Provision and development of premises - Faculty of Science and Technology

Introduction

The Faculty of Science and Technology’s organisation is mainly located in the following campus management areas: Polacksbacken, Lagerträdet (Geo Centre and the Evolutionary Biology Centre), Uppsala Biomedical Centre and Campus Gotland. As Campus Gotland in its entirety is covered by a separate premises provision plan, this plan only relates to premises in Uppsala. The faculty also uses smaller premises and infrastructure located elsewhere and these have been included in this inventory. At present, Polacksbacken contains the Ångström Laboratory and Information Technology Centre (ITC); however, at the turn of the year 21/22 ITC’s operations will be moving into the new Building 10 at the Ångström Laboratory. Taking a nine-year perspective, any further expansion of Ångström is clearly unlikely in the near future, so our point of departure is adaptations to existing buildings and a greater focus on other areas of campus.

One important starting point for future premises planning is sustainability and a new survey of the University’s climate impact shows that premises account for a significant percentage of said impact. Energy efficiency and efficient utilisation of premises are of course something we strive after and this also has financial benefits in terms of resource efficiency. One measure discussed in the plan is the increased use of unbooked classrooms by students, something that would be facilitated by improved system support. Another is increased mobility between campuses, both for teaching and the use of facilities such as group rooms. Here there are both pros and cons, as well as limitations, including the speed with which teachers and students can travel.

Flexible and attractive premises are vital to the faculty’s ability to recruit and retain students and staff. A good work environment benefits the organisation and on-campus meeting places make a positive contribution. The greater experience of digital tools we gained during the pandemic will undoubtedly affect how we work when things return to normal, even if it is still too early to say exactly how. Certain tendencies are already clear, such as a greater focus on good equipment for digital meetings and digital elements in teaching. Other issues, such as likely demand for teaching premises in terms of size and design, and how office space can be utilised more efficiently, require further discussion. Laboratories are key to both our research and teaching activities. Laboratory and other infrastructure needs can be covered at various levels, whether that be locally by the department or faculty or at national and international levels. A shift towards increased calculation and data management is clear in large parts of the organisation and it is important that we are able to adapt premises accordingly. Coordinated and shared use should be sought where possible, both to save resources and to concentrate our efforts, thereby enhancing quality.

Background

Pursuant to the assignment from the University Board in Uppsala University’s Premises Provision Plan 2021–2023 (ref. no. UFV 2019/2124, adopted 17.12.2020), each disciplinary domain shall prepare a nine-year plan for the long-term provision and development of premises.

For the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, this assignment and the composition of the working group was formalised in the terms of reference issued by the Faculty Board on 13.04.2021 (TEKNAT 2021/111).

Working group, methodology and situational analysis

The composition and working methods of the working group

The working group consisted of:

• Charlotte Platzer Björkman, deputy vice-rector (chair)
• Johan Ledin, director of campus management area Lagerträdet
• Mikael Jonsson, director of campus management area Polacksbacken
• Erik Sahlée, deputy head of the Department of Earth Sciences
• Helena Danielsson, head of the Department of Chemistry (BMC)
• Georgios Dimitroglou Rizell, head of the Department of Mathematics
• Casper Fredriksson de Rond, student representative Support from University Administration:
• Karin Berggren Bremdal, Office for Science and Technology
• Robert Arktell, Buildings Division

Charlotte Platzer Björkman has been responsible for preparing working group meetings with the support of Karin Berggren Bremdal and Robert Arktell.

The working group has met on a regular basis during the project. Up-to-date information has been presented at meetings based on the ongoing work of gathering information, and matters identified as key issues have been presented and discussed within the group. Large parts of meeting time have been allocated to discussions.

Methods for gathering information

Information has been gathered by sending a questionnaire to all heads of department and interviewing facilities managers for the campus areas Lagerträdet and Polacksbacken, student representatives, schedulers, programme coordinators and the University’s lease manager.

Situation as of 2020

As of 31.12.2020, the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology had internal rent costs of

SEK 210 million for approximately 63,500 m2 of premises for its own use (including operations on Campus Gotland). This is equivalent to approximately 25% of Uppsala University’s total internal rent income and 21% of the University’s total area.

To put these figures in perspective, we reviewed the figures for the period 2011–2020. This revealed that both the actual area and internal rent had increased somewhat over the period, the area by approximately 4,000 m2 and the internal rent by approximately SEK 30 million. During the period, the cost per square metre increased from approximately SEK 3,060/m2 to approximately SEK 3,300/m2. It is worth mentioning that the New Ångström project is not included in the above calculations and will have an impact on both internal rent and square metres once the University takes possession of the premises.

For further information, please refer to Appendix 3.

In 2019, the approximate occupancy rate for bookable teaching premises in Lagerträdet was 28% and for Ångström 39%. The average for Uppsala University as a whole is approximately 32%. It is however important to underline that these figures do not always reflect the amount of time the premises are in use – by students studying, for example – implying that the actual occupancy rate is likely to be higher, especially for smaller bookable premises (group rooms and small classrooms).

Results of the information gathered

In this section, we present key points from information gathering. The information is presented based on the organisation/function that supplied it. The section concludes with a summary including the working group’s assessment of which issues it is particularly important to focus on going forward.

Departments

Responses to the questionnaire suggest that the organisations are generally satisfied and consider the premises to be fit for purpose. Sustainability is highlighted as an important concern and point of departure for future decisions regarding premises.

There is a positive belief that operations can be developed/expanded in future, and that with the development of new teaching and working methods this need not require additional premises. In all likelihood, the increased digitisation of society, a process accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic, will have an impact on future teaching and working methods.

The question of which types of laboratory we are likely to need in future was also raised from several quarters: will needs be similar to those we see today, or will we need to design laboratories differently as the direction of research in some subjects shifts towards the theoretical and datadriven? It is deemed important to continue monitoring this issue so that premises provision can be adapted to the changing needs of the organisation. Laboratories and infrastructure for education were also highlighted as essential to good quality.

Facilities managers

The two main campus management areas used by the faculty are Lagerträdet and Polacksbacken. The faculty also operates from the campus management area Uppsala Biomedical Centre.

Facilities managers highlight technical developments that present challenges to supporting bookable premises, including hybrid rooms, partly due to the increased demand during the pandemic and partly due to a ambiguity in assignments to University IT Services (UIT).

While Polacksbacken foresees challenges with regard to relocation/expansion due to low vacancy rates (too few empty rooms and premises), the Evolutionary Biology Centre in Lagerträdet has the opposite problem, too many empty rooms and premises split over several buildings, a situation that risks the campus area seeming “deserted”. The Evolutionary Biology Centre warns of a need to consolidate operations into fewer buildings/floors to enliven the area, increase interaction and allow the University to utilise empty space for other activities. There has also been some discussion regarding how to attract departments and external companies with links to the organisation to the empty spaces, to create a more vibrant and dynamic environment.

Occupancy rates are generally low for teaching premises in terms of booked time. In part, the feeling is that this can be explained by the fact that many lectures are timetabled for the beginning of the semester, with more independent study towards the end, as well as how the day is allocated in

certain subjects, where the time needed for certain teaching activities (mainly laboratory sessions) is difficult to calculate, meaning that they need to be timetabled at the end of the day. While unbooked teaching premises are often used by students for studying, this time is not registered in the booking system and so is not counted in occupancy rates. There are differences between the campus management areas regarding how students can make use of unbooked teaching premises. At Polacksbacken, students have a relatively high degree of access, while those at Lagerträdet have more limited access. This has an impact on the overall utilisation of the premises and students access to study rooms. It is reckoned that access to study areas and occupancy rates for teaching premises could be improved by better “matching”. To make this possible, it seems likely that some form of technical solution for finding and booking vacant premises in real time would need to be developed.

One prerequisite for effective and advanced cooperation between the campus management areas Uppsala Biomedical Centre, Lagerträdet and Polacksbacken on measures to increase the efficiency of premises provision – better coordination regarding fume cupboards, for example – is good contacts and dialogue between facilities managers. This currently works well and it is important to safeguard for the future.

Study areas are highlighted as an important issue that could be advantageously dealt with at a higher (more central) level to see the bigger picture and identify synergies for the University. There is capacity for more study areas at the Evolutionary Biology Centre should the need arise.

While there is the potential capacity to accommodate additional operations at the Evolutionary Biology Centre (from elsewhere in the faculty), to do so would require greater clarity and incentives at faculty level, rather than just departmental level.

Students

The importance of study areas is underlined. Students describe a situation in which they often find themselves searching for a suitable place to study and that, when they do find one, the quality is variable. It would be desirable to have a better overview of available rooms for study and the possibility to book these digitally. This encompasses the possibility to use unbooked teaching premises for independent study. It is also felt that the possibility to obtain a visual overview and book study areas in real time would encourage mobility between campus areas to find somewhere to study.

Students are generally positive about moving between campus areas to attend teaching activities and this is relatively common already. One prerequisite is that sufficient time is allocated to transport between the different campus areas. The timetabling of lunch was also raised, as it is often crowded when many people go from lectures to lunch at the same time.

It is important to monitor pedagogical developments and the interactive classroom at Blåsenhus is highlighted as a good example of a facility that people would like to see more of.

Another need that students highlight is access to computer rooms, which are not bookable for teaching, so that they can work on projects with the right software.

Timetables

Joint courses and linking to practical course components present challenges to schedulers and make it difficult to optimise occupancy rates. Joint courses require large lecture halls, making timetabling and premises allocation less flexible. These courses are already scattered across several campus areas and there is good cooperation between schedulers.

By focusing more on available capacity and less on personal wishes – specific lecture halls and lecture times, for example – the capacity exists to improve the utilisation of teaching premises. A clearer procedure for always checking with schedulers before booking major conferences that occupy large lecture halls at Ångström would also prevent clashes with teaching activities. Where possible, major conferences should be arranged during exam weeks or similar periods when there is less demand for large lecture halls.

Education

Teaching premises are a vital resource, the “third teacher”. There are advantages to students moving around between campus areas, including the opportunity to experience the riches that a broad university such as Uppsala offers. Naturally, moving around also presents challenges and requires that students and teachers have sufficient time to transfer from one building and campus area to the next. Perhaps one good solution might be to timetable full days in a different area of campus?

While there is clearly a desire and demand for flexible premises, flexibility can mean both a mix of different premises and individual premises that are flexible in themselves, i.e. they can be adapted to various types pf teaching. Both of these have their pros and cons. It is important that we remain apprised of developments nationally and internationally, especially of the experiences gained during the coronavirus pandemic.

An amendment to the Swedish Higher Education Act (SFS 1992:1434) gave higher education institutions the new assignment of promoting lifelong learning. The faculty has already established a number of courses in the field of lifelong learning. This is a target group that requires a large element of digital teaching.

There is reckoned to be an increased need for premises for e-exams, which often involve students both writing their examination papers on a computer and submitting handwritten calculations, formulas and sketches.

Landlords

At the time of writing this report (November 2021), the University and its landlord Akademiska Hus are in negotiations regarding the Uppsala Biomedical Centre that, depending on the outcome, may have some impact on those departments at the faculty that use the centre.

Otherwise, there are no negotiations or imminent terminations of leases that we are aware of that are expected to affect the faculty’s operations to any meaningful extent during the period.

One challenge highlighted at Polacksbacken is the low vacancy rate, i.e. that there are few available premises to meet any future relocation or expansion needs.

Summary

Based on the reported results obtained from information gathering, it is possible to call attention to a couple of matters of priority that can be dealt with and proposals presented to the Faculty Board.

The first issue concerns the Evolutionary Biology Centre and the challenges presented by high costs and a relatively high percentage of empty premises.

The second concerns the coordination of premises between different campus management areas within the disciplinary domain. Over the course of this work, it has become apparent that, as a rule, each campus management area deals with its own issues and needs within the scope of its own opportunities and limitations.

The third issue concerns teaching premises and the challenges presented by fluctuating occupancy rates.

The fourth concerns places for independent study. Students express the need for an improved overview (ideally visual) of available study rooms and the ability to book these online.

The working group’s proposal to the Faculty Board

As stated in the report, there are certain issues of a more urgent nature related to the Evolutionary Biology Centre, particularly the specific challenges presented by costs and empty premises. These issues should be addressed separately and are therefore omitted from the following proposals for longer-term structural measures.

Forum for drafting issues related to premises

Over the course of this work, the need for a forum for drafting proposals related to all areas of longterm premises provision has become clear. This will involve campus area management to a greater extent in deciding on objectives and trade-offs. This forum should also include the relevant facilities managers. Issues that may appropriately be addressed by the forum include expansion needs, terminating leases, the provision of study areas and coordination between facilities managers.

The Faculty Board decides that:

a forum shall be established for preparing matters related to premises that will follow up facultywide issues.

The group shall meet at least once each semester and consist of the following functions:

The vice-rector or deputy vice-rector (convener)

A student representative

The directors of the campus management areas Polacksbacken and Lagerträdet

A representative of the Faculty of Science and Technology from the Uppsala Biomedical Centre

A representative of the Faculty Office

A representative of the Buildings Division

Increased coordination of teaching premises

In terms of bookings, the occupancy rate for bookable teaching premises is generally low within the faculty, and indeed the University as a whole. As teaching develops, the need for teaching premises with regard to seating capacity and teaching aids will also change. One discussion that may, and perhaps should, take place is whether it would be appropriate to utilise teaching premises across campus management areas to a greater extent; for example, might it be worth moving some teaching activities from the Uppsala Biomedical Centre to the Evolutionary Biology Centre to both utilise the Evolutionary Biology Centre more effectively and to create opportunities for meetings between students on different programmes? One prerequisite for effective teaching, should teachers be asked to teach in an alternative campus area, is that the infrastructure around AV equipment works well.

Greater coordination and uniformity is required between campus management areas. As things stand, this is made more difficult by the fact that campus management areas are currently tasked with dealing with AV issues, meaning that different areas of campus have different systems.

The Faculty Board decides that:

via the forum for drafting issues related to premises, an annual follow up will be conducted of the occupancy rates of bookable teaching premises within the area and measures proposed with the ambition of, as a first step, increasing the occupancy rate in the faculty’s campus areas to approximately 40% by the end of 2024; the mandate of schedulers should be developed to allow them to plan timetables based more on the functional need for premises given the form of teaching and available capacity, and less on individual requests from teachers that bear no relation to teaching needs; the premises provision perspective shall be considered in conjunction with designing new and existing courses and programmes; and

efforts shall be made to improve the coordination of AV equipment and support within the University.

Increased coordination of places for independent study

A university-wide inquiry into student areas was launched in autumn 2021 under the direction of the Planning Division. Irrespective of the outcome of this inquiry, it is important that the disciplinary domain works actively on this issue, above all to examine the possibility of developing a solution to provide a visual overview of available study rooms and make it easy to book them, as well as to ensure good access to unbooked teaching premises.

The Faculty Board decides that:

efforts shall be made to identify appropriate system support, preferably at university-wide level, to both create a visual overview of free study places, including unbooked classrooms, and to make it possible to book study rooms online, thereby following up the issue of premises use.

Governing principles and review

Governing principles

• Uppsala University’s Premises Provision Plan 2021–2023 contains a number of governing principles that the disciplinary domain is required to take into account when planning long-term premises provision. These are:
• The needs of the organisation govern the provision of premises.
• The provision of premises is governed and developed in dialogue.
• Premises provision promotes climate adaptation and reduces climate impact.
• New premises for research and education are primarily developed in close proximity to existing university campuses.
• The physical environment should be all-purpose, flexible and varied.
• It should be possible to jointly utilise premises.
• The usability and design of outdoor environments shall be given due consideration.

Review

Pursuant to the terms of reference in Uppsala University’s Premises Provision Plan (UFV 2017/1382), the plan in its entirety is valid for a period of nine years and is extended on an ongoing basis after an annual review. The annual review of thee plan shall also follow the individual decisions/activities under section 5 above.

Appendix 1: Project Directive

See link to original document below, "PDF", pp. 10-12.

Appendix 2: Process

Process for investigating the Faculty of Science and Technology’s long term premises needs

Element Completed

1. Kickoff April 2021
   • Goals and vision
   • Project Directive
   • Project Plan containing purpose and goals, defined processes, project organisation, timetable, budget, etc.

1. Inventory and analysis May–Sept 2021

Exhaustive inventory of the current situation and outlook for the future and external environment from the following perspectives

• Organisation
• Users (perceptions of premises)
  • Social study areas
  • Workplaces for teachers
• Property

1. Test, develop and design Oct–Nov 2021

Alternative methods for achieving goals are tested

1. Compilation Jan 2022

Once the alternatives have been assessed, results will be compiled and reported to the Disciplinary Domain Board.

Information meetings

4 May or 26 May, information and discussion at department heads’ meeting prior to sending out a questionnaire

23 Nov, status report, information and discussion by the Board.

Feb 2022, final report presented to the Board

Appendix 3: Premises total area and costs, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, development 2010–2020

See link to original document below, "PDF", pp. 14-15.