design with distinction

DESIGN WITHDISTINCTION THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

DESIGN WITH DISTINCTION2

The Tower Building11 York RoadLondon SE1 7NX

T 020 7960 2400F 020 7960 2444E [email protected] www.cabe.org.uk

CABE is the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the Governments champion for design quality in the built environment. It is funded by both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Ofce of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Its board members are appointed by the Secretary of State. CABE will shortly be established as a statutory body but in the meantime has been incorporated as a company limited by guarantee.

Published March 2005.

ISBN 1-84633-001-7

3THE VALUE OF DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Measuring the impact of architecture and design on the performance of higher education institutions.


In MemoryThis study is dedicated to the memory of Richard Feilden in recognition of his contribution to community architecture, environmental awareness and passion for achieving better buildings.

Richard was a member of the steering group responsible for this report, but was tragically killed a few weeks before the research study was completed.

He was the founding partner of Feilden Clegg Bradley Architects of London and Bath. He won Building Design magazines Architect of the Year Award in 2004; sat on the RIBA Council for a number of years; was the driving force behind the establishment of the Higher Education Design Quality Forum, and a founding commissioner of CABE. Richard lobbied tirelessly for better standards of contemporary design and showed great empathy for the needs of the building users. He was particularly concerned that PFI funding of educational projects was undermining the quality of school design. He gave his time generously to debate such issues in many public meetings across the country, and was a great ambassador for the architectural profession.

Richard touched so many lives. We have lost a good friend, the community has lost one of its noble champions, and the RIBA has lost perhaps the best president it never had. His inuence will not be forgotten, however, and his spirit lives on.

RICHARD FEILDEN OBE(1950 - 2005)

5THE VALUE OF GOOD BUILDING DESIGN IN HIGHER EDUCATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 Methodology 7 Summary of ndings 7 Implications of the research 9 I CASE STUDY PROFILES 10

II INTRODUCTION 16 Terms of reference 16 Structure of report 17 III METHODOLOGY 18 Selection of case study buildings 18 Overview of methodology 18 Literature Review 18 Qualitative research 19 Quantitative research 19 Prole of survey respondents 19

IV RECRUITMENT 21 Overview of existing literature 21 Overall inuence of buildings upon recruitment 23 Inuence of buildings upon recruitment of staff 26 Impact of buildings upon recruitment of students 27 Aspects of design that inuence recruitment 27

V RETENTION 30 Overview of existing literature 30 Overall satisfaction with choice of university and design of the buildings 31 Design aspects that inuence the feelings and behaviour of staff & students 33 General views on being in the buildings 36 VI PERFORMANCE 38 Overview of existing literature 38 Impact of buildings upon performance 39 Aspects of design that inuence performance 42

VII CONCLUSIONS 44 Summary of key ndings 48 Implications of the research 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY 49


PORTLAND BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH


Executive SummaryOver recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number of new building projects in the higher education sector, and in the complexity and importance of estates provision and management for such schemes. However, despite this, there appears to be a distinct lack of value of design research carried out in this area. Work in the past on measuring the impact of architecture and design on the performance of organisations occupying buildings has examined all manner of sectors: health, childrens education, ofces retail and house-building. Higher education, though, has been neglected. Until now.

In July 2003, CABE commissioned a research study aimed at assessing the value of design in higher education. This study was funded jointly by the UK HE funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW and DELNI) and supported by the Association of Directors of Estates (AUDE). The research was designed and data collected by the University of the West of England (UWE), while PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted subsequent analysis and reporting. Its aim was to assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment and retention of students, staff and quality of teaching, research and other outcomes.

METHODOLOGY

The study involved three main strands of research:

Literature review of more than 50 research articles, identifying key themes and related issues covering a wide range of qualitative and quantitative studies on the impact of design on the recruitment and retention of students and staff

Qualitative interviews and focus groups with students and staff in four higher education buildings in England and one in Wales

Surveys with staff and students in the ve higher education buildings, collecting primary data on a range of features of the building design

The case study buildings were selected in collaboration with CABE and were deemed examples of good higher education design.

the existence of well-designed buildings on a campus is a signicant

factor in the recruitment of staff and of students

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

RECRUITMENT

The research ndings suggest that the existence of well-designed buildings on a campus is a signicant factor in the recruitment of staff and of students.

Approximately 60 per cent of students and staff indicated that the quality of the building design had a positive impact on their decision to study or work at their chosen university

Among staff, the quality of the buildings had the most positive impact on the recruitment of academic staff (65 per cent). Among students, the most positive impact was on the recruitment of postgraduate students (72 per cent)

When asked to identify specic features of buildings that would most inuence their decision to work in a particular institution, just over half of all staff identied cosmetic and environmental features as being most inuential. These included cleanliness, a feeling of space and bright working areas. Most students identied structural/functional features, including the quality of the facilities, the library, sports centre, atriums and lecture rooms


Only a very small number of either staff or students (around 10 per cent) pinpointed situational features (i.e. where the building was located) as being inuential in their decision to take up work or study at their institution.

RETENTION

The research suggests that the way people feel and behave while studying or working within buildings is linked to their overall satisfaction rates and level of happiness. This will clearly have an impact upon retention rates.

the way people feel and behave while

studying or working within buildings is linked to their

overall satisfaction rates and level of happiness

The functions and facilities of buildings had the most positive impact upon how the staff and students feel and behave whilst they are working or studying (more than 7 out of 10 students and staff). Staff also indicated that their ofce and workspace, and the size, proportion and openness of the building they worked in were positive contributing factors to the way they feel and behave

The majority of staff and students (more than 60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic and environmental features that impact most upon the way they feel and behave were the decoration, furnishings and furniture within the buildings

Staff and students in the focus groups identied some negative inuences on their feelings and behaviour associated with cosmetic and environmental factors. These included problems with the heating and ventilation, as well as acoustics and noise

A majority of staff (more than 60 per cent) indicated that the external views and surroundings also played a signicant part

in the way they feel and behave whilst at work. However, students did not share this view

Overall, most staff identied situational features, such as the external views and surroundings as having the most positive impact on how they feel and behave whilst at work, whereas most students identied structural/functional features, such as teaching rooms, on the location of stairs.

PERFORMANCE

The majority of staff (80 per cent) was of the opinion that the buildings they worked in impacted positively upon their performance. However, this was only the case for half of the students we surveyed.

The research showed that the buildings had the most positive impact upon the performance of research students (83 per cent) and the least impact upon the performance of undergraduate students (51 per cent)

In general, students indicated that the features of the buildings they studied in affected their performance in three main ways:

- helping to motivate students in their work - facilitating inspiration amongst students - providing key facilities critical to the

course content

Staff indicated that academic factors associated with their job and facilities they had access to have an equal impact upon their performance. These factors included interest in the type of work and the quality of their ofce and support facilities

Students indicated that the facilities within their institution impacted most upon their performance. These included the teaching, campus and research facilities

Staff and students also stated that particular social features inuenced their performance, including the locality of the university and the level of inclusion and participation they enjoyed.


IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

This research breaks new ground by providing evidence on the links between building design and recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students in the higher education sector.

good quality higher education requires good

quality environments

It provides evidence to support the belief that good quality higher education requires good quality environments. It also reinforces the need for further capital investment to modernise and upgrade buildings and equipment.

However, whilst the ndings of the research provide useful insights, there are a number of areas which would benet from additional research, including:

The measurement of the design quality in higher education buildings

An assessment of the impact of building design upon the local community

A wider sample of institutions to include those not deemed to display good design quality

An examination into the negative impact which can result from design inadequacy

The relationship between good design on campus and the award of research grants.


DESIGN WITHDISTINCTIONCASE STUDY PROFILESUNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLANDDavid Goldman Informatics Centre

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAMJubilee Campus

UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTHPortland Building

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGORAdeilad Brigantia Building

UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIREOxstalls Campus


UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLANDDavid Goldman Informatics CentreSchool of Computing and TechnologySt Peters Campus

DESIGN PROFILEThe David Goldman Informatics Centre is the most radical building on the innovative St Peters Campus. The multi-level ground oor and balconied rst oor areas are enclosed with a vast vaulted space reminiscent of a cathedral. The main computer teaching is carried on in open terraces on the ground oor, divided into pens. Bridges link the upper balconies and the upper oor teaching rooms seem to hang over the central space. Staff ofces are located on the perimeter of the building and comprise a mix of conventional ofces often shared by three members of staff and pods, which are clusters of ofces off a central social space. The building was designed on ecological principles, as reected in the external cladding and the heating/ventilation system.

BUILDING OBJECTIVETo improve undergraduate and postgraduate recruitment by counteracting the negative image of Sunderland.

ARCHITECT: BDPOPENED: PHASE 1 1994, PHASE 2 1996AREA: 8,000M2 USAGE: SCHOOL OF COMPUTINGAWARDS: SUNDAY TIMES/ RFAC BUILDING OF THE YEAR 1995, CIVIC TRUST AWARD 1998

01

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND


UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAMJubilee CampusSchool of Education

DESIGN PROFILEThe Jubilee Campus was designed as a single entity with a wall of educational buildings facing onto a lake, away from the adjacent industrial buildings, and with the residential halls sitting behind. The conical library building provides a central focus.

Sustainability is the very visible theme of the campus, inuencing the overall design, with its prominent ventilation towers and the materials used, both inside and out. The individual educational buildings are of a standardised design and are linked by glazed atria that house central functions, such as the refectory.

BUILDING OBJECTIVETo establish the new campus as a credible and desirable alternative to University Park and to give three key departments room to expand.

ARCHITECT: MICHAEL HOPKINS & PARTNERSOPENED: 1999AREA: 6,481M2

USAGE: SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, COMPUTING AND EDUCATION AWARDS: ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS RIBA AWARD FOR ARCHITECTURE 2001

02

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM


UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTHPortland BuildingSchool of the Environment

DESIGN PROFILEThe Portland building was opened in 1996 and houses the School of Architecture and the Built Environment. The University increasingly uses it as a conference centre. The three-storey building is designed around a central atrium or forum that provides direct access to the refectory, main lecture theatre and the learning resource centre. Sustainability was used as the key design principle and manifested itself in the form of the heating, cooling and ventilation system. The service towers are a prominent feature of the design, while the building as a whole was designed to be the centrepiece of a new campus development that in turn was a catalyst for the regeneration of one of the poorest parts of Portsmouth.

BUILDING OBJECTIVETo improve undergraduate recruitment by counteracting the negative impressions of Portsmouth, and to act as the catalyst for the development of a new campus.

ARCHITECT: SIR COLIN STANSFIELD-SMITH OPENED: 1996AREA: 6,200M2

USAGE: FACULTY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AWARDS: CIVIC TRUST AWARD 1997, PORTSMOUTH SOCIETY BEST NEW BUILDING 1997

03

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH


ARCHITECT: NICHOLAS HARE ARCHITECTS OPENED: 2000AREA: 2,200M2

USAGE: DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGORAdeilad Brigantia BuildingDepartment of Psychology

DESIGN PROFILEThe building is planned around the research needs of the staff, with individual cellular ofces and small break-out spaces for research groups to interact informally. The reception and central circulation spaces are generous, though undergraduate teaching is not catered for in the rst phase of the building. The building takes advantage of its elevated position to dominate the campus and its white elevations and sharp lines emphasise its contemporary credentials. The interior, meanwhile, capitalises on external views across the town. The upper corridors are naturally-lit by high-level roof lights.

BUILDING OBJECTIVETo attract international-quality academic staff to improve the research performance of the school to the highest levels and thereby to attract better quality students.

04

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF WALES, BANGOR


UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIREOxstalls CampusSchool of Sports Science

DESIGN PROFILEThe Oxstalls Campus was designed as an integrated educational unit with the School of Sports Science, a Learning Resource Centre (LRC), refectory and students residences and an incomplete facility that would need to be integrated with the citys sports facilities to work effectively. The design is light and open, using high levels of glazing to bring natural light into the building, and light timber nishes. A lofty, glazed corridor links the teaching areas to the LRC and provides an attractive entrance and design feature. The use of water unies the two parts of the building externally. Sustainability features in the design in the form of solar panels. The LRC is the social hub of the building and has been designed not just for quiet study but also for team learning and interaction.

BUILDING OBJECTIVETo establish a credible, high quality presence in Gloucester and the poorer west of the county to counteract the universitys perceived bias towards Cheltenham.

ARCHITECT: FEILDEN CLEGG BRADLEY ARCHITECTSOPENED: 2001AREA: 2771M2

USAGE: SCHOOL OF SPORTS SCIENCEAWARDS: THE CIVIC TRUSTS SUSTAINABILITY AWARD 2003, THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING ARCHITECTURE 2003

05

IMAGES: UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE


IntroductionIn January 2003, the UK Government published a White Paper called The Future of Higher Education which identied the stresses under which higher education in the UK is operating1. One pressing issue it highlighted was the need to maintain the infrastructure for research and teaching. The report found an estimated 8 billion backlog in teaching and research facilities.

An earlier study focused in particular on the infrastructure within higher education buildings2. The 2002 report, Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, suggested several billion pounds of investment was needed to repair, replace and modernise the buildings, services, IT networks and libraries of UK higher education buildings. It also highlighted that many post-war buildings used throughout the UKs universities were reaching the end of their design life and stressed that the university sector was experiencing a climate of chronic under-funding. The report noted, too, that it is in this environment that there has been a rapid growth in the size of the student population, the introduction of new subjects and changes in pedagogic methods. However, not all of these developments have been matched by an equivalent expansion in higher education estates.

What is of concern to all universities is ensuring that our students, whatever their background, have

a high quality experience. That requires university teaching to be informed by research, provided by

high quality and motivated staff, in buildings t for purpose and using modern equipment.

(DIANA WARWICK, 2003: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNIVERSITIES UK)

Tony Blair stressed the need for architects to consider more than cost and pure

function when reviewing the quality of designs

Furthermore. in the foreword to a report by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) entitled Better Public Buildings, Tony Blair stressed the need for architects to consider more than cost and pure function when reviewing the quality of designs (Department of Culture, Media and Sport, October 2000). According to Jon Rouse, the then Chief Executive of CABE, there is a growing danger, in the midst of modern procurement processes, that the delight factor in architecture is being suffocated by measurement methods that favour only tangible impacts.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Despite the number of new building projects in the higher education sector over the last number of years, and the complexity and importance of estates provision and management within this sector, there appears to be a distinct absence of Value of Design studies in this area. The work that has been done to measure the impact of architecture and design on the performance of organisations occupying buildings has examined sectors such as health, childrens education, ofces, retail and house-building.

To ll this gap, in July 2003, CABE, in partnership with the UK Higher Education Funding Councils the funding bodies for the research and the Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE), commissioned a research study. The subject material was the impact of design standards in recently completed higher education buildings on the recruitment, retention and performance of staff and students. It is anticipated that partners in the higher education sector will use the research to promote higher standards of building design. The research was designed and data collected by the University of Western England (UWE). Subsequent analysis and reporting was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

1 Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher Education (2003), Norwich: HMSO

2 Investment in Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE (2002)


The overall aim of the study was to assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and the recruitment and retention of students, staff and quality of teaching, research and other outcomes.In addressing the aim of the study, a number of key research questions were posed, namely:

In what ways do buildings inuence the recruitment, retention and performance of students and staff in the higher education sector?

What features of buildings inuence recruitment, morale and retention and performance of staff and students?

Are staff and students satised with the quality and functionality of their buildings and associated facilities, and do they equate good quality with better performance?

FIGURE 1.1 - OVERALL AIMS OF STUDY

A SUMMARY OF THE MAIN DIMENSIONS AND FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH.

OVERALL AIM OF STUDY:To assess whether links exist between new, well-designed buildings and

the recruitment, retention and performance of students and staff

ASPECTS OF THE USER GROUP FEATURES OF THE RESEARCH

STAFF WITH EXPERIENCE OF DIFFERENT USAGE OF BUILDINGS

STAFF AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THEIR CAREER

MATURE AND YOUNGER STUDENTS; AND POSTGRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE AND RESEARCH STUDENTS.

QUALITY, IMPACT AND FUNCTION OF BUILDINGS

SITUATIONAL, STRUCTURAL AND COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF BUILDINGS.

Are there variations in the views of respondents within and between staff and student groups, and between higher education sites?

What quality improvements could be made to improve the performance of staff and students?

STRUCTURE OF REPORT

This report outlines the main ndings of the study. Its structure is as follows:

Section II Methodology

Section III Recruitment

Section IV Retention

Section V Performance

Section VI Conclusions.


FIGURE 2.1: OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

AN OVERVIEW OF OUR APPROACH

LITERATURE REVIEW

A general review of the literature was conducted in relation to the design of educational environments3. Over 50 articles and journals were reviewed and a bibliography is attached to the report. The literature review had three dimensions:

To dene the strategic context within which the study is placed

To identify key themes and related issues

To identify areas of good practice.

MethodologyThis section provides an overview of the methodology used in the study. The research involved three main strands of work: a literature review, a quantitative survey with staff and students, and a qualitative strand comprising focus groups with students and interviews with staff. The qualitative and quantitative eldwork was conducted across ve case study sites.

Whilst the ndings provide useful insights into the experiences of two of the most important stakeholders - staff and students - the research does not attempt to measure the quality of the design.

SELECTION OF CASE STUDY INSTITUTIONS

The selection of the case study buildings was made in collaboration with the project Steering Group. While the buildings selected were deemed examples of good design, a number of additional selection criteria were used in the selection process:

The inclusion of buildings that were reasonably contemporary (a cut-off date of 1996 was applied)

The inclusion of buildings that had been long enough in occupation to establish some pattern of usage

Ensuring that good design was reinforced by some external indicator of merit related to an award

Ensuring that the diversity of the higher education sector, in terms of building and institution type, was reected.

The sample included campus locations and inner-city locations, as well as different types of departments and university.

LITERATURE REVIEW

RESEARCH DESIGN

QUALITATIVERESEARCH

QUANTITATIVERESEARCH

ANALYSIS & REPORTING

JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM


PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

A total of 103 members of staff (69% response rate) and 287 students (57% response rate) took part in the research across the ve buildings.

Statistical analysis was performed primarily at two levels:

Descriptive analysis of individual responses to survey questions

Cross-tabulations between the background characteristics of each institution and the importance of individual factors on staff and student recruitment, retention and performance.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

A range of qualitative evidence was collected across the ve case study institutions. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the types and nature of data collected.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

During the visits to each of the ve case study sites, questionnaires were administered to staff (academic, research and administration) and students (undergraduate, postgraduate and research). A total of 150 staff and 500 students were targeted across the buildings (30 staff and 100 students in each institution).

Table 2.2 provides an overview of the content of the respective questionnaires. They were administered by post to all institutions.

TABLE 2.1:

OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED

TABLE 2.2:

OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TOPIC

Staff Prole information on the background of the respondent Reasons for choosing employment in the university Impact of building on respondents choice of employment Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance Quality improvements to building

Student Prole information on the background of the respondent Reasons for choosing to study at the university Impact of building on respondents decision to choose to study

at the university Impact of building on current satisfaction and performance Quality improvements to building

DETAILS

Key informant interviews

Interviews with key members of HE staff including lecturers, tutors, head of faculty/school, pro vice chancellors, state managers etc.

Focus groups Held with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students

Observations Research team spent time in each building noting interactions that were taking place

Photographs and images

On completion of focus groups the research team was asked to take photographs of those aspects of the building which appealed most to its members. Plans of the building were also examined

3 It should be noted that, whilst most of the literature in this area relates to school buildings, specic efforts were made to obtain and review literature that focused upon higher education.


Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide proles of the staff and student respondents in terms of their background characteristics at each of the buildings.

TABLE 2.3:

PROFILE OF STAFF RESPONDENTS

PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE

GENDER

Male 58% 61% 40% 42% 27% 48%

Female 42% 39% 60% 58% 73% 52%

AGE

Under 21-30 33% 5% 0% 25% 8% 16%

31-50 58% 64% 55% 58% 42% 57%

50+ 9% 31% 45% 17% 50% 27%

EMPLOYMENT

Full-time 96% 89% 82% 96% 92% 92%

Part-time 4% 11% 18% 4% 8% 8%

EMPLOYMENT TYPE

Academic 48% 78% 52% 52% 50% 57%

Research 26% 0% 11% 9% 0% 10%

Administration 26% 22% 37% 39% 50% 33%

YEAR IN INSTITUTION

1-2 58% 4% 16% 39% 8% 27%

3-5 34% 35% 21% 17% 0% 24%

5+ 8% 61% 63% 44% 92% 49%

Number of respondents 24 23 20 24 12 103

TABLE 2.4:

PROFILE OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS

PROFILING CHARACTERISTICS HE 01 HE 02 HE 03 HE 04 HE 05 ALL HE

GENDER

Male 31% 79% 38% 63% 69% 58%

Female 69% 21% 62% 37% 31% 42%

AGE

Under 21-30 64% 49% 0% 40% 43% 42%

31-50 29% 42% 73% 47% 53% 47%

50+ 7% 9% 27% 13% 4% 11%

EMPLOYMENT

Full-time 100% 100% 97% 93% 100% 98%

Part-time 0% 0% 3% 7% 0% 2%

EMPLOYMENT TYPE

Academic 96% 66% 0% 93% 81% 72%

Research 4% 33% 85% 6% 19% 25%

Administration 0% 1% 15% 1% 0% 3%

Number of respondents 59 68 40 68 52 287


RecruitmentThis section provides a summary of current international literature on the impact of building design on recruitment. It also presents the main ndings of the issues surrounding the recruitment of both staff and students, taken from the quantitative surveys with staff and students, together with the qualitative focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff.

OVERVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), recruitment difculties in general will continue in the rst quarter of 2005, as overall levels of employment continue to rise (Personneltoday.com, 2005). Speaking in the House of Lords, Diana Warwick, Chief Executive of Universities UK, stated that there are growing problems recruiting and retaining staff in UK universities. Furthermore, research by Universities UK and its employers organisation (UKEA) showed that one-fth of all universities and higher education institutions were experiencing recruitment difculties (Universities UK, 5.02.2003).

Recruitment of students is also an important issue for higher education institutions worldwide. For example, it has been stated that global competition between universities to attract international students is getting ercer, with big money at stake (Mike Baker, BBC News, 24.01.2005). And, according to a report by the British Council, the number of overseas students wanting to attend UK universities could triple to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst this could be worth 13bn to the UK economy, the British Council has warned of competition from abroad, including the US (BBC News, 20.04.2004).

According to Smith (1998), the primary goal of recruitment programmes and activities is to inuence the behaviour of prospective students, their parents and signicant others in the college admission process. Commenting on the importance of campus image in Americanuniversities, Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001) statethat there has been a move to design, add to, or renovate traditional student centres in order to appeal to their consumers.

the number of overseas students wanting to attend UK universities could triple

to more than 870,000 by 2020. Whilst this could be

worth 13bn to the UK economy, the British

Council has warned of competition from abroad,

including the USWhile UK universities have become increasingly concerned to maximise research income in the past decade, conventional, government- and student-funded undergraduate teaching remains a signicant, and for many institutions still a dominant, proportion of income (Price et al, 2003). For this reason, it is crucial for universities to recruit students successfully.

Furthermore, a study commissioned by the HEFCE, SCOP, UCEA and UUK in 2001 found that universities throughout the UK were facing difculties recruiting staff4. It discovered that pay is the major underlying factor in the difculties facing universities. The majority of research on recruitment has focused on students, rather than staff choices. For that reason, the following discussion is conned to students. It appears from the literature that building design does not tend to be the prime factor of inuence when choosing a university. But it is a signicant variable.

Research undertaken by the Institute of Employment Studies (Price et al, 2003) included 20,000 students who applied to full-time undergraduate courses in universities throughout the UK in 1998. They found that the course content was the most important factor inuencing the university chosen. Additionally, students stated that cost was a signicant factor in their choice of university location. Whilst they were often forced

4 Recruitment and Retention of Staff in UK Higher Education, 2001


to consider a university closer to their parents home due to nancial constraints, students cited overall image of the university as having an inuence on their decision.

An ongoing UNITE/MORI study echoes these mixed ndings (MORI, 2001, 2002). The 2001 study found that course was the rst feature that inuenced this decision, while location and social facilities in town/city comprised the second and third most popular inuence.

It appears, therefore, that while building design does not tend to be the primary force driving the recruitment process at universities, there is evidence to show that it is a factor in the decisions students make.

SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT

It is clear from the literature that the situation (or location) of a higher education building is a critical one in terms of campus planning. For example, planning for the campus of the University of California took over a decade. The team evaluated more than 85 sites in the area (Lund and Kriken, 2004). It appears that location is also an important issue for prospective students. A National Student Outlook (NSO) study in 2003 found that, of the 2000 responses obtained from students at ve locations, three factors had a signicant role in the students nal selection of a college the academics available there, the location of the college, and the colleges reputation.

where universities possessed a particularly

distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey results

clearly indicated that this was a marketing lever

Other studies substantiate the notion that the situational aspect of a college is important when recruiting students. Osborne et al (2001) examined the motivations behind those who choose to return

to university as mature students. They analysed four different types of college throughout Scotland: an ancient university; a post-1992 university; a college of further education; and a Robbins university. By far the most commonly reported motivation for choosing a given institution was its geographical location being close to where the students live or work. This factor was rated as one of the ve most important reasons for institutionalchoice by 87 per cent of respondents. Female students cited it more often than males. STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT

The second category of features that may inuence recruitment to universities relates to structural and functional issues. These refer to the physical, architectural design of the university buildings and the extent to which the design is t for purpose.

Research conducted by Price et al (2003) focused upon the importance of facilities management in the success of universities recruitment campaigns. They found that availability of desired course was universally rated as the most important recruiting factor in every institution examined. Notably though, where universities possessed a particularly distinctive campus (and/or location), the survey

ISMA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF READING


results clearly indicated that this was a marketing lever. They found that issues such as computer outlets in accommodation and the availability of quality computers were important issues for prospective students, alongside concerns with library facilities and the availability of quiet areas for study. Coffey and Wood-Steed (2001), commenting on the importance of campus image in American universities, noted that there had been a move to design, add to, or renovate traditional student centres in order to appeal to their consumers.

COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT RECRUITMENT

Cosmetic features such as colours and furniture, and environmental features, such as heating, lighting and sound are often evident when students visit universities for the rst time, and can make an immediate impression. Price et al (2003) also found that cleanliness of the accommodation was important to a number of students, and the availability of quiet areas for study was also ranked as being an important factor. In general, Price et al (2003) found that higher quality environments did seem to have an impact, and they noted that this may lead to problems of expectation if impressions gained during recruitment are not matched by subsequent reality.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DID YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A WOW FACTOR ON YOUR FIRST VISIT?

STAFF (no.75)STUDENTS (no.284)

YES NO

TABLE 3.1:

WOW FACTOR

OVERALL INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT

In most of the case study sites, staff agreed that the buildings had produced a good initial impression on potential employees. With regard to the recruitment of students, it was generally noted that the quality of the buildings stood out amongst competing universities, and in some cases, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that students had turned down renowned buildings due to poor facilities and accommodation.

...when I came down it was the summer and this building was stunning

walking around it was great! (student)

... we invite all of our potential students to come for open days ...it is quite an open space and so its not made up of lots of cellular spaces.

So, straight away you can see what is going on and it is quite transparent... it has a very positive effect.

(member of staff)

...I came for the interview and was very impressed by the building... the rst time

you see it, it is impressive! (student)

I saw the terraces and the computers in the brochure and I have lived in [the location] all my life. I knew the university was here, but

I did not know just how spectacular it was until I got here. I didnt know that it was going

to be an up-to-date university. (student)

I was really shocked how new everything was. I made my decision there and then that I wanted to come here... (student)

...the place sells itself; I dont have to do any selling. (member of staff)

Figure 3.1 illustrates most staff and students surveyed indicated a wow factor was evident on their rst visit to their building. The comments above illustrate the positive impact of the wow factor upon staff and students at various buildings.


On closer examination of the results, it was found that there were some variations between the views of staff and students within some of the case study sites, as detailed in Table 3.1. For example, in one institution, whilst 87 per cent of staff indicated that, in their view, the building had the wow factor, only 38 per cent of students shared this view. One explanation for the lower positive responses from students might be because this building did not have all of its sports facilities on site. Moreover, during the focus groups with students at this institution, it was noted that, during the open days, the building was not completed.

Conversely, in another institution, 81 per cent of students thought that the building in question had the wow factor, whereas this was the view of only 55 per cent of staff. One possible reason for this might be the dissatisfaction expressed by some staff with regard to their ofce space. Moreover, some staff felt that the building might exert a more positive inuence upon younger teaching professionals.

There was consensus among staff across all of the case study sites that the buildings had been used extensively in marketing materials and there was a common view that the buildings had added value. Staff and students were asked to indicate if the overall quality of the buildings had had a positive impact on their decision to work, or study, at their chosen university.

Their collective responses are illustrated below

From these responses, it can be seen that the majority of students (63 per cent) indicated that the quality of the building design had a positive impact on their decision to study at the university. This was also the case for 61 per cent of staff.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK /STUDY HERE?

YES NO

FIGURE 3.2:

THE IMPACT OF QUALITY OF BUILDING DESIGN


TABLE 3.1:

DO YOU THINK THE BUILDING HAD A WOW FACTOR ON YOUR FIRST VISIT?

CASE STUDY INSTITUTION 94 STAFF 283 STUDENTS

YES NO YES NO

Institution 1 57% 43% 36% 64%

Institution 2 86% 14% 71% 29%

Institution 3 56% 44% 58% 42%

Institution 4 87% 13% 38% 62%

Institution 5 55% 45% 81% 19%

Total 70% 30% 56% 44%


The following comments illustrate the ways in which the buildings had a positive effect on the recruitment of staff and students.

My view is that whenever we bring someone to this building, they are pretty gob-smacked when

you show them around and it is a real plus for visitors... and then once people come here and

word of mouth gets back and they go back and tell their friends to come... the numbers are growing...

(member of staff)

...but there is something about watching peoples reaction to it when we are recruiting staff, when we are trying to impress people...

when we are wanting to say this is a very high quality organisation - the building

helps us to say that. (member of staff)

I went to an open day at another university and to compare this it was a brand new building and

everything was clean and tidy... It was clean and modern and new and that has a denite impact.

I went to [another institution] on an open day and... it was grotty, dirty and dark.

(student)

The results show that the majority of students surveyed (75 per cent) in one institution indicated that the quality of the building design had not had a positive impact on their decision to study at the university. It should be noted, however, that the building in question was used for research purposes, and the respondents were largely undergraduate students who were, therefore, unfamiliar with the building.

Similarly, over half of the staff surveyed at one institution indicated that the buildings had not had a positive impact on their decision to work there.

Conversely, 75 per cent of students at the same institution stated that the building had a positive effect on their decision to study there.

Table 3.2 above details the responses of staff and students within each of the ve case study sites.

TABLE 3.2:

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK / STUDY HERE?


YES NO YES NO

Institution 1 67% 33% 25% 75%

Institution 2 52% 48% 61% 39%Institution 3 47% 53% 75% 25%

Institution 4 62% 39% 80% 20%

Institution 5 100% 0% 79% 21%

Total 60% 40% 63% 37%


EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT OF STAFF Recruitment of good quality staff is an ongoing concern for most employers. In a report produced by IRS Research (Recruitment and Retention of Academic Staff in UK Education, 2001), it was noted that there are recruitment difculties for both academic and support staff in UK Higher Education institutions and that these have continued to get worse, year-on-year, since 1998.

When the staff responses to the questionnaires were analysed by employment type, it was found that the quality of the buildings had the most positive impact upon the recruitment of academic staff, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.

The following comment from a member of the academic staff in one institution illustrates the importance some employers place upon the buildings in terms of recruitment of appropriate research staff.

I think the building does now play a big part in our recruitment process... it was very difcult when

we had major recruitment exercises... you could see people coming through the door thinking, you are a world-class research operation and the paint

is peeling off. It looks shabby and you can see them having a bit of a struggle. Now people come

through the door and go, Oh yes!. You can see them thinking more positively... because they have

come to the new building.

INFLUENCE OF BUILDINGS ON RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS

It is important that higher education buildings are designed to suit the diverse needs of their users, and these needs may vary according to age. When the survey results were analysed by the students age, it was found that the quality of the buildings had least impact on the recruitment of students aged over 30, with 50 per cent of these respondents indicating this to be the case, as illustrated in Figure 3.4.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE?

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

FIGURE 3.3:

QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 74)

YESNO

ADMINISTRATION

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO STUDY HERE?

UNDER 21 21-30

FIGURE 3.4:

QUESTION TO STUDENTS (no. 282)

YESNO

31+

JUBILEE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM


EFFECT OF BUILDINGS UPON RECRUITMENT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDENTS

The impact of buildings may also vary in accordance with the specic academic requirements of different types of students. Figure 3.5 illustrates that, whilst the quality of buildings had impacted positively upon a high percentage of each category of student (i.e. undergraduate, postgraduate and research), they had generally impacted most positively upon the recruitment of postgraduate students, with over 70 per cent of respondents indicating this to be so.

ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT

According to Fleming and Storr (1999), university facilities can be an essential component of attracting key research personnel, provide environments for faster knowledge, and inuence student perceptions of their academic experience (Fleming and Storr, 1999, cited by Price et al, 2003).

In an effort to explore more specically in what ways particular features of buildings might inuence individuals in their choice of university, survey respondents were asked to identify the characteristics of the building that had made an immediate impression, and that had ultimately affected their decision to work or study there.

It should be noted that this was an open-ended question.

The specic features identied by staff and students as having an inuence over their choice of study and work environment were placed within one of three categories:

Structural and functional features

Cosmetic and environmental features

Situational features.

Figure 3.6 illustrates their responses. It is interesting to note that the responses of staff and students were broadly similar in terms of the features identied. In general, situational features appeared to be less inuential for both staff and students. However, this may have been because the questionnaire was primarily concerned with issues specic to the features of buildings, as opposed to their location. Students placed slightly more importance upon structural and functional features in terms of inuence, whereas for staff, cosmetic and environmental features of buildings were slightly more inuential in terms of their decision to work in a particular institution.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DID THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING DESIGN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR DECISION TO STUDY HERE?

UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE

FIGURE 3.5:


YESNO

RESEARCH

CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE THREE MAIN FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED YOUR DECISION TO WORK HERE?

YESNO

60

50

40

30

20

10

%STRUCTURAL &

FUNCTIONALSITUATIONAL

FIGURE 3.6:


COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL


STAFF ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT

From the gure above, it can be seen that 51 per cent of the features identied as being inuential in recruiting staff could be classied as cosmetic and environmental. These included cleanliness, a feeling of space, having a well-lit foyer and reception area, a minimalist appearance, or light and bright working areas.

In addition, 40 per cent of the features identied by staff as potentially inuencing their choice of university could be classied as structural or functional. These included lecturing and teaching rooms, automatic doors, computer terraces, internal layout and design, whether or not the building was aesthetically pleasing, and the overall shape and structure of the building.

The remaining nine per cent of the features identied by staff were classied as situational. These related to the proximity of the building to the city centre, and the proximity to other major university buildings, as well as accessibility to main transport routes and links. The following comments from staff further illustrate the importance placed upon specic features of buildings when people are choosing a place of employment.

...from the admin side, when we actually employ new people, and we have

interviews... everyone says they want to come here and work architecturally.... when they

come for open days, we are told they are very pleasantly surprised by what they see and the

facilities... they are obviously going round different institutions, comparing what is on offer.

Im sure the building impacts upon staff recruitment because there is a good

feeling and the space is good. It has an invigorating feeling to work here.

For me, the location... (of my last job) was more convenient. It had a big impact on my

choice of employment. Now the location is more inconvenient for me, but the environment is nicer.

During the interviews, some staff stated that, for them, the buildings were not an important factor when making a decision to work at a particular institution:

I was in another faculty before, and there were ve reasons why I joined - nothing to

do with the building. (It was the) climate and promotion... and they had clinical

facilities that I wanted in the department.

I think the buildings help, but it is less of a factor than maybe you would like me to say.

In addition, some staff identied features that might have a negative inuence on their choice of employment. These included a bad use of space, noisy buildings, and buildings that look unattractive.



However, some students expressed disappointment with some of the features.

I changed my view about the library I loved it when I rst came here but now there

is nowhere to work. No study area, and now there are two desks between bookshelves, and,

because people are walking round they could do with a silent oor. There is nowhere to work

in it, which irritates me...

...the building did not improve the canteen or library.

STUDENTS ASPECTS OF BUILDINGS THAT INFLUENCE RECRUITMENT

From the same gure on page 27 (Fig 3.6), it can be seen that 52 per cent of the features identied by students could be classied as structural or functional. These included the size and layout of the building, the open plan and modern design, the choice of materials used, and the quality of the facilities, e.g. terraces, library, sports centre, atrium, caf and lecture rooms.

Forty per cent of the features identied by students were cosmetic and environmental. These included being environmentally-friendly, having a welcoming atmosphere, the water features, e.g. fountains, and having a light and airy working environment.

A small percentage (four per cent) of the features identied by students could be classied as situational. These included being easily accessible, and having a good transport link. Students that participated in the focus groups also identied features of the buildings that had inuenced their decision to come to the university.

I think you look out and see modern buildings and you think it is a new building,

loads of new facilities, and that is the rst thing that came to my head. You saw the

design of the building and the shape. You knew it was brand new by looking at it

and then you thought and I know I did we are going to have up-to-date computers,

which in some cases they did.

Personally, when looking at universities, this one had the best facilities and in

particular the new building shows that they are spending money. The fact that everything is

in one building had a big inuence on what university I chose.

How the building looks, it would make you want to come I like to come here early and

wait and get a car park space it is comfy, no cold atmosphere it is inviting...



RetentionThis section provides a summary of international literature on the impact of building design on retention. It also presents the main ndings of the issues surrounding the retention of both staff and students taken from the quantitative surveys with staff and students, together with the qualitative focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff5.


The retention of both staff and students is an important issue for all higher education institutions. Retention from the students perspective can be dened as the maintenance of students satisfactory progress toward their educational objectives until the objectives are attained (Dollence, 1998. Issues regarding student retention have been receiving increasing attention in recent years. Research by Mantz Yorke of Liverpools John Moores University identied eight possible factors that can inuence a student to withdraw. Notably, two of the eight relate to the location and the facilities of their institution (Yorke, 1998, cited by Scottish Centre for Research in Education, 2001).

a more pleasant and healthy internal environment is more likely to improve productivity

and staff retention, and reduce sick leave

Retention of staff is also an issue for employers in higher education institutions. In a study by Gullickson and Tressler (2001) they suggest, amongst other things, that a more pleasant and healthy internal environment is more

likely to improve productivity and staff retention, and reduce sick leave.

After the expansion of the higher education sector in the early 1990s, anecdotal evidence suggested that an increasing number of undergraduates were not completing their courses. In 1996, HEFCE commissioned two teams to provide more robust research into why this was happening. The research found that non-completion rates were between four to ve per cent per year. However, by 1997, more research commissioned by HEFCE suggested that these gures may, in fact, be as high as eight to 10 per cent (HEFCE, 1997).

The literature in relation to the impact of higher education buildings upon retention is discussed, as previously, under identied headings.

SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION

Research has found location to be a signicant factor in students decisions not to complete university courses. Research undertaken by Yorke on behalf of HEFCE (1997) examined undergraduate non-completion in England.

The report identied 36 possible inuences on the decision to withdraw, which were clustered down to eight possible factors. Unhappiness with the locality of the institution was cited as the second of these possible factors inuencing the decision to leave.

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION

As was found with recruitment, the literature in the area of retention is mixed. Some research indicates that the structural layout of buildings has little impact on users decisions to stay on in the environment, while other literature suggests that the structural design of a building may directly inuence users wellbeing and subsequently result in either retention or exit.

5 It is important to state that the majority of the ndings presented here relate to the level of satisfaction with the building. For the purposes of this study, a link has therefore been made between the level of satisfaction of staff and students with the buildings and their likelihood to remain at the institution.


For example, research reviewed in a report by the SCRE Centre found that course content and personal or nancial reasons are the dominant explanations for students leave a course without completing it6. Similarly, in the study which Yorke undertook for HEFCE (1997), mentioned above, Yorke concluded that dissatisfaction with aspects of institutional provision was of minimal importance to an individuals decision to withdraw from higher education. He found that issues that were more signicant included disenchantment with the course content, nancial difculties, family or work commitments, or university life in general.

COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE RETENTION

Again, the literature here is limited in relation to higher education buildings. However, Kennedy (2002), whilst focusing upon schools, argued that cosmetic quality contributes to overall quality.

Grifn (1990) introduced person-environment interaction theory, which investigates the impact of a variety of physical attributes upon peoples behaviour. Whilst Grifns work was conned to the classroom, he found that a number of signicant physical environmental factors affect human behaviour. Grifn argued that spatial arrangements and physical design were signicant factors. He found that, in general, less crowded spaces which offer each person more room produced less stress. He also found that colour tended to impact upon peoples behaviour. In particular, pleasure has been found to be heightened by brightness (especially warm colours).

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS

In the surveys conducted with staff and students, respondents were asked to indicate if they were satised with their choice of university or with their place of employment and, as Figure 4.1 illustrates, the vast majority of staff and students stated that they were satised with both.

When these results were analysed by institution, there was a consistently high level of satisfaction across each of the buildings, as illustrated in Table 4.1, below.

TABLE 4.1:

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICE OF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT?


YES NO YES NO

Institution 1 96% 4% 93% 7%

Institution 2 74% 26% 97% 3%

Institution 3 100% 0% 100% 0%

Institution 4 100% 0% 95% 5%

Institution 5 90% 10% 96% 4%

Total 92% 8% 96% 4%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH YOUR CHOICEOF UNIVERSITY/EMPLOYMENT?

YES NO

FIGURE 4.1:

SATISFACTION


6 See www.scre.ac.uk/scot-resarch/wastage/ch5.html


Staff and students were also asked to indicate if, in their view, the building was generally well designed. Figure 4.2 below illustrates that almost 90 per cent of students indicated that they felt it was, and just over 70 per cent of staff also thought this to be the case.

Table 4.2 above details the variations across the case study sites. From this table it can be seen that whilst students consistently indicated that their buildings were well designed, in two of the buildings surveyed, a lower percentage of staff (47 per cent and 50 per cent) indicated this to be the case.

Interviews with staff within these buildings uncovered some possible reasons for these responses.

...my feeling is that I work better here than where I was before because the environment is much pleasanter, polite and it is a pleasant

environment to be in... But there are two sides to that. Within the corridors, there is much more interaction than there used to be, but across the

whole building it has become divisive.

...the constant ght and ghting all the time,the constant day-to-day management having to

deal with too little space for people it is a constant struggle. But the irony is, with very minor things

being done - most of them are on the management side - this building would be a dream...

The above comments from staff illustrate that there are a set of related factors governing the impact that buildings have upon mediating the relationships between people. In this respect, some staff made positive comments about the buildings.

TABLE 4.2:

IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED?


YES NO YES NO

Institution 1 96% 4% 97% 3%

Institution 2 65% 35% 92% 8%

Institution 3 47% 53% 74% 26%

Institution 4 82% 18% 85% 15%

Institution 5 50% 50% 93% 7%

Total 71% 29% 96% 4%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

IS THE BUILDING GENERALLY REGARDED AS BEING WELL DESIGNED?

YES NO


FIGURE 4.2:

REGARDED AS WELL DESIGNED


I like the joined-up-ness of the buildings. We are all part of a diverse group, and

the unity of the campus suits our purpose. The university is bigger than all of us, and

we are happy to show and express that.

ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE THE FEELINGS AND BEHAVIOUR OF STAFF AND STUDENTS

In a review of the literature by Grifn (1990) which investigated the impact of a variety of physical attributes upon peoples behaviour, it was found that spatial arrangements/physical design are signicant in terms of their effect upon human behaviour. For example, Grifn found that less crowded spaces, which offer each person more room, produce less stress.

Staff and students were asked to choose from a range of building characteristics to uncover those that inuenced the way they feel and behave. The way people feel and behave is an indicator of their overall level of happiness, which will undoubtedly inuence their decision to remain at an institution.

CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STAFF % POSITIVE

STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 76%

Ofce and work space 70%

Size/proportion/openness 60%

Lighting 58%

Stimulating character 55%

Accessibility/entrance 53%

Materials 52%

Teaching rooms 52%

Flexible spaces 49%

Research facilities 37%

Acoustics 31%

All features 54%

COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL Decoration/Furnishings 64%

WOW factor 62%

Health/Safety/Security 58%

Staff rooms 49%

Air quality/Ventilation 32%

Heating/Cooling 25%

All features 48%

SITUATIONAL External views 61%

External surroundings 60%

All features 60%

TABLE 4.3A:

FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION


Tables 4.3a and 4.3b illustrate the extent to which the feelings and behaviour of staff and students were positively inuenced by specic structural and functional, cosmetic and environmentaland situational characteristics of the buildings they frequented in the course of their day-to-day activities.

In order to identify which of the categories of features most inuenced the retention of staff and students, the total percentage of very positive/positive responses was calculated for each feature, as presented in these tables.

We have plenty of options with sizes of

rooms... possibilities of extending, shorteningrooms. So there is that sort of thing

in the design, and we are very fortunate.

CATEGORY OF FEATURE FEATURE STUDENT % POSITIVE

STRUCTURAL & FUNCTIONAL Function/Facilities 71%

Teaching Rooms 66%

Size/proportion/openness 66%

Lighting 61%

Stimulating character 59%


Flexible spaces 56%

Accessibility/entrance 53%

Acoustics 43%

Materials 52%

Ofce and work space N/A

All features 60%

COSMETIC & ENVIRONMENTAL Decoration/Furnishings 60%

Air quality/Ventilation 54%

Heating/Cooling 54%

WOW factor 54%

Health/Safety/Security 46%

Staff rooms N/A

All features 54%

SITUATIONAL External surroundings 53%

External views 53%

All features 52%

TABLE 4.3B:

FEATURES THAT INFLUENCE STAFF RETENTION


STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES

Analysis of Table 4.3A and Table 4.3B reveals that the functions and facilities of the buildings had the most positive impact upon how both staff (76 per cent) and students (71 per cent) feel and behave. Staff also indicated that the ofce and workspace (70 per cent) and the size, proportion, and openness of the building were positive contributing factors to how they feel and behave whilst at work. This view was shared by around two-thirds of students, who also indicated that the teaching rooms had a positive inuence on their feelings and behaviour.

During the interviews and focus groups, staff and students were given the opportunity to highlight specic problems with the structural features of their building. Some of these comments were positive, others negative, as illustrated below.

South-facing glass panels make working in the ofces in the summer impossible.

The acoustics of the place - you can make one noise and it carries over. Even the teaching

rooms on level 2 - they have halls on top. As you pass, you can hear what each

individual lecturer is saying. So it coincides and affects peoples concentrations.

For people who dont know the building, it is constantly difcult to nd their way around.

It is difcult to access the building and to nd the staircase, as well as the toilets.

There was an initial concept/solution for unisex toilets which was not going to work. So they were

relocated and are now on different oors.

It all looks very nice on the outside. What I do not like is the stairs. People are coming out of

one lecture and, while people are waiting to go in, they are queuing on the outside and they have to wait. One day, someone is going to have a terrible accident. And the second thing that they did not

think about is that they are professionals and they can hear everything that is happening next door

one to one it is really off-putting.

I agree with what people are saying. It is a lovely place... and it is quiet... The downside being open

plan - it is noisy and there is nowhere to sit and read... main desks have a computer, but where do

you just sit and read?

COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES

The buildings wow factor was nominated by 62 per

cent of staff as having a positive impact on the way

they feel and behave

A majority of staff (64 per cent) and students (60 per cent) agreed that the cosmetic factors that most inuenced the way they feel and behave were the decoration, furnishings and furniture within the building. In terms of environmental features, it was interesting to note that a relatively small percentage of staff identied these features as having a positive impact upon their feelings and behaviour: heating and cooling was indicated by 25 per cent of staff, and air quality and ventilation by 32 per cent of staff. However, conversely, 54 per cent of students indicated that these same environmental features had a positive impact on their feelings and behaviour. The buildings wow factor was nominated by 62 per cent of staff as having a positive impact on the way they feel and behave, and this view was shared by 54 per cent of students.


The following comments illustrate the positive and negative inuences staff attributed to the cosmetic or environmental features of the buildings. They also highlight some suggestions of areas for improvement.

It is a very nice working environment, even on a grey day, and the fact that it has light space and

that you can come into this space is quite uplifting. So coming to work is an experience... it does have

an effect on people wanting to stay, whether it is a student or a member of staff. If you have a

nice working environment, it makes a difference. (member of staff)

In relation to the temperature, the heating is not the best. There are sometimes

real temperature extremes, which cause real discomfort, especially in hot summers.

(student)

The ventilation doesnt work well. Windows can be either closed or wide open. It is

sometimes difcult to work here. (member of staff)

Acoustics is another issue. It allows no privacy and is disruptive for concentration work.

(member of staff)

Noise and smell is difcult. (member of staff)

Generally, there is a noise problem in the building as well as a circulation problem.

(staff)

Heating in the building - they use a sensor reader in big areas and they put all the sensors

in strange places. So it is freezing in the building.(student)

As impressive as the terraces are, they are a waste of space they are covered with

computers and there is everything above it and nothing below it. You could have expanded the

oors and you would have had loads and loads of space. It would appeal to students.

(student)

SITUATIONAL FEATURES

While students generally did not feel that the situational features of the building had a positive/very positive impact on how they feel and behave, around three-fths of staff indicated that both the external views (61 per cent) and surroundings (60 per cent) played an important, positive role in how they felt and behaved during their working day.

overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features exerted the most positive

inuence in terms of their feelings and behaviour on a

day-to-day basis

An examination of the categories in the table above and the features within them, reveals that, overall, for 60 per cent of staff, situational features exerted the most positive inuence in terms of their feelings and behaviour on a day-to-day basis. For 60 per cent of students, meanwhile, it was the structural and functional features of the buildings that had the most positive impact upon how they feel and behave.

GENERAL VIEWS ON BEING IN THE BUILDINGS

During the interviews and focus groups with staff and students, they were given the opportunity to give their overall views on the quality of the buildings. The following comments illustrate the range of views expressed.

I lived on the old campus for two years... I think this is a beautiful campus. It has a style to it.

I found the other campus small... this library to me is so much better, more beautiful, and more pleasant to work in, in terms of the lighting and

warmth. In the other one, there was always a cold breeze... and now it is lovely. It has a different feel.

(student)


It appears that the issue of space is not a

problem in this building. They share it with other departments, with community groups, and with

members of the community. The building seems to facilitate this shared space, which is

perhaps key to architecture. (member of staff)

It is a pleasant building and I enjoy working in it, with reservations about a few things,

and I think it is an adaptable building. (member of staff)

This building was never built with educational purposes in mind. It is too open-plan.

It does not work as an educational building. (member of staff)

This feels like a place of education. In my opinion, this is what it should look like - professional, a

bit like a school, narrow corridors, big rooms and you feel grown up to come here all day.

(student)

....personally, I would like to see a gym onsite and it is really lacking a swimming pool a gym I cannot

see as expensive... it denitely would benet. (student)


PerformanceThis section provides a summary of international literature on the impact of building design on performance. It also presents the main ndings of the issues surrounding the performance of both staff and students taken from quantitative surveys with them, together with the qualitative focus groups with students, and the interviews with staff.


Despite a wide review of literature, searching for the impact of buildings on organisational performance, not a great deal of information was uncovered. However, the literature that was unearthed in relation to performance is discussed within the three identied categories. It should be noted that most of the literature is taken from research conducted in schools rather in universities. However, the ndings bear clear relevance to this study.

SITUATIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE

The relationship between educational performance and situational factors is under-researched. According to Lackney (1998), embracing the concept of place and place-making is critical to understanding the way in which design principles for optimal learning environments are intended to be approached. Lackney suggests that design must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social, organisational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral to the experience of place. All of these are necessary if optimal learning environments are to be created.

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE

Several studies have examined the inuence that open-space classrooms have on teacher and student attitudes. Lewis (1976) looked at this relationship and found that teachers housed in open-space classrooms showed attitudes that are more positive. Similarly, Jones (1974) found that teachers attitudes towards their students in open-space classrooms improved signicantly. Mills (1972) also concluded that teachers in open-space areas exhibited behaviours that allowed greater pupil freedom and self-direction7.

Ikpa (1992) found a signicant negative relationship between the age of school buildings and achievement. The data gathered indicated that, as the age of the school building increased, the achievement test scores tended to decrease.

COSMETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE

The discussion here is limited to the impact of environmental features. According to Lackney (2003), thermal comfort has been shown to inuence task performance, attention spans and levels of discomfort. He cites a range of research that supports these claims (Berglund & Lindvall, 1986; Cohen, et al, 1986; McGuffey 1982). Lackney notes that achieving good indoor air quality is as essential as providing comfortable, healthy thermal conditions and functional, aesthetically-sound lighting and acoustic environments. He notes that strategies for improving indoor air quality include increasing the levels of fresh air intake and increased ventilation rates in buildings. These preventive design measures cost very little and save energy, as well as providing a healthier environment for learners.

Grifn (1990) found that visual factors such as natural light and use of shade can affect an individuals behaviour. It was found that white light increased activity while too much light could be detrimental to activity.

7 The above information was found in the University of Georgias School Facilities Planning webpage: http://www.coe.uga.edu/ sdpl/researchabstracts/attitudes.html


EFFECT OF BUILDINGS ON PERFORMANCE

Staff and students were asked to indicate if the buildings had a positive impact on their performance. Figure 5.1 illustrates that 80 per cent of staff believed that they did. For students, this was the case for almost 50 per cent of those surveyed.

It was found that buildings had the least impact upon the performance of undergraduate (49 per cent) and postgraduate (53 per cent) students surveyed, and the most impact upon respondents that were research students (83 per cent).

When the results were analysed by age, it was found that there was little difference in the responses of students across a range of age categories, as Figure 5.3, below, illustrates.

In general, students who indicated that the building had an inuence upon their performance stated that the buildings had contributed in three main ways. First, they helped to motivate students in their work. Second, they facilitated inspiration amongst students, and nally they provided key facilities critical to the course content.

...if it was a normal, standard ofce or lecture room, you would not speak to many people... it is

that sort of informal interaction that enables you to experience... that is an important part of education.

...you feel obliged to put that little bit more effort in. If you were coming to an old, grey

building every day...

buildings helped to motivate students in their

work, facilitated inspiration amongst students, and

provided key facilities critical to the course content

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%

DOES THE BUILDING IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE?

UNDERGRADUATE POSTGRADUATE

FIGURE 5.2:


YESNO

RESEARCH

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%


YES NO

FIGURE 5.1:

PERCEIVED IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%


UNDER 21 21-30

FIGURE 5.3:

QUESTION TO DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS (no. 282)

YESNO

31+


...yes, as a rst year who does not use this building a lot, it is something that you can aspire to... you look at this building and think whoa! It is a goal

that you set yourself to be in here.

The results from the staff questionnaires were analysed by the nature of their employments, and Figure 5.4 below illustrates that the buildings had least impact upon administration staff. However, this gure was still high at 70 per cent. Similar to the student responses, the buildings had most inuence on the performance of research staff (90 per cent).

Table 5.1 illustrates that there were some variations between student and staff views in the case study sites. For example, 80 per cent of staff in one institution indicated that the building affected their performance, whereas this was only the case for 14 per cent of students in the same institution. The qualitative research uncovered that the building in question was largely used for research purposes. Moreover, whilst overall, 50 per cent of students indicated that the buildings affect their performance, in one institution this gure rose to 71 per cent - there was a high level of satisfaction with the building within this institution generally amongst both staff and students.

The following comments from the interviews highlight the ways in which staff believed the buildings improved their performance, and identify some concerns.

A

...I dont think there is any doubt that it has an impact on me. It is at the risk of talking about it in a very general way. There is no question at all that the building is an extremely pleasant place to come to. It is a good working environment. And I think it is a

happy working environment.

...there are positive and negative parts. Positive side... good community for discussing ideas in the

pods... the large room with research students in it... it is a good environment for research students...

and mixing with academic staff that is the positive. Negative side, the staff would say... cant

get my head down and do serious work.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

%


ACADEMIC RESEARCH

FIGURE 5.4:

QUESTION TO STAFF (no. 97)

YESNO

ADMINISTRATION

TABLE 5.1:



YES NO YES NO

Institution 1 80% 20% 14% 86%

Institution 2 91% 9% 58% 42%

Institution 3 84% 16% 55% 45%

Institution 4 67% 33% 56% 44%

Institution 5 82% 18% 71% 29%

Total 80% 20% 50% 50%


...this building does what the previous building didnt it gives us opportunities to learn through the building. For example, if I teach perspective,

I get perspective use of this space. The light comes through in a particular way and you can teach

without a shadow... we can talk to a student about certain types of material and how the materials go

together and they can physically see it.

staff and students were of the opinion that whilst

other factors, undoubtedly, had an impact upon their

performance as employees and students, the buildings

and associated facilities were also a signicant factor

As one respondent illustrated, in terms of having a positive impact on performance, it is important that the design features of buildings encourage and facilitate the casual meeting of individuals to enable collaboration to take place.

...I would not say it makes a vast difference. The building is nice to be in... and I am sure we all work a little bit better in a building that

seems smart and organised and has all the right sorts of facilities, but in general I have worked in all different facilities and I do not feel my work is less

productive here or more productive if I was in a less attractive building.


ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE

In an attempt to uncover the extent to which staff and students were inuenced by the features and functions of the buildings, as opposed to other considerations, they were asked to indicate how much their performance was inuenced by a range of issues within the following categories academic, social and facilities.

In order to identify which of the categories of features most inuenced the performance of staff and students, the total percentage of very positive/positive responses was calculated for each feature, as presented in Tables 5.2a and 5.2b.

An examination of the academic issues that were most important in positively impacting upon staff and students current performance revealed that, in the case of staff, attitude, motivation and interest in type of work (94%), as well as the quality of fellow staff (89%) and support staff (79%) were the most positive features. For students, the amount and level of learning (87%) proved to be the most signicant positive feature that inuenced their performance, while the teaching quality (83%) and course material (82%) also proved to be highly signicant features.

In the case of staff, the locality of the university (69%) was cited as the main positive social feature that had an impact on their performance.

TABLE 5.2A:

FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT INFLUENCE STAFF PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY FEATURE STAFF % POSITIVE

ACADEMIC Attitude, motivation and interest in type of work/study 94%

Quality of fellow staff 89%

Quality of support staff 79%

Amount and level of working/learning 61%

Research quality of the department 58%

Quality of taught students 55%

Quality of research students 54%

University and departmental policies and governance 52%

Ability to attract external funding 46%

Course material N/A

Level of admin support N/A

My preparedness for university education N/A

Teaching quality N/A

All features 65%

SOCIAL Location factors 69%

Inclusion, involvement, participation 52%

Interaction, community, relationships 53%

Town 41%

Financial reward/matters 46%

Social facilities 33%

All features 49%

FACILITIES Support of facilities 75%

Quality of ofce 73%

Campus 64%

Teaching facilities 61%


Learning facilities N/A

All features 65%


For students, the town in which the university was in or was near to (63%), as well as the level of inclusion, involvement and participation (61%) were the main social features in this regard.

In terms of the buildings facilities that positively inuenced performance, staff indicated the support facilities (75%) and the quality of the ofce (73%) had the most signicant inuence. For

design with distinction

Documents

value of design

aspects of design

design aspects

design withdistinction

value of good building

quality of school design

impact of buildings

better buildings