THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT. Classroom and Laboratory Utilization Study and Campus-Wide Space Analysis

Transcription

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Classroom and Laboratory Utilization Study and Campus-Wide Space Analysis June 2000

2 Document Prepared by: PAULIEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Denver, Colorado Daniel K. Paulien, President John Bengston, Senior Associate Mel Lockhart, Senior Associate Lisa Keith, Associate II Yvonne M. Thibodeau, Associate Anne Clark, Associate Mike Wilson, Data Analyst K. C. Bock, Data Analyst Gloria LeFree, Production Assistant Felicia Gallegos, Production Assistant Mary Herndon, Production Assistant Acknowledgments to: THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT PROJECT CONTACTS: Linda Seavey, Director, Campus Planning Services Geoffrey Gamble, Provost Tom Gustafson, Vice President, University Relations and Operations Bill Ballard, Associate Vice President, Administrative and Facilities Services Fred Curran, Director, Institutional Studies Harris Abbott, Assistant Director, Campus Planning Services Keith Kennedy, Assistant Director for Administrative Information Services Joanna Carney, Facilities Information Analyst Julie Green, Staff Assistant, Campus Planning Services

3 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Classroom and Laboratory Utilization Study and Campus-Wide Space Analysis Prepared by June PREFACE AND SUMMARY OVERVIEW SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CLASSROOM AND LABORATORY UTILIZATION CAMPUS-WIDE SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS CLASSROOM ANALYSIS CLASSROOM UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROCESS CLASSROOM UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY ROOM TYPE CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY ROOM CAPACITY CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY BUILDING CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY DAY AND TIME LABORATORY ANALYSIS LABORATORY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROCESS LABORATORY UTILIZATION SUMMARY LABORATORY UTILIZATION BY DEPARTMENT LABORATORY UTILIZATION BY DAY AND TIME CAMPUS-WIDE SPACE NEEDS FINDINGS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS PROCESS SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS FINDINGS CLASSROOM & SERVICE SPACE TEACHING LABORATORY AND SERVICE OPEN LABORATORIES & SERVICE RESEARCH LABORATORIES & SERVICE OFFICES & SERVICE LIBRARY SPECIAL USE FACILITIES GENERAL USE FACILITIES SUPPORT FACILITIES HEALTH CARE FACILITIES RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES...32

4 APPENDIX A: CLASSROOM UTILIZATION ANALYSIS...34 APPENDIX B: CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY DAY AND HOUR...47 APPENDIX C: LIST OF CLASSROOM ROOM USE CODE ADJUSTMENTS...68 APPENDIX D: TEACHING LABORATORY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY...73 APPENDIX E: TEACHING LABORATORY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY BY DEPT...77 APPENDIX F: SCHEDULED LAB USE BY DAY AND HOUR...84 APPENDIX G: LIST OF LABORATORY ROOM USE CODE ADJUSTMENTS...89

5 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Classroom and Laboratory Utilization Study and Campus-Wide Space Analysis Prepared by June PREFACE AND SUMMARY 1.1 OVERVIEW The University of Vermont contracted with Paulien & Associates of Denver, Colorado to conduct a detailed classroom and laboratory utilization study, and provide perspective as to the adequacy of the amounts of space at the University of Vermont by major category through comparisons to space amounts at other research universities and space guidelines used in other states. The University provided the consultants with a facilities inventory for the campus and with course data from the Fall 1999 term. The University also provided the consultant with a copy of The University of Vermont Sourcebook Using the data provided, the consultants reviewed the information and conducted analysis of the efficiency of classroom and laboratory use. The facilities inventory and course data were used to compute student station utilization showing hours of week per use, percentage of student station occupancy, and average space per student station for the instructional rooms. After having reviewed the utilization data, the consultants visited the University of Vermont campus, toured several of the campus buildings, and looked at those rooms for which the initial utilization analysis results posed questions. While on the campus the consultants met with the Director of Campus Planning Services, with her staff, with the Vice President of University Relations and Operations, and with the Associate Vice President for Administrative and Facilities Services to share the first draft of the utilization study findings. Initial findings were also shared with the Senate Physical Planning Committee. The campus visit identified additional information needed for refinement of the utilization analysis. In some instances this refinement included adjustment of room use codes to match more closely the primary use of instructional spaces. Page 1

6 The initial results of the space needs analysis portion of the study were also reviewed while the consultant was on campus. The consultant shared the preliminary findings, discussed the guidelines and peer institutions used, and recommended alternate approaches that could be used to generate more reliable results. The consultant and the Director of Institutional Studies as well as the Associate Vice President for Administrative and Facilities Services reviewed those institutions which had been utilized for comparison of space adequacy by major category. This review resulted in a decision to adjust the institutions used for the comparison. After the visit to campus the consultant and the Director of Institutional Studies identified another set of peer institutions and a revised peer analysis was produced. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CLASSROOM AND LABORATORY UTILIZATION The University of Vermont campus had 145 classrooms in the Fall of The current study looked at all classroom utilization, both day and evening. The key findings showed that classrooms were scheduled an average of 27 hours per week at 59% student station occupancy. The consultants experience analyzing utilization at institutions similar to the University of Vermont indicates the expected range of hours of use per week to average between 30 and 35 hours of use at 6 to 65% occupancy. Findings for the University of Vermont fell a little lower than that range. The classroom use by day and time of day showed a typical pattern of use. The University of Vermont schedules the use of classrooms manually. This may account for the classroom utilization being slightly lower than might be expected for a major university. The University is looking into acquiring scheduling software in order to automate the scheduling process. The consultants recommend that the University acquire scheduling software and implement its use as soon as possible. In addition the consultants recommend that the University review the room use coding on a campuswide basis for consistency. The campus-wide use of teaching laboratories averaged 16 hours of use per week at 67% student station occupancy. In the consultants experience, the expected range for teaching laboratories at similar universities is 15 to 20 hours of per week use at 7 to 75% student station occupancy. The University of Vermont findings were within the range for expected hours of scheduled use but lower than the expected range for occupancy. The laboratory use by day and time of day showed a typical pattern of use. More in-depth analysis would be necessary to draw conclusions regarding use by the individual departments. Page 2

7 Number of THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Utilization Summary Average Assignable SqFt per Station Average Enrollment Weekly Room Hours Hours in Student Station Occupancy Classrooms % Laboratories % CAMPUS-WIDE SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS Data from ten universities was compiled to calculate the average assignable square feet (ASF) per full-time equivalent (FTE) student by space category. Assignable square feet is defined as the area of a building assigned to or available for use by an occupant. The space defined as assignable square feet does not include building mechanical or circulation spaces. The major space categories used in the analysis are those defined in the Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual. Classification of the University of Vermont space was made using the room use codes given to the consultant by the University. The institutions used for comparison were flagship research universities and included the University of Arizona, the University of Florida, the University of Oregon, the University of Iowa, the University of Illinois-Urbana, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Washington, Indiana University, and the University of Texas. The University of Vermont provided the consultant with over 100 peer institutions used for various purposes. All of the peer institutions listed above were on at least one of those lists and were institutions for which the consultant had data available. The averages from the benchmark analysis were used to calculate the amount of space needed in the major space categories for the University of Vermont using the enrollment of 8,900 full-time equivalent students. In some categories of space the ASF/FTE was not used as the basis for comparison. Alternate approaches were used to calculate the guideline amount of space needed for those categories. For Research Laboratories and Service the alternate approach used was based on a calculation of an amount of space per research dollar. For Office space, calculations were made based Page 3

8 on staff numbers rather than student numbers. In the Housing category calculations were based on the number of beds on campus rather than the overall number of students. For Library space the calculations included space calculations for the number of students but also included a calculation for the number of faculty and one for the number of volumes. Calculations of ASF/FTE and of the alternate approaches used provided the University with a campus-wide analysis. It is recommended that the University of Vermont consider having a more detailed study done which will provide college-by-college findings utilizing both peer data at a college level and normative information. Some colleges may be significantly short of space while others may have adequate amounts. Such a study will clarify this. Overall campus-wide findings indicated that the University of Vermont shows a space deficit in most categories of space with a total deficit of over 175,000 ASF. It should be noted that this does not include the new spaces being planned or constructed on campus or those being leased that may be returned to the campus for use: the Health Science Research Facility, Rubenstein Laboratory, the Medical Education Center, the Student Center/Gateway, student housing, and DeGoesbriand. It is recommended that more in-depth space needs analysis be performed at the college or departmental level to provide the University with information that could be used for further planning. It is also recommended that the University implement a space management policy similar to the Draft Space Management Policy Version 2.c June THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Peer Based Needs Analysis 1999 BASE YEAR Student FTE: 8,900 Existing ASF Benchmark ASF Surplus/ (Deficit) Percent Surplus/ (Deficit) The University of Vermont ASF/FTE Peer Average ASF/FTE Classroom & Service 122,724 90,780 31, Teaching Laboratories & Service 88, ,460 (13,123) (14.9%) Open Laboratories & Service 48,566 52,510 (3,944) (8.1%) * Research Laboratories & Service 245, ,200 (34,890) (14.2%) 525ASF/$100, ASF/$100,000 * Offices & Service 494, ,595 (94,751) (19.1%) 155ASF/staff 185ASF/staff * Library 195, ,621 (13,281) (6.8%) 22.0 ACRL adjusted Special 361, , , % General 228, ,612 40, % Support 152, ,180 (80,538) (52.8%) Health Care Facilities 5,444 48,238 (42,794) (786.1%) * Housing 638, ,000 (108,315) (17.) 170ASF/bed 200ASF/bed COLLEGE/UNIT TOTAL 2,581,751 2,757,246 (175,495) (6.8%) * Alternate approaches have been used other than ASF/FTE benchmarks Page 4

9 2.0 CLASSROOM ANALYSIS 2.1 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROCESS The classroom utilization at the University of Vermont was analyzed using Fall 1999 data. The data was organized in a number of different ways so that average campus-wide findings could be calculated along with findings by seating capacity of classrooms, time of day, and campus location. The University of Vermont provided the consultant with information on the courses taught in Fall 1999, with meeting times, locations, and enrollment for each course. A facility inventory listing all of the classrooms being studied in this report was provided by the University. The consultants visited the University of Vermont campus to gain familiarity with the classroom spaces and to verify the data received. Paulien & Associates utilized applications it has developed with data base management software to produce an analysis of the classroom utilization by room, by room capacity, by building, and by time of day. This study did not include analysis of quality of space, sight lines, acoustics, or equipment in rooms. 2.2 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY The facilities inventory originally given to the consultants included 160 rooms classified as classrooms. The initial utilization analysis results indicated that 29 of these 160 rooms had no scheduled use. For some of the classrooms that showed no utilization in the initial analysis, additional information on courses was obtained from the departments and included for subsequent analysis. After discussion with the Director of Campus Planning Services and the Facilities Information Analyst some classrooms that indicated no scheduled use were re-coded as conference rooms, classroom service, or other uses. Two classrooms, originally coded as open laboratories, were added to the classroom list. The final analysis of classroom use included 145 classrooms. The list of classrooms in the analysis and those that were eliminated from the analysis can be found in Appendix C. The 145 classrooms analyzed included 24 General Purpose classrooms, 51 Schedule Priority classrooms, two Special Equipment classrooms, 24 Restricted Schedule classrooms, and 44 Departmental classrooms. The inclusive definition of classroom includes not only classrooms, but lecture halls, recitation rooms, and seminar rooms. General Purpose classrooms are further defined by the University of Vermont as those under the control of Facilities Scheduling for the purpose of scheduling classes. Schedule Priority classrooms are those for which a particular department or program is given first priority by Facilities Scheduling when scheduling the rooms for classes. Special Equipment Page 5

10 classrooms are those scheduled by Facilities Scheduling and used by classes that require special purpose equipment for student use. Restricted Schedule classrooms are defined as those scheduled by a particular academic department or program for its own classes. After a particular department has completed scheduling its own use of the Restricted Schedule classrooms, the open periods may be released to Facilities Scheduling for further scheduling of classes. Departmental classrooms are those under the control of a particular department or program for its own academic needs. When comparing the University of Vermont to other major universities it should be noted that the rooms that the University of Vermont classifies as Departmental classrooms are often classified as conference rooms at other universities. This classification is often motivated by the need to maximize classroom utilization results. Since the University of Vermont has no mandated need to maximize classroom utilization, the University retains its Departmental classrooms in the classroom space category. Of the 145 classrooms, two are scheduled for use only in the spring term. Since the analysis was of Fall 1999 term, the analysis showed zero utilization for these two rooms, Music Room A311 and Perkins Room 211. Music Room A311 is the Electronic Music classroom. Perkins Room 211 is the Geology seminar room. Both are Departmental classrooms. The consultants find it unusual for a campus to have classrooms that are scheduled only one term. While only scheduling a room during one term is not unusual for an advanced laboratory space that has a particular curricular use, classrooms can generally be used for multiple disciplines and are rarely scheduled only for one term during the academic year. It is recommended that these rooms, Music Room A311 and Perkins Room 211, be evaluated for possible expanded or alternate use. Findings for classroom utilization for the Fall 1999 term showed the overall campus classroom utilization at the University of Vermont to be on the low side for a campus of its size and mission. The expected range for a major university would be an average of 30 to 35 hours per week of use at 6 to 65% student station occupancy. The use for classes analyzed at the University of Vermont averaged 27 hours per week, with 59% student station occupancy. The number of hours per week of utilization can range widely. The hours of use can be compared to a 40-hour work week or only to the 25 peak class hours in the middle of the day. It can also be compared to 70 to 75 hours of possible use in a week. The expected range of 30 to 35 hours provides a guideline. A campus that offers many evening or weekend courses might have a higher number of hours of use, while a campus that offers only daytime courses may have a lower number of hours of use per week. Utilization of individual rooms at the University of Vermont ranged from a high of 54 hours per week in Votey Room 231 to a low of zero hours per week in Music Room A311 and Perkins Room 211. As mentioned above, additional information was gathered for classrooms with zero utilization to confirm Page 6

11 whether the room is properly coded as a classroom and if there were courses scheduled in the room. The percent student station occupancy is the indicator of the number of seats filled in a room when it is in use. The average at the University of Vermont is 59% of seats filled when rooms are in use. As with the number of hours of use, the occupancy percent can vary widely. As a rule, rooms with less space per seat, like an auditorium, are more comfortable when some of the seats remain empty. On the other hand, a smaller room, like a seminar room, may be quite comfortable when all seats are in use. The average student station occupancy percentage for individual rooms at the University of Vermont ranged from 119% occupancy in 120 University Heights Room 100 and 31 South Prospect Room 100 to 2% of seats filled in Given Room E210. The classroom in 120 University Heights Room 100 is the Military Studies classroom and is used as an initial meeting place while activities often take place outside the classroom. It is classified as a Restricted Schedule classroom. The classroom in 31 South Prospect Room 100 is a Departmental classroom and is often used as a seminar room or departmental meeting room. The classroom in Given Room E210 is a lecture hall and is classified as a Departmental classroom. In instances where the consultants found unusual occupancy percentages, either very low percentages or percentages above 10, additional information was requested to verify the station count of the rooms and to correct any discrepancies in the database. For several rooms further investigation confirmed the results that indicate the courses scheduled in the rooms do indeed exceed the room capacity or the course enrollment is low for the room capacity. In a few cases the consultants found that courses were scheduled in both a laboratory and classroom space simultaneously allowing faculty member to move the students from one to the other as needed. This was the case, for example, in Practical Nursing use of Rowell 104 and 237 and in the use of the language laboratory in Southwick 200B. Institutions with higher use of classrooms are usually unable to schedule courses in two rooms. The University of Vermont should look at future laboratories designed with appropriate spaces to conduct the explanatory parts of laboratory instruction. In this instance, the relative low incidence of this did not affect the overall campus utilization of classrooms, and while it is noted here, the consultants view this as an appropriate use of facilities and do not recommend changes in this practice. The consultants were informed that the University of Vermont schedules the use of classrooms manually. This may account for the classroom utilization being slightly lower than might be expected for a major university. The University is looking into acquiring scheduling software in order to automate the scheduling process. The consultants recommend that the University acquire scheduling software and implement its use as soon as possible. Until electronic scheduling has Page 7

12 been implemented and evaluated the University should postpone the planning of any major changes in the classroom pool. 2.3 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY ROOM TYPE The University of Vermont has chosen to organize classrooms in five categories: General Purpose classrooms (Room Code 110), Schedule Priority classrooms (Room Code 111), Special Equipment classrooms (Room Code 112), Restricted Schedule classrooms (Room Code 113), and Departmental classrooms (Room Code 114). This is a unique approach to classifying classrooms and, while it is intended to provide the campus with detailed facilities management information, it does not appear to be implemented in a consistent manner by the departments across the campus. The consultant recommends that the room use codes of the classrooms be reviewed centrally to insure consistency in classroom definition and categorization. The process used to schedule the priority classrooms works quite well since they achieve a higher utilization than the strictly centrally scheduled ones. Adopting a scheduling program does not need to negate departmental preferences and even individual instructor preferences that can be built into the model. Such a system makes it more likely that spaces will be used than if one department staff needs to ask another department staff for permission to use the other department s room. The scheduling of additional hours in those classrooms that are indicated as available for such use would be scheduled automatically after the priority department had turned in its schedule. Findings for the classrooms when analyzed by the room type classification indicate the Schedule Priority classrooms are used more hours per week on average than the other four classifications and were occupied at over 6 of capacity when in use. The General Purpose classrooms are used nearly as many hours as the Schedule Priority classrooms but fell below the overall campus average for percent of student station occupancy when in use. The Departmental classrooms are used fewest hours per week, but show the highest occupancy rate when in use. The findings for the classroom types are summarized in the table below: Page 8

13 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Classroom Utilization Number of Average Assignable SqFt per Station Average Enrollment Weekly Room Hours Hours In Student Station Occupancy All Classrooms % General Purpose (Room Code 110) % Schedule Priority (Room Code 111) % Special Equipment (Room Code 112) % Restricted Schedule (Room Code 113) % Departmental (Room Code 114) % The use of the Special Equipment classroom category (Room Code 112) seems to be an anomaly. The definition of rooms as having special equipment would indicate that the rooms are actually teaching laboratories since the definition of a teaching laboratory is a room with specialized or discipline-specific equipment and use. There are only two rooms classified as Special Equipment classrooms (Room Code 112) at the University of Vermont. The University may want to review or eliminate the room use code 112 and classify special equipment classrooms as teaching laboratory spaces. The University, in addition to the recommendation made above that the room use codes of the classrooms be reviewed centrally to insure consistency in classroom definition, should consider reclassifying some of the Departmental classrooms into Schedule Priority classrooms to improve utilization of available space. 2.4 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY ROOM CAPACITY The utilization of classrooms at the University of Vermont was analyzed by room capacity. The 145 classrooms on the campus were divided into groups by room capacity and utilization results were calculated for each capacity grouping. It has been the consultants experience that analysis by seating capacity frequently shows the largest rooms to have the most hours per week of scheduled use and smallest rooms to have lower hours of use per week. This was true for the smallest rooms at the University of Vermont where utilization in classrooms with fewer than 20 seats averaged 15 hours per week of scheduled use. However, the normal finding of largest rooms having most hours per week of scheduled use was not the case for the University of Vermont. Utilization of the largest rooms was Page 9

14 nearly as low as that for smallest rooms. Classrooms having over 251 seats averaged 18 hours per week of use. Utilization was strongest in the classrooms with 61 to 75 seats which were used an average of 43 hours per week. The average number of hours per week of scheduled utilization for most sizes of classrooms was fairly consistent among all sizes of classrooms. The percentage of student station occupancy was highest in the smallest classrooms which showed 79% occupancy when in use and lowest in classrooms having between 151 and 250 seats with 43% of student stations filled. It is typical at most institutions to find the percentage of student station occupancy to be higher in small classrooms and lower in larger classrooms. While the results for the University of Vermont do show higher occupancy in smaller classrooms, there is no significant decline in occupancy percentage for classrooms larger than 40 seats. The percent of occupancy is fairly steady for all sizes of classrooms at the University of Vermont. It has been the consultants experience that a review of student station size in relation to room capacity frequently shows the largest rooms to have the smallest average square feet per student station while the smallest rooms often have larger sized student stations. For example, an auditorium might provide only 10 or 12 square feet per seat, while a seminar room might have 25 or 30 square feet per occupant. When making some generalizations from a utilization analysis for the sizes of rooms needed on a campus the findings are reviewed for capacity groupings that have high number of hours per week of use. The capacity groups with the highest hours of use at the University of Vermont are those with 61 to 75 seats and those with 46 to 50 seats. However, the average student station occupancy for both of these capacity groupings is less than 6, not a high utilization when the rooms are occupied, indicating that the rooms are not filled to capacity and could accommodate larger sections before additional classrooms are needed. The following tables show classroom utilization and student station occupancy by room capacity grouping. Page 10

15 The University Of Vermont Classroom Utilization Analysis by Room Size Summary Room Capacity No. of Average Room Size Average ASF per Station 20 and Under , , , , and Over 3 3, AVERAGE TOTAL Average Section Size Average Weekly Room Hours Hours in Student Station Occupancy % % % % % % % % % % % % % Weekly Room Hours by Classroom Capacity Weekly Room Hours and Under and Classroom Capacity Over Student Station Occupancy Student Station Occupancy by Classroom Capacity 20 and Under Classroom Capacity and Over Page 11

16 2.5 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY BUILDING Classroom utilization analysis was performed by building for those buildings that include more than four classrooms. No attempt was made to tie this analysis to any departmental units or departmental use of the rooms. When classroom utilization was analyzed by building for those buildings with more than four classrooms, the classrooms in the Votey Building showed the highest hours per week of use with an average of 39 hours of use per week. The average number of hours per week of classroom use in the Votey Building and in Kalkin, Lafayette, Old Mill Annex, and Waterman exceeded the overall campus average use of 27 hours per week. The classrooms in Dewey Hall showed the lowest hours per week of use with an average of 22 hours of use per week. The student station occupancy rate was highest in Dewey Hall and in Old Mill Annex classrooms. The classrooms in Dewey Hall and Old Mill Annex showed an average of 74% student station occupancy when in use. Old Mill Annex was high in both the average hours per week of use and the student occupancy rate. In the Votey Building classrooms had the lowest average occupancy rate with 47% of seats filled. Of the 145 classrooms in use in the Fall term of 1999, Lafayette Hall contains the greatest number of classrooms with 19 out of the 145 classrooms on campus. The University of Vermont teaches small classes throughout the curriculum. The average size for all classroom courses taught on campus was 27 students. The average class size of classes held in the buildings having more than four classrooms was 25 students. The average class sizes by building were highest in Williams Hall where class sizes averaged 40 students. Classes taught in the Old Mill Annex had the smallest average class size. The class size in Old Mill Annex averaged 19. The following tables show classroom utilization and student station occupancy by building. Page 12

17 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Classroom Utilization Analysis by Building Summary* Building Name and Id No. of Average Room Size Average ASF per Station Average Section Size Average Weekly Room Hours Hours in Student Station Occupancy % DEWEY HALL DEWEY KALKIN BUILDING KALKIN 8 1, LAFAYETTE HALL LAFAYETTE OLD MILL ANNEX OLD MILL X ROWELL N/A ALL HLTH ROWELL VOTEY BLDG VOTEY WATERMAN BLDG WATERMAN WILLIAMS HALL WILLIAMS AVERAGE TOTAL % % % % % % % % % * For Buildings with more than 4 classrooms. Weekly Room Hours by Building* VOTEY OLD M ILL X KALKIN LA FA Y ET TE WATERM AN ROWELL WILLIAMS DEWEY Weekly Room Hours Student Station Occupancy by Building* DEWEY OLD M ILL X W ILLIA M S LAFAYETTE WATERMAN KA LKIN ROWELL VOTEY Student Station Occupancy % Page 13

18 2.6 CLASSROOM UTILIZATION BY DAY AND TIME Analysis was performed on classroom utilization data to show classroom usage by day and time of day. Classroom use at the University of Vermont was strongest between 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. During those hours over 6 of the classrooms on campus were in use. On Monday and Wednesday use was also strong between 9:05 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. when over 5 of classrooms were in use. There was also significant usage until 6:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday. On Friday use dropped below 5 after 12:20 p.m. At the times of day with the highest use, the percentage of rooms in use never exceeded 7. This would indicate that at any given time at least 3 of classrooms are not in scheduled use. While a campus need not necessarily strive to have 10 of its classrooms in use, as that would provide no flexibility for scheduling, a percentage of use in the 9 or higher range at peak periods would indicate fairly efficient use of classrooms. In the consultants experience, classroom use is frequently highest between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. with less use on Friday. The University of Vermont use was as expected on Monday through Thursday with higher use on Friday than many institutions achieve. Classroom usage on Monday and Wednesday was not appreciably different from usage on Tuesday and Thursday. Friday usage showed an expected drop in the afternoon. Page 14

19 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Scheduled Classroom by Day and Hour MWF Time of Day Monday in Wednesday Friday Average* in in in 7:15 AM 0 1 1% 0 0 8:00 AM 39 27% 40 28% 39 27% 39 27% 9:05 AM 85 59% 85 59% 90 62% :10 AM 97 67% 97 67% 92 63% 95 66% 11:15 AM 92 63% 95 66% 79 54% 89 61% 12:20 PM % 60 41% 69 48% 1:25 PM 81 56% 86 59% 68 47% 78 54% 2:30 PM 71 49% 78 54% % 3:35 PM 63 43% 82 57% 18 12% 54 37% 4:40 PM 49 34% 71 49% 6 4% 42 29% 5:00 PM 51 35% 79 54% 5 3% 45 31% 6:00 PM 42 29% 65 45% % 7:00 PM 23 16% 42 29% % 8:00 PM 16 11% 28 19% :00 PM 8 6% 12 8% 0 7 5% 10:00 PM 0 1 1% 0 0 Note: Based on total classrooms of 145 *Average based on Monday, Wednesday and Friday use. Average Classroom by Hour MWF 10 9 Classroom % :15 AM 8:00 AM 9:05 AM 10:10 AM 11:15 AM 12:20 PM 1:25 PM 2:30 PM 3:35 PM 4:40 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM Time of Day Page 15

20 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Scheduled Classroom by Day and Hour TTh Time of Day Tuesday Thursday Average* in in in 7:45 AM 1 1% 0 1 8:00 AM 59 41% 51 35% 55 38% 9:30 AM 96 66% 98 68% 97 67% 11:00 AM 96 66% 95 66% 96 66% 12:30 PM 98 68% % 2:00 PM 96 66% % 3:30 PM 81 56% 66 46% 74 51% 5:00 PM 77 53% 63 43% 70 48% 6:30 PM 51 35% 46 32% 49 33% 8:00 PM 24 17% 22 15% 23 16% 9:00 PM 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% Note: Based on total classrooms of 145 *Average based on Tuesday and Thursday use. Average Classroom by Hour TTh Classroom % :45 AM 8:00 AM 9:30 AM 11:00 AM 12:30 PM 2:00 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 6:30 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM Time of Day Page 16

21 Analysis of classroom utilization by time of day was also performed separating the classrooms into four of the categories of classrooms: General Purpose classrooms (Room Code 110), Schedule Priority classrooms (Room Code 111), Restricted Schedule classrooms (Room Code 113), and Departmental classrooms (Room Code 114). Because there are only two Special Equipment Classrooms (Room Code 112) they have not been analyzed separately. The percent of classrooms in use was highest for the General Purpose classrooms and lowest for the Departmental classrooms. Up to 93% of the General Purpose classrooms were used on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday compared to a high of 36% of the Departmental Classrooms. On Tuesday and Thursday the comparison is similar, with up to 96% of the General Purpose classrooms in use while up to 44% of Departmental classrooms were in use. Tables and graphs showing the number of classrooms scheduled at each hour of the day and the percentage of rooms in use for each time period are located in Appendix B of this study. The University of Vermont representatives have asked the consultant to comment on whether a common calendar would help achieve better utilization of teaching facilities. The University of Vermont is not alone in having difficulty in achieving a common calendar across a large number of disciplines including multiple professional schools. In the consultant s experience, it is not unusual for schools of medicine, other health affairs units, schools of business, schools of education, schools of architecture and engineering, all to view themselves as having needs to teach certain courses in a timeframe that differs from the primary calendar across the campus. The consultant has also seen situations where a common calendar is put into place despite challenging circumstances. The Auraria Higher Education Center, which is home to the University of Colorado at Denver, Metropolitan State College at Denver, and the Community College of Denver, has put together a common calendar framework in which the institutions agree to common start and stop times and protocols for handling longer than usual courses to assure that there is not a significant negative impact on facilities utilization resulting from the specific use. The use of a 75-minute period on a day when 50-minute periods are the norm means two schedulable hours are used by the one class. Another suggestion that is worth considering is to adopt specific protocols for the primary hours, perhaps from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and allow a freer approach to the length of courses that are scheduled earlier or later than those prime hours. Those campuses which have seen extensive use of Monday and Wednesday 75-minute periods along with the traditional Tuesday and Thursday 75-minute periods have wound up with significantly lower Friday morning use. This can also allow Friday use to be a good time in those instances for longer session courses to meet such as a three-hour, once a week course. The consultants are aware of and have read the Draft Space Management Policy Version 2.c June 2000 and recommend that the University complete any discussions Page 17

22 or revisions to this draft and adopt a space management policy similar to this draft in order to provide the campus with consistent space protocols for use of campus space resources. 3.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS 3.1 LABORATORY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS PROCESS The process used to determine laboratory utilization was very similar to that performed for the classroom analysis. The University of Vermont provided the consultant a list of the laboratory courses taught in Fall 1999, showing meeting times, locations, and enrollments for each course. The data was organized in a number of different ways so that average campus-wide findings could be calculated along with findings by department and by time of day. A facility inventory listing all of the laboratories being studied in this report was provided. The consultants toured the University of Vermont campus to gain familiarity with the laboratory spaces and to verify the data received. Paulien & Associates utilized applications it has developed with data base management software to produce an analysis of the laboratory utilization by room, department, and by time of day. This study did not include analysis of quality of space, sight lines, acoustics, ventilation, or equipment in rooms. 3.2 LABORATORY UTILIZATION SUMMARY The facilities inventory originally given to the consultants included 95 rooms classified as teaching laboratories. Of these 95 laboratories the initial utilization findings indicated that 56 of these rooms had no scheduled use. Further investigation showed more laboratory classes had been scheduled, and additional information on laboratory courses was obtained from the departments and included for subsequent analysis. Review of the other laboratories with no use revealed some of the rooms to actually be service space to teaching laboratories or open laboratories. Teaching laboratories are defined as rooms used for regularly scheduled classes that require special purpose equipment for experimentation or participation in an academic discipline. These can include science laboratories, computer laboratories, art studios, and music rooms. Open laboratories are defined as laboratories used primarily for individual or unscheduled use. After discussion with the Director of Campus Planning Services and the Facilities Information Analyst some rooms that indicated no scheduled laboratory use were re-coded as service space or as open laboratories. The consultant reviewed scheduled utilization of rooms that were coded neither as classrooms nor as teaching laboratories. This utilization included some conference Page 18

23 rooms and open laboratories. In some instances the consultant recommended recoding the open laboratories to teaching laboratories if scheduled use indicated teaching to be the primary use of the room. The final analysis of teaching laboratory use included 71 laboratories. Of these 71 laboratories, two are scheduled for use only in the spring term. Since the analysis was of Fall 1999 term, the analysis showed zero utilization for these two rooms, Hills Room 021 and Terrill Room 307. It is not unusual to find advanced laboratory space that has a particular programmatic or curricular use and is used only one term during the year. When a department or program curriculum requires a laboratory, that space must be dedicated to the program even if the course offered in that laboratory only meets for one term each year. Findings for teaching laboratory utilization for the Fall 1999 term showed the overall campus teaching laboratory utilization at the University of Vermont to be within the expected range of hours per week of use, but slightly below the expected occupancy rate. The expected range for a major university would be an average of 15 to 20 hours per week of use at 7 to 75% student station occupancy. The use for teaching laboratories at the University of Vermont averaged 16 hours per week, with 67% student station occupancy. The number of hours of scheduled use of laboratory space is expected to be lower than the number of hours of expected use for classrooms to allow unscheduled hours in the laboratory to be used for preparation of the laboratory and to provide time for individual, unscheduled study or research in the laboratory. Utilization of individual laboratories ranged from a high of 45 hours per week in Marsh Life Science Building Room 114 and Perkins Building Room 101 to a low of zero hours per week in the two laboratories that are scheduled in the spring. The laboratories having the next lowest weekly hours of use were the laboratories in Rowell 113 and Votey 229 which both showed two hours per week of utilization. It is not unusual to have advanced or very discipline-specific laboratories that are used for only one course each semester. The average student station occupancy percentage for individual rooms ranged from 156% occupancy in Dewey Hall Room 241 to 2% of stations in use in Given Room E401. In instances where the consultants found unusual occupancy percentages, either very low percentages or percentages above 10, additional information was requested to verify the station count of the rooms and to correct any discrepancies in the database. For several rooms further investigation confirmed the results that indicate the courses scheduled in the rooms do indeed exceed the recorded room capacity or enrollment in the courses is below the room capacity. As mentioned in the classroom utilization analysis summary above, in a few cases the consultants found that courses were scheduled in both a laboratory and classroom space simultaneously allowing faculty member to move the students from one to the other as needed. Institutions with higher use of classrooms are usually Page 19

24 not able to schedule courses in two rooms. The University of Vermont should look at future laboratories designed with appropriate spaces to conduct the explanatory parts of laboratory instruction. In this instance, the consultants view the University of Vermont utilization as an appropriate use of facilities and do not recommend changes in this practice. 3.3 LABORATORY UTILIZATION BY DEPARTMENT The utilization of laboratories at the University of Vermont was analyzed by department. The 71 laboratories on the campus were reviewed according to departmental assignments and utilization results were calculated for each department. The teaching laboratories on campus were assigned to 26 of the departments on campus. It should be noted that laboratory analysis is usually done by department since laboratory use is discipline specific, unlike classrooms which can be used by multiple disciplines and are usually assigned according to the classroom capacity and building or location on campus. The consultants did not meet with the individual departments on campus to review laboratory utilization. When laboratory utilization was analyzed by department, the range of use for the number of hours per week of scheduled use was from an average of 36 hours per week to an average of three hours of use per week. It is not unusual to find use of laboratories to be only three to six hours per week in departments that have advanced discipline specific laboratories. The highest departmental student station occupancy rate showed 156% student station occupancy when in use. This unusually high finding is likely a result of the difficulty in assigning a firm station count for the laboratory or of doubling up the number of students per student station. The lowest average departmental occupancy rate showed 3% of seats filled. Tables showing laboratory utilization and student station occupancy by department are located in Appendix E of this study. 3.4 LABORATORY UTILIZATION BY DAY AND TIME Analysis was performed to illustrate laboratory utilization by day and time of day. Time of day analysis for laboratories showed use to be strongest in the afternoon. Highest use was during the afternoon between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Laboratory usage was highest on Tuesday afternoons and lowest on Friday. The highest use was 61% of laboratories in use at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Friday use of laboratories was quite low with no more than 15% of the laboratories in use at any time. The pattern of use for laboratories at the University of Vermont is typical. In Page 20

25 the consultants experience, laboratory utilization is often higher in the afternoons with significantly less use on Friday. The following tables and graphs show the number of laboratories scheduled at each hour of the day and the percentage of rooms in use for each time period. Page 21

26 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Scheduled Lab by Day and Hour MWF Time of Day Monday in Wednesday Friday Average* in in in 7:00 AM 0 1 1% 0 0 7:15 AM 0 1 1% 0 0 8:00 AM 4 6% % 5 7% 9:05 AM 10 14% 13 18% 10 14% 11 15% 10:10 AM 15 21% 20 28% 11 15% 15 22% 11:15 AM 16 23% 16 23% 11 15% :20 PM 10 14% 15 21% 8 11% 11 15% 1:25 PM 35 49% 36 51% 10 14% 27 38% 2:30 PM 40 56% 40 56% 11 15% 30 43% 3:35 PM 34 48% 36 51% 10 14% 27 38% 4:40 PM % :00 PM 15 21% % :00 PM % 2 3% 11 15% 7:00 PM 12 17% 11 15% % 8:00 PM 8 11% % 9:00 PM 3 4% 2 3% 0 2 2% Note: Based on total laboratories of 71 *Average based on Monday, Wednesday and Friday use. Average Laboratory by Hour MWF 10 9 Laboratory % :00 AM 7:15 AM 8:00 AM 9:05 AM 10:10 AM 11:15 AM 12:20 PM 1:25 PM 2:30 PM 3:35 PM 4:40 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM Time of Day Page 22

27 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT Scheduled Lab by Day and Hour TTh Time of Day Tuesday Thursday Average* in in in 8:00 AM 18 25% 15 21% 17 23% 9:30 AM 26 37% % 11:00 AM 17 24% 15 21% 16 23% 12:30 PM 29 41% 27 38% 28 39% 2:00 PM 43 61% 41 58% 42 59% 3:30 PM 40 56% 35 49% 38 53% 5:00 PM 23 32% 24 34% 24 33% 6:30 PM 19 27% 18 25% 19 26% 8:00 PM 15 21% 15 21% 15 21% 9:00 PM 4 6% 1 1% 3 4% Note: Based on total laboratories of 71 *Average based on Tuesday and Thursday use. Average Laboratory by Hour TTh Laboratory % :00 AM 9:30 AM 11:00 AM 12:30 PM 2:00 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 6:30 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM Time of Day Page 23

28 4.0 CAMPUS-WIDE SPACE NEEDS FINDINGS 4.1 SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS PROCESS The University of Vermont contracted with the consultants to provide an overview analysis of the adequacy of space on campus. The study did not include analysis by College or by Department, and results can not be used to identify space needed for individual campus units. This study also did not include analysis of quality of space on the campus. The results are intended to give a general indication of space adequacy for the campus as a whole so decisions can be made in context with what would typically be found on other comparable campuses. In order for space needs comparisons to be useful for planning purposes it would be necessary to analyze data and meet with campus representatives on a college-by-college basis rather than the university as a whole. The college-by-college analysis would provide more information since space needs vary so much from discipline to discipline and analysis would need to reflect differences in enrollment and staffing levels for each school or college. It is recommended that the University of Vermont consider a more in-depth analysis as the next phase of planning. This analysis was performed using comparative data from ten peer institutions for the assignable square feet per full-time equivalent student in 11 space categories, including classrooms, teaching laboratories, research laboratories, and offices. When the University of Vermont was compared to its peers, the ASF/FTE at the University of Vermont in the various space categories was higher than the peers average equally as often as it was lower, indicating that the University of Vermont s facilities are in a comparable position to the peer institutions. Page 24

29 ASF/FTE Comparison of The University of Vermont to Peer Average ASF/FTE Classroom & Support Class Laboratories Other Laboratories Research Laboratories Office Space Library & Study Facilities Special Facilities The University of Vermont Peer Average Space Category General Facilities Support Facilities Health Care Facilities Residential Facilities Data from ten institutions was compiled showing the average assignable square feet (ASF) per full-time equivalent (FTE) student by space category. The institutions used for comparison were flagship research universities and included the University of Arizona, the University of Florida, the University of Oregon, the University of Iowa, the University of Illinois-Urbana, the University of Wisconsin- Madison, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Washington, Indiana University, and the University of Texas. These peer institutions were selected after extensive discussion with the campus representatives. The Director of Institutional Studies provided the consultants with seven lists of peer institutions. These lists ranged from lists of primary competitors to lists of institutions that grant medical degrees. The lists ranged from 14 to 95 institutions per list. A group of peer institutions for the analysis was then compiled from the original seven lists using the institutions for which the consultant had applicable data. The peers that were selected are all public flagship research universities, leading campuses within their respective states. Page 25