Estates & Facilities Analysis / 2009
The aim of the research was to investigate study, general and social facilities that are liked or disliked the most; this would help indicate the areas in need of further development or change. /
Safina Tai
(Marketing & Communications)

Contents

Introduction

Aims and Objectives

Profile of Participants

Staff

Existing Students

Education Liaison Students/Potential Students

Limitations of the study

Methodology

Results

Campus

Sustainable workplace

Work-place Practices

Safety and Security

Conclusion

Action Plan

Estates & Facilities Analysis 2009

Introduction

Recent research conducted amongst applications to the university highlighted that ‘study facilities’ and ‘friendly campus feel’ are important factors in informing the application process[1]. Friendly Campus feel was the 5th most important factor considered by Acceptors when choosing to accept the University of Bradford’ offer and had increased from 22.5% in 2008 to 25.7% in 2009. Study Facilities although not rated as highly had increased from 14.5% to 15.5%.

According to research carried out in early 2008[2], campus facilities are considered very important by more than a third of students who were interested in the university of Bradford and competitor universities.

Bases: Those with an opinion on importance – Bradford students (67), competitor students (112); those with an opinion on performance – Bradford students (60), competitor students (103). Question: How important were each of these factors in your decision about which university to choose?

The importance of campus facilities in informing the application process highlighted the need to undertake further research, to understand and improve the Universities’ attractiveness to potential and actual applicants.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the research was to investigate study, general and social facilities that are liked or disliked the most; this would help indicate the areas in need of further development or change. In addition there was a need to clarify what campus facilities mean to potential and existing students.

In order to fulfil the above aim, the following objectives were set:

  • To identify areas on campus that potential and existing students/staff like the most
  • To identify areas on campus that potential and existing students/staff dislike the most
  • To identify the social facilities/areas thatpotential and existing students/staff like the most
  • To identify the social facilities/areas that potential and existing students/staff dislike the most
  • Investigation of what campus facilities mean to potential and existing students and staff
  • Identification of any other estates issues that are important to students and staff
  • To identify how potential students view their future university and what this is made up of

Profile of Participants

In total 651 participants took part in the research. Three groups were used within the research: staff, existing students and potential students (education liaison). The profile breakdown of each sample group is shown below.

Staff

All ethnicities other than White (92.5%) are underrepresented within the staff sample. The group was madeup of 17.5% part time and 82.5% full time staff.

Existing Students

In total 354 Students took part in the research. They were made up of 73% undergraduate and 27% postgraduate.

Education Liaison Students/Potential Students

A total of 176 Education Liaison took part in completing hard copy surveys. Of these 62.9% were male and 37.1% were female.

75.7% of education liaison students were aged 16 years, 23.7% over 16 years and 0.6% was less than ten years old.

Limitations of the study

As the purpose of the research was to investigate and identify areas that staff and students consider important and suggest improvements, this kind of research is best achieved through the collection of quantitative and qualitative information which, by nature, is conducted with a large sample at quantitative stage and broken down to a limited sample number at the qualitative stage. Due to the limited sample generalisations to the whole student body and staff cannot be made. Instead this research provides a useful investigation into what opinions staff and students have of various facilities and areas on campus.

The profile of participants is not wholly representative of the university student and staff profile, and again results cannot be generalised to the entire staff and student population. Low numbers of staff from some schools from the research may bias the identification of some areas for improvement to departments of the participants, which should be considered when reading the results; a key factor to also consider is the time a staff member or student has been on campus.

Other limitations include:

  • Due to last minute cancellations, the focus group for Junior University did not go ahead
  • Education liaison students completed hard copy surveys and some of these respondentsknew each other, and may have influenced each other’s choices when completing the survey.
  • Potential students have been identified as those who were on campus as part of an education liaison activity. These students are restricted to the time they spend on campus and will not have the opportunity to experience campus facilities like existing students.

Methodology

This project planned was a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, although only the quantitative stage took place.

Variations of the same survey were available online for staff, existing students and potential students. The survey took less than ten minutes to complete. All existing students and staff had the opportunity to provide details to opt-in for further research, which may be used at a later date if the research requires further depth.

Compact Students were provided a hard copy of the survey as this was the only way they could take part. Approximately 400 Education Liaison students were on campus from 4th September, but due to other educational activities they didn’t have the opportunity to access a computer whilst onsite and undertake the survey. Students took study skills work and experienced study facilities before being taken on a Campus tour. The survey was completed once they returned from the tour.

Children’s University - The proposed focus group did not take place: A focus group was designed for younger children. A 40minute focus group will be conducted with 5-10 students from students attending Children’s University, to discuss opinions of current areas and facilities, identify areas for improvement and how they imagine their future university.

The group leader had been briefed on the value of the data from such a young age group, students who will not be considering university for at least another 8-10years. However this activity is not only being undertaken for the Estates & Facilities research but also to formulate an exciting activity for Children’s University. The data from this respondent group will be kept separate to the other groups, where comparisons will be possible these will be stated clearly in the report. The Photography exercise has been removed from this section as the same data is captured via a focus group and a tour round the campus. Asking students to take photos and to come back to them at a later date could result in very vague responses, as children from such a young age group may forget and therefore it is better to capture the data whilst they see the facility on campus.

1

December 2009

Results

Campus

Can you remember your initial opinion of the campus and of the buildings and the facilities when you first came here?

As shown above, a large percentage of respondents had mixed views and chose the positive and negative option. Staff were much more negative (28.2%) about their initial opinions than any other respondent groups. Initial opinions from staff were negative whereas for students they were a mixture of positive and negative and for potential students they were positive. Key themes for initial opinions by staff, students and potential students are stated below:

  • Old fashioned/dated
  • Buildings appeared dated
  • Dark and poor lighting
  • A mix of modern and dated buildings
  • Nice buildings
  • Nice people
  • Richmond is the only building that looks decent
  • Some areas in need of improvement
  • Atrium looks amazing

Has your opinion changed since then to be more positive, negative, unchanged or don’t know?

Opinions for staff had changed the most to positive. All staff that had stated negative as their initial opinion of the university campus 73% had changed this to positive. 40% of students had changed their opinion from negative to positive and 50% of those students who had initially stated negative had changed their opinion to positive.

Key reasons for opinion changes included:

  • Demolition of residences
  • More care over green space with open aspects (less hidden corners) so feels safer.
  • Richmond Building improved
  • Good internal refurbishments
  • Many new works increasing aesthetic nature and lighting
  • Teaching areas still require attention
  • Renovations and new build has improved campus
  • The new Gym and Modernized buildings look good
  • Mish mash of styles but getting better

Most of the negative opinions came from students and these includedopinions such as not much has changed, and improvement is taking place but a lot more is to be done. It is important to note here that the majority of students who took part in the survey had been at the university less than a year and had not been involved in seeing the changes that have taken place over the years.

Is there anything that excites you about coming to the campus?

Green areas, peace garden and trees were very much appreciated by staff. They were also keen to know about new developments and excited about the changes over the next five years. Also mentioned was the sports centre beinga great new facility in addition to the Atrium and Richmond building

Similar responses were received by existing and potential students who felt friends, reputation, good teaching facilities, nice atmosphere, green space, good facilities, new sports centre, clean impressive and modern buildings would excite them to come to the campus.

Is there anything that could be improved (e.g. corridors; areas between buildings; decoration; colours; technology?

Respondents made suggestions for facilities/buildings they would like to improve. These have been categorised into the 15 categories below

  • Chesham building requires refurbishment
  • Décor requires updating, brighter and more colourful
  • More greening of the campus
  • Protective walkways between buildings
  • Signage
  • Lifts require upgrade as well as adding additional lifts
  • Upgrading of toilet facilities
  • Brighter, cleaner look
  • Improved eating facilities
  • More CCTV in car parks
  • Improved car parking facilities
  • Corridors require refurbishment
  • More places to eat/drink on campus/ water fountains
  • Improved ventilation/heating/Air conditioning
  • More seating in the atrium

Identify and rank your top 5 facilities for importance

This question has not been combined for the whole sample, as staff and students all have individual needs. Table 1 below outlines top five important faculties for staff, the key ones being attractive campus area, Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment, Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought, attractive green areas (e.g. Peace garden) and Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment. The responses differed for students Table 2) and the key facilities which were ranked the most in the top five are: Attractive green areas (e.g. Peace garden), Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought, Access to computer facilities, Areas for quiet study/work, Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment. Attractive campus area did not feature as frequently for students as it did for staff.

Table 1: Rankings by Staff on top five facilities

Ranked 1 / Ranked 2nd / Ranked 3rd / Ranked 4th / Ranked 5th
Attractive Campus Area / 13.3% / Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 12.4% / Attractive Campus Area / 11.4% / Attractive Campus Area / 12.6% / Attractive green areas (eg Peace garden) / 20.2%
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 11.4% / Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought / 9.5% / Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought / 11.4% / Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought / 11.7% / Attractive Campus Area / 10.1%
Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought / 8.6% / Attractive campus area / 9.5% / Modern seminar rooms / 9.5% / Areas for group work / 10.7% / Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food and drink can be bought / 9.1%
Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment / 7.6% / Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment / 7.6% / Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment / 8.6% / Attractive green areas (eg Peace garden) / 10.7% / Access to cash machines on campus / 8.1%
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food and drink can be bought / 6.7% / Modern seminar rooms / 7.6% / Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food and drink can be bought / 7.6% / Areas for group work / 10.7% / Central areas to sit and chat where food/ drink can be bought / 7.1%

Table 2: Rankings by students on top five facilities

Ranked 1 / Ranked 2nd / Ranked 3rd / Ranked 4th / Ranked 5th
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 14.9 / Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 10.4 / Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 10.8 / Access to computer facilities / 10.5 / Attractive green areas (eg Peace Garden) / 11.8
Areas for quiet study/work / 11.9 / Access to computer facilities / 9.0 / Access to computer facilities / 9.9 / Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 7.8 / Attractive Campus area / 7.9
Modern lecture rooms / 9.0 / Areas for quiet study/work / 8.7 / Areas for quiet study/work / 9.0 / Attractive Campus area / 7.8 / Areas for quiet study/work / 7.6
Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 7.2 / Modern lecture rooms / 8.7 / Areas for group work / 8.1 / Areas for quiet study/work / 7.8 / Access to cash machines on campus / 6.9
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 6.9 / Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 7.5 / Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 7.2 / Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 7.5 / Access to computer facilities / 6.3

Staff and students were then asked to state their satisfaction with each facility. A table of findings is presented in Table 3; however Figure 1 & 2 shows a clearer breakdown for staff and students, showing facilities with poor and average satisfaction.

1

December 2009

Table 3: Rate the University on your satisfaction with this facility:

Facility / Staff / Students
Very poor / Poor / Average / Good / Very good / Have not used facility / Very poor / Poor / Average / Good / Very good / Have not used facility
Areas in departments to sit and chat, but where no food/drink can be bought / 17.0 / 25.0 / 24.1 / 9.8 / 0.9 / 23.2 / 8.2 / 13.5 / 30.6 / 15.6 / 3.8 / 28.2
Areas in departments to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 12.6 / 27.0 / 12.60 / 9.9 / 0.9 / 36.9 / 8.6 / 16.0 / 24.9 / 24.0 / 8.6 / 17.8
Central areas to sit and chat, but where no food/drink can be bought / 8.9 / 25.9 / 27.7 / 9.8 / 1.8 / 25.9 / 7.4 / 13.1 / 29.8 / 18.2 / 4.5 / 27.1
Central areas to sit and chat, and where food/drink can be bought / 4.5 / 9.8 / 47.3 / 32.1 / 5.4 / 0.9 / 4.5 / 12.0 / 29.7 / 34.2 / 15.6 / 3.9
Large lecture rooms / 0.9 / 15.1 / 44.3 / 21.7 / 4.7 / 13.2 / 1.8 / 9.0 / 32.4 / 35.4 / 18.9 / 2.4
Lecture rooms equipped with up to date technological equipment / 3.7 / 9.2 / 39.4 / 27.5 / 6.4 / 13.8 / 2.4 / 11.6 / 21.7 / 39.2 / 22.0 / 3.3
Modern lecture rooms / 0.9 / 23.1 / 36.1 / 20.4 / 5.6 / 13.9 / 2.7 / 10.5 / 27.8 / 35.3 / 18.0 / 5.7
Up to date sports facilities / 0 / 2.8 / 9.3 / 31.5 / 37.0 / 19.4 / 1.5 / 3.0 / 10.8 / 30.0 / 27.6 / 27.0
Cheap to use sports facilities / 5.5 / 7.3 / 21.8 / 30.9 / 14.5 / 20.0 / 6.8 / 7.4 / 15.7 / 27.0 / 16.3 / 26.7
Access to cash machines on campus / 3.7 / 10.1 / 36.7 / 36.7 / 8.3 / 4.6 / 6.9 / 8.8 / 24.8 / 29.6 / 19.6 / 10.3
Workshop/lab areas with up to date technological equipment / 2.8 / 6.5 / 22.4 / 16.8 / 1.9 / 49.5 / 2.1 / 6.6 / 18.7 / 30.8 / 13.6 / 28.1
Modern seminar rooms / 4.5 / 22.7 / 30.0 / 20.0 / 0.9 / 21.8 / 2.1 / 11.1 / 29.9 / 31.7 / 10.5 / 14.7
Large seminar rooms / 5.6 / 25.0 / 27.8 / 17.6 / 1.9 / 22.2 / 2.4 / 10.5 / 29.1 / 33.3 / 10.8 / 14.1
Attractive campus area / 8.2 / 20.9 / 40.9 / 28.2 / 0.9 / 0.9 / 5.4 / 14.8 / 29.5 / 35.2 / 13.3 / 1.8
Access to computer facilities / 0.9 / 12.5 / 33.9 / 39.3 / 7.1 / 6.2 / 5.7 / 11.4 / 31.2 / 34.5 / 14.7 / 2.4
Areas for group work / 7.4 / 28.7 / 34.3 / 12.0 / 0.9 / 16.7 / 8.8 / 18.4 / 25.7 / 23.6 / 7.9 / 15.7
Areas for quiet study/work / 11.8 / 27.3 / 33.6 / 13.6 / 0.9 / 12.7 / 8.3 / 15.1 / 26.6 / 26.0 / 17.5 / 6.0
Areas for research / 5.5 / 21.1 / 32.1 / 11.0 / 0.9 / 29.4 / 4.8 / 12.5 / 25.0 / 25.6 / 14.0 / 18.2
Areas for obtaining reference material / 1.9 / 13.0 / 35.2 / 30.6 / 4.6 / 14.8 / 4.8 / 7.8 / 31.1 / 30.8 / 17.4 / 8.1
Attractive green areas (e.g. Peace Garden) / 3.5 / 20.4 / 34.5 / 32.7 / 7.1 / 1.8 / 5.1 / 13.7 / 26.9 / 29.6 / 12.8 / 11.9

The categories have then been combined for a clearer view of those facilities which have been rated with poor satisfaction or above average satisfaction:

Figure 1: Staff Satisfaction on University Facilities

Figure 2: StudentSatisfaction on University Facilities

1

December 2009

Sustainable workplace

Of the specific campus facilities looked at, a focus on sustainable development was more likely to attract staff and students than state-of-the-art, well equipped buildings and advanced technology. Conversely, a focus on sustainable development was less

Likely than the other facilities to be considered important.

How important are environmental issues and how ‘green’ a university is in your overall impressions of a university?

Overall environmental issues and how green a university is were seen as fairly important (46.5%) and Very important (29.5%). Findings did not vary too much on separate respondent groups.

Do you think the university is green?