Workshop 2

University of Liverpool

19 October 2011

Attendance

Background (Steven Dickson)

The University of Liverpool has five key strategic objectives: research excellence, student excellence, knowledge exchange, widening participation and global reach. 

There is a clear emphasis on sustainability, in its widest sense, within the Strategic Plan the Estates Strategy and the Universities Capital Plan.

The Central Teaching Laboratories project exemplifies the key aims and objectives to deliver a high quality, efficient and multi-disciplinary environment to enhance the student experience, whilst optimising resources. 

Over 86% of the Liverpool estate is more than 30 years old, only 65% is in condition A and B and much is functionally unsuitable. Utilisation of teaching space is around 19%. 

The University has established a capital investment plan which will deliver £350m of academic and support developments and £250m of new residential developments over the next ten years. 

The programme was established through a rigorous assessment process developed from the estate strategy identifying specific projects through costing, ranking against strategic objectives into the capital plan. 

Central Teaching Laboratories (CTL) (Phil Woodward) 

The project was driven by the need to accommodate a growing number of undergraduate students and a range of partner and widening participation initiatives in poor quality existing laboratory space, particularly in Physics and Chemistry. 

It was identified that opportunities existed to bring together the laboratory requirements of the departments of Physics, Chemistry, Geography, Earth and Ocean Science and Archaeology and Egyptology. 

A number of design issues were identified including: Increased utilisation, energy efficiency, sustainability, location, maintainability, security, safety, separating teaching and research activities, identify shared equipment requirements, accommodation for large and small groups, effective management structure, efficient use of staff resources, control of equipment and consumables and the capital cost. 

It was also determined that bringing together the teaching laboratory requirements for these departments created potential for combined teaching modules, shared facilities and increased capacity. 

A target of 50% utilisation was set and a parallel project to introduce centralized timetabling and room booking was established. The approved concept for the building consisted of a separate BREEAM Excellent building over three floors of 7,860 sqm total area, for the five core stakeholder departments, ability to accommodate up to 1,000 students at any one time, expansion space, operating criteria, a dedicated management structure and multi-skilled staffing structure. 

A location adjacent to the existing Chemistry Department and Central Lecture Theatres provided the best solution, reducing the need for some support services and providing a cohesive central resource. The contractor was procured using traditional methods and completion is due Winter 2011 with occupation Spring 2012. 

Due to the large scale of the building and specific design constraints some unexpected technical issues arose including the extensive flexing of the steel frame due to the load of the 12m long floor beams. 

Academic Development (Prof Paul Nolan, Dr John Boyle) 

From the early stages the academic stakeholders had been closely included in the design process. Students were consulted on the proposals through discussions in individual departments. 

In addition to undergraduate use by the five key stakeholder departments it was now anticipated that the laboratories would be used by Radiotherapy, Orthoptics, Masters courses, Liverpool International College, CPD and the schools programme. 

Rather than the traditional approach of separate laboratories for each subject and year of study the CTL will be shared facilities. The project has provided an opportunity to review major equipment so that XRF, AFM, SEM replacements could be provided and available to all users. 

The teaching will be supported by dedicated teaching fellows and technical staff although most module teaching staff will come from academic departments. 

The teaching fellows support their respective academic disciplines whilst providing continuity in the laboratories, will work together on integrated experiments and teaching materials for undergraduates, schools and outreach programmes. 

They also have the opportunity to develop pedagogical research in teaching, assessment and laboratory skills. Considerable improvement in the learning experience for undergraduates is demonstrated in the following examples: Physics will have themed laboratories with modern, state of the art, equipment for Radiation Physics, Optics, Spectrometers, Electronics and Mechanics. 

All year groups share the same space and equipment but laboratory time will be increased by 30-50%. The Y1 and Y2 curriculum has been changed to include more workshops (flexible space), skills and practical work. 

Laboratory work is now integrated across the year of the programme. Chemistry will have two large laboratories, one with 64 fume cupboards allowing a ratio of one cupboard to two students. 

These modern laboratories are considerably better than the current facilities and will also accommodate a large influx of international students and allow the development of new modules. 

The Geography curriculum has been completely revised to maximise the benefits of the CTL. Current laboratory sessions are short and repeated once to include all students. The practical sessions are run sequentially with associated lectures. 

The CTL curriculum will consist of a parallel structure with no direct integration with lectures. The practicals will be designed and fully documented so that students can self-administer. 

There will be 10 groups with 10 practicals each term. The modules are fully integrated so that they include assembly and testing, experiment, write-up and dismantling. 

This will enable them to be adapted easily for use by other disciplines. Challenges exist in devising appropriate assessment and feedback mechanisms and creating stimulating exercises from a manual alone. 

The new system increases utilisation of equipment; thus better equipment, longer access to equipment for students and very efficient use of teaching time. 

However no progression is possible within modules: each exercise must be fully independent. Teaching practices must change: the direct lecture:practical link is lost. All guidance must be via written instructions or on-line “lectures”. Lab technical staff cannot deliver basic teaching (they can’t do 10 practicals at once). 

Losing the direct lecture:practical link can be treated as an opportunity so that self-teaching can be built into the learning outcome. Modular exercises can integrate technical training with reading, the focus can be on hands-on experience to be utilised in subsequent lecturebased modules and progression can take place between modules rather than within modules. 

In practice conflicts are beginning to emerge between the timetabling of staff and student time and space in the CTL and the University generally. 

Management and Operations Developments (Steve Plant) 

Although the CTL project lost some impetus on the departure of the original Senior Management Team champion, progress with the building project stimulated further work on the management and curriculum issues since it was clear that the success of the whole project was equally dependent on all three elements. 

Consequential upon the academic structural reorganisation it was decided to retain management of the CTL in the new Faculty of Science and Engineering rather than establishing an independent business unit. 
Service level agreements have been developed for support to key activities, e.g. IT, where direct employment within CTL is not appropriate. 

Role profiles have been developed for all technicians and standard University role descriptions have been used to create specific descriptions for CTL technicians.

Posts have been evaluated using HERA and role matching has been undertaken. Staff were considered a good match if they matched 75% of the CTL role. 

Staff were then slotted into the new roles defined in the new CTL management structure. In order to demonstrate openness and consistency of expectations all technical staff were given full details of all posts and invited to comment; in consequence, there were no staff objections to the proposed role descriptions. 

A skills matrix of requirements in the CTL has been developed and all technical staff have been offered professional development reviews. This has identified a number of common skills across departments, opportunities for mutual support and more formal training. 

The process has also identified the opportunity of creating an apprenticeship training school for technicians. 

Detailed staffing arrangements (Geoff Dickinson) 

Close collaboration between academic staff and technical support is essential to enable the CTL to function. The CTL will break down the barriers to effective technical/academic support. The CTL Supervisor’s role is pivotal to ensure a strong buy-in from technical staff. 

Communications with staff, a full understanding of the expectation of each role, cross disciplinary activities and curriculum development with University teaching fellows have been developed and this has generated considerable enthusiasm for the changes. 

The CTL provides excellent opportunities for personal development and improved succession planning. The CTL is managed jointly by the CTL Technical Manager and the Academic Lead. 

Each floor is supported by a University Teaching Fellow and each laboratory has an identified technician. Additional technical resources are available for Chemistry laboratories and a multifunctional technician provides general support in addition to specific responsibility for school support and cover for leave and sickness. 

Contract hours for technicians have been adjusted to provide more resources during the teaching term balanced by more annual leave to be taken during vacations. However, this reduces the support for vacation activities.

Update on Sunderland Sciences complex (Iain Garfield)

Phase 1 of the Sciences Complex Refurbishment was occupied in September 2010. A ‘softlandings’ approach to snagging proved effective but Estates Department project managers were used to manage the process rather than the project architect. 

Phase 2 was occupied in December 2010 but snagging proved to be more complex. Phase 2 was more complex with stakeholder needs not as clearly communicated resulting in some scope creep. New equipment purchased subsequent to the design of the project was particularly difficult to incorporate as infrastructure requirements differed from the original project specification. 

Some of the lessons learnt from the early assessment of the project include:

• new facilities have encouraged new academic collaboration.
• however the perception is that personal productivity of academics has dropped on moving to shared offices
• this has been mitigated with the inclusion of “retreat rooms”
• glass walls to offices tend to encourage unplanned interruptions,
• new lab facilities have been extremely well received.
• the benefit of enclosing the learning lounge, Generally feedback from stakeholders has been excellent.

Space Feasibility Tool (Simon Britton)

A spread sheet indicator had been developed which could be used from the early stages of a project to guide decision making. The number of performance measures being used can be varied and built up as the project develops and compared with external benchmarks such as EMS. 
Current performance, target performance and benchmarks can be compared to achieve project decision indicators but without applying arbitrary weightings to independent measures. It was agreed to continue development work on the tool and undertake real project testing in participating institutions.

Visit to CTL

A very instructive visit to the CTL project took place.