Part Four: Utilisation Rates
In the last MabelPost, we identified that we can use curriculum planning to determine an appropriate number of teaching workplaces.
To do this, we must calculate the Planned Average Attendance (PAA) within a teaching space type and decide on a reasonable workplace utilisation target (a Utilisation Factor).
This applies to any teaching/training space, whether the occupants are seated or not.
Dance Class: Image Credit Wix Media
Demand and Supply
Simply put, the Utilisation Factor (UF) is the ratio of Demand to Supply:
UF (%) = Demand for Workplaces / Supply of Workplaces
UF (%) = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / Total Workplaces
So, when planning future space, this can be easily rewritten as:
Total Workplaces (required) = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / target UF (%)
This concept can be applied to most teaching environments, including classrooms, laboratories, studios, and practical workshops. Note that activities are generally not transferable (you shouldn't dance in a laboratory), so a separate assessment for each space type is crucial.
Each institution must set reasonable utilisation targets guided by its academic vision, curriculum mix, preferred mode of operation, and nature of any competition.
Where are we now?
There is limited published evidence, but in the experience of MabelSpace, ‘planned’ UF within higher education institutions is rarely above 30% (and often much lower). Professor Frank Coton, a Deputy Vice-Chancellor at The University of Glasgow, recently shared data indicating that in 2023/24, centrally bookable spaces at Glasgow had a UF of 25% (gradually climbing from 5% in 2007). Given our experience, 25% may be above average, but there is room for improvement. With this in mind, Glasgow has sought to create flexible shared teaching and social accommodation in several of its recent developments (such as the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, see below and on YouTube).
James McCune Smith Learning Hub, The University of Glasgow (Image Credit: MabelSpace)
Unlike Frank Coton at Glasgow, few HE leaders dare to share. The lack of transparency tells its own story. Efficiency has not been prioritised. In many cases, HE institutions do not have the data. Even if data is gathered, it is not widely shared with colleagues.
An overall UF of 50% would be the absolute upper limit for most tertiary institutions (in the UK, legally speaking, some 'sixth-form' colleges—teaching mainly UK A-level qualifications—are registered as "further education colleges"; these colleges often exceed 50%).
To get close to 50%, most HE institutions would need to undergo cultural change, exhibiting much greater sharing habits across faculties and departments. Therefore, a medium-term intermediate target between 35% and 40% might be sensible for many HE institutions.
Historically, Further Education Colleges have exhibited similar low levels of planned utilisation. Again, published information is in short supply. However, a necessary greater emphasis on financial efficiency over the last two decades means that many FE institutions will likely be above 35%.
Of course, while we can set an overall target, a University or College comprises different types of teaching spaces. So, are we looking for all space types to reach similar utilisation levels? Some experts suggest that flexible classrooms can be more heavily used than specialist spaces. Classrooms relevant to almost any course group allow flexible timetabling and continuous use. By definition, specialist teaching spaces only apply to specific course groups and are often used more sparingly (there might be only two motor-vehicle maintenance courses taught in a college). Additionally, some specialised spaces contain equipment that is only occasionally needed to teach a course; a CNC machine in a college engineering workshop counts as a workplace, but it may be required just six hours a week.
Variable Utilisation Method in FE Colleges
The Department for Education Further Education (DfE) toolkit uses a sliding scale suggesting the following best-practice target Utilisation Factors for English Further Education Colleges:
Classrooms/ICT-Rich Classrooms 48%
Small-Scale Specialist (e.g. Laboratories/Specialist ICT) 48%
Medium-Scale Specialist (e.g. Art Rooms/Bench-Based Workshops/Salons) 44%
Large-Scale Specialist (e.g. Catering Kitchens/Health/Dance Studios) 40%
Extra-Large Scale Specialist (e.g. Construction/Engineering) 36%
Example 1: A Construction Training Centre
Curriculum planning suggests that in a typical 40-hour week, a Construction Training Centre needs to accommodate 11,520 student hours. That is 5,760 Classrooms and 5,760 in Construction workshops. Using the DfE best-practice Utilisation Factors, the recommended number of workplaces would be as follows:
For Classrooms:
Total Workplaces = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / UF (%)
Total Workplaces = (5,760/40)/48%
Total Workplaces = 144/48%
Total Workplaces = 300
For Workshops:
Total Workplaces = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / UF (%)
Total Workplaces = (5,760/40)/36%
Total Workplaces = 144/36%
Total Workplaces = 400
Applying the DfE’s sliding scale of utilisation means that for every PAA, there are a third more workplaces for construction than for classrooms (in the above example, 400 workplaces as opposed to 300). Additionally, the recommended DfE Workplace Standard (the floor area allowance per workplace or seat) for Construction is 7.5m2, as opposed to 2.2m2 for Classrooms. So, the 'double-whammy' of a reduced utilisation rate and increased workplace standard means 450% more floor space per PAA.
Fixed Utilisation Method in FE Colleges
To avoid this 'double-whammy', some experts working with FE colleges prefer a fixed utilisation rate across all teaching space types (usually in the low to mid-40s). Any variation is then considered on a case-by-case basis. If this harmonisation of utilisation rates can be accomplished, it will usually be much more space-efficient than the variable method.
Constraining Factors to Consider
Ultimately, in FE or HE, target planned Utilisation Factors are a matter of judgment. We must consider several factors to make informed decisions.
The working patterns of teaching staff (not all staff may teach all week).
Do we need standard break times where all teaching stops?
When will students attend (given personal commitments and travel arrangements)?
The flexibility of the resource (can different subject groups use that teaching space?).
The overall likely demand for the resource.
Setting a high utilisation target may be unrealistic where the space type is only relevant to a few students and demand is low or inconsistent. Conversely, where the facility is useful to many course groups, and there is high demand, a high utilisation target may be reasonable.
Here are four Examples:
A Further Education College offers hairdressing courses. The college has an excellent reputation, and there is no other notable local offer, so enrolment is strong. Most workplaces in the college’s training salons are similar: an adjustable salon chair, a mirror, power outlets and product storage. This resource is usually suitable for most hairdressing students’ practical training. Other equipment (sinks, mannequins) will be needed, but high demand for salon chairs should ensure good utilisation. In this case, we might target a relatively high Utilisation Factor.
Alternatively, an Art School provides each undergraduate Fine Art student with a reserved studio space for their final year. This space can be used to create and ultimately display their work. The School has an excellent reputation and, as such, competes internationally with institutions in London, Vienna, Berlin, California, etc. It’s considered imperative that each final-year Fine Art student has this reserved studio space. Having accepted this principle, utilisation will be entirely down to the students. Given many students’ parallel use of specialist workshops (equipped for ceramics, metalwork, and woodwork) or their use of portable digital technologies, it is likely that the utilisation of the studios will be low. The school has abandoned any notion of a planned UF for these spaces (their use may be more akin to research spaces than teaching spaces). This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that it supports the School’s academic vision, meets the expectations of prospective students, and is financially sustainable.
The above examples do not mean that high utilisation correlates with vocational training and low utilisation with academic teaching.
For example, on a bricklaying course where students do 14 hours of practical work a week, their projects might need to be kept intact from week to week. Therefore, assuming a standard 40-hour week, the UF for a room full of such spaces will be at most 37.5% (14/40).
Alternatively, at a University, classrooms can be shared and timetabled centrally across a large population within a multi-level building used by English Language, Literature, Art and Design, and History Students. This might allow relatively high utilisation (say 45% to 50%).
Thinking in Detail: Seat Use and Room Use
The mathematical formulae at the start of this MabelPost allow us to suggest an overall number of workplaces for a curriculum group based on an assessment of a ‘reasonable’ target utilisation.
UF (%) = Demand for Workplaces / Supply of Workplaces
UF (%) = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / Total Workplaces
Therefore:
Total Workplaces (required) = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / target UF (%)
However, when deciding on target utilisation rates, it is often helpful to consider:
Room Use (aka Frequency): the % of time that a room is in use for lessons
Seat Use (aka Occupancy) is the average % of seats used (during lessons).
Example 2: A Single Room
Assume a single 20-workplace teaching room.
The 20-workplace room is available every weekday for eight hours (40 hours in total).
If the room is always full, then:
20 students x 40 hours = 800 ‘student hours’ are delivered (the maximum possible).
Of course, this is a 100% Utilisation Factor (see below).
However, if the room is only used for 20 hours (in this case, mornings only) rather than 40 hours, then:
20 students x 20 hours = 400 student hours are delivered.
So, the UF has been halved by halving ‘Room Use’.
This is a 50% Utilisation Factor (400 student hours are delivered as opposed to the original 800).
Additionally, if, during lessons, the average Seat Use is only 10 rather than 20, then:
10 students x 20 hours = 200 student hours are delivered.
So, the UF has been halved again by halving ‘Seat Use’.
The Utilisation Factor is now 25% (200 student hours as opposed to the original 800).
In Summary
Room Use (%) x Seat Use (%) = Utilisation Factor (%)
Note: Although there are no seats in some specialist environments (there are workplaces), the term ‘Seat Use’ is a catch-all term used by many consultants.
So, in example 2 above, with a room used for 20 hours by an average of 10 Students (20 seats):
Room Use (50%) x Seat Use (50%) = Utilisation Factor (25%)
This calculation can be compared against our earlier Utilisation Factor formula:
Planned Average Attendance (PAA)/Total Workplaces = UIlisation Factor (UF)
(200 student hours/40 hours) (PAA)/Total Workplaces = UIlisation Factor (UF)
5 (PAA) / 20 workplaces = 25%
Via either route, the Utilisation Factor is the same: 25%.
Both methods can be applied to any sample size, from a whole campus to an individual room and to any type of teaching space.
Using Both Methods Together
Under example 1, the number of classroom workplaces required within the Construction Training Centre was calculated assuming a target Utilisation Factor (UF) of 48%:
To recap:
Total Workplaces = Planned Average Attendance (PAA) / UF (%)
Total Workplaces = (5,760/40)/48%
Total Workplaces = 144/48%
Total Workplaces = 300
The curriculum plan anticipated 5,760 student hours per week (during a 40-hour week).
Assume that the plan also indicates that 5,760 student hours in classrooms will be delivered via 288 hour-long lessons.
This means:
An average of 7.2 lessons at any time (288/40).
An average of 20 students per lesson (5,760/288).
Additionally, the preferred teaching plan is to deliver up to 12 simultaneous lessons on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings between 9 am and 1 pm; these periods are the most popular for staff and students alike, guaranteeing good attendance.
Therefore:
12 Classrooms are proposed to accommodate the peak period, so there is
an average of 25 Workplaces per classroom (300 Workplaces/12 Classrooms).
Therefore,
Room Use is: 7.2 lessons/12 Classrooms = 60%
Seat Use is: 20 students per lesson/25 Workplaces = 80%
Therefore:
Room Use (60%) x Seat Use (80%) = Utilisation Factor (48%) (the above 'target')
At this point, we can consider whether 60% Room Use and 80% Seat Use are achievable (considering the constraining factors noted earlier). If they are, then the target Utilisation Factor is also achievable.
Again, this is a matter of judgement based on context. However, both class sizes and room sizes will likely vary, so a tight margin between average class sizes and room sizes may be difficult to timetable.
As a rule of thumb, it can be challenging to target Room Use or Seat Use over 75%.
In this instance, Seat Use is relatively high. 80% means that the average room will be in use for 32 of the 40 hours. This proposal might be tested by a ‘mock timetable’. A mock timetable would look to fit all the proposed lessons into the 12 proposed classrooms over the 40-hour week.
If the mock timetable appears infeasible, we might consider 10 rather than 12 classrooms. This would mean an average of 30 (rather than 25) Workplaces per classroom (300 Workplaces/10 Classrooms). Of course, it would also mean timetabling fewer lessons on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings.
Under the revised 10-room proposal,
Room Use is: 7.2 lessons/10 Classrooms = 72%
Seat Use is: 20 students per lesson/30 Workplaces = 66%
Therefore:
Room Use (72%) x Seat Use (66%) = Utilisation Factor (48%)
Note that the overall Utilisation Factor remains the same as we have not altered the supply of Workplaces (300).
In summary, by considering Room Use and Seat Use, we can stress-test the feasibility of our utilisation targets. If we cannot find a room use/seat use combination that works for us (for any reason), we can increase the number of workplaces and lower target utilisation.
Next Time
In the next MabelPost, we will examine ‘workplace standards’ (the m2 area per workplace) for different teaching environments. We will then review an example of a whole calculation for a large educational building.