Learning Environments 2013: Mike Clark

Design and Management of Learning Environments

18th June 2013

Post-occupancy evaluation studies at the University of Brighton – our recent experience Mike Clark Director of Estate & Facilities Management, The University of Brighton

The University of Brighton – Facts and figures

Re

gio

nal

Lo

cati

on

East

bo

urn

e

Bri

ghto

n

Has

tin

gs

Why POE?

It’s about how people and buildings accommodate each

other over time

It’s about part of a whole life approach to buildings, enabling those who procure, deliver, manage and use buildings to see their engagement with buildings as addressing both process and product

It’s about addressing sustainability in its widest sense - the on-going capacity of buildings to accommodate change, be environmentally responsible and deliver value; but:

It’s also about learning from the past to shape the future www.softlandings.org.uk

Why POE – Whole life considerations

CABE – The Impact of Office Design on Business Performance – May 2005

Brief and timeframe

We wanted to encourage continuous learning from our projects

Foster a culture of feedback from our supply chain

Use the feedback to manage and improve the operational side of the estates department

To work within the guidelines set out in the HEFCE/AUDE guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation studies

To provide a methodology to engage with stakeholders

Start date: Aug 2011; Finish date: Feb 2012

Checkland Building – Opened September 2009

Checkland Building

Checkland Building – Floor plans

Level 1 Level 3 Level 5

Falmer Sports Centre – Opened October 2010

Falmer Sports Centre

Falmer Sports Centre – Floor plans

Ground Floor First Floor

Huxley Building Opened June 2010

Huxley Building

Huxley Building – Floor plans

Ground

Level -1

Level 1 Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Project methodology

Stage 1 – Identify key issues

Building familiarisation

Survey to all staff 255 respondents

Stage 2 – Data collection and analysis

User experience workshop 12 participants

Estates workshop 11 participants

Project process interviews 22 interviews

Stage 3 – Findings & recommendations

For future projects and the buildings reviewed

Stage 1 – Identify key issues Understanding project aspirations

Clarifying expectations

Confirming scope

Assigning roles and responsibilities

Survey to all staff

Things that worked well (and not so well!)

Complete the sentences…..

• Functionally this building….

• Socially, aesthetically, environmentally, symbolically

Actions to enhance user experience

Stage 2 – Data collection and analysis User experience workshop

Project awareness

• UoB vision

• Project processes

User requirements

• Establishing high-level requirements (design concept)

• Establishing detailed requirements (design development)

Relocating

• Preparing; moving; settling

Adjusting

• Organisational changes

• Building changes

Stage 2 – Data collection and analysis Estates workshop

Pre-contract

• How were end user requirements established?

• To what extent did E&FM influence the user brief?

Post-contract

• How were the different technical briefs developed?

• Were there any key changes made during design development?

Handover

• From contractor to E&FM and from E&FM to end users

Building in use

• What about the on-going operational issues raised?

Stage 2 – Data collection and analysis Project process interviews

Client governance

Project brief development

Procurement route

Design Process

Construction phases

Building handover

Occupation

Stage 3 – Findings and recommendations

Improved accommodation provided via 3 new buildings

All 3 buildings completed on time

BREEAM ratings are ‘Very Good’/’Excellent’

Some user expectations have been unevenly met

In some respects, not well served by design & build

Good ‘move-in’ support from E&FM

Building handover process dragged on for too long

But:

Lessons in Procurement?

On reflection, the design and build process left insufficient control with the university

Time and budget prioritised over content and quality

Projects tendered too early – RIBA Stage D (+/-)

• Employer’s requirements generally under-developed

• Insufficient control over mechanical, electrical, plumbing services and commissioning

Handover at RIBA Stage D is common, but:

• Design information tends to be related to planning requirements

• User requirements and base-build/fit-out criteria may not be fully identified

• Technical specifications are unlikely to be detailed or co-ordinated

The role of governance

Feedback from staff Communication|Communication|Communication

Ask questions and keep on asking……!

Need to understand project governance, user engagement process and project timescales

Have your input in to the project officially recognised

Task design and technical teams with highlighting the issues users may not pick up

Request a range of communications tools

Help users understand that the project is about balancing a wide and sometimes conflicting range of needs

Available for all UoB staff to see!

Looking ahead - the Cockcroft Building + future projects

Cockcroft Building

Capital Projects Advisory Group/SMT

Project Board Delivery Team Project Steering

Group User Group Technical &

Operational sub-group

ICT Sub-group Pooled spaces sub-

group Marketing &

Comms sub-group Admin spaces sub-

group

Cockcroft Building

Cockcroft Building – Room data sheets

Cockcroft Building

Lots of guidance out there!

Informing the estate strategy

Distinct identity and relationship to its physical context and community

Welcoming, permeable and accessible.

Clear and visible reception point

Student support services with front-line service desk

Flexible spaces that include informal learning and social spaces

Dedicated spaces for research and postgraduate study

Sustainable technology and space planning.

Increase in student residential accommodation

Carly West and Tom Munson The SILS experience

Learning Environments 2013: Mike Clark

Technology

Transcript of Learning Environments 2013: Mike Clark