Transcript BHL1 - Biddison Hier

Customers in Classroom Planning …
… and the Insights They Bring
Presenter
Tom Hier
BIDDISON HIER, LTD.
Consultants to Higher Education
Pacific Region SCUP Conference
Portland, Oregon
21 March 2005
Today’s Topics
 Classroom Planning: Typical and New Approaches
 Model Process for Developing a Comprehensive Classroom Plan
 Case Study: Stanford University Graduate School of Business
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
2
The Neglected Classroom
There are many customers for classrooms, but
because classrooms have no natural advocate,
planning for these facilities is often an afterthought and
customers are not provided an opportunity for timely
involvement.
Classrooms: Typical Planning Approach
Classroom planning rarely is undertaken in its own right; very often, it is a
by-product of other activities. Typically, the need to address classroom
space arises from:
1. Construction of a New Academic Building
2. Overall Renovation of an Existing Building
3. Targeted Maintenance / Renewal Activities
4. Specific Classroom Renovation Project
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
4
Classrooms:
Typical Planning Approach
 In most cases, one or more of the following three groups assumes the lead:



School / Academic Department
Office of Campus Architect / Campus Planning
Facilities Office
 Issues
Bh

Interactions, the assumption of lead role, etc., depend on project and
particular organizational structure and culture of the institution.

New construction: Not uncommon for little thought to be directed
specifically toward classrooms until late in the planning process when it is
difficult to make significant changes in overall building program.

Renovation: Key players often left out of the planning process

Overall: Classroom needs are rarely considered systematically –in the
context of the entire classroom inventory; rather, they are viewed as one
program component of an academic building that may have many uses
competing for space.
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
5
New Approach:
“Comprehensive Classroom Planning”
Definition: A holistic approach to determining campus-wide
classroom needs that invites participation from all constituents of
classrooms and takes into account physical, scheduling,
pedagogical, technological, operational and funding requirements
for classrooms.
The result is a “Comprehensive Classroom Plan” – a roadmap
that identifies realistic, implementable solutions for renovation or
construction of classroom space.
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
6
New Approach:
“Comprehensive Classroom Planning”
Casts a wide net in the issues addressed…
Physical
Pedagogical
Scheduling
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
 Address need to refurbish and
modernize antiquated classrooms
 Determine required mix of
classroom types to support existing
and emerging pedagogies
 Illuminate scheduling issues, e.g.,
perceived large supply of rooms
but space unavailable when and
where needed
Technology
 Rationalize approaches to
determining need for and mix of
instructional media
Operations /
Management
 Define control and authority for
classroom scheduling, planning
and operations
Funding
 Identify funding required for basic
classroom maintenance and
upgrades (furnishings, technology,
etc.) and beyond
7
New Approach:
“Comprehensive Classroom Planning”
Involves all constituents that “touch” classrooms…
CONSTITUENT
IN
CLASSROOMS
Operations
/ Mgmt
Physical
Pedagogy
Scheduling
Technology
Faculty




Registrars /
Schedulers





Information
Technologists





Facility
Managers




Provosts /
Deans /
Business
Officers






Students




CONSTITUENT
Bh
STAKE
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Funding
8
Model Process for Developing a
Comprehensive Classroom Plan
Model Process for Developing a
Comprehensive Classroom Plan
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
 Customer
Research
Focus Groups
 Physical
inspection of
classrooms
Interviews
 Intangibles
Surveys
 Feedback
Classroom
Committee
Quantitative
Analysis
 Quantitative
profile
Recommendations
 Physical
changes
 Room
utilization
 Scheduling /
policy changes
 Seat utilization
 Classroom
“ownership”
 Capacity
loading
 Productivity
Measures
 Organizational
structure
 Budgeting and
funding
OUTCOME: “The Road Map”
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
10
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Constituent Involvement
Faculty… are continually advancing new pedagogies that directly
affect the nature and mix of classroom space required
Typical Concerns
 Need for more breakout space
 More flexibility in classroom furnishings and fixtures
 New applications for technology
 Need for training and support for in-class technologies
What Their Involvement Yields:
 Identification of current pedagogical styles
 Anticipated changes in pedagogy
 Teaching preferences – furnishings, times
of days, technology, etc.
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
11
Constituent Involvement
Registrars / Schedulers… are on the front lines in trying to
accommodate competing space demands and, consequently, have a keen
sense of what spaces are most in need and insight into the “politics of
classrooms”
Typical Concerns
 Inability to find adequate and appropriate space at needed times
 Responsibility but not authority for classroom management
What Their Involvement Yields
 Constraints / limitations on current
inventory and schedule
 Identification of polices and procedures
that can lead to better space utilization
Bh
 May help catalyze other constituents
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
12
Constituent Involvement
Information Technologists…are integral to planning for new inclass technologies and ensuring that campus-wide standards are maintained
Typical Concerns
 Development of classroom technology standards
 Adequate planning for infrastructure, site lines, acoustics, room
darkening capabilities, etc.
 Long-term flexibility, operation, maintenance, serviceability of
technology
What Their Involvement Yields
 Identification of hierarchy of technology
needs and baseline standard
 Information on technology costs and
refresh rates
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
13
Constituent Involvement
Facility Managers… bring the “physical perspective” on proposed
renovation / new construction projects
Typical Concerns
 Long-term (“life cycle”) operating costs
 Performance / durability of materials used
 ADA accessibility
What Their Involvement Yields
 Deferred maintenance and renovation
priorities
 Standards for new construction
Bh
 Operations and maintenance
considerations
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
14
Constituent Involvement
Provosts / Deans / Business Officers… manage the funding
plan for significant investments or reinvestments in classrooms and need to be
advocates at the senior levels of the institution for funding allocations
Typical Concerns
 Ability to demonstrate true need for proposed project
 “Ownership” and management responsibility for classrooms
resulting from new project
 Balancing fiscal and physical resources with faculty concerns
 Budget authority
What Their Involvement Yields
 Strategic, top level view of goals for
instructional space
 Political sensitivities re: proposed changes
in scheduling and other policies
Bh
 Institutional imprimatur for change
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
15
Constituent Involvement
Students… are the end users
Typical Concerns
 Physical condition of classrooms
 Adequate ability to access and use technology
 Scheduling / timing of classes (e.g., the “8am taboo”)
 Integration with other aspects of campus life – library, housing,
dining, recreation, etc.
What Their Involvement Yields
 Information on group study practices
 Ideas for improving classroom design to
accommodate evolving pedagogies
 User insight on basic classroom needs
Bh
 Culture of the pedagogy
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
16
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Review of Qualitative Factors
Pedagogical
Requirements
Physical Conditions
Scheduling Responsibility
300
4N: Registrar does not schedule
250
No. of Rooms
3P: Registrar schedules only partially
200
2D: Registrar schedules daytime only
1F: Registrar schedules fully
150
100
50
0
Academic Departments
Bh
Geographical Considerations
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Registrar
Ownership & Management
17
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Quantitative Analysis
QUANTITATIVE PROFILE
 Illustrates adequacy of the existing inventory
Supply vs. Demand by Room Size
9am to 5pm
6,000
Room Hours (Theoretical Supply)
Room Hours -- Rooms Avail for Registrar Scheduling
(Supply "in play")
4,000
Class Hours (Demand)
2,000
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
30
1
or
m
or
e
30
0
to
15
1
81
to
15
0
80
61
to
60
41
to
40
26
to
25
to
16
1
to
15
-
18
Quantitative Analysis
Room Utilization Rates by Scheduler
PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES
80%
 Room utilization by
 Time of day
 Campus area
 Room size
 Scheduler
Registrar Fully Schedules
Registrar Day Schedules
68%
70%
Science Quad
59%
60%
Acad Depts & Registrar
53%
49%
50%
44%
Acad Depts Only
43%
42%
40%
35%
30%
17%
20%
17%
10%
 Seat utilization
 By room
 Migration patterns
0%
8:30am to 3pm
8:30am to 5pm
Seat Migration Patterns
They are scheduled into rooms as follows:
No. of
Class
Meeting
Hours
1 to 15
16 to 25
1 to 15
2,543
287
1,087
720
281
117
28
16
16 to 25
1,647
95
626
533
219
124
30
5
26 to 40
114
-
4
12
25
36
28
9
41 to 60
101
-
-
-
14
33
25
23
61 to 80
63
-
-
-
3
12
13
31
81 to 150
84
-
33
151 to 300
78
-
-
301 or more
11
-
-
-
1,718
1,267
For courses with
enrollments in the range
of:
Total
Bh
4,641
382
2
26 to 40
2
41 to 60
61 to 80
81 to 150
151 to 300
301 or more
Undefined \1
4
-
Total
9
2,543
11
1,647
-
114
6
-
101
4
-
63
36
13
-
84
30
-
-
-
-
43
-
78
-
-
-
-
11
-
11
542
322
160
150
81
3
20
4,641
1/ "Undefined" courses are those for which a room location is not known.
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
19
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Recommendations
APPLYING THE CLASSROOM “FIX-IT” TOOL KIT
Physical
Changes
 Renovation and
reconfiguration
 Refurnishing
 Equipment
upgrades
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Scheduling
Changes
Performance
Metrics
 Standardizng
scheduling
blocks
 Utilization
targets (room
and seat)
 Pre-enrollment
planning
 Square footage
allocations
 Policies re:
peak vs. nonpeak hour
scheduling
 Conformance to
schedule
Management
Policies
 Classroom
“ownership”
 Organizational
structure
 Budgeting and
funding
20
Outcome:
The Comprehensive Classroom Plan
A ROADMAP
1. The “optimal”classroom inventory: how many and of what sizes
2. Upgrades in quality through:

Modernization of furnishings and fixtures

Classroom reconfigurations
3. Scheduling policies that facilitate better use of classrooms
4. Technology plan

Baseline requirements

Distribution campus-wide

Refresh rates
5. Changes in organizational structure and management policies required to
maximize efficient use of classroom resources consistent with the institutional
culture and preferred pedagogies
6. Capital investments and phasing / funding plan required to support the
implementation of the plan
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
21
Case Study:
Stanford Graduate School of Business
 Existing Conditions
Stanford Graduate School of Business
THE ISSUE: STAY OR MOVE?

Existing facility was inadequate to meet the needs of 21st century business school
education

Facility increasingly “competitively challenged” vis-à-vis top tier business schools
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
 What should be done to improve existing classrooms if the Graduate
School of Business (GSB) remains in its current facilities for 10 years / 15
years / 20 years?
 Is there a need for a new building? If so…
 Should it be a classroom building?
 Critical features from the perspective of instructional space?
 Views on location?
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
23
Stanford Constituent Involvement
 Structure of the effort
 Headed up by Associate Dean in coordination with representative
from Campus Planning
 Focus groups
 Faculty
 Students
 Interviews
 Deans
 Associate Deans
 Campus Planning
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
24
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Key Findings from Constituents
 Hallmarks of the GSB Culture
 Great emphasis on teaching / integrated learning
 Strong focus on collaborative learning – discussion with and
engagement of peers
 Students come to GSB because of this culture; renovated and /
or new spaces should “preserve and support this culture”
 Constraints on scheduling
 Heavy use of guest speakers, with courses straddling the
lunch hour so that students can interact over lunch
 Faculty practitioners with obligations outside of Stanford limit
ability to dictate teaching times
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
25
Key Findings from Constituents
 Mix of Classrooms
 Primary need for two basic sizes – small / flexible (25 seats) and large
fixed (but not too large, to keep class sizes from creeping up)
 Heavy need for breakout rooms with white boards, computer & Internet
access, phone conferencing
 Room Configurations
 Should be “simple and functional”
 “Faculty are directing a conversation” with students and guests –
nothing (technology, design, podia, etc.) should get in the way
 Importance of aisles – so faculty can “move into the audience”
 Rear doors – to minimize disruption
 Classrooms should not front directly outside – doesn’t convey
“seriousness of academic purpose”
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
26
Key Findings from Constituents
 Light
 Critical need for natural light
 Technology
 Should not distract – “no appetite for technology for
technology’s sake”
 Reliability and 100% redundancy are critical (“Murphy is alive and
well at every lectern”)
 Ancillary / Support Spaces
 Create spaces that will build and support community outside the
classroom proper, and foster congregation among students and
with faculty and guests
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
27
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Review of Physical Conditions
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Entry from front of room is a
problem
Natural light?
Seating not conducive to
collaborative learning
“Technology for technology’s
sake”… not a problem here
28
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Quantitative Analyses
1 Profile of Room Inventory
 21 rooms – 76% in rooms seating more than 40
Distribution of Room Inventory
Seats
No. of
Rooms
Room
Size
No. of
Rooms
No. of Room
Hours \1
Percentage
20
2
1 to 25
4
112
19%
25
2
32
1
26 to 40
1
28
5%
41
1
48
1
50
2
(Sloan) 54
1
41 to 75
16
448
76%
60
3
(Exec Ed) 60
1
62
1
66
3
72
3
21
588
100%
Room Inventory by Size
No of Seats
80
60
40
20
Littlefield
South
S160
S462
S183
S180
S170
S182
S181
S171
S150
S162
S161
S152
S151
S146
S172
S140
S130
L107
L103
L104
L112
0
Sloan
/ Ex
Total
21
1/ Assumes 4 day schedule, 4 periods per day.
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
29
Quantitative Analyses
2 Profile of Courses
 90 to 100 courses scheduled per term (excluding summer).
 Autumn term most heavily scheduled.
 Preponderance of courses were for MBA program.
Course Distribution by Program
Program
Autumn
01-02
Winter
01-02
Spring
01-02
Autumn
01-02
Number
Bh
Winter
01-02
Spring
01-02
Percentage
MBA
80
70
76
81%
80%
85%
PhD
10
9
5
10%
10%
6%
Sloan
5
3
3
5%
3%
3%
Other
4
6
5
4%
7%
6%
Total
99
88
89
100%
100%
100%
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
30
Quantitative Analyses
3 Time of Day Issues
 Strong adherence to standard time blocks (89% of MBA, 80% of
Exec Ed and 50% of PhD)
 Majority of courses (59%) taught in the middle two periods (before
and after lunch)
Autumn 01-02
Courses Scheduled by Program and Time Period
MBA
PhD
Sloan
Total
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
8:00am to 9:45am
12
15%
0
0%
0
0%
12
13%
10:00am to 11:45am
21
26%
1
10%
2
40%
24
25%
Standard Periods
59%
Bh
30%
80%
57%
1:20pm to 3:05pm
26
33%
2
20%
2
40%
30
32%
3:20pm to 5:05pm
12
15%
2
20%
1
20%
15
16%
Total in
Standard Periods
71
89%
5
50%
5
100%
81
85%
Non-Standard Periods
9
11%
5
50%
0
0%
14
15%
Grand Total
80
100%
10
100%
5
100%
95
100%
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
31
Quantitative Analyses
4 Distribution by Course Enrollment
 Rooms in greatest demand:
small (1 to 25) and large (41
to 75)
Number of Courses
01-02 Autumn Enrollment Distribution
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
01 to
05
 Spring: about 1/3 are small,
about ¼ are medium, and
half are large.
21 to
25
26 to
30
31 to
35
36 to
40
41 to
45
46 to
50
51 to
55
56 to
60
61 to
65
66 to
75
#N/A
06 to
10
11 to
15
16 to
20
21 to
25
26 to
30
31to
35
36 to
40
41 to
45
46 to
50
51 to
55
56 to
60
61 to
65
66 to
75
#N/A
56 to
60
61 to
65
66 to
75
#N/A
01-02 Spring Enrollment Distribution
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
01 to
05
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
16 to
20
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
01 to
05
Number of Courses
Bh
11 to
15
01-02 Winter Enrollment Distribution
Number of Courses
 Autumn and winter: 1/3 of
courses are small, ~10%
medium and 60% large.
06 to
10
06 to
10
11 to
15
16 to
20
21 to
25
26 to
30
31to
35
36 to
40
41to
45
46 to
50
51 to
55
32
Quantitative Analyses
5 Demand vs. Supply – by Room Size
 Significantly more capacity vis-à-vis need in large rooms
 Insufficient capacity in the 26 to 40 range
Class Hours vs. Available Room Hours by Size
1 Autumn 01-02
500
2 Winter 01-02
450
3 Spring 01-02
All Rooms
400
Sloan /
Exec Ed
Rooms
350
Hours
300
250
SUPPLY
DEMAND
200
150
100
50
0
1 to 25
Bh
26 to 40
41 to 75
Size
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
33
Quantitative Analyses
5 Demand vs. Supply – Course to Room
Alignment
 Relative number of classes that are poorly aligned (red) and wellaligned (light / medium blue) vs. room’s size (dark blue)
Capacity vs. Enrollment By Room
Autumn Term
Number of Seats in Room
Classes Poorly Aligned to Room Size
Classes Well Aligned to Room Size
80
Capacity & Enrollment
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
S130
L104
S140
L103
S172
L107
S146
S151
S462
S152
S161
S162
S150
S171
S181
S182
S170
S180
S183
Room
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
34
Constituent
Involvement
Qualitative
Review
Quantitative
Analysis
Recommendations
Recommendations: Optimal Inventory
 Optimal inventory assuming the current 4 day / 4 period
scheduling pattern and room utilization assumptions of 60%
(close to current practice) and 67% (target)
BASELINE (4 day / 4 period)
BASELINE PLUS INCREASED
UTILIZATION (TARGET 67%)
28 hour week
Number of
"Peak"
Course
Hours
(Demand)
Existing
Rooms
(Supply)
1 to 25
92
4
60%
5
(1)
67%
5
(1)
26 to 40
68
1
60%
4
(3)
67%
4
(3)
41 to 65
122
9
60%
7
2
67%
7
2
66 to 80
63
6
60%
4
2
67%
3
3
345
20
20
0
19
1
Class Size
Total
Bh
28 hour week
@
Utilization Rooms
Rate
Needed
Over
(Short)
@
Utilization Rooms
Rate
Needed
Over
(Short)
Note: Calculations exclude S160 used for Executive Education.
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
35
Is there a need for a new building?
Should it be a classroom building?
Yes…
 Current classrooms cannot be made adequate given the building’s constraints
 Classrooms do not meet competitive / contemporary standards.
 Cannot accommodate aisles, which are preferred for pedagogical reasons, and
still meet capacity requirements.
 Large (~150 seat) classroom – which is desirable for review sessions, outside
speakers and potentially some larger courses – cannot be comfortably
accommodated within existing building.
 Difficult to accommodate any significant number of group study rooms.
 The GSB should plan to build a new classroom building.
 Regardless of when and where a new classroom building comes on line,
improvements should be made to the existing classroom inventory.
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
36
Recommended
Instructional Space Program
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES
Type
Number
Capacity
Configuration
(@ 25 to 30 sf / seat)
Bh
Auditorium
1
1
400 to 450
~150
Case Study
3
7
up to 80
up to 65
Amphitheatre, tiered seating
Model: Wharton
General Purpose Classroom
4
up to 40
Flat floor
Moveable tables & chairs
Discussion / Seminar
5
up to 25
Flat floor
Moveable tables & chairs
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Fixed, theatre style seating
37
Suggested Improvements
for Existing Classrooms
“Rightsize” the existing inventory
 Dedensify classrooms
and improve mix where
possible, using the
“ideal” inventory as a
target.
 Existing envelopes are
not large enough to
dedensify the largest
rooms to a desirable
square footage
allocation (shown in
green).
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Per Seat Square Foot
Allocation
Current Inventory
Ideal No.
of Room s
Room Size
1 to
26 to
41 to
66 to
25
40
65
80
5
4
7
3
Room
Current
Capacity
Seating
Type
L112
20
Loose
S130
20
Loose
L104
25
Loose
S140
25
Loose
L103
32
Loose
S172
41
Fixed
L107
48
Loose
S146
50
S151
50
S462
54
Fixed
S152
60
S161
60
S162
S160
SF
17
20
22
25
28
30
(green is preferred sf allocation)
850
50
43
39
34
30
28
Loose
940
55
47
43
38
34
31
Fixed
954
56
48
43
38
34
32
Fixed
1,080
64
54
49
43
39
36
Fixed
1,090
64
55
50
44
39
36
60
Fixed
1,090
64
55
50
44
39
36
60
Fixed
1,090
64
55
50
44
39
36
S150
62
Fixed
1,077
63
54
49
43
38
36
S171
66
Fixed
1,242
73
62
56
50
44
41
S181
66
Fixed
1,242
73
62
56
50
44
41
S182
66
Fixed
1,257
74
63
57
50
45
42
S183
72
Fixed
1,247
73
62
57
50
45
42
S170
72
Fixed
1,252
74
63
57
50
45
42
S180
72
Fixed
1,252
74
63
57
50
45
42
38
Suggested Improvements
for Existing Classrooms
 Upgrade furnishings, fixtures and equipment
 Replace and reconfigure tables to allow for the addition of aisles where possible
 Seats: If loose seats are used where possible, they may be used in new
facilities once built.
 Lighting: Modernize lighting to create zones and ability to raise and lower
illumination levels.
 Technology
 Significant investments in technology in the existing facilities are not warranted:
Costs to retrofit
Speed of change in technology
Not required by current pedagogy at Stanford
 However, design of a standardized podium would facilitate faculty use, can be
maintained more easily by IT staff, and could be easily relocated to any new
facility.
Bh
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
39
Q&A
For further Information
Please contact:
Thomas Hier
Principal
Biddison Hier, Ltd.
Consultants to Higher Education
4315 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011-7021
Phone: (202) 882-8700
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.biddhier.com