Presuming that the overall planning and allocation o f spaces has been carefully planned, and the spaces are ready to be occupied, the logistics and sequencing plans will manage the m ovement o f furniture and staff, to ensure that the pre-occupancy is within budget and on schedule. Binder (1989:157-159) and M olnar (1983:234-241) present a thorough account o f the methodology o f moves. Once moves have been accomplished, the occupants are normally given some time to acclim atise to the new environment. This period is followed by an evaluation phase to ensure that the space which has been allocated is perform ing effectively and efficiently for both the organisation and the end user, and that the expectations o f those m anaging the changes have been satisfied. According to a National Audit Office study on higher education buildings (NAO. 1996:8), "an effective review process will identify the success and problems that have risen ... it will reveal how far space m anagem ent targets need to be reform ulated for the following ... months".
As good practice, it is recom m ended that space performance be continuously measured and monitored on a regular basis (BAOG. 1992; NAO, 1996). In the British
Airways report (BAOG, 1992), it is stated that regular m onitoring is required to check against four conditions: business priorities, building performances, feedback from the end-users and general patterns o f space use (BAOG, 1992:41). In traditional management practice it has been customary for reviews to be carried out annually, to coincide with the operational budgets and expenditure plans o f the organisation. For example. In the education sector, annual reviews are recom m ended to m onitor progress and to decide upon future action, so that space managem ent targets are set out and performance can be com pared against them. Once these have been recorded, the realistic targets can be set on the basis o f recom m endations for the following year (NAO, 1996:8). Figure 4.6 shows a conceptual flow chart o f the m anagem ent o f space and the position o f reviews and monitoring stages in the process.
Figure 4.6: Conceptual flowchart for the m onitoring stage F a c i l i t v . S D a c e - i n - u . s e ^ Data Collection Utilisation studies User survey Level ot'satisFaction Benchmarking, space strategy. space policy
space standards. operational practices o f
space m anagem ent
Periodic adjustm ents Experiment/Pilot
Data Collection Stud\
Monitoring Utilisation Level o f satisfaction Evaluation and management decision '
1
T
Implementation Execute in full scaleS o u r c e : I B M ( 1 9 9 1 ) : Di git al A n n u a l R e v i e w ( 1 9 9 2 . 1993); C h a d w i c k ( 1 9 9 3 )
It was reported industry-wide that the review is not a well developed stage in occupying organisations, but there is an increasing trend towards it. The em ergence o f this trend is based on a study conducted by Avis et al, (1989), whose findings show that in 1989, 36% o f the organisations surveyed, actually m onitored their space allocation. Six years on, the m onitoring activity was recorded in 43% o f organisations (Avis & Gibson, 1996:22). This awareness is consistent with other studies carried out in A m erica on the real estate managem ent o f corporate sectors, and their attem pts to reduce the operational costs o f their properties (Becker & Joroff, 1995).
The techniques used in m onitoring space after a m ove or occupancy, are categorised as direct and indirect methods. Some exam ples o f the form er are user-based system or the expert-based system (Becker, 1990:267). W ith the latter exam ples include tim e tabling and booking sheets. In the form er category, Becker explains, the distinguishing feature o f the end-user approach is to evaluate the impact o f the building, its spaces, environm ent and design through the users’ responses and stated opinions. A typical evaluation technique is post occupancy evaluation (POE), with its "singular focus on occupant satisfaction" (Becker, 1990:262), while the expert based approach assesses the suitability o f the building through the formal opinions o f an expert panel and so incorporates a w ider range o f concerns relating to organisational, financial and facility issues. Therefore, the POE is used to measure the level o f acceptance amongst users in relation to the changes experienced in moving from one space to another. The POE will indicate to m anagem ent the relative success o f their space policies, relating particularly to the m ethods o f allocation at the organisational level.
The expert based system is essentially a rating procedure to evaluate how closely organisational requirements fit the building facility and how well the building facility accommodates the organisational requirements. The literature on these techniques has been cross compared by Baird et al (1996). M ost o f the techniques used bar charts to illustrate the notion o f suitability between the buildings and the organisational requirement, because "the visual m atching o f the two profiles make it easy to understand the fit between the building perform ance and organisational requirem ent” (Becker, 1990:285).
In comparison, earlier research by Raw linson (1973) suggested using a notion o f ‘fit’ - seen in a different aspect from that discussed in Chapter 2.0 - which necessitates the
provision o f certain basic information concerning the characteristics o f each space and the spatial requirements o f each activity. Figure 4.7 shows the linear scale and formulation o f the fit factor employed. A fit-factor o f 1.0 gives the m ost effective space allocation. The middle region o f the scale indicates tolerable circum stances and a reasonable level o f utilisation. A fit factor o f less than 1.0, say 0.5, indicates under utilisation o f 50%, and a fit-factor o f more than 1.0, say 1.3, indicates overcrowding, with 30% o f space over-utilised. It is obvious that effective allocation cannot be measured directly but through the proxy indicator o f utilisation.
Figure 4.7: Fit-factor as effective space allocation
U n d e r u t il i s a ti o n O v e r c r o w d i n g Fit F a c t o r = S p a tia l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a c t i v i t i e s S p a c e s a v a i l a b l e S o u r c e : R a w l i n s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
The interdependence between the allocated space and the utilisation o f space through evaluations is well described by Baird et al (1996) as "the objective o f building evaluation is to gain knowledge about our buildings and the way [in which] we use them". When a space has been allocated to a certain function, it can either be under utilised, reasonably utilised or over-utilised, m easured sim ply in terms o f frequency and occupancy o f use. In all situations there needs to be a reliable method by which to measure the extent to which an effective allocation has been made. In this aspect, there must be a differentiation between single building sites and multiple building
across different facility and space types. This w ould mean that the utilisation level is not so low as to reflect a waste o f space nor so high as to reflect overcrowding. The monitoring and review process should concentrate on the im provem ent o f utilisation. The utilisation study is m ost im portant in providing the evidence on patterns o f use for each individual site in solving problems o f consolidation o f functions and justifying the duplication o f spaces in various sites (Kenny, 1977b; Apgar, 1995).
The common methods used in assessm ents o f effective allocation are through plans, walk-round and building-use surveys (BWA, 1994:4-12-4-13). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but the objective o f these surveys is to evaluate how space is being used as com pared to the norms or policies which have been established in the organisation. Plan surveys will give the proportion o f space being used for circulation, support and workspace, each com pared against the overall density o f occupation. BWA (1994) recom m ended this type o f survey as the quickest way to evaluate how effectively space is being used. The walk-round survey is an observation technique, targeted at the actual pattern o f space usage over a representative time frame, recording the num ber o f staff per room, the designated group boundaries and the occurrence o f ancillary activities. The building use survey, takes a more accurate observation o f how spaces are being used after they have been allocated, how intensively it is being used in the time available and how well occupied it is within the total available capacity. These data are presented as the supporting evidence, when evaluating allocation effectiveness and reviewing m anagem ent decisions on procurement, disposal or reallocation o f spaces.