| |
|
Who Should be at the Table
... at the table: room at the table; a place at the table; a seat at the table; getting to the table; ...the conference table; …the negotiating table; …the table of power.
The metaphor of the table, although getting old, is still a useful one for thinking about organizing a planning or design process.
Who & When
Who to involve in the process is just as important a question as when to be involved. Who and when depend on the type of project the institution is engaging in: campus plan, facility program, or architectural design.
Who also depends upon a number of other characteristics such as whether the institution is a university, college, or community college; whether it is public or private; its enrollment size; geographic location; relationship with the community; culture; organizational structure; staff availability; and financial resources.
How
Despite the nuanced differences, similarities can help structure the process and the selection of participants. Most facility-related projects require at least two committees: an executive committee as well as a user-group committee.
The executive committee should consist of the chief academic officer, the vice presidents, and, exofficio, the president. For continuity and communication, the chair of the user-group committee should also be a member of the executive committee. The make-up of the latter committee depends upon the type of project.
Campus Planning
Although a campus planning process requires community-wide participation, the user-group committee should not exceed seven to nine representatives or it becomes unwieldy and less participatory. Since the committee is intentionally small, other techniques can ensure broad institutional interaction and participation, including task forces; focus groups; workshops; and formal and informal meetings, reviews, interviews, and presentations.
A campus planning user-group committee should consist of faculty, staff, and student representatives. Committee members must have no, or appear to have no, particular agenda — and the institutional community should trust and respect them. It is useful to have several senior faculty and representation from residential life, campus life, physical plant, finance or development, staff, and student government. Some campuses might elect to have a Board member on the committee — but it is best to keep fiduciary and oversight responsibility separate.
Facility Programming & Architectural Design
Memberships of user-group committees formed for facility programming or architectural design are typically more homogeneous and specific to a particular discipline or project than committees for campus planning. Both should have no more than seven to nine members. Because of their narrow focus, the programming or architectural design committees can easily become quite parochial – concentrating on their specific discipline requirements and losing sight of the institutional context. To prevent this, include one or two representatives from other areas of the college or university. If the project is a science facility, for example, a representative from the social sciences or humanities on the committee ensures that decisions aren’t made in isolation.
No matter who is chosen to sit at the table, the success of a project depends upon the care with which you set the table — the early pre-planning that must take place — selecting the participants, agreeing on assumptions, concurring on priorities, articulating a vision, and defining the process and schedule.
Arthur Lidsky
|
|
|
NEWS
The National Academies
The National Academies Committee on High School Laboratories has invited Arthur J. Lidsky to speak on “Role and Vision” in June. The presentation will include a discussion of how pedagogy and various financial and other resources affect high school laboratory space, equipment, and activities. The National Science Foundation is sponsoring the event.
DLC+A at the
Harvard Design School
Arthur J. Lidsky will be a guest speaker at the Harvard Design School. The all-day presentation, given on June 30, is entitled, The Sustainable Campus: Restorative Pathways of Growth on Campus. The seminar introduces participants to an environmental/sustainable approach to campus planning and design that is often overlooked. The seminar is part of the Summer 2004 Executive Education Seminars, Sustainability, and Green Design.
DLC+A at SCUP 39
Arthur Lidsky and Richard Dober will each be speaking at the Society for College and University Planning’s thirty-ninth annual, international conference and expo. SCUP 39 takes place July 17–21, 2004 at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel, Toronto, Ontario. Presentations include:
Similarities and Differences--Three Institutions Plan New Facilities
Presenters: Thomas C Greene, St. Lawrence University; Arthur J. Lidsky, Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates; David Sullivan, Syracuse University; Douglas A. Weldon, Hamilton College
This moderated discussion will focus on planning similarities, differences, tips on what works, and potential problems to avoid.
New Campus In Great Britain--Forty Years Later
Presenter: Richard P. Dober, Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates, Inc.
This presentation will revisit the development of new campuses in Great Britain, first visited in 1964 through the auspices of the Educational Facilities Laboratories.
The National Campus Facilities Inventory -- What the Study Has Shown Us
John Byrd, University of Alabama, and Arthur J. Lidsky, Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates. This concurrent session presents a summary of the first SCUP CFI Survey -findings, comparisons, and related bench marking information, as well as preliminary findings from the just completed annual survey.
Arthur J. Lidsky will become Chair of the Professional Development Committee of SCUP on July 21.
|
|
