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

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)
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
Page 1 of 6
SMG 25/06/12
Paper 6
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
Maureen.Masson@ed.ac.uk.
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 models for the Easter Bush campus and the Institute for Genomic and
Page 2 of 6
SMG 25/06/12
Paper 6
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:
i.
note the outcomes of discussion and actions that have been/are being implemented;
ii.
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 1314. These pilot models should take account of income, direct and indirect costs and
other factors: and
iii.
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
Page 3 of 6
SMG 25/06/12
Paper 6
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.
Action
Progress
1. Consider the possibility of moving away from
NPRAS, and review alternative models, with the
overarching aim of producing a model which is
transparent.
Complete – technical group reviewed
possibilities at meeting on 8 February and
agreed to recommend that a gross accounting
model would be taken forward as a pilot.
2. Rationalise and develop an appropriate range of
space types and rates
Ongoing: Review in context of working with
Finance and GASP on gross model.
3. Consider the possibility of providing a direct space
charging model
Ongoing: Part of review – pursing gross model
above
4. 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.
Ongoing: Review at end of energy pilot to
incentivise energy reductions at KB
5. i.
Update: SAT progressing well – all teaching
and teaching laboratory space will be visible on
the system. At the last count this included, 230
centrally bookable rooms, 576 local teaching
rooms, 70 laboratories, 46 meetings rooms and
a collection of other types of space.
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;
Note: experience of the pilot to date suggests it
is very difficult to engage those managing the
space even in an area of cost where they have
a significant element of control. Lessons will be
assessed at the end of the pilot project and
reported as appropriate.
Ongoing: Work to establish baseline measures
for utilisation/frequency/occupancy planned
once booking from first year is established. This
will be reinforced by surveys. Also looking to
develop measures for teaching space against
total estates, staff and student nos.
ii.
and work towards embedding and publicising
the SAM tool, and the space standards signed
off at SMG on 23/2/11.
Ongoing: Reinforce messages through Space
Management Group and the Timetable Project
Board. Space Assessment model used for Law
option appraisal and Biological Science option
appraisal. Output from the latter to be reviewed
Page 4 of 6
SMG 25/06/12
Paper 6
by the SMG at its meeting on 25 June.
6. 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 m 2; and using drivers which
align with TRAC wherever possible.
ongoing: Look at this with Finance and GASP
in context of working on gross model
7. 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.
Update: Little progress –push work on this via
SMG asking about types of data it needs etc.
Review whether any exemplars can be
prepared re energy reduction at end of
devolution pilot.
Page 5 of 6
SMG 25/06/12
Paper 6
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 are as follows:Jim Turner’s
comments dated 15 June 2012
“A). Remit should 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 Haywood dated 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 6 of 6