any allowancefor equipment-dominated space, specialcollections and sponsored research. There wassubstantial variation between institutions,ranging from 31 per cent to over 200 per cent.

An estimation of the 2003-04 net area per FTEstudent by subject group is shown below. Table 1also includes the NOCAG 1987 figures forcomparison. The differences in 2003-04 figuresare a function, first, of the changed staff:studentratios and, secondly, of a reduction of 20 percent across the board to reflect the currentposition across the sector. If the staff:studentratios had been held constant, the reductionwould have been greater than 20 per cent,because for almost all subject groups the normswould have allowed for a larger component ofstaff office accommodation.



1987

NO

CA

G s

ubje

ct g

roup

FT

E s

pac

e al

low

ance

s

2003

-04

Est

imat

ion

of

allo

wan

ces

imp

lied

by

spac

e/st

uden

t nu

mb

ers

Aca

dem

ic

Allo

wan

ceA

cad

emic

Allo

wan

ce

staf

f: in

c fo

r st

aff:

inc

for

stud

ent

UG

PG

CP

GR

acad

emic

S

ubje

ct

stud

ent

UG

PG

CP

GR

ac

adem

ic

Sub

ject

gro

upra

tiom

2m

2m

2st

aff

grou

pra

tiom

2m

2m

2st

aff

Pre

clin

ical

med

icin

e 1:

814

.114

.120

.43.

8P

re c

linic

al m

edic

ine

1:8

11.2

11.2

16.2

3.0

& d

entis

try&

den

tistry

Clin

ical

med

icin

e1:

66.

56.

522

.25.

2C

linic

al m

edic

ine

1:2.

6210

.510

.523

.09.

5

Clin

ical

den

tistry

1:6

10.5

13.0

16.2

4.2

Clin

ical

den

tistry

1:6.

66.

68.

010

.012

.6

Stu

dies

allie

d to

med

icin

e 1.

89.

812

.318

.43.

8S

tudi

es a

llied

to

1:16

.26.

38.

313

.11.

5an

d de

ntis

trym

edic

ine

and

dent

istry

Bio

logi

cal s

cien

ces

1:9

9.2

12.2

19.1

3.4

Bio

logi

cal s

cien

ces

1:6.

88.

210

.616

.13.

6

Psy

chol

ogy

1:11

8.2

10.5

19.5

3.0

Psy

chol

ogy

1:14

6.0

7.8

15.0

1.9

Agr

ic &

For

estry

/1:

99.

212

.219

.13.

4A

gric

& F

ores

try/

1:7.

77.

810

.215

.73.

2Ve

terin

ary

scie

nce1

Vete

rinar

y sc

ienc

e1

Phy

sica

l sci

ence

s1:

89.

812

.318

.43.

8P

hysi

cal s

cien

ces

1:6.

38.

610

.615

.53.

8

Mat

hem

atic

s1:

113.

63.

65.

01.

3M

athe

mat

ics

1:12

.22.

82.

83.

90.

9

Com

pute

r sc

ienc

es1:

117.

310

.211

.22.

2C

ompu

ter

scie

nces

1:15

.15.

37.

68.

41.

3

Engi

neer

ing

& te

chno

logy

1:9

9.8

16.6

17.9

3.2

Engi

neer

ing

& te

chno

logy

1:9.

37.

713

.114

.22.

5

Arc

hite

ctur

e, b

uild

ing

1:8

9.8

9.8

9.4

2.3

Arc

hite

ctur

e, b

uild

ing

1:16

6.9

6.9

6.6

0.9

and

plan

ning

and

plan

ning

Geo

g &

Eco

nom

ics

1:14

5.4

6.8

7.1

1.0

Geo

g &

Eco

nom

ics

1:12

.64.

45.

55.

70.

9

Soc

ial s

tudi

es1:

122.

42.

44.

91.

2S

ocia

l stu

dies

1:17

.31.

61.

63.

60.

7

Bus

ines

s1:

113.

33.

35.

01.

3B

usin

ess

1:22

.22.

12.

13.

50.

5

Lang

uage

s1:

103.

53.

55.

21.

4La

ngua

ges

1:14

.62.

42.

43.

80.

8

Hum

aniti

es1:

112.

62.

65.

21.

3H

uman

ities

1:15

.71.

81.

83.

80.

7

Arc

haeo

logy

1:10

5.5

6.8

7.2

1.4

Arc

haeo

logy

1:8.

84.

55.

65.

91.

3

Art,

des

ign,

mus

ic

1:10

9.1

9.1

8.8

1.9

Art,

des

ign,

mus

ic

1:16

.46.

76.

76.

40.

9&

dra

ma

& d

ram

a

Educ

atio

n1:

115.

05.

04.

81.

3Ed

ucat

ion

1:19

.13.

53.

53.

40.

6

Cat

erin

g &

hos

pita

lity

1:21

.45.

88.

113

.61.

1m

anag

emen

t3

Tab

le 1

: Co

mp

aris

on

of

1987

NO

CA

G a

nd 2

003-

04 e

stim

ated

sp

ace

allo

wan

ces

1A

dditi

onal

allo

wan

ce fo

r sp

ecia

l add

ition

s2

Sta

ff:st

uden

t ra

tio li

kely

to

be a

ffect

ed b

y in

clus

ion

of c

linic

al s

taff

3A

dditi

onal

sub

ject

gro

up in

clud

ed t

o al

low

for

this

cos

t ce

ntre

UG

Und

ergr

adua

te

PG

C

Pos

tgra

duat

e co

urse

PG

R

Pos

tgra

duat

e re

sear

ch

PCFC norm estimation

We made a similar estimation for PCFC normswith data for 1991-92 based on the final GeddesSampson survey data and PCFC space normcalculations for 84 polytechnics and colleges inEngland. At that time, on average, theseinstitutions were operating at 91.2 per cent ofPCFC norms. There was wide variation, rangingfrom 184 per cent in the case of a specialistmusic college to 40 per cent for one college ofhigher education.

We did a broadly equivalent calculation for2003-04 for 127 HEIs across the UK, includingformer UGC institutions, which had thenecessary EMS data. Given that the PCFC normsdid not make any provision for research,research space was excluded from thecalculations. The result showed that in 2003-04,the sector was operating at 79.5 per cent ofPCFC norms – a reduction of some 13 per centsince 1991-92. Again, there was wide variation,from 35 per cent to 193 per cent.

A comparison of individual institutionalperformance between 1991-92 and 2003-04 iscomplicated by the many changes and mergerswhich have taken place. For the 50 HEIs whichare broadly recognisably the same in both years,they were operating at 91.6 per cent of norms in

1991-92 and are now at 67.5 per cent. This is areduction of 26.3 per cent.

An estimation of sector-wide PCFC norms for2003-04 is given in Table 2. Based on the figuresfor the sector as a whole, the original norms arereduced by 20.5 per cent for each programmearea.

Conclusions on feasibility ofupdating normsThe outline of how UGC and PCFC norms werecalculated shows that they were a function of aseries of coefficients. The key ones were:

• total hours of on-campus contact orlearning hours per week per student

• breakdown of those hours into differenttypes of activity, for instance lecture theatrehours, seminar hours and laboratory hours

• total hours that space is available per weekto be used, for instance 40 hours

• predicted frequency and occupancy rates forspace use, that is planned utilisation

• space standards per place in teaching,learning, research and support spaces

• definition of discrete subject groups ordisciplines


Programme area 1990 Space norm (m2) 2003-04 Estimated norm (m2)

Engineering 15 11.9

Built Environment 9.5 7.6

Science 15 11.9

IT and Computing 11 8.7

Business 8 6.4

Health and Life Science 10 8

Humanities 7.5 6

Art and Design 14 11.1

Education 9.5 7.6

Table 2: Estimates for PCFC norms

• staff:student ratios by discipline or subjectgroup

• professorial:other academic staff ratios bysubject group

• academic:support staff ratios by subjectgroup.

Calculations of norms are highly sensitive tovariations in these coefficients. Nevertheless, atthe time of their original formulation, the UGCconcluded that there was enough consistencyamong universities to enable sector-wide normsto be generated. This was with the recognitionthat if there were a significant alteration in anyof the core coefficients, then the norms wouldneed revising. The PCFC reached a similarconclusion, but it did not adopt all thecoefficients already used by the UGC. Inparticular, it used a higher predicted utilisationrate and the space standards were slightly lower.This was partly for policy reasons and partly toallow for different teaching practices in theformer polytechnics and colleges.

Across the sector, there have been changes in thecoefficients listed above since the norms weredevised. The key issues are whether it would befeasible to update these coefficients on a sector-wide basis, and if so, whether there is stillsufficient consistency between HEIs to enablesuch a sector-wide approach to be of practicalbenefit.

Discussion of the main coefficients

Contact and learning hours

Changes in pedagogy and the shift towardsstudent-centred and blended learning are well-documented, but there are no sector-wide dataon trends in contact hours or on hours of self-directed study in different types of space.Although guided learning hours are recorded foreach student in further education in England,there is no equivalent in higher education.

Over the course of the SMP, information hasbeen provided by a number of HEIs which givessome insight into the way that courses areconstructed in terms of numbers of hours oflectures, laboratory-based activities etc. Some

HEIs can provide this information quite easilyvia timetabling systems covering all teachingspace. Others needed to seek at least someinformation – particularly on hours of use ofspecialist space – from departments and faculties.

In general terms, the data show that sciencesubjects have more hours than humanities, butthere are marked variations between theinstitutions for similar subjects both in totalnumber of hours and how they break down intodifferent activities. From the data available, theindications are that there is not enoughconsistency to generate a meaningful series ofassumptions about composition of differentsubjects in order to provide a robust foundationfor recalculation of norms.

Hours available

The existing norms are based on assumptionsabout the availability of time Monday to Friday.They ignore activities in the evening, at theweekend and outside term time. However, manyinstitutions are now operating on a longerworking day and this can have a marked effecton the space norms. For example, if thecoefficient for hours available is set at 12 hoursper day rather than eight, it increases capacity by50 per cent.

Planned levels of utilisation

The same is true of planned levels of utilisation.For instance, calculations based on plannedfrequency and occupancy rates of 50 per centwill generate a much larger space norm than aplanned rate of 80 per cent. Data from EMS andthe SMP space management survey show widevariations in planned utilisation rates and targetsadopted by HEIs.

Space standards

Both the UGC and PCFC norms used a series ofspace standards for given activities, such as foroffice workplaces and for different teachingactivities. As part of the management practicesurvey HEIs were asked if they used spacestandards and if so to provide details of whatthose were. The findings were that 47 per cent ofrespondents use space standards. Where


information was given on the standards being usedmost relates to office areas. See below.

Examples of space standards used

‘...management offices 20 m2, other singleoffices 9 m2, other office space 7.5 m2.

Professors and heads of schools 20 m2,other academic staff 15 m2, support staff 8 m2’.

‘...10 m2 for non-academic andadministrative staff and a standardcomputing area of 3.5 m2’.

‘...use a planning norm for office space ofaround 6-8 m2’.

‘...policy of providing not more than 10 m2

per FTE staff in new and replacementspace’.

‘...offices 7 m2 and laboratories 3 m2 perworkplace’.

However, there was insufficient information toprovide comprehensive data on the spacestandards for workplaces now being used in thesector. Nor does EMS provide data at such a levelof detail. In addition, some external fundingbodies require space to be provided in accordancewith their own specifications which may bedifferent from those which would otherwise havebeen adopted by HEIs.

Staff numbers and ratios

Our analysis of the norms based on estate size andstudent numbers included a calculation of thestaff:student ratios across the sector by HESA costcentre for 2003-04. As expected, in most casesthese show substantial increases in the numbers ofstudents per member of staff from the figures usedin NOCAG. They also show wide ranges withincost centres by institution. This degree of variationwould make it difficult to include a meaningfulacademic office space component within thenotional unit area per FTE by cost centre.

Conclusions on coefficients

This discussion of key coefficients underpinningnorms highlights that some data are not collectedon a sector-wide basis, such as the hours ofinstruction and of self-directed learning that makeup courses in different disciplines. Nevertheless,from the information which is available it can beseen that there is substantial diversity in deliveryof activities between HEIs, for example in teachingand learning methods and in staff:student ratios.There are also widespread variations intimetabling practice and increasing blurring of theboundaries in space types.

While it would be technically feasible to constructnew norms, the changes that have taken place inHE and the degree of variation across the sectorrender it difficult to select a range of coefficientsfor their calculation which would be applicable tothe full range of institutions. The sector hasmoved from the position of relative homogeneityat the time that the original UGC norms weredeveloped, and where the assumptions aboutpractice were generally relevant to mostuniversities. Given this diversity, it is concludedthat it would not be appropriate to recommend asingle set of norms for use across the sector.

However, such a conclusion does not mean thatthe concepts underlying the development of normsneed, or should, be abandoned. The principles ofbasing an assessment of capacity or space need onwhat activities are to be delivered and how thatmight be done are still relevant. It could be arguedthat without an assessment of this type, it isdifficult to know whether an HEI, or anyorganisation, has broadly the right amount andtype of space. It may be investing resources inmore space than it needs or in facilities which areno longer required. Likewise, if it has plans tochange the range and scale of activities in thefuture, it is hard to know if its estate has the scopeto deliver those objectives and how it might needto change and adapt.


Framework for indicating spaceneedInstitutions can use the principles on whichnorms are based to build up a framework andgenerate an indicative profile of their ownindividual space needs.

Such a method provides a set of internal,institution-specific space norms for HEIs fordifferent types of activities or forfaculties/departments. This method is similar tothat already used by some institutions, and italso has elements in common with thecalculation of space factors which have beenwidely used in North America, and with theLearning and Skills Council model for assessingspace need in further education colleges inEngland.

This method would assist an HEI in estimatingspace needs based on its own particular profileof academic activity and ways of working, itsmethods of delivery and the type of spaceconsidered appropriate for different activities.HEIs can therefore adopt the series ofcoefficients which best suit their owncircumstances.

The advantage of this approach is that it allowsfor institutional diversity, and the content of theframework can be modified to reflect changes inactivities or practices or to model a range ofpotential scenarios. It generates an indicativespace profile for all or part of an HEI in terms ofamount and type of space and by student FTE.These can then be compared with actual spaceavailable. A disadvantage is that although thebasic structure of the approach can be suppliedto HEIs, they need to provide the core input datato populate it and they need to decide on thecoefficients which would be appropriate forthem. As such, initially at least, it would takelonger to work through than the application of asingle set of externally generated norms.

In this context, such an approach is likely to bemost useful for HEIs which would like to betterunderstand the capacity of their estates; to start

from first principles in getting an insight intowhat type and how much space may be needed;to model the effect of changes in student andstaff numbers and the impact of other changes ininstitutional objectives.

The remainder of this section describes theapproach and its uses in more detail.

Range of potential framework outputs

This method can be used to derive an indicativespace profile consisting of some or all of thefollowing for an individual HEI.

Guide to total area and subtotals byspace type

• Total core teaching area andbreakdown of teaching area by type

• Total learning area and breakdown oflearning area by type of space

• Total office area and breakdown ofoffice area (teaching, research andadministration/support) by type

• Total core research area andbreakdown of research area by type of space

Guide to area per student FTE

• By space type

• By department or faculty

The framework allows for calculations to bedone initially at the level of faculty/departmentor other preferred grouping/unit of users, whichcan then, if desired, be aggregated to institution-wide level. HEIs may choose to look at all spacetypes or to focus on particular elements, such asoffices or specialist teaching space.


Composition of the framework

One approach to developing the framework isavailable for HEIs to download from the SMGweb-site at www.smg.ac.uk. It includes theframework in a spreadsheet and a user guide toexplain how an indicative profile of space needscan be developed. Annex 2 contains an extractfrom the spreadsheet.

This spreadsheet is not the only way of expressing

the calculations, and HEIs may prefer to develop

their own methods using the same principles. In

general, however, the core components of the

framework will be the same. The indicative space

profile will be built up from the same basic set of

input measures and coefficients.

HEIs will need to provide the staff and student input

data themselves. The framework will not function

without input data on student and staff numbers

and on event hours per week for different types of

space. HEIs need to enter their own data. The data

may be held in a number of different formats and

locations. In some HEIs, the necessary information

may be held centrally. In other cases, it might be

located with individual departments or faculties.

HEIs will also need to make decisions on the key

coefficients, although default settings are supplied

for many of these in the framework to act as an

initial starting point for the calculations.

The coefficients in the model which generate an

indicative profile of space need are:

• length of the academic year

• length of the core timetabled week

• target frequency of use of workplaces

• target occupancy rate of workplaces

• area per workplace and ancillary allowances.

A flexible and transparent approach

The framework has been set up with a series ofdefault coefficients to assist calculations, butwhere highlighted on the spreadsheet these can beoverridden with alternatives. In this way, HEIscan base the calculations on their own existing orpreferred practice. The default settings are basedon some examples of existing practice in thesector as found during the course of the SMP, butthey are not recommendations, nor are they set togenerate maximum efficiency in space use. As ourdiscussion of key coefficients in the previoussection concluded, there is a wide range ofinstitutional practice and what might beappropriate in one institution may be unsuitablein another. The framework has been set up tohave the flexibility to accommodate institutionaldiversity and to reflect the actual range ofactivities in an institution and the particular wayit carries out those activities.

The model is set out in spreadsheet form so thatthe interaction of the input data and coefficientsis transparent, and so that it is possible to trackthe effect of changing input data (for examplefuture student number projections) and/or thecoefficients (for example varying the area perworkplace or the target utilisation). Thus, if theinput data remained unchanged, but if weeks inthe academic year and the hours in the coreweek were increased; if the target frequency andoccupancy rates were raised; and if the area perworkplace was reduced, the overall prediction ofspace need would fall. Conversely, the moregenerously the coefficients are set, the larger thetotal area that is predicted. The framework couldbe used to model different scenarios to get thepreferred balance of affordability and quality ofworking and studying environment.


Key components

1. Input data on student and staff hours, and To be provided by HEIsevent hours and some space categories

2. A series of coefficients generating indicative Default range provided which can be modified space profiles for most space categories by HEIs

3. Output calculations Generated by the interaction of 1 and 2 for a defaultrange of space types

Comparison with existing space

Once the framework has been developed, theresults can be compared with space available,although allowance must be made for the factthat the output from the framework will be ageneral indicator of space need only. It will not bea firm prediction because, as with the originalnorms, it would need moderation to allow forindividual institutional characteristics such as badfit, individual room sizes, historical estates, splitsites, the configuration of existing buildings andthe impact of legislative compliance on space use.

The comparison can be made in terms of thefollowing:

• total space – predicted by space type andexisting

• number of workplaces by type – predictedand existing

• area per workplace by space type –predicted and existing

• space per FTE student/member of staff –predicted across the institution and byfaculty/department and existing

• predicted levels of utilisation (bothfrequency and occupancy) with scheduledand surveyed rates (where the latter areavailable).

Comparison with SMG model

It is also possible to compare the indicative spaceprofile generated by the framework with thesector-wide analysis incorporated in the SMGmodel (www.smg.ac.uk/the_model.html) forbenchmarking the size of the HE estate andcalculating the cost of having an estate kept ingood condition and fit for purpose.

Link with other SMP space managementtools

The space management methods described in thisreport have close links with other components ofthe SMP, particularly the report on the impact ofdesign on space efficiency and on spaceutilisation (HEFCE 2006/09, available on theSMG web-site).


Annex 1: UGC and PCFC spacenorm methodologyThis annex gives a summary of the methodologyused to derive the UGC and PCFC norms.

UGC norms

These norms were intended to give an estimationof the academic capacity of existing or newbuildings. ‘The estimated or calculated numbers ofFTE students that can be accommodated to spacestandards in line with the Committee’s planningnorms within the usable areas available for agiven purpose.’ (NOCAG 1987 paragraph 140.)

The UGC norms had three main components:departmental academic areas; non-departmentalacademic areas; and non-academic areas.

The departmental academic areas werecalculations of notional unit areas expressed interms of square metres of usable space per FTEstudent for some 20 subject groups, such ashumanities and engineering. The area per FTEfor each discipline included allowances for:

• teaching space (excluding lecture theatres)

• academic offices and research laboratories

• non-academic offices and stores

• teaching and post-graduate laboratories

• laboratory ancillaries.

These departmental unit/norm areas were notintended as either maximum or minimumallowances or entitlements, but as a basis ofcalculating a total area within whichdepartments would normally be expected tofunction reasonably and above which thereshould be a special justification.

Added to these subject-based calculations wereuniversity-wide allocations for non-departmental

academic areas (lecture theatres and libraries)based on student numbers.

Allocations for the non-academic areas listedbelow were also based on student numbers, withdifferent allocations depending on the size of theinstitution:

• administration

• social, dining and sports facilities.

Sponsored research space and equipmentdominated areas were in addition to theseallowances

As well these FTE based calculations, NOCAGprovided space standards for different HEactivities such as general teaching (1 m2 perplace for lecture theatres for instance), officesand teaching laboratories. The standards wereintended as a means of checking overallcalculations, and it was recognised that theywould need adjustment in many situations.

The departmental notional unit areas and theadditional non-departmental areas and non-academic areas per FTE were based on a series ofobservations and assumptions about the hoursand type of activity for which space had to beprovided, on planned utilisation, and the areasper place needed to accommodate those activities.

The way in which these assumptions interacted togenerate a departmental academic area for eachsubject group can be illustrated by taking onesubject as an example. The example used below isarchitecture, building and planning. The spacenorm for an FTE undergraduate in this subjectgroup was given in NOCAG 1987 as 9.8 m2 ofusable space. The academic staff:student ratio wasgiven as 1:8. This figure was made up of fourseparate space components as shown in Table 3.


Architecture, building and planning m2 per FTE undergraduate

Academic offices, tutorial teaching and research 2.3

Admin/technical offices and storage 0.65

Seminar rooms/group teaching 0.35

Specialist subject facilities 6.5

Total 9.8

Table 3: Components of norm

Each of these components was calculated asfollows:

1. Allowance for academic offices, tutorialteaching and research:

Office space of 18.5 m2 per professor(including 6.5 m2 for tutorial space)

Office space of 13.5 m2 per academicmember of staff (including 6.5 m2 fortutorial space)

Assumption made about the ratio ofprofessorial to other academic staff

Assumption for this subject group that theacademic staff:FTE student ratio was 1:8

Research space was included additionallyper member of academic staff. For thissubject group it was 4.6 m2 for a drawingboard

2. Allowance for admin/technical offices andstorage:

Office space of 7 m2 per secretarial staff atratio of 1 per professor and 1 per 4academic staff plus 1 administrator with anoffice of 7 m2 and a chief technician with anoffice of 9.3 m2

3. Allowance for seminar/group teaching:

It was assumed that there was a notional 30hour teaching week

There would be one hour of seminar/groupteaching

The utilisation factor was 20 per cent

The area per workplace was 1.85 m2

Thus, 1/30 x 5/1 x 1.85 = 0.31, say 0.35 m2

4. Allowance for specialist subject facilities:

Allowance of 6.5 m2 to cover 4.6 m2 for adrawing office/studio place plus 40 per centextra for ancillaries and storage.

The same method was used to calculate areas foreach of the other subject groups but withdifferent assumptions used about spacestandards, hours needed for different types ofspace and staff:student ratios. The UGC norms

as set out in the NOCAG 1987 publication werebased on staff:student ratios for 1980-81.

Non-departmental academic space wascalculated using similar principles. There was anallowance of 0.5 m2 per FTE for lecture theatresfor almost all subject groups based on:

Notional 30 hour week

8 hours of lectures per student FTE

Frequency factor of 66 per cent

Occupancy factor of 75 per cent

Area per place of 1 m2

Thus, 8/30 x 3/2 x 4/3 x1 = 0.5 m2

For libraries the allowance was 1.25 m2 basedon one reader place per six FTE students at 0.4m2 plus a book stack allowance of 0.62 m2 andan addition for administration.

PCFC norms

Before incorporation, polytechnics and collegesin England used DES Design Notes to informspace need and assess capacity. There was arange of methods, for example Design Note 45used a space norm of 14.5 m2 per space FTEstudent to generate a predicted size forpolytechnics. By the end of the 1980s, the PCFCconcluded that on average institutions wereoperating with substantially less space than theDesign Notes predicted. It introduced a newsystem of space norms for PCFC institutions inits ‘Guidance on estate management’ (1990) withreduced area allowances to reflect the practice ofthe time. The PCFC norms were around 15 percent less than some of the previous DES methodsof calculation. The new system was intended tobe an incentive to economy and efficiency, andfrom its introduction there was a presumptionthat unless HEIs were operating below the areapredicted by the norms, they were not using theirresources efficiently.

The PCFC norms were based on area allowancesper space FTE for each of the nine academicprogramme areas used by the Funding Council.They covered both specialist and non-specialistareas. Non-specialist space included pooledteaching, libraries, staff accommodation,


administration, sports and catering facilities.They were based on the input measures similarto those in the UGC norms but with somedifferent assumptions about planned utilisationand areas per workplace. There was noallowance for research space.

Table 4: Norms for each of theprogramme areas

Programme area Space norm (m2) *

Engineering 15

Built Environment 9.5

Science 15

IT and Computing 11

Business 8

Health and Life Science 10

Humanities 7.5

Art and Design 14

Education 9.5

* Areas were net of circulation

PCFC norm-based space need calculations werevery simple to undertake. Student numbers werecalculated in terms of space full-time equivalentsfor each programme area and then multiplied bythe area allowance. Space full-time equivalentsused specific weightings used to convert differentmodes of attendance to FTE numbers. Forinstance, a weighting of 0.22 was applied topart-time students and zero to evening onlystudents. The resulting figure could then becompared with actual space available to assesswhether there was an under or over provision ofspace. Actual space was divided by the norm-based calculation to generate an efficiency index.An index greater than one indicated more spacewas available than the norm predicted.

Both the UGC and the PCFC recognised thatnorms would need to be kept under review totake account of changes in higher education, forexample in response to changing teaching

patterns, the move to more student-centredlearning and a longer working week. There havebeen no published changes to either set of normssince 1990.


Ann

ex 2

: Sp

read

shee

ts t

o a

cco

mp

any

fram

ewo

rk f

or

ind

icat

ing

sp

ace

need



List of abbreviations

EMS Estate Management Statistics

FE Further education

FTE Full-time equivalent

HE Higher education

HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England

HEI Higher education institution

HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency

NOCAG The University Grants Committee’s ‘Notes on Control and Guidance for University Building Projects’

PCFC Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

SMG Space Management Group

SMP Space Management Project

UFC Universities Funding Council

UGC University Grants Committee

uk higher education space management project - · pdf fileuk higher education space...

Documents