Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process

on

  • 1,365 views

MKThink analyzed the classroom portfolio at University of San Francisco and found that shortcoming to address in a proactive rather than reactive process. Analyzing and understanding the correlations ...

MKThink analyzed the classroom portfolio at University of San Francisco and found that shortcoming to address in a proactive rather than reactive process. Analyzing and understanding the correlations among utilization, occupancy, room size, technology standards, and location led MKThink to develop a strategy that doubled capacity without adding any additional space.Prototypical rooms were designed and tested before the classrooms were renovated. Finally, a post-occupancy study identified the design elements that were the most cost-effective, which will allow streamlined prioritization for future projects.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,365
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,361
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Process Presentation Transcript

    • Understanding Your Customer: A Data-Driven Design Process Archie Porter, Registrar, University of San Francisco Nate Goore, Principal, MKThink Laura McCarty, Director of Project Management, University of San Francisco SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -0-
    • Session Overview • University of San Francisco Overview • Classroom Situation Overview • Customer Data-Driven Design Process • Case Study: 2004 Classroom Renovation • Conclusions SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -1-
    • University of San Francisco • Established in 1855 • Private, Catholic, Jesuit • Located on 55 acres in San Francisco • Enrollment is approximately 8,300 – Baccalaureate – Master's – Doctorate – Law QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. “Educating Minds and Hearts to Change the World" SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -2-
    • The University is Implementing a long-term Master Plan in Support of its Institutional Goals • Meet needs of projected enrollment • Support adjacency requirements that promote academic excellence • Enable flexibility to accommodate changing pedagogies • Improve efficient use of existing space SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -3-
    • The Lone Mountain Classrooms Are the Largest Block of Classrooms on Campus Underhill Classrooms 1 Square Feet 400 Lone Mountain Classrooms 31 Square Feet19,188 Sch. of Education CPS Classrooms 15 Classrooms 3 Square Feet 9,644 Square Feet 1,400 Room Type Number Total SF Auditorium (>101 seats) 4 Large Classroom (60-100 seats) 5 Memorial Gym Harney Classrooms 1 Square Feet 944 Classrooms 8 Medium Classroom (36-60 seats) 35 Square Feet 7,382 Small Classroom (21-35 seats) 27 Cowell Classrooms 10 Square Feet 9,409 Seminar Room (<21 seats) 7 TOTAL 78 109,310 Campion Classrooms 9 Square Feet 5,963 SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -4-
    • …and Have Been in use since 1937 • Limited changes and renovations • Historic character Insert original conditions photos SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -5-
    • There Has Always Been a Perceived Shortage of Classrooms on Campus • Existing Rooms don’t meet faculty requirements • Rooms reserved for special uses • Desirable time slots create scheduling conflicts How should we get ahead of the problem? SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -6-
    • Renovation Projects Have Traditionally Been Reactive • Need based on anecdotal information • Project scope defined by available budget • Program driven by available space • Limited user participation SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -7-
    • The Redesigned Process Emphasizes Critical Success Factors • Need based on anecdotal • Needs defined through information rigorous analytics – Quantitative – Qualitative • Project scope defined by • Project scope determined available budget by need • Program driven by • Program determined by available space quantitative analysis – Enrollment/Growth – Schedule issues – Facility issues • Limited user participation • Extensive user participation through entire process SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -8-
    • The product development process Example Bicycle manufacturer Issue • Declining sales of mature product – Popular model, limited changes over past 10 years Objective • Increase and stabilize sales Strategy • Redesign and release updated model QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. -9-
    • Bicycle Manufacturer: Product Development Process Identify Data Collection Develop Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype • Declining Sales • Sales data • Improve • Design options • Focus groups • Customer performance • Features • Prototypes at trade information • Improve reliability shows • Competitive • Lower price • Pre order testing analysis SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 10 -
    • Bicycle Manufacturer: Product Development Process Identify Data Collection Develop Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Design Measure Manufacture Market Modifications Results • Redesign • Test effectiveness based on of modifications, user redesign if needed feedback SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 11 -
    • We adapted this process to the redesign of the Lone Mountain Classrooms Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 12 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 13 -
    • Classrooms will have to accommodate a growing population and changing teaching methods • Accommodate Growth and Classroom Demand – Undergraduate population growth of up to 15% by 2009* – Emphasize residential campus culture • Modernize Classroom Experience – Technology support for lectures, discussion, lab – Qualitative improvements: light, air, acoustics, storage • Embrace Changing Pedagogies – Emerging role of PC as teaching tool – Small group breakout sessions • Manage Financial Resources Efficiently *2002 Strategic enrollment plan SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 14 -
    • These Goals Defined Specific Issues for the Lone Mountain Classrooms • Improve Utilization • Improve Occupancy • Support Pedagogical Requirements • Foster interaction among students and faculty SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 15 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 16 -
    • We collected information from many primary and secondary sources Quantitative Qualitative Academic • 2002 Strategic • Previous need studies and Environment Enrollment plan surveys Needs • Previous need studies • Individual, departmental and surveys interviews and workshops • Registrar reports • Student input: Focus • Best practice research Groups, Interviews, – Regional university observation benchmarking • Faculty Input – Standards (CPEC, • Best practice research DoE FICM) • Building surveys • Previous planning studies Building Opportunities SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 17 -
    • Analystic Utilization Analysis: Methods Correlation Testing Is there aa relationship relationship Is there Seminar Small Medium Large Auditorium between room size and (< 21 seats) (21 –35 seats) (36 –60 seats) (61 –99 seats) (>100 seats) between room size and 90.0 usage? usage? 80.0 Room Utilization (hours/week) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Room Size (seats) SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 18 -
    • Analytic Utilization Analysis: Methods Peak Loading (% in use) Monday 100% Are Resources Being Are Resources Being 90% Scheduled Effectively? Scheduled Effectively? 80% Total 70% 70% CAMPION Utilization 60% 54% 54% COWELL 50% 44% 45% EDUCATION 36% 37% 40% HARNEY 30% LONE MOUNTAIN 20% OTHER 10% 0% 8-10 10-12 12-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 Tuesday 100% Utilization (% in use) 89% 90% 78% 80% Total 68% 70% CAMPION 60% 54% 54% COWELL 50% EDUCATION 40% 32% HARNEY 30% 24% LONE MOUNTAIN 20% OTHER 10% 0% 8-10 10-12 12-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 19 -
    • Analytic Utilization Analysis: Methods Room Location Effect Is there aa relationship relationship Is there between room location between room location and usage? and usage? Lower Campus Upper Campus 90.0 80.0 70.0 Room Utilization (hours/week) 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Cowell Harney Campion Building School of Education Lone Mountain SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 20 -
    • Analytic Utilization Analysis: Methods Valuation What Is the Economic What Is the Economic Value of Improving Value of Improving Utilization? Weekly Room Utilization? Use Hours Available (USF Best Practice*) Utilization 4,081 51.7 h/wk 207 Weekly Room Use Hours 258 Equivalent of Available Utilization Adding 3,276 42 h/wk Equivalent of 39 Classrooms Current Adding at current Weekly Room 168 17 Classrooms utilization Use Hours Utilization 210 at current 2,691 34.5 h/wk utilization Auditorium (>100 seats) 118.7 29.8 Large (61 –99 seats) 175.8 35.3 1808 1470 Medium (36 –60 seats) 1468.3 42.0 1446 1176 Small (21 –35 seats) 852.5 30.2 294 362 Seminar (< 21 seats) 109.1 15.5 WRH WRH CPEC WRH Capacity WRH USF Best Practice Standard *Top 10% performing rooms based on utilization SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 21 -
    • Analytic Occupancy Analysis: Methods Effective Inventory What Is the Effective What Is the Effective Seat Usage? Seat Usage? Current Seats Planning standards 3,464 recommend a minimum of 20s.f. per seat in Auditorium Adjusted Seats @20 sf/seat classrooms without fixed 554 (>100 seats) 2,999 seating Large 382 554 (61 –99 seats) 305 Medium Seats in Use (36 –60 seats) 1653 1,455 1366 151 138 Small 766 (21 –35 seats) 769 682 Seminar 352 (< 21 seats) 106 92 48 Seats Seats Cum Avg Class Size SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 22 -
    • Analytic Occupancy Analysis: Methods Room Capacity Efficiency Are the right rooms Are the right rooms being used for the right being used for the right classes? classes? 160 139 140 120 100 76 80 60 47 38 40 28 28 22 20 15 13 7 Average Seats per room 0 Average class size seminar small medium large auditorium Room Size SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 23 -
    • Analytic Occupancy Analysis: Methods Room Size and Occupancy Correlation Seminar Small Medium Large Auditorium Smaller rooms Are Smaller rooms Are (< 21 seats) (21 –35 seats) (36 –60 seats) (61 –99 seats) (>100 seats) more full? 90% more full? 80% (Based on average occupancy when room is in use) 70% 60% Seat Occupancy 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% - 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Room Size (seats) SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 24 -
    • Analytic Occupancy Analysis: Methods Occupancy/Location Correlation Do certain buildings Do certain buildings have fuller classes? have fuller classes? Lower Campus Upper Campus 90% (Based on average occupancy when room is in use) 80% 70% Seat Occupancy 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cowell Harney Campion Building School of Education Lone Mountain SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 25 -
    • Analytic Occupancy Analysis: Methods Valuation What is the Economic What is the Economic Value of fuller Value of fuller classrooms? classrooms? Seats in Use Occupancy 1,913 71% 396 Seats in Use Equivalent of During Scheduled 273 55 Classrooms Classes Occupancy (44 seat avg.) 1,455 54% at current occupancy levels Auditorium (>100 seats) 151 27% Large (61 –99 seats) 138 36% 1180 Medium (36 –60 seats) 766 46% 549 Small (21 –35 seats) 352 46% Seminar (< 21 seats) 48 45% 76 Cum Avg Class Size CPEC Standard Seats in Use SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 26 -
    • Analytic An Overall Valuation Suggested Capacity Could Methods Be Doubled With no Additional Space Currently Scheduled Rooms Currently Seat Occupancy CPEC Occupancy Standard (71%) Include 30 additional rooms @10 hrs/week, Total Capacity 20 occupied seats per room hour 112,438 Weekly ‘Seat in Use’ Hours Increase utilization to 51.7 USF best practice – Avg. utilization of top 10% utilized rooms Utilization (51.7 hours per week) Increase Room Utilization (hours/week) 42 Increase utilization to Avg. utilization Of top 60% utilized rooms (42 hours per week) 34.5 Current Room Utilization (34.5 hours per week) Add to Improve Current Situation Inventory Occupancy 50,197 Weekly ‘Seat in Use’ Hours 78 88 108 Number of Available Classrooms 71% 54% Room Occupancy SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 27 -
    • The Analysis then Focused On Identifying Drivers of Room Performance ROOM 244A -DOOR SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 28 -
    • Analytic Internal Benchmarking Analysis: Methods Qualitative Feature Correlations What Are the What Are the Characteristics of Top Characteristics of Top and Bottom Top Five Room Size (sf) Seats Avg. Weekly and Bottom Performers? FacultyPerformers? Feedback Class Size hours in use • Proximity to parking lot and elevator, easy Education 40 972 54 18 79 to move teaching materials • Breakout rooms Lone Mountain 344 811 49 21 55 • Size and proportion ideal • No adjoining rooms, limited outside noise Lone Mountain 358 774 35 15 54 • Size and proportion ideal • No adjoining rooms, limited outside noise Education 102 718 42 14 54 • Size and proportion ideal • Good location near entry Education 104 484 32 12 52 • Size and proportion ideal • Good location near entry Bottom Five Room Size (sf) Seats Avg. Weekly Class Size hours in use Lone Mountain 152 684 35 11 19 • Bad acoustics – sound transmission from auditorium Cowell 226 835 25 16 16 • Often reserved for other uses Cowell 113 1,290 120 27 16 • Often reserved for other uses Lone Mountain 343 273 12 10 15 • Too small, poor layout • Bad acoustics Lone Mountain 342 112 10 8 13 • Too small, poor layout • Bad acoustics SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 29 -
    • Analytic Room Features Were Categorized and Methods Measured Across Campus… Classroom Environment Presentation Tools Network Connectivity Quantitative • White Boards • # Network Connections • Occupancy • Black boards • ISDN • Number of • # Ctr. Screens • Analog lines Seats • Side Screens • Cable • Tiered ? • Selective Light Control • Floor level ? • MM Podium • Podium PC Qualitative • Podium VCR • Acoustic Quality • Digital • Lighting Quality Projectors • Monitors • Climate (HVAC) • Overhead • Furniture Quality Projector • Layout Quality • Slide projector • Sightlines SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 30 -
    • Analytic Methods …And Correlated Against Utilization… High Significant No Correlation Classroom Environment • Occupancy • Tiered ? • Climate (HVAC) • Number of Seats • Acoustic Quality • Layout Quality • Floor level (negative) • Lighting Quality • Sightlines • Furniture Quality (negative) Presentation Tools • Side Screens • Selective Light Control • White Boards • Podium VCR • MM Podium • Black boards • Digital Projectors • Podium PC • # Ctr. Screens • Monitors • Overhead Projector Network Connectivity • # Network Connections • Cable • ISDN • Analog lines SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 31 -
    • Analytic Methods …And Occupancy High Significant No Correlation Classroom Environment • Occupancy • Floor level (negative) • Tiered ? • Number of Seats • Acoustic Quality • Climate (HVAC) • Lighting Quality • Sightlines • Layout Quality • Furniture Quality Presentation Tools • Side Screens • MM Podium • White Boards • Podium PC • Black boards • Podium VCR • # Ctr. Screens • Digital Projectors • Monitors • Overhead Projector • Selective Light Control Network Connectivity • Cable • ISDN • # Network Connections • Analog lines SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 32 -
    • Analytic The Correlations Defined the Drivers of Room Methods Performance Correlations 1.00 0.80 Number of Seats Side Screen P<.001 Podium VCR 0.60 Digital Projectors Layout Quality Network Connections P>.05 0.40 Percent Occupancy Tiered Acoustic Quality Lighting Quality 0.20 Set Light Control MM Podium Podium PC Cable 0.00 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Climate (HVAC) -0.20 Sightlines White Boards Black Boards #Ctr. Screens Furniture Quality Podium DVD -0.40 Monitors Overhead Projector PA Slide Projector Floor Level -0.60 ISDN Analog Lines -0.80 -1.00 Average Room in Use Hours SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 33 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Key Issues and Analysis Define Criteria Prototype Test Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 34 -
    • Criteria Criteria Were Established Through a Set of Design Standards Intent: Design Criteria: Recommended: • To facilitate and promote effective • Aspect ratio should not exceed 3:2 classroom-based learning. • Slab to slab partitions with sound insulation • To provide adequate flexibility to allow to maximize acoustic qualities for a range of teaching styles. • Visibility into classrooms through clear and • To accommodate a variety of obscured glass. audio/visual presentations and – Side lites interactive teaching technologies. – Lite in door • Natural light is preferred when space plan • To optimize the use of space through Conference rooms should range from a 1:1 aspect classroom environments designed to permits in small/medium sized rooms ratio for large rooms to a 3:2 aspect ratio for small accommodate specific ranges of class • General lighting provided by indirect rooms in order to optimize communication sizes. fluorescent fixtures; directional lighting as required Avoid: • Opening windows in small/medium sized rooms preferred • Easily moved tables and chairs for quick reconfiguration of classroom Rooms exceeding a 3:2 aspect ratio result in long, thin spaces unsuitable for effective group interaction Classroom with movable seating and multiple writing surfaces is ideally suited to flexible configurations SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 35 -
    • Criteria The Standards Defined Important Environmental Aspects of the Rooms… Lighting Recommended: Daylight is the ideal way to bring light into a space. It conserves energy and enhances the learning environment by creating a connection between exterior and interior. Whenever possible and feasible, natural lighting is recommended as a supplement to indirect artificial lighting. Acoustics The acoustical properties of a classroom are one of the most important factors contributing to its usage. Unwanted sound must not enter a classroom from adjoining spaces; at the same time, sound must reverberate appropriately within the room to ensure all students can hear Natural light and ventilation, and movable Indirect artificial lighting, movable tables with the instructor, audio/visual media, and other tables with chairs chairs and multiple wall-writing surfaces students. Furniture Avoid: Movable tables and chairs offer the greatest flexibility and comfort. They also allow for quick reconfigurations of the classroom by the instructor and students. Tablet chairs should be avoided due to their limiting proportions and right-handed bias. Fixed seating is also not recommended in small and medium sized classrooms. Technology Today’s classroom experience is constantly evolving as new technologies enter the Uncomfortable, cramped tablet seats and fixed Surfaces which will reflect and/or transmit classroom. Wherever possible, presentation seating (in all but large lecture halls) sound into adjoining rooms; direct hardware, power access, and network access downlighting should be provided. SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 36 -
    • Criteria …As Well As Technology Standards Presentation and Computer Level Description Network AC Power Equipment 1 • Fixed access to networked • Instructor’s station • Instructor’s station • Available PC cart with LCD projector resources and available projection • Perimeter wall • Screen equipment for a single presenter • VCR and monitor • Adjustable lighting control 2 • Fixed network and dedicated • Instructor’s station • One presentation station • Lectern with media-switching control panel computer and presentation media • Perimeter wall • Computer with CD-RW and DVD player equipment for a single • Laptop connection presentation station • Overhead mounted LCD projector • Enhanced speakers with colume control • Document camera • Screen • VCR with direct screen projection • Adjustable lighting control • Remote control for computer and LCD projector • Television 3 • Level 2 with wireless access to • Instructor’s station • One presentation station • See Level 2 networked resources for • Wireless Access Point(s) • Perimeter wall instructors and students 4 • Networked computer and • Instructor’s station • All presentation stations • See Level 2 presentation media equipment for • Student desks/floor • Accessible power to desks • Student PC workstations or laptop connection each station in the classroom mount or Wireless • Optional wireless cart Access Point 5 • Level 2 with flexible students • Instructor’s station • All presentation stations • Interactive videoconferencing with control to switch seating, interactive • Accessible power to desks among receiving sites teleconferencing capability and • Tabletop omni-directional microphones enhanced audio and video • Object projection camera resources • Presentation media switching control panel with PC/laptop connection • Monitors (preview, broadcast, remote) Excerpted from “Classroom Technology Upgrades” Planning Initiative, January 2003 SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 37 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 38 -
    • Prototypes Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis Standard Plan Design Criteria • Lighting 20’-0” - Natural lighting - Overhead indirect lighting - Directional lighting on blackboard/ whiteboard surfaces • Acoustics - Minimize sound transmission from hall, 15’-0” other rooms - Sound absorbing materials - Insulated wall sections • Furniture - Blackboard/ Whiteboard: 12’x4’ min. with continuous chalk rail and clip rail - Projection screen - Movable tables - Task chairs • Technology/ Power Usage Planning Criteria - Minimum: Access to networked • Small interactive classes • Integrate with larger classrooms resources by instructor (level 1) • Accommodates up to 15 people • Locate on building perimeter - Preferred: Fixed network and dedicated (18 preferable) • Locate near faculty offices computational and presentation media • 3:4 ideal proportion equipment for instructor (level 2) • 300 sf - Power on each wall • Finishes - Floor: Carpet - Walls: Paint - Ceiling: Acoustic tile - Exterior window coverings: Miniblinds and blackout shades • Ventilation - Natural ventilation preferred SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 39 -
    • Prototypes Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis Standard Plan Design Criteria 25’-0” 25’-0” • Lighting - Natural lighting - Overhead indirect lighting - Directional lighting on blackboard/ whiteboard surfaces • Acoustics - Minimize sound transmission from hall, other rooms 28’-0” - Sound absorbing materials - Insulated wall sections - Sufficient reflectivity for students in rear to hear • Furniture - Blackboard/ Whiteboard: 16’x4’ min. with continuous chalk rail and clip rail (preferably two) - Projection screen - Movable tables 10’-0” - Task chairs • Technology/ Power - Fixed network and dedicated computational and presentation media equipment for Usage Planning Criteria instructor (level 2) - Power on each wall • Flexible environment accommodating • Plan in groups of 2 - 4 • Finishes lecture, discussion, breakout groups • Integrate breakout rooms, - Floor: Carpet • Easily reconfigurable by instructor, storage, and informal meeting - Walls: Paint students space into planning module - Ceiling: Acoustic tile • Accommodates up to 35 people (40 - Exterior window coverings: Miniblinds preferable) and blackout shades • 1:1 proportion • Ventilation • 700 sf min. (classroom) - Natural ventilation preferred • 120 sf (breakout rooms) SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 40 -
    • Prototypes Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis Standard Plan 50’-0” Design Criteria • Lighting - Overhead zoned direct/ indirect lighting - Directional lighting on blackboard/ whiteboard surfaces - Dimmer control for all zones • Acoustics - Minimize external sound transmission - Room designed to optimize acoustics - Amplified lecturer station • Furniture - Fixed tiered continuous tables - Wide teaching counter housing document camera, screen controls, lighting controls, 48’-0” and video equipment - 2 projection screens, sectional whiteboard - Task chairs • Technology/ Power - Fixed network and dedicated computational and presentation media equipment for instructor (level 2) - Multiple networked projectors - Power on front wall and in tables • Finishes - Floor: Carpet - Walls: Paint - Ceiling: Acoustic tile/ drywall • Ventilation - Mechanical ventilation systems Usage Planning Criteria - Large class lecture hall - Provide adequate interaction - Accommodates up to 80 - 120 people and storage space in immediate - 1:1 ideal proportion vicinity - 1,600 – 2,400 sf SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 41 -
    • Prototypes Prototypical Rooms Were Designed Based on the Analysis Standard Plan Design Criteria 38’-0” • Lighting - Overhead zoned direct/ indirect lighting - Directional lighting on blackboard/ whiteboard surfaces • Acoustics - Minimize external sound - Sufficient reflectivity for students in rear to hear Furniture 30’-0” • - Wide teaching counter housing document camera, screen controls, PC connection, lighting controls, and video equipment - 3 projection screens, sectional whiteboard Usage - Tables configured to allow for lecture, discussion, group and individual work - Collaborative studio - Task chairs environment housing • Technology/ Power both individual/ group - Recessed floor power and telecom/ data work and lecture boxes modes independently - Fixed and networked computational or concurrently and presentation media equipment with - Sufficient circulation specific architecture and software space for instructor’s designed for media-delivered instruction, movement through for instructors and all stations (level 6) class • Finishes 30’-0” - Accommodates up to - Floor: Carpet 30 people (35 preferable) - Walls: Paint - 3:4 ideal proportion - Ceiling: Acoustic tile - 1,140 sf • Ventilation - Mechanical ventilation systems SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 42 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Key Issues and Analysis Define Criteria Prototype Test Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 43 -
    • The Prototypes Were Tested Through a Variety of Methods • Focus group reviews – Room Configurations – Technology Support • Full scale mock-ups – Audio/Video setup with Smart Box – Furniture configurations – Lighting control – Breakout Rooms Results of the Testing Were Used to Refine the Prototype Designs SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 44 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 45 -
    • Design The Analysis, Prototypes, and Testing Directly Feed the Architectural Design Phase • Application of standards/prototypes to existing environment – Modifications to idealized prototypes to accommodate physical constraints – Leverage opportunities found in existing environment • Limited rework and redesign – Approvals already received during earlier phases – Clear understanding of project intent SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 46 -
    • Design The Renovations focused on Rightsizing the Classrooms… Original Conditions Redesigned SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 47 -
    • Design …Adding Breakout Rooms… Original Conditions Redesigned SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 48 -
    • Design …And Creating Informal Interaction Space Original Conditions Redesigned SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 49 -
    • Design The Improvements Also Focused on Specific Functional and Environmental Issues • Lighting – Improve lighting level and eliminate glare – Provide zone control • Improve acoustic conditions – Reduce in-room reverberation – Eliminate adjoining room transmission • Additional wall writing surfaces • Presentation/Display technology in all rooms – Projector – Screen – DVD/VCR – Laptop Connection Station – Remote control SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 50 -
    • Design & Maintaining the Identity and Character of the Construction Space Was Critical to the Success of the Project SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 51 -
    • Design & Construction Original Elements were Restored and Reused… SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 52 -
    • Design & …While New Functional Space Types Were Construction Created… SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 53 -
    • Design & …With an Emphasis on Natural Light and Construction Ventilation SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 54 -
    • Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 55 -
    • Measure Results Post-Occupancy Analysis • Critical step of process: feedback loop • Measure results • Assess overall success of project • Understand what worked, what didn’t • Analyze value of key features and criteria • Apply learnings to future projects SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 56 -
    • Measure For the Post Occupancy analysis, We Conducted Results Another Round of Data Collection • Qualitative – Observations – Focus Groups (faculty) • Quantitative – Enrollment Data – Course Scheduling – Survey (students and faculty) SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 57 -
    • Measure The Analysis Focused on Five Measures of Results Success • Overall Satisfaction • Noticeability of Improvements • Perceived Impact of Features • Relative Feature Impact • Dollar-Adjusted Impact SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 58 -
    • Measure Results Classroom users Were Satisfied with the Results In general the new classroom meets my needs. 100% 80% 60% In general the new classroom meets my 40% needs. 20% 0% ee e e re re .. gr a. Ag ag is tA is tD ly ha D ng ha ly ew ro ng ew m St ro m So St So Satisfaction = Validation of Project SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 59 -
    • Measure The Most Noticeable Improvements had an Results Immediate Impact on Usage • Aesthetic Improvement • Technology upgrades • Acoustics Noticeability = Good PR SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 60 -
    • Measure Results Individual Features Received Positive Responses The interaction space (padded seating area) is useful. How important is the flexible and configurable seating in your classrooms? 100% 90% 80% 100% 70% 90% The interaction space 80% How important is the 60% 70% 50% (padded seating area) is 60% flexible and configurable 40% 50% useful. 40% seating in your 30% 30% 20% 20% classrooms? 10% 10% 0% 0% t nt nt nt n rta ee e e rta e rta rta re e re r gr po po po po ag Ag Ag a Im Im Im Im is is ly t ha D D ng ry t ot ha t ly ew ha Ve N ro ng ew m ew St ro So m m St So So The quantity of tables and chairs in the classroom is... There is enough blackboard and whiteboard space. 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% There is enough 70% 60% The quantity of tables 50% blackboard and 60% 40% 50% and chairs in the 30% whiteboard space. 40% 20% classroom is... 10% 30% 0% 20% 10% e e ee e re re re 0% gr ag ag Ag tA is is ly ht ha tD D h h ng ug ig uc ly ew ha ro no R ng M ut m ew St tE o ro To So bo m No St A So SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 61 -
    • Measure The Relative Feature Impact Assessed the Results Importance of Features to a Successful Room • Conjoint Analysis • Respondents select degree of preference between room pairs with varying features • Analysis determines relative degree of preference of individual features ROOM FEATURE RELATIVE FEATURE IMPACT Moveable Tables and Chairs (vs. other forms of seating) .33 Natural light/ventilation through operable windows .29 Permanent A/V equipment, no computer (vs. carts) .17 Carpet (vs. bare floors) .07 Whiteboard/Blackboards front and back (vs. front only) -.05 SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 62 -
    • Measure Relative Feature Impact Was Mapped Against Results Feature Cost… SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 63 -
    • Measure …Leading to a Prioritization of Features for Results Future Projects Avoid Evaluate Low Priority High Priority SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 64 -
    • Measure Post-Occupancy Value Comes from Application Results of Findings to Future Efforts Inform Future Projects Identify Data Collection Design Define Criteria Test Key Issues and Analysis Prototype Architectural Measure Construction Occupy Design Results SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 65 -
    • Conclusions • Adapting a Product Development Process optimizes design for user satisfaction • Decisions are based on comprehensive data collection and analysis, not anecdotal information • Key decisions made early in process avoids costly changes • Measuring results informs future projects SM © Copyright 2002 Miller/Kelley. All rights reserved. - 66 -