| |
|
A recent SCUP-sponsored presentation on space utilization at over 120 higher ed campuses had the eye-catching headline “$79B spent every year on unused space”1 for operating expenses in U.S. higher education facilities. Setting aside the details of how the presenters calculated this figure, the estimate represents a real opportunity for institutions to seek efficiencies in space assignment and utilization.
Because office space (office, office service, conference room) typically represents the largest single space category on higher ed campuses, often greater than 30%, no serious effort to reduce underutilization can succeed without devising new approaches to office assignment and operation. This is especially true with the durable popularity of hybrid work schedules catalyzed by the COVID pandemic.
Based on recent work with several Higher Ed clients, two basic options are in play:
Shared office model – offices assigned to 2 people who share exclusive use of the space by agreed schedule. Typically, each person uses it for 2-3 days per week and works off campus the rest of the week.
Co-work model – workstations booked in advance as needed by employees.
These models can co-exist, mixing the approaches.
One project example that employed the shared office model involved the administrative departments of a large college in an urban, private university. These 5 units had a headcount of 92 employees who were each assigned private offices on 3 floors of leased space. During the height of the pandemic, these staff were 100% remote. When the senior administration required all to return to work in-person, the expectation was that each employee would work a minimum of 3 days on campus. At the same time, leadership also directed that the units work to compress their space onto 2 floors of the same building, freeing up 1 floor for a new college initiative. A deadline was set that precluded significant renovation to accommodate the new model. To ease the transition from private, assigned offices to shared, the group agreed that staff would share by schedule, each person having exclusive use of the office by day of the week. This quickly led to leadership modifying the 3 day on-campus requirement to 2 days. Departments agreed internally which days of the week each preferred. The task then involved pairing employees, typically across departments, to ensure that the offices in play could accommodate all 92 employees plus projected new hires. Through multiple iterations that included departments shifting their day-of-the-week preference, the team achieved a workable solution for the staff, office service space, and 8 hotel spaces for booking by employees who might need to be on campus on an off day.
Another university client advanced a co-work model as part of the planning for a mid-century library renovation. The co-working space was chosen for a floor that had historically housed university research centers and institutes. Since the pandemic, what had been an active, well-occupied zone has become a mostly vacant floor with small pockets of activity, as most employees now work remotely. The proposed re-use combines a range of office types: enclosed private offices, cubicles, and open workstations at tables. Half are assigned to staff who work on campus more than 3 days a week with the rest available for booking by anyone at the university. The 86 workstations are supported by 20 bookable “phone booths” and a range of conference rooms as well as access to shared work room/printer/copier facilities. The intent is to provide a central office resource for a large pool of people to create an activated work and meeting environment for both long- and short-term use.
These two models are obviously not the only useful approaches to a higher utilization office portfolio and the cost and effectiveness benefits achievable, but working on them has provided the following takeaways for those considering similar changes:
- Involve the affected people in the planning. They have great ideas and will alert all to some no-go assumptions.
- Specify intuitive, robust booking software. A clunky interface or insufficient features will frustrate and deter frequent users and those who are curious.
- Provide enough flexibility in the range of space types for broad appeal, functionality and adaptability. Employee preferences for different and new features will evolve and the space should be adjustable to meet changing needs.
- Recognize that asking folks to adapt to a very different office environment is a major shift that raises concerns about effectiveness, privacy/confidentiality and status. This is core change management that takes time and requires built-in incentives (e.g., improved space quality, more frequent cleaning/maintenance, enhanced activity and collaboration).
- Some units and positions are better candidates for these approaches than others. A strong case can be made for dedicated offices for faculty given the multi-faceted nature of these spaces – research, instruction, advising, conferring, administrative, etc. The instructional functions alone merit treating these spaces differently. The key here is promoting a well-utilized, active, engaged buzz that retains employees and attracts students.
- While the area per workstation in these new approaches is less than dedicated offices for all, it is not that much less if adequate support spaces are part of the scheme. It is a reduction in the number of workstations that will drive efficiency and higher utilization.
- Seek out willing collaborators in spaces due for renewal or re-purposing. Publicize the new space so others on campus can see the benefits for themselves.
George Mathey
________________________________
1 Fall 2025 Space Utilization Index for Higher Education, Occuspace, February 2026
|
|
|
