Tom Hier B IDDISON H IER, L TD. Consultants to Higher Education Classrooms: New Tools for Managing a...

Tom HierTom HierBBIDDISON IDDISON HHIER, IER, LLTD.TD.

Consultants to Higher EducationConsultants to Higher Education

Classrooms:Classrooms:New Tools for Managing a Neglected ResourceNew Tools for Managing a Neglected Resource

20 July 200420 July 2004SCUP-39 Annual ConferenceSCUP-39 Annual Conference

Toronto, OntarioToronto, Ontario

Margaret Dyer-ChamberlainMargaret Dyer-ChamberlainSSTANFORD TANFORD UUNIVERSITYNIVERSITY

PresentersPresenters

2Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Today’s TopicsToday’s Topics Why is classroom planning important?

What is a Classroom Management Plan (CMP)?

Case Studies

Dartmouth College

Stanford University

Classroom instruction is a critical aspect of an institution’s

mission. Yet classrooms, with no natural advocate, are

among the most neglected spaces on campus.

4Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

““Neglected Resources”Neglected Resources”

5Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

4 Reasons4 ReasonsWhy Classroom Planning is ImportantWhy Classroom Planning is Important

In a budget reduction environment, administrators are pressured to cut costs and improve productivity.

Budget Cutting Budget Cutting EnvironmentEnvironment

Underperforming Underperforming Assets Create Assets Create Opportunities for Opportunities for ImprovementImprovement

Capital Cost Capital Cost AvoidanceAvoidance

Imperfect Imperfect InformationInformation

Classrooms are in some ways “low hanging fruit.”There are relatively easy and significant opportunities to get more productive use out of existing classrooms through better policies and management of classroom resources.

Often targeted investment in existing facilities can yield great benefits, while minimizing or avoiding the need to build expensive new facilities.

Planners are typically on the front-line in planning classroom space, often with little or no accurate measure of the true need. Classroom planning provides hard, quantifiable data on need.

11

22

33

44

What is a Classroom Management Plan?What is a Classroom Management Plan?

7Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

““Classroom Management Plan” DefinedClassroom Management Plan” Defined

Definition: A roadmap that identifies realistic, implementable solutions to the physical, pedagogical, scheduling, technology, operational and funding issues that have historically challenged good management of classroom resources

Need to refurbish and modernize antiquated classroomsPhysicalPhysical

Perceived large supply of rooms but space unavailable when and where needed

Ad hoc approaches to determining need for and mix of instructional media

Lack of adequate funding for even basic classroom maintenance and upgrades (furnishings, technology, etc.)

Decentralized control and authority for classroom scheduling, planning and operations

Inadequate mix of classroom types to support existing and emerging pedagogies

PedagogicalPedagogical

SchedulingScheduling

Operations / Operations / ManagementManagement

TechnologyTechnology

FundingFunding

What is a Classroom Management Plan?

8Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Developing a Classroom Management PlanDeveloping a Classroom Management Plan

Classroom Analysis and Modeling Quantitative Profile

Review of Qualitative Factors

Productivity Measures

Applying the Classroom “Fix-It” Tool Kit

Outcomes: The Roadmap


9Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Classroom Analysis and ModelingClassroom Analysis and Modeling

Illustrates adequacy of the existing inventoryQUANTITATIVE PROFILE

Supply vs. Demand by Room Size9am to 5pm

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

1 to

15

16 to

25

26 to

40

41 to

60

61 to

80

81 to

150

151

to 3

00

301

or m

ore

Room Hours (Theoretical Supply)

Room Hours -- Rooms Avail for Registrar Scheduling(Supply "in play")

Class Hours (Demand)


10Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.


Physical Conditions

REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE FACTORS

Geographical Considerations Ownership & Management

Pedagogical Requirements

Scheduling Responsibility

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Academic Departments Registrar

No

. of

Ro

om

s

4N: Registrar does not schedule

3P: Registrar schedules only partially

2D: Registrar schedules daytime only

1F: Registrar schedules fully


11Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.


Room utilization by Time of day Campus area Room size Scheduler

Seat utilization By room Migration patterns

Room Utilization Rates by Scheduler

53%49%

68%

59%

44% 43%42%

35%

17% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

8:30am to 3pm 8:30am to 5pm

Registrar Fully Schedules

Registrar Day Schedules

Science Quad

Acad Depts & Registrar

Acad Depts Only

PRODUCTIVITY MEASURES

They are scheduled into rooms as follows:

For courses with enrollments in the range of:

No. of Class

Meeting Hours 1 to 15 16 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 60 61 to 80 81 to 150 151 to 300 301 or more Undefined \1 Total

1 to 15 2,543 287 1,087 720 281 117 28 16 - 9 2,543

16 to 25 1,647 95 626 533 219 124 30 5 4 11 1,647

26 to 40 114 - 4 12 25 36 28 9 - - 114

41 to 60 101 - - - 14 33 25 23 6 - 101

61 to 80 63 - - - 3 12 13 31 4 - 63

81 to 150 84 - 2 - - - 33 36 13 - 84

151 to 300 78 - - 2 - - 3 30 43 - 78

301 or more 11 - - - - - - - 11 - 11

Total 4,641 382 1,718 1,267 542 322 160 150 81 20 4,641 1/ "Undefined" courses are those for which a room location is not known.

Seat Migration Patterns


12Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.


Renovation and reconfiguration

Refurnishing

Equipment upgrades

CLASSROOM “FIX-IT” TOOL KIT

Management Management PoliciesPolicies

Utilization Utilization TargetsTargets

Scheduling Scheduling ChangesChanges

Physical Physical ChangesChanges

Adherence to standard scheduling blocks

Pre-enrollment planning

Policies re: peak vs. non-peak hour scheduling

Room utilization

Seat utilization

Classroom “ownership”

Organizational structure

Budgeting and funding


13Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

OutcomesOutcomes

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

THE ROADMAP


Case Study: Dartmouth CollegeCase Study: Dartmouth College Existing Conditions

15Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Overall, Dartmouth’s room inventory is aligned with demand.

At each room size, there are a greater number of hours available for scheduling than there are courses.

Alignment of Supply and Demand

Demand vs. Supply

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1 to 21 22 to 49 50 to 124 125 +

Room Size

Ho

urs Hours Demand

Hours Supply

Dartmouth College: Existing Conditions

16Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Room Utilization: By Time of DayRoom Utilization: By Time of DayRooms are scheduled using about 42% of available hours from 9am to 5pm.

Peak usage (55%) occurs between the hours of 10am and 1pm.

Room Utilization by Time of Day

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

8am 9 10 11 Noon 1pm 2 3 4 5

9am - 5pm (40 hr week): 42%

10am - 2pm: 49%

10am - 1pm: 55%


17Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Number Percent

Room SizeCourse

Records RoomsCourse

Records Rooms

1 to 10 9 4 1% 3%

11 to 21 256 44 31% 34%

22 to 29 180 23 22% 18%

30 to 39 126 19 15% 15%

40 to 49 58 9 7% 7%

50 to 59 35 6 4% 5%

60 to 69 13 2 2% 2%

70 to 79 38 5 5% 4%

80 to 89 25 3 3% 2%

90 to 99 9 2 1% 2%

100 to 124 4 1 0% 1%

125+ 61 12 7% 9%

Total 814 130 100% 100%

1 to 10 9 4 1% 3%

11 to 21 256 44 31% 34%

22 to 49 364 51 45% 39%

50 to 124 124 19 15% 15%

125+ 61 12 7% 9%

Total 814 130 100% 100%

Room Utilization: by Room SizeRoom Utilization: by Room Size

Room sizes in greatest demand are:

11 to 21 seats

22 to 49 seats

Together, they comprise the bulk of the inventory (73%) and house most of the courses (76%)


18Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Seat UtilizationSeat Utilization

Room SizeAverage Seat

Utilization

1 to 10 43%

11 to 21 58%

22 to 49 49%

50 to 124 43%

125 + 34%

Weighted Avg. 50%

Seat utilization for the classroom inventory as a whole is 50% -- that is, about ½ the seats in a room are filled on average.

The room size with the highest seat utilization is the 11 to 21 seat range

Average Seat Utilization by Room Size

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 to 10 11 to 21 22 to 49 50 to 124 125 +



Key Issues

20Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Registrar vs. Departmental Scheduling

Dartmouth College: Key Issues

The Registrar schedules only 59% of rooms, but must place 80% of all courses in these rooms.

The remaining 41% of rooms are scheduled by departments.

Rooms, by Type of Control

General58%

Depart-mental42%

In the room sizes in greatest demand -- under 21 seats -- about 2/3 (65%) of rooms are scheduled by departments.

Room Distribution, by Control

0

20

40

60

1 to 10 11 to 21 22 to 49 50 to 124 125+

Room Size

No.

of R

oom

s

Departmental

Registar

3 Key Findings

1

2

21Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Registrar vs. Departmental SchedulingRegistrar vs. Departmental Scheduling


Generally, Registrar-scheduled classrooms are used more intensively than departmentally-scheduled classrooms.

On average, the Registrar schedules 7.71 course events (‘X’ hours are counted separately from course hours) per classroom.

Departments schedule, on average, 4.29 courses per classroom.

The difference in room use is a factor of almost 2.

3

22Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Scheduling Zones, by Partition

Partition Name Rooms

No. Pct. Of Inventory

1 Dartmouth Hall GEN 11 8%2 Thornton GEN 4 3%3 Reed GEN 10 8%4 Bartlett GEN 2 2%5 Hopkins/Clement GEN 3 2%6 Steele GEN 2 2%7 Fairchild GEN 1 1%8 Gilman/Remsen GEN 1 1%9 Moore GEN 4 3%

10 Bradley GEN 6 5%11 Sudikoff GEN 1 1%12 44 N. College GEN 2 2%13 Berry-Baker/Sanborn/Webster GEN 3 2%14 Silsby GEN 5 4%15 Rocky GEN 6 5%16 Carpenter GEN 3 2%17 Wilson GEN 1 1%18 Gerry GEN 2 2%19 Murdough GEN 1 1%20 First Year Seminar Only 2 2%21 Chem Lab Only 2 2%22 Chem Only 1 1%23 Art History Only 1 1%24 Studio Art Only 9 7%25 Studio Art Photo Lab Only 1 1%26 Engineering (ENGS or ENGG) Only 6 5%27 Comp Lit Only 1 1%28 Geography Only 3 2%29 Biology Only 2 2%30 Music Only 3 2%31 Drama Only 3 2%32 German Only 1 1%33 Psychology Only 3 2%34 History Only 1 1%35 English Only 2 2%36 Sociology Only 1 1%37 Education First Priority 1 1%38 Anthropology Only 1 1%39 Computer Science Only 1 1%40 Rauner Conf Rooms By Permission Only 2 2%41 Physics First Then Selected Depts 3 2%42 Physics Only 1 1%43 Film Only 1 1%44 Earth Sciences Only 4 3%45 Government Only 1 1%46 Economics Only 1 1%47 Spanish Only 1 1%48 Religion Only 2 2%49 Philosophy Only 1 1%

Total 130 100%

Departmental

Zones

GeographicAccommodationDartmouth historically has provided a high degree of accommodation to its departments in scheduling courses.

The campus is partitioned into 49 zones for scheduling purposes. 30 of these zones are dedicated to accommodating departmental room preferences.

22 of these 30 partitions have only 1 or 2 rooms.

Actual average seat utilization at 50% reflects the high degree of geographic accommodation.

As a reference point, if scheduling were done without regard to geography, average seat utilization could be as high as 88%.


23Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Dartmouth CultureDartmouth Culture Dartmouth’s ability to make full use of its scheduling day is affected by certain cultural factors.

Difficulty of subscribing 8am courses

Students’ afternoon commitments for athletic / extra-curricular programs

Departments’ natural instinct to want to teach in rooms that they have “fitted” to their uses because they work

Dartmouth also has an “X” hour associated with each time block; scheduling the “X” hour is at the faculty’s discretion.

69% use the “X” hour less than 40% of the term. 22% use it 5% to 10%


USE OF THE 'X' HOUR

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

5% to 10% 11% to 20% 21% to 40% 41% to 60% 61% to 80% 81% to 100%

Percentage of the Term

69%

USE OF THE 'X' HOUR

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

5% to 10% 11% to 20% 21% to 40% 41% to 60% 61% to 80% 81% to 100%

Percentage of the Term

69%

24Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Inadequate Room FeaturesInadequate Room Features For modern pedagogies, technology and other room features are as important as the

room capacity itself. Rooms that lack appropriate fit-out may be underutilized even where seating capacity is adequate.

Current classrooms are “conservative and outdated.” Some arranged like “aircraft carriers.”

Preferred furnishing layouts (movable tables and chairs and seminar spaces) are also in relatively short supply; for pedagogies requiring flexible room furnishings, fixed seating makes a room unusable.

Only 20% to 60% of rooms have the equipment in greatest demand permanently installed.


25Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Inadequate Room FeaturesInadequate Room FeaturesRoom Features In Current Inventory


Room Feature Rooms with Feature Room Feature Rooms with FeatureNo. Pct. Of Inventory No. Pct. Of Inventory

Network 119 92% Table Arm Chairs Fixed 21 16%

Blackboard 93 72% SMART 18 14%

Overhead Projection 82 63% Slide Projection - Dual 15 12%

VCR VHS 63 48% Adjustable Lighting 13 10%

Television 60 46% Auditorium 12 9%

C. A. T. V. 56 43% 16mm Projector 12 9%

Video Display 49 38% Lecture w/ tables 11 8%

Seminar w/ table(s) 41 32% Document Camera 5 4%

Slide Projection - Single 40 31% DMEC 5 4%

Air Conditioning 39 30% VCR Multistandard 5 4%

MEC 35 27% Demo capability (Science lab) 5 4%

Tablet Arm Chairs Moveable 31 24% VCR DVD 3 2%

Computer Projection 29 22% 35mm Film 2 2%

VCR 27 21% Whiteboard(s) 2 2%

Macintosh computer display 26 20% Computer display other/Unix 2 2%

Audio Playback 23 18% 16mm Film 0 0%

P.A. System 21 16% Lighting 0 0%

26Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Match ofMatch ofSeat Capacities to Room SizesSeat Capacities to Room Sizes

Although inventory in “high demand” room sizes (11 to 21 and 22 to 49 seats) is adequate, physical inspection of these rooms revealed overcrowding in some rooms – too many seats to fit comfortably based on the rooms’ square footage and layout


Square Footage Allocation per Seat:Existing vs. Modern Standards

-

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Room

Per

Sea

t S

qu

are

Fo

ota

ge

All

oca

tio

n

Existing SF

Modern Standard

Room Size 11 to 21 Size 22 to 49

Rooms ->

27Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Diffused OrganizationDiffused Organization

KEY FINDING: Many interests represent various aspects of classrooms but no one entity represents Dartmouth’s institutional interests with respect to classrooms

Quantity of classrooms, in total or by area of campus, can expand or contract without explicit review process Capital planning process for a building does not necessarily include an explicit representative

for classrooms

Depending on funding sources for new construction, replacement classrooms may become controlled by department rather than Registrar

In renovation, classrooms may become converted to faculty offices or other uses

Absence of specific control has led to creation of various ad hoc committees to manage on an issue-by-issue basis:

Resource25 Group Classroom Committee Classroom Working Group Scheduling committees


28Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Existing Organizational RelationshipsExisting Organizational Relationships

Scheduling Technology OperationsPlanning &

Construction

Classroom Policies &

ProceduresFunding & Budgeting

Provost / Assoc Provost

Registrar

Departments

Instructional Services (INSV)

Conference & Events

Resource25 Group

Classroom Committee

Facilities Operations & Management

Facilities Planning

Academic Computing

Administrative Computing


29Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

1 Registrar vs. departmental scheduling

Recap of Key IssuesRecap of Key Issues

While distribution by size is adequate, “over-furnishing” rooms to meet demand for popular sizes creates uncomfortable learning environments

2 Geographic accommodation

3 Culture / Length of scheduling day

4 Inadequate room features

5 Match of seat capacities to room sizes

Limits the ability to schedule existing rooms that are otherwise adequate (in size, location, etc.)

Policy decisions about scheduling day determine size of the inventory

Results in low and widely varying seat utilization

Results in disproportionately more intensive use of Registrar’s inventory

6 Diffused organization Makes it nearly impossible to plan for all aspects of classroom scheduling and management in a coherent way


IssueIssue SignificanceSignificance


Key Issues

Recommendations and Solutions

31Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Recommendations and SolutionsRecommendations and Solutions

1. Appoint a Classroom Manager

2. Reduce departmental “ownership” of classrooms in favor of a system that gives departments scheduling priority in their preferred geographic locations / room(s)

3. Adopt software for modeling and potentially scheduling

4. Adopt baseline standards that shall apply to all Dartmouth classrooms

5. “Rightsize” classroom inventory

6. Allocate sufficient capital funding over the next 5 years to bring classrooms to recommended standards

Dartmouth College: Recommendations and Solutions

32Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

1 Appoint a Classroom Manager1 Appoint a Classroom Manager The Concept

“Classroom Manager” is an emerging administrative concept Developed as a way to manage the classroom resource In place at Stanford, Princeton, University of Minnesota

Rationale Management and operation of classrooms involves multiple entities (administrative / academic

offices, ad hoc committees) on campus, with few formalized procedures to guide functional relationships; leads to problems of coordination, quality, competitiveness, etc.

Responsibilities Classroom Manager has the authority and responsibility to set classroom management policies,

procedures and standards and to represent Dartmouth College’s interests in classrooms

Classroom Manager’s primary responsibilities are strategic management and coordination of activities that affect classrooms, e.g.: Determine funding requirements

Design and implement classroom policies

Coordinate scheduling and management of space

Coordinate classroom improvement and construction projects

Approve changes to classroom use


33Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Proposed Functional RelationshipsProposed Functional RelationshipsClassroom ManagerClassroom Manager

Management Funding and budgeting Policy setting Coordination

SchedulingScheduling Registrar

Departments

Conference & Events

TechnologyTechnology INSV

Classroom Committee

Administrative Computing

Academic Computing

OperationsOperations FO&M

Capital ProjectsCapital Projects Facilities

Planning

FO&M

INSV

Registrar

Departments

Coordination FunctionCoordination Function


34Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

2 Reduce Departmental Ownership2 Reduce Departmental Ownership

Reduce departmental “ownership” of classrooms in favor of a system that gives departments scheduling priority in their preferred geographic location / room(s)


Institutional interests are best served if classrooms are constructed, scheduled, equipped and maintained in the context of the classroom inventory as a whole (e.g., size, mix, equipment, etc.)

Reduces the need to duplicate costly resources that can be shared Minimizes the inequities between departmental “haves” and “have nots”

Dartmouth has a history of localized proximity to classrooms – a tradition that provides opportunities to build community around academic endeavors (classrooms proximate to faculty offices, sense of departmental identity for both students and faculty)

Implications:

Supporting this tradition requires some “overage” in the inventory

Leads to low overall seat utilization and widely varying seat utilization by campus zone

35Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

OPTION 1: Adopt a “zone and room feature” scheduling protocol and gradually reduce the number of “micro-zones” (i.e., with 1 to 2 rooms) over time

Allow departments to specify geographic and room feature preferences; software schedules according to an “optimizing algorithm”

OPTION 2: Adopt a “room preference /distributed day” scheduling protocol

Allow departments latitude to identify preferred rooms, but require that scheduling be distributed more evenly throughout day (i.e., beyond “prime time”)

In general, Dartmouth has adequate capacity for departments to have a high degree of choice in selecting rooms if non-peak hours are scheduled more intensively

2 Reduce Departmental Ownership2 Reduce Departmental OwnershipTWO OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION


36Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

3 Adopt Scheduling / Modeling Software3 Adopt Scheduling / Modeling Software

Adopt software to assist Dartmouth in modeling utilization on an ongoing basis. Consider use of software for scheduling purposes as well.


Rationale:

Ongoing modeling permits Dartmouth to monitor room utilization and identify opportunities to improve use of classroom resources

Modeling also enables Dartmouth to assess the impact of changes resulting from this study (implementation of policies, temporary removal of rooms for renovation, etc.).

37Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

4 Adopt Baseline Standards 4 Adopt Baseline Standards for allfor all Classrooms Classrooms

Adopt standards whereby all classrooms meet a base quality level that ensures that all Dartmouth College students have reasonably equal classroom experiences


Rationale Eliminates inequities among classrooms

Improves learning environment and competitive position of Dartmouth by upgrading lighting, room comfort, technology, seating, other furnishings and equipment

Achieves economies in procurement and maintenance of classrooms

Standards ensure reasonable match of seat capacity to room size, regardless of configuration, and remedies current condition of overcrowding in some rooms

Furnishings can be matched to room type and pedagogy based on seat count per space standards

38Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Proposed Space StandardsProposed Space Standards

Technology replacement cycles should be adopted for all new construction and renovation projects, e.g.:

3 year cycle: computers

4 year cycle: computer displays, data / video projection systems

8 to 10 year cycle: AV equipment

Emphasize “user-friendliness” and ease of use, e.g.:

Standard controls

Dimmable lighting

Placement of screens vs. blackboards

SPACE STANDARDS TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS

PROPOSED ROOM TYPES SF per Seat

A Seminar 1 to 10 20 to 22

B Seminar 11 to 25 20 to 22

C General Purpose 26 to 50 18

D General Purpose 51 to 75 18

E Lecture Hall, Flat Floor 76+ 18

F Lecture Hall, Sloped Floor 76+ 18

G Lecture Hall, Stepped Floor 76+ 18

H Auditorium 15


39Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

5 “Rightsize” Classroom Inventory5 “Rightsize” Classroom InventoryRightsize the inventory to adhere more closely to the proposed space standards RESIZING DETAIL

RoomCurrent Capacity

Resized Capacity Chg in Seats

FAIRCH 008 24 32 8 BAKER 234 15 20 5 FAIRCH 021 16 20 4 THORTN 209 23 25 2 REED 102 40 37 (3) REED 106 36 33 (3) THORTN 208 25 20 (5) REED 104 54 48 (6) REED 108 54 48 (6) REED 105 20 13 (7) THORTN 104 30 23 (7) DART 102 32 24 (8) DART 108 38 30 (8) THORTN 107 32 24 (8) DART 103 29 19 (10) WILSON 219 50 40 (10) DART 101 30 19 (11) DART 107 30 19 (11) REED 101 25 13 (12) DART 105 208 186 (22) DART 206 60 38 (22)

Total 871 731 (140)

Current Number of Seats in Inventory 6,719

Change in Number through Rightsizing (140)

Number of Seats After Rightsizing 6,579

21 rooms are rightsized Seat capacity reduced in 17 and increased in 4

Overall impact Adds 5 rooms to the 11 to 21 seat category, where the

need is highest

Reduces the inventory of 50 to 124 seat rooms, which are in relatively low demand

Results in 140 fewer seats in inventory


Room "Rightsizing"

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Room

Nu

mb

er

of

Se

ats

Current Capacity

Capacity after "Rightsizing"

Rationale Improves the quality of the classroom

experience

Shifts inventory out of larger capacities into smaller capacities where there is greater demand

40Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

6 Allocate Sufficient Capital Funding6 Allocate Sufficient Capital Funding

Allocate sufficient capital funding over the next 5 years to bring classrooms up to the standards recommended in this report, and create capital outlay plan that serves as a roadmap for reinvestment in classrooms


Rationale

No formal mechanism for developing capital budgets based on physical condition of classroom and priority of need

To the extent that there is coordination of budgets, it is through individual efforts

To accomplish the proposed recommendations will require a more substantial investment that the relatively minor annual funding provided to the Classroom Committee

Comprehensive phasing / funding plan for renovation of 50 priority classrooms is recommended as part of the Comprehensive Classroom Management Plan

The plan is “time specific”, on the order of 5 to no more than 7 years, and covers technology, lighting, furnishings, equipment and general classroom modernization

Case Study:Case Study:Stanford Graduate School of BusinessStanford Graduate School of Business Existing Conditions

42Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Critical QuestionsCritical 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?

What would be the critical features from the perspective of instructional space?

Views on location?

Stanford GSB: Existing Conditions

43Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Physical ConditionsPhysical Conditions


44Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Supply: Room InventorySupply: Room Inventory

The inventory is comprised of 21 rooms – 17 in South and 4 in Littlefield – including two special purpose rooms.

76% of the inventory is in rooms seating more than 40.

Most of South is large rooms; most of the small rooms are in Littlefield.

Room Inventory by Size

0

20

40

60

80

L112

L104

L103

L107

S13

0

S14

0

S17

2

S14

6

S15

1

S15

2

S16

1

S16

2

S15

0

S17

1

S18

1

S18

2

S17

0

S18

0

S18

3

S46

2

S16

0

Littlefield South Sloan/ Ex

No

of

Se

ats

Distribution of Room Inventory

SeatsNo. 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

Total 21 21 588 100%

1/ Assumes 4 day schedule, 4 periods per day.


45Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Demand: Overview of CoursesDemand: Overview of Courses

The Business School scheduled 90 to 100 courses per term (excluding summer). The autumn term was the most heavily scheduled.

Approximately 80% to 85% of regularly scheduled courses were for the MBA program.

Course Distribution by Program

ProgramAutumn01-02

Winter01-02

Spring01-02

Autumn01-02

Winter01-02

Spring01-02

Number 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%


46Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Standard vs.Standard vs.Non-Standard Teaching TimesNon-Standard Teaching Times There is a strong adherence to standard time blocks (89% of MBA, 80% of Exec Ed and

50% of PhD)

The majority of courses (59%) were taught in the middle two periods (10am to 11:45am and 1:20pm to 3:05pm)

Autumn 01-02

Courses Scheduled by Program and Time Period

MBA PhD Sloan Total

No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.

Standard Periods

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%

1:20pm to 3:05pm 26 33%59%

2 20%30%

2 40%80%

30 32%57%

3:20pm to 5:05pm 12 15% 2 20% 1 20% 15 16%

Total inStandard 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%


47Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

01-02 Spring Enrollment Distribution

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

01 to05

06 to10

11 to15

16 to20

21 to25

26 to30

31 to35

36 to40

41 to45

46 to50

51 to55

56 to60

61 to65

66 to75

#N/A

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

urs

es

01-02 Winter Enrollment Distribution

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

16

01 to05

06 to10

11 to15

16 to20

21 to25

26 to30

31 to35

36 to40

41 to45

46 to50

51 to55

56 to60

61 to65

66 to75

#N/A

Nu

mb

er o

f C

ou

rses

01-02 Autumn Enrollment Distribution

0

24

6

8

1012

14

16

01 to05

06 to10

11 to15

16 to20

21 to25

26 to30

31 to35

36 to40

41 to45

46 to50

51 to55

56 to60

61 to65

66 to75

#N/A

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

urs

es

Distribution by Course Hours by Enrollment

EnrollmentAutumn01-02

Winter01-02

Spring01-02

Autumn01-02

Winter01-02

Spring01-02

Number of Hours Percentage

1 to 25 92 86 88 30% 30% 30%

26 to 40 32 38 68 10% 13% 23%

41 to 75 185 167 140 60% 57% 47%

Total 309 291 296 100% 100% 100%

Distribution by Course EnrollmentDistribution by Course Enrollment

The distribution of course hours between “small” (1 to 25), “medium” (26 to 40) and “large” (41 to 75) enrollments shows what size rooms are in greatest demand

In autumn and winter, 1/3 of courses are small, ~10% medium and 60% large.

In spring, about 1/3 are small, about ¼ are medium, and half are large.


48Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Demand vs. SupplyDemand vs. Supply

The chart below compares the number of hours to be scheduled each term (the “demand”) with the number of hours available for scheduling (the “supply”) for small, medium and large classes.

There is significantly more capacity vis-à-vis need in large rooms.

There is insufficient capacity in the 26 to 40 range.

Class Hours vs. Available Room Hours by Size

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 to 25 26 to 40 41 to 75

Size

Ho

urs

1 Autumn 01-02

2 Winter 01-02

3 Spring 01-02

All RoomsSloan / Exec Ed Rooms

Course Hours vs. Available Room Hours, by Size


49Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

For each room below, the chart provides a view of the relative number of classes that are poorly aligned (red) and well-aligned (light / medium blue) to the room’s size (shown in dark blue).

Current Scheduling Patterns vs. “Optimal Alignment”

Demand vs. SupplyDemand vs. Supply

Capacity vs. Enrollment By RoomAutumn Term

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

S130 L104 S140 L103 S172 L107 S146 S151 S462 S152 S161 S162 S150 S171 S181 S182 S170 S180 S183

Room

Cap

acit

y &

En

roll

men

t

Number of Seats in RoomClasses Poorly Aligned to Room SizeClasses Well Aligned to Room Size


Case Study:Case Study:Stanford Graduate School of BusinessStanford Graduate School of Business Existing Conditions

Recommendations

51Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Optimal InventoryOptimal Inventory The chart below shows the 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%)

NEW SCHEDULE (4 day / 5 period); 60% utilization

28 hour week 28 hour week

Class Size

Number of "Peak" Course Hours

(Demand)

Existing Rooms

(Supply)

@ Utilization

RateRooms Needed

Over (Short)

@ Utilization

RateRooms Needed

Over (Short)

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

Total 345 20 20 0 19 1

Note: Calculations exclude S160 used for Executive Education.

Stanford GSB: Recommendations

52Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

Current classrooms are not adequate and cannot be made adequate given the constraints of the South building.

South classrooms do not meet competitive / contemporary standards.

Classrooms 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.

Is there a need for a new building?Should it be a classroom building?

Yes…


53Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

RecommendedRecommendedInstructional Space ProgramInstructional Space Program

The recommended conceptual program for instructional space is as follows:

INSTRUCTIONAL SPACES

Type Number Capacity Configuration(@ 25 to 30 sf / seat)

Auditorium 1 400 to 450 Fixed, theatre style seating1 ~150

Case Study 3 up to 80 Amphitheatre, tiered seating7 up to 65 Model: Wharton

General Purpose Classroom 4 up to 40 Flat floorMoveable tables & chairs

Discussion / Seminar 5 up to 25 Flat floorMoveable tables & chairs


54Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

SuggestedSuggestedImprovements for Existing ClassroomsImprovements for Existing Classrooms

“Rightsize” the existing inventory

Current InventoryPer Seat Square Foot

Allocation

Room Size

Ideal No. of Rooms Room

Current Capacity

Seating Type SF 17 20 22 25 28 30

L112 20 Loose (green is preferred sf allocation)

1 to 25 5 S130 20 Loose

L104 25 Loose

S140 25 Loose

26 to 40 4 L103 32 Loose

S172 41 Fixed 850 50 43 39 34 30 28

L107 48 Loose

S146 50 Loose 940 55 47 43 38 34 31

S151 50 Fixed 954 56 48 43 38 34 32

41 to 65 7 S462 54 Fixed

S152 60 Fixed 1,080 64 54 49 43 39 36

S161 60 Fixed 1,090 64 55 50 44 39 36

S162 60 Fixed 1,090 64 55 50 44 39 36

S160 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

66 to 80 3 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


Use variable per seat square footage allocations to dedensify classrooms and improve mix where possible, using the “ideal” inventory as a target.

Note that existing envelopes are not large enough to dedensify the largest rooms to a desirable square footage allocation (shown in green).

55Bh

Biddison Hier, Ltd.

SuggestedSuggestedImprovements for Existing ClassroomsImprovements for Existing Classrooms

Upgrade furnishings, fixtures and equipmentReplace 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.

TechnologySignificant 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.


Q & AQ & A

For further InformationFor further InformationPlease contact:

Thomas HierPrincipal

Biddison Hier, Ltd.Consultants to Higher Education4315 Fifteenth Street, NWWashington, DC 20011-7021

Phone: (202) 882-8700Email: [email protected]: www.biddhier.com

Margaret Dyer-ChamberlainDirector of Capital Planning

Stanford University655 Serra Building, Second FloorStanford, CA 94305

Phone: (650) 725-0430Email: [email protected]

Tom Hier B IDDISON H IER, L TD. Consultants to Higher Education Classrooms: New Tools for Managing a...

Documents

Transcript of Tom Hier B IDDISON H IER, L TD. Consultants to Higher Education Classrooms: New Tools for Managing a...