Skip redundant pieces
University Relations
KU Home : About KU : Leadership : Office of University Communications :

Report of the Chancellor's Campus-Wide Task Force on Administration and Reengineering

PART II: Reengineering

H. Space Allocation

Space is a major resource at the University. Equitable, timely and efficient allocation of space and its utilization are essential for the optimal functioning of students, faculty, and staff. The current University space policy is viewed widely by consumers as dysfunctional, in that it fosters divisiveness amongst peers and punishes those who adhere to it.
Define process to be improved:
  • The processes to be improved are those governing the acquisition of space, retaining space, and giving up unused or poorly used space.
    • What are the perceived problems?
  • The present system does not succeed in reallocating space when reallocation is needed. Instead, the required procedures lead to serious conflicts. There are no well defined standards for the use of various categories of space. Further, if such standards exist, there is no system for seeing that standards are met. Symptoms include:
  • The system needs to be modified to encourage faculty cooperation and reward those who cooperate.
  • Scars among colleagues from space wars discourage future collaboration in research and teaching. The space allocation system should prevent this from happening.
  • The current space policy is not trusted. If space is given up, there is no assurance it will be returned when needed. This leads to hoarding of space. The allocation of space needs to be open and to promote trust.
  • Occupancy of space needs to be clearly defined operationally.
  • When push comes to shove in space allocation decisions, simple majority vote by peers does not work. It simply leads to politics. A central authority is needed to either make or to back up space decisions, e.g., the Provost and/or the Chancellor.
  • A fair and equitable campus-wide implementation policy is needed. Nevertheless, someone has to lose in space wars, so anger and disagreement are always a possibility. However, they can be mitigated by a clear rationale for space allocation decisions, by trust in a fair system, and by belief that decisions can be reversed when justified.
  • Some people assume that they have "preferred customer status." If this is true, the policy and criteria need to be clear.
  • There is confusion and equivocation on the policies for allocation of space for students' use. A clear policy is needed.
  • The process of space allocation for new faculty recruits is dysfunctional and needs to be clarified.
    • What appears to be working well?
  • Practically nothing except local space allocations mutually negotiated by peers.
    • What is the evidence of the process(es) problems? Consumer input, relevant data?
  • Interviews with senior administrators, September-October 1995
  • Letters from campus community, Fall 1995
  • Focus group transcripts, October 1995
  • Verbal communications
    • What additional information and/or data are needed?
  • Better data on current space utilization. On-site inspection is essential. Currently the keying system limits access to much of the space at KU and protects hoarding. A thorough inventory is needed. Standards having reasonable flexibility in their parameters should be established for each category of space to evaluate effective use of space.
    • Who are the stakeholders in this process? Who should be involved in its improvement?
  • Everyone in the University community is a stakeholder. Representatives of every major sector of the University should be involved in the space monitoring process.
    • Who are related providers?
  • The KU Endowment Association's role in space development and allocations should be examined.
  • The possibility and cost-effectiveness of off-campus rentals and leases should be examined for emergency cases, where time lines are critical to winning or retaining external funding.
    • Is the improvement of this process likely to be a short-term or long-term task?
  • Both. There will be many space crises in the next year due to the increase in grant activity at KU. The long-term task involves a cultural change at KU in people's attitude toward space utilization.
    • What is the desired outcome of the improvement of this process?
  • The main desired outcome is the growth in quality and impact of the University. A secondary goal is better consumer satisfaction with the process. Practically, the desired outcome is a workable process that speeds the reallocation of space on a priority basis, supporting such activities as expanding research programs, new grant projects, and space for new faculty. A successful process would take the space from where it is least needed and build confidence that reallocation will occur when justified.
    • Are administrative savings likely to result? How?
  • More efficient use of space will save time and effort and make people more productive. It will improve faculty recruitment and grantsmanship, as well asreduce pressure for new construction.

    • Return to Report main page | Members | Introduction | Process Identification | Student Support processes | Computing and Telecommunications | Facility Improvements and Building Construction | Facilities Operations | Funding of Classroom Improvements | Effective Utilization of Classified Staff | Purchasing | Privatization/Outsourcing | Consumer Suggestions for Administrative Savings | Concluding Statement | KU Announcements page | University Relations main page