Application of Space Management in University towards ... - CiteSeerX

Application of Space Management in University towards Sustainable Usage Shahabudin Abdullah, Lau Shunn Wee, Fairul Asran Mat Nawi Centre for Real Estate Studies Faculty of Geoinformation Science & Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 81310 UTM Skudai Johor MALAYSIA Abstract This paper propose to benchmark the performance of space management in Faculty of Geoinformation Science and Engineering (FKSG), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) with four other competitors: Faculty of Information Science and Technology (FIST) and Faculty of Business and Law (FBL) from Multimedia University (MMU), and Faculty of Technology Management (FPT) and Faculty of Information Technology and Multimedia (FTMM) from Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). The data was collected through interview, questionnaire, as well as secondary sources such as books, journal, article, and earlier research. The data was analysis using both qualitative and quantitative technique. Results and analysis show that both faculty from MMU, namely FIST and FBL are leading in all the comparisons done except for room frequency of computer rooms. Furthermore, some effective space management method was listed out through analyzing space management system of these five faculties and interview with the officer in-charge of each faculty. Few methods were suggested for improving space management performance in FKSG, UTM, including review and evaluation on space management system; development of better space management system and staff training; lease out teaching space for higher utilization rate and more income, and establish centralized computer rooms to replace current computer rooms.

Keywords Space Management, Higher Education Institute, Benchmarking

1. Introduction In order to achieve its vision to become a world class university, one of the conditions that need to be fulfilled by UTM is that they need to have quality academic facilities. Logendran [1] states that as an infrastructure which support individual in an organization to achieve their vision, academic facilities play a vital role in UTM vision to become a world class university. However, quality academic facilities should accompanied by efficient and effective facility management system. An efficient facility management system is not only able to utilize the use of the facilities but also can help to manage the resources needed in the management process. Higher Education Institute (HEI) in the UK has recently suffered financial pressure due to reduced central funding, and the requirement to widen student access [2]. In order to become a quality university, UTM also need to improve the upkeep of buildings by having an efficient facility management system. This will not only improve the quality of the academic facilities, but it can make the management process become more cost effectiveness as well. Nutt [3] states that the primary function of facility management is resource management, at strategic and operational level of support services. Facilities management can be further divided into different field such as security management, maintenance and operational, emergency management, space management and so on. This research will only look at the space management issues. An effective space management

having some opportunities for improving efficiency and many influential bodies have advocated space charging as a way of achieving them [2]. The main objective of this study is to measure the efficiency of space management for HEI in Malaysia through benchmarking their room frequency. Apart from that, this paper also looks at the performance of current space management based on student’s perspectives. The third objective is to look at the criteria of an effective space management from management point of view. This study is structured as follow: first, the formulation of research issues. Next is on literature review for the research area. Then it will describe the background information of the FKSG and benchmarking partners, and then the next section describes the proposed research methodology. Lastly, this paper wills presents the results of the data collected from the questionnaire and the subsequent analyses carried out. The study ends with some conclusions and suggestions.

2. Theoretical Background Space management is one of the branches of the field of facilities management (FM). Newcastle University [4] states that space management can be defined as the ability to assign space to a specific user and/or for a specific use. FM may also refer to the ability to suggest renovations and alterations to the space which may improve it, change its use, and/or change its assignment criteria. The scope of space management include facility or master planning, space planning, space configuration and reconfiguration, space allocation, utilization and relocation, as well as space use audit and monitoring. The space of a typical higher education institutions (HEIs) included academic space, administrative space, commercial space, general teaching space, library space, student services space and other. With efficient space management, HEIs can plan, configure and reconfigure, allocate and reallocate, audit and monitor the use of space more effectively. However, poor space management will bring negative impacts to both the end-user of the space in HEI as well as the administrative of the HEI. Many HEIs are facing common space management problem such as low utilization rate for teaching space and usage of space mismatch with its design. Space management problems exist because HEIs do not know; yet does not treasure the essential of space management. Australian Association of Higher Educational Facilities Officers, AAPPA [5] states that space management is about using standards and benchmarks and planning models to measure how well space is being used and to plan for future needs. According to Minior et al, [6], the space management process relies on both qualitative and quantitative analyses to provide comprehensive information on all research groups. Benchmarking will be used as a tool to compare the performance of space management in higher educational institutes. Benchmarking is first and foremost a tool for improvement, achieved through comparison with other organizations recognized as the best within the area. Four types of benchmarking are competitive benchmarking, internal benchmarking, functional benchmarking and generic benchmarking. Benchmarking involve continuous process of comparisons with other organizations to learn the lessons that those comparisons throw up. Benchmarking has an internal and external dimension, whereby for internal dimension the organization critically examines itself in search of best practices. The external dimension of benchmarking is where the organization searches its industry and other domains in an attempt to identify external competitive benchmark which may then be implemented it its operating environment.

3. Background Information of FKSG and Benchmarking Partners This section will discuss on information and background for FKSG and all of it benchmarking partners. This research is based on five (5) faculties located in three (3) different universities. They are FKSG located in UTM, FIST and FBL in MMU and also FPT and FTMM in UTHM. Table 1 below summarizes all their background information. Table 1: Background Information of FKSG and Benchmarking Partners

FACULTY • • • • • FKSG

• • • • • • • • • •

FIST

•

• • • •

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Total number of student: 1274 undergraduate students and 258 postgraduate students. Total number of staff: 98 academic staff (Until March 2007) Total number of academic space: 6 blocks of building with 2 lecture halls, 15 lecture rooms and 6 computer rooms. No specific man power allocated for space management tasks such as classroom arrangement, auditing and documentation. No specific skills are required for staffs who deal with space management tasks. FKSG does not use any software in assisting the space management tasks. When arranging and allocating classroom for teaching purposes, factors to be considered included capacity of the room and number of the student. During semester break, the teaching space is basically left emptied except being used for classes of short semester and events organized by the faculty. The students always using only computer room(s) allocated for their department. Frequency of space management evaluation / review: Annually Items to be evaluated / reviewed : Maintenance cost Total number of student: 1786 undergraduate students and 241 postgraduate students.( Until 31st March 2007) Total number of staff: 87 academic staff One staff is assigned to deal with space management tasks including classroom arrangement, classroom booking and other relevant tasks. The staff is required to be computer literate as FIST using computer software (Archibus) in assisting the space management jobs. When arranging and allocating teaching space for teaching and learning purposes, factors to be considered included capacity of the room, number of the student and ratio between classroom capacity and number of the student During semester break and weekends, FIST will try to rent out the lecture halls in order to avoid under-used of space and to generate income for the faculty. The students in FIST are free to use any of the eight computer rooms. Frequency of space management evaluation / review: Every semester Items to be evaluated / reviewed : Maintenance cost

• FBL

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • FPT

• • • • • • • • •

FTMM

•

Total number of student: 2414 undergraduate students and 104 postgraduate students. Total number of staff: 84 academic staff Total number of academic space: 2 lecture halls, 8 lecture rooms and 5 computer rooms One staff is assigned to deal with space management tasks including classroom arrangement, classroom booking and other relevant tasks. The staff is required to be computer literate as FBL using computer software (Archibus) in assisting the space management jobs. When arranging and allocating teaching space for teaching and learning purposes, factors to be considered included capacity of the room, number of the student and ratio between classroom capacity and number of the student During semester break and weekends, FBL will try to rent out the lecture halls in order to avoid under-used of space and to generate income for the faculty. The students in FBL are free to use any of the eight computer rooms. Frequency of space management evaluation / review: Every semester Items to be evaluated / reviewed : Maintenance cost Total number of student: 827 undergraduate students and 44 postgraduate students. Total number of staff: 49 academic staff Total number of academic space: 2 lecture halls, 7 lecture rooms and 4 computer rooms. No specific man power allocated for space management tasks such as classroom arrangement, auditing and documentation. No specific skills are required for staffs who deal with space management tasks. FPT does not use any software in assisting the space management tasks. When arranging and allocating classroom for teaching purposes, factors to be considered included capacity of the room and number of the student. During semester break, the teaching space is basically left emptied except being used for classes of short semester and events organized by the faculty. The rooms and halls will also be rented out if there is any demand on it. Frequency of space management evaluation / review: Annually Items to be evaluated / reviewed : Maintenance cost Total number of student: 1398 undergraduate students and 72 postgraduate students. Total number of staff: 48 academic staff Total number of academic space: 2 lecture halls, 8 lecture rooms and 8 computer rooms inside No specific man power allocated for space management tasks such as classroom arrangement, auditing and documentation.

• • • • • • •

No specific skills are required for staffs who deal with space management tasks. FTMM does not use any software in assisting the space management tasks. When arranging and allocating classroom for teaching purposes, factors to be considered included capacity of the room and number of the student. During semester break, the teaching space is basically left emptied except being used for classes of short semester and events organized by the faculty. The rooms and halls will also be rented out if there is any demand on it. Frequency of space management evaluation / review: Annually Items to be evaluated / reviewed : Maintenance cost (Source of data: Own Study)

4. Research Methodology Basically, this research will be conducted by using a benchmarking methodology. Apart from that, data will be gathered using questionnaires and interviews. 4.1 Data Collection In this study, both primary and secondary data are collected. The primary data is collected trough questionnaires using likert like scaling instruments. This includes the customer satisfaction on space management. The opinion and suggestion from property managers are collected through open ended and structured interview. The secondary data is all the theories that related to space management reviewed through journal, report, studies and etc. • Questionnaire The respondents are chosen at random without discrimination on the race, age, gender or other factors. Total of 150 students were interviewed on their satisfaction level towards the selected elements of space management provided by their respective university. • Likert Scaling Likert scale is a type of psychometric response scale often used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research. The respondent is asked to indicate his or her degree of agreement with the statement or any kind of subjective or objective evaluation of the statement. The most common scale is 1 to 5. Often the scale will be 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree. • Interview According to Babbie [7], interview can be formal or informal. Formal interview means following structured questions while informal interview means simply asking people about their opinions on some topic without set questions. According to Babbie [7], open-ended questions do not give respondents answers to choose from, but rather are phrased so that the respondents are encouraged to explain their answers and reactions to the question with a sentence, a paragraph, or even a page or more, depending on the interview. • Sampling Technique According to Erricker [8], sampling is performed so that a population under study can be reduced to a manageable size. This can be accomplished via random sampling or via matching. Erricker [8] also stated that random sampling is a procedure used by researchers in which all

samples of a particular size have an equal chance to be chosen for an observation, experiment, etc. Matching is a method used by researchers to gain accurate and precise results of a study so that they may be applicable to a larger population. Two methods used to match groups are the precision matching and frequency distribution. 4.2 Analysis Techniques Frequency analysis will be used as for quantitative analysis while content analysis will be used for qualitative analysis. For descriptive analysis (quantitative analysis), mean score will be used as an analysis tool. Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words or concepts within texts or sets of texts. 4.3 Matrix Benchmarking Analysis In Matrix Benchmarking Analysis, key summary space management information on the comparability of the attribute and the background profile information are tabulated in the rows. Table 2 show benchmarking methodology adapted for this research. • Benchmarking Methodology Table 2: Benchmarking Methodology Adapted for This Study

1. 2. 3. 4.

Phase 1: Identify Identify functions to be benchmark Identify key performance variables to measure Determine whom to compare against Establish data collection

Phase 2: Data Collection 5. Preparation for site visit 6. Develop a questionnaire survey Phase 3: Analyzing Data 7. Measure current performance 8. Measure performance of competitors, determine gaps and reasoning Phase 4: Adapting and Improving 9. Set goals to close, meet and exceed gap 10. Develop action plans 11. Implement actions and monitor progress 12. Recalibrate benchmarks over time (Source of data: Own Study) •

The Benchmarking Process According to Harrington [9], the benchmarking process should be well planned to ensure that the study is feasible and can be conducted smoothly.

5. Analysis of Survey This section will discuss the analysis of the research. This will include usage frequency and customer satisfaction regarding space management. 5.1 Background of the Data Parts of the data for this research were collected through questionnaire surveys and interviews with related officer from each university. It is targeted that opinion can be collected from 30 students from each faculty. 5.2 Analysis of Room Frequency Rate Room frequency is calculated as Room Frequency =

Room hours used / Room hours available

Table 3 shows the comparison FKSG’s room frequencies between our own study and a study by Eniza [10]. The difference shows that the different method, study period length and the way of analysis will be make a different result.

FKSG: Lecture Hall/Room

C06 DK1 C06 DK2 C02 BK3 C02-405/1 C02-405/2B C05 BK1 C05 BK2 C04 BS PHT C03 BS GEO B08 BS LAD B08 BK LAD 2 B08 SMC 1 B08 SMC 2 PHT (C04) LAD (B08) LIS (C05) GEOMATIK (C03) REMOTE SENSING

Table 3: Comparison data Room Frequency (%) Room Frequency (%) -Own study-Eniza study-

72.5 72.5 72.5 65.0 65.0 40.0 25.0 75.0 77.5 75.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 45.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 12.5

66 53.66 50 48.78 61 50 9.76 58.54 83 80.49 63.41 63.41 58.54 19.51 9.76 19.51 39.02 24.4

In this study, rooms hours used for the teaching space will be calculated by using the planned room hour used, but not actual room hour used. This is because analysis based on room hours used will need a longer period for observation, as sometimes a room might not be used although it was scheduled to be used. For FKSG, total hours available per week are 40 hour. Meanwhile total hours available for FIST and FBL are 45 hours; total hours available for FPT and FTMM are 40 hours.

Table 4: Comparison between Means and Standard Deviation of Room Frequencies for FKSG, FIST, FBL, FPT and FTMM Mean of Room Frequency (Lecture Hall/Room)

Faculty

Mean of Room Frequency (Computer Room)

Standard Deviation for Room Frequency (Lecture Hall/Room)

FKSG

61.67

28.75

14.71

FIST

65

63.33

7.66

FBL

64.67

73.33

7.66

FPT

63.33

38.75

12.37

FTM

56.89

67.86

10.11

M 5.3 Performance of Current Space Management System Based on Students’ Satisfaction The aspects of space management to be rated by students are included space management system and staff, study environment and availability of space. • The Space Management System and Staff The average score of priority was calculated using the formula: Average score of priority = Total score from all 150 surveys / 150 respondents = 491 / 150 = 3.27 The average score of student’s satisfaction rating at FKSG was calculated using the formula: Average score of students’satisfaction rating, A = Total score from 30 individual rating / 30 respondents = 104 / 30 = 3.47 (please refer to table 5 for the comparison) Table 5: Quantitative Benchmarks of Space Management System and Staff Space Management System and Staff

Average score of priority

FKSG

FIST

FBL

FPT

FTMM

Availability of staff

3.27

3.47

3.73

3.37

3.03

3.03

Classroom ratio

3.22

3.00

3.77

3.33

3.20

2.80

Classroom booking

3.24

2.97

3.37

3.57

3.20

3.10

Classroom arrangement

3.37

3.07

3.77

3.97

3.63

3.40

12.51

14.64

14.24

12.06

12.03

Consolidated scores

(Source of Data: Compilation from survey, 2007)

• Study Environment Table 6 shows the result of quantitative benchmarks for study environment of these five faculties. Table 6: Quantitative Benchmarks of Study Environment Priority FKSG FIST FBL FPT

Study Environment

FTMM

Furniture

3.31

3.10

3.83

3.67

3.17

2.80

Interior Layout

3.36

3.17

3.50

3.47

3.37

3.30

Lighting

3.35

3.30

3.70

3.63

3.07

3.07

Air- conditioner

2.98

3.03

2.93

2.97

2.93

3.03

Indoor air quality

3.01

2.83

3.33

3.13

2.80

2.93

15.43

17.29

16.87

15.34

15.15

Consolidated scores

(Source of Data: Compilation from surveys, 2007)

From the table, we notice that FIST has the highest consolidated score 17.87, following by FBL with a consolidated score of 16.87. Meanwhile, Students from FTMM are most dissatisfied with the study environment in their faculty. • Availability of Space For this aspect, student’s satisfaction level on the availability of classroom and computer room will be analyzed. Table 7 shows the result of quantitative benchmarks for availability of space. Through the table, we can notice that FBL has the highest consolidated score. Students from FBL were most satisfied with the availability of classroom and computer room. Table 7: Quantitative Benchmarks of Space Efficiency Availability of space

Priority

FKSG

FIST

Availability of classroom

3.58

3.53

3.68

Availability of computer room

3.55

3.13

3.83 7.51

Consolidated scores

6.66

FBL

3.73

FPT

FTMM

3.50

3.50

3.87

2.97

3.86

7.60

6.47

7.36

(Source of Data: Compilation from survey, 2007)

Table 8 briefly explains the reason given by respondents on their satisfaction and or dissatisfaction with space management for respective faculties.

Table 8: Brief Summary on Reason of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with the Space Management

Reasons of satisfaction Availability of staff • Fast attend by the staff Ratio between room capacity and number of students Classroom arrangement

Furniture

•

Air- conditioner

• •

Indoor air quality

•

Availability of classroom Availability of computer • room

Reasons of dissatisfaction • Slow attend by the staff • Classroom is too big for a small size class, thus affect the teaching and learning atmosphere. • Long traveling time between two classrooms • Long waiting time outside classroom, as previous class not yet dismissed Clean • Dirty • Uncomfortable Temperature is just nice • Either too cold or too hot Easy to operate • Air-conditioner (centralized)was turned on although no people in the class, causing waste of energy • Poor ventilation Good ventilation • Unpleasant smell, especially after semester break. • Extra class has to be made at night Can enter computer room • Computer rooms were as long as it is within locked although during office hours. office hours.

(Source of data: Compilation from surveys, 2007)

5.4 Determination of the Criteria of Effective Space Management in University Based on the survey results and the point of views of management executives, a conclusion on criteria of effective space management has been made and represented by the Table 9.

Table 9: Conclusion on criteria of effective space management based on the survey results and the point of views of management officers

Item Number of staff involved in space management

•

Method for Effective Space Management Depends on the size of the faculty.

Competency of staff

•

Staff or officer involved in space management should have relevant know ledges on space management

Factors to be considered for classroom arrangement Use of software

•

Consider the ratio between classroom capacity and number of student. Traveling time between two rooms should be minimized.

• •

If software were used, it is necessary to have at least a staff that can master the use of software to make sure that the software can play its role. Managing teaching • Rent out the space in order to increase room frequency and space during semester generate income for faculty. break / weekend • Cooperate with other organizations that need venue for organizing events. Frequency of space • Current space management system must be reviewed and management evaluated regularly. evaluation • The frequency of review should base on the ability of the faculties. (Source of data: Compilation from survey, 2007)

6. Suggestion to Improve Space Management Performance in FKSG • • • •

Review and Evaluation: Review and evaluation should be done regularly in order to have an idea on the current space management practice. Development and Training: Development of better space management system is needed to enhance the space management practice. Rent out Lecture Halls and Lecture Rooms: A ways to generate income for the faculty. Centralized Computer Rooms: all students in FKSG will share and use two to three computer rooms. Thus, room frequency can be increased. Besides, the operating cost will also decreased, as less man power, energy and hardware are needed.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations 7.1 Review and Conclusion For the first objective, quantitative benchmarking was used to compare the customer satisfaction level of space management performance between FKSG UTM and its competitors. After comparing the space management performance between FKSG and its partners, FKSG has the lowest room frequency compared to its benchmarking partners. As for the customer satisfaction level, FKSG has the second lowest customer satisfaction level, in terms of its space management.

7.2 Limitations of the Study •

Unavailability and Imperfectness of Data As the data for room capacity and number of students using the rooms are not available, the utilization rate of the room cannot be analysis. Other than that, the room frequencies was analysis by using planned room hours used, but not actual room hours used. Therefore, the room frequencies that have been analysis might be differs from the actual room frequencies, as the planned but unused hours are not considered. • Limitation of Time In order to have a more accurate scenario, it is suggested that a total of 30 percent students are selected as sample for each faculty. 7.3 Recommendations on Study Improvement •

Increase Sample Size An ideal sample size will be thirty percent of the populations. Therefore, in order to increase the accuracy of the study, the sample size should be increased. • Analysis for Room Utilization Room utilization can better reflex the actual usage of a room. Therefore, a study on room utilization can reveal whether a room is actuary under-used or over-used.

8 Bibliography [1] Logendran A/L Ramachadran Chetty. Fasiliti Akademik Bagi Organisasi Pendidikan Bertaraf Dunia(Kes Kajian: Fakulti Kejuruteraan Sains dan Geoinformasi, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Bachelor Thesis, 2002. [2] Downie, M.L. “Efficiency Outcomes from Space Charging in UK Higher Education Estates”. Property Management 23(1): 33-42, 2005. [3] Nutt, B. “Four Competing Future for Facility Management”. Facilities 18 Nos 3/4 pp. 124-132, 2000. [4] Newcastle University. Report of Space Management in Higher Education, Newcastle University Space Management Project, 2007. [5] Australian Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers. Space Planning Guidelines Edition 2, 2001. [6] Minior, S, Hanafin, N. Bringhurst, F. R. Research Space Management- A Dynamic Process for Optimal Space Utilization and Strategic Planning. Research Space Management Group of Massachusetts General Hospital, 2001. [7] Babbie, Earl R. The practice of social research. Belmont. California.: Wadsworth Pub, 1992. [8] Erricker, B. C. Advanced General Statistic. London.: English Universities, 1971. [9] Harrington, James S. (1996). High performance benchmarking: 20 steps to success. New York.: McGraw-Hill, 1996. [10] Eniza Zainal Abidin. The Efficiencies of the Space Management Utilization in FKSG. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2008. [11] Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Wahab, Kamaruddin Mohd. Ali. Facilities Audit in Higher Education Institutions: Space Utilisation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1999. [12] Anderson, G. “Carving out time and space in the managerial university”. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 19(5):578-592, 2006. [13] Central Queensland University. CQU Policies and Procedures Manual – Space Management Guidelines and Procedures, 2005. 14] Higher Education Funding Council for England. Review of Practice Report, UK Higher Education Space Management Project, 2005. [15] Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Cost of Space, UK Higher Education Space Management Project, 2005.

[16] Higher Education Funding Council for England , Impact on Space of Future Changes in Higher Education, UK Higher Education Space Management Project, 2006. [17] Karlen, Mark. Space Planning Basic. New York.: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. [18] Khurrum S. Bhutta, Faizul Huq. “Benchmarking – best practices: an integrated approach”. Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol 6 No.3 pp. 254-268, 1999. [19] Kubba Sam. Space planning for commercial and residential interiors. New York.: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. [20] Mohamed Zairi. Practical Benchmarking: The Complete Guide. London.: Chapman & Hall, 1994. [21] Shabha, G. “An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e-learning on University Space Planning and Design”. Facilities 22(3-4): 79-86, 2004. [22] Shaukat A. Brah, Ai Lin Ong, B. Madhu Rao.”Understanding the benchmarking process in Singapore”. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Vol 17 No. 3, 2000. [23] Robert C. Camp. Business Process Benchmarking, ASQC Quality Press, Wisconsin, 1995. [24] Williamson, R. Space Utilisation Survey Report. Gordon University Aberdeen, 2003.