Report from the Technical Working Group

SMG 25/06/12

Paper 6

The University of Edinburgh

Space Management Group [SMG]

25 June 2012

Report from the Technical Working Group

Brief description of the paper

This paper reports the outcome of discussions of the technical working group, which was established by a higher level governance group, to look at alternatives to the NPRAS space incentive scheme. The Group also reviewed how best to push forward other initiatives aimed at improving space management/utilisation.

Action requested

The Space Management Group is invited to:

• note the outcomes of discussion and actions that have been/are being implemented – Appendix 1

• note that Governance Group has recommended that pilot models for the Easter Bush campus and the Institute of Genomic and Molecular Medicine IGMM should be taken forward for implementation in Academic Year 13-14. These pilot models should take account of income, direct and indirect costs and other factors: and

• endorsethe proposed membership of a small working group reporting to the Space Management Group, to take forward the detailed arrangements for the pilots. (Appendix 2–provides a list of proposed members plus comments received that the Group should take into account)

Resource implications

Does the paper have resource implications? Yes

Work to establish the pilot models could have significant resource implications for both estates and finance and systems may well need to be altered to meet the data that is required to support this new method of accounting.

Risk Assessment

Does the paper include a risk analysis? No

Equality and Diversity

Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No

Freedom of information

Can this paper be included in open business? Yes

Originator of the paper

Maureen Masson, Business Manager, Estates and Buildings – June 2012

Paper prepared for the Space and Utilities Charging Governance Group by the Technical Working Group

Background

In the spring of 2011, the Vice Principal for Planning, Resources and Research Policy held a meeting of senior colleagues – the Space and Utilities Charging Governance Group - to consider how best to progress a review of the NPRAS space incentive scheme. The Governance Group identified a set of actions and recommended that a ‘technical working group’, convened by the Senior Vice Principal, should be established to take these forward, with a view to making recommendations about how best to proceed.

Outcome from discussions with other institutions

One of the first actions identified was to analyse practice at other Higher Educations Institutions (HEIs) and a ‘phone-round’ of HEIs was organised by colleagues in Planning and Estates and Buildings. This was extremely worthwhile and helped inform the group’s thinking. The key points arising from these discussions are outlined below:

• There is a wide range of approaches to budget setting ranging from those institutions using a full attribution RAMs with space charging (eg Aberdeen, Bristol and Oxford), RAM contribution models with no space charging (eg Glasgow), to those having no RAM and no space charging (eg Liverpool, Birmingham)

• Most institutions used TRAC estates data but do not necessarily drive the data in the RAM model in the same way as it is driven for TRAC purposes.

• Institutions mainly use charging systems based on occupancy, usage and average costs of space, but systems vary in complexity to reflect chosen institutional policies (eg direct charging of utilities) and the diversity of their estates

• Nearly all institutions use a timetabling system and the majority are moving to central management of all teaching rooms – however, not all institutions yet charge out the costs by usage, but instead use other proxies.

• Clear view expressed by one Estates Director that the only way to reduce space was to link it to costs and charge

• Several institutions (Aberdeen, Bristol and Oxford) using a full attribution RAM believe that increased space efficiency is not primarily driven by space charging

• One institution (Glasgow) believes that space charging encouraged Faculties to give up owned space to centralised booking, and then once space was in a centralised booking system, efficiencies could be achieved

Active monitoring of teaching space is very important in making the case for rationalisation

Further information, including the ‘question and answers scripts’ are available from .

Outcome

The Technical Working Group met on three occasions and at its last meeting on 17 May, an assessment of progress against actions was made. A summary is attached at Appendix 1.

The Group reviewed a number of possible alternatives to NPRAS. It concluded that it would be beneficial to work on two pilot modelsfor the Easter Bush campus and the Institute for Genomic and Molecular Medicine (IGMM). The pilot models would take account of all income and direct and indirect costs and other factors.

The Group also concluded that it had largely completed its work and that it was an opportune time to make recommendations to the Governance Group. These have been accepted. It also considered it was an appropriate time for the Group in its current form to conclude its business in the light of the agreed recommendations.

The Space Management Group is invited to:

1. note the outcomes of discussion and actions that have been/are being implemented;

1. note that Governance Group has recommended that pilot models for the Easter Bush campus and IGMM should be taken forward for implementation in Academic Year 13-14. These pilot models should take account of income, direct and indirect costs and other factors: and

1. endorse the proposed membership of a small working group reporting to the Space Management Group, to take forward the detailed arrangements for the pilots.

(Appendix 2 –provides a list of proposed members plus comments received that the Group should take into account).

Maureen Masson

Estates and Buildings

June 2012

Appendix 1

The following table presents an update on the actions identified by the Governance Group for the Space and Technical Charging Working Group to take forward.

1. Consider the possibility of moving away from NPRAS, and review alternative models, with the overarching aim of producing a model which is transparent.

1. Rationalise and develop an appropriate range of space types and rates

1. Consider the possibility of providing a direct space charging model

1. Consider opportunities and implications from the current utilities devolution project, and whether space and utilities devolution should be progressed together or separately, if at all.

1. i. reinforce the need for all School teaching and learning space to be visible on the booking system in advance of Phase 2 of the timetabling project;

1. and work towards embedding and publicising the SAM tool, and the space standards signed off at SMG on 23/2/11.

1. More generally, establish what data on space and costs are available, identify gaps, and collect additional data where necessary. This should involve calculating costs for non-attributable space; calculating costs per m2; and using drivers which align with TRAC wherever possible.

1. Work on case studies (see list of relevant work in progress above) to assess differences between strong and weaker performers across the University on space utilisation, covering space costs, and reducing utilities consumption. This will help establish success criteria for future work.

Appendix 2

Proposed Membership of the Working Group to progress pilot models for the Easter Bush campus and IGMM Officer Led Group – Draft 1

Assistant Director of Finance [David Montgomery] to lead on this work, and act as the link to the costing technical group

CMVM accountant [Ivor McArdle]

Easter Bush representative

Western General Hospital representative

GASP representative

E&B Management Accountant [Moira McFarlane]

Comments provided by SMG Governance Group members re next steps to progress to areas follows:-

Jim Turner’s commentsdated 15 June 2012

“A). Remitshould state that the pilot models now proposed represent a significant expansion of the original remit beyond "space and utilities charging".

B).Requirements. It should be make explicit that the development and assessment of any alternative model must take into account the following:-

1)Any impact on the rest of the University.

2)The existence of separate agreements in the designated areas.

3) The objective of constructing a pilot model that could be applied throughout the University .

C). Explanation.Important the Group takes on the responsibility to explain the basic principles, structure and methodology of our understanding of a "Gross Model "

This Working Group will report to the Space Management Group and take forward the detailed arrangements for the pilots.

Jeff Haywooddated 8 June – “Agree the better way forward is through the gross model whereby we might be able to give School-level incentives to shed owned space, which could well be their teaching spaces into central ownership”.

Page 1 of 6