In February 2020, the Vice-Chancellor defined directives for the inquiry Status and needs analysis of the campus management organisation. The campus management organisation, which has existed for ten years, has never been properly evaluated. 
Surveying of activities also included interviews with performers and users on campus.

We posed some questions to Patrick Wallin of the Planning Division, who was in charge of the inquiry.
 

Was there any particular reason for conducting the inquiry?

“There has never been any thorough and coordinated evaluation of the activities over its ten years in operation, and facilities managers’ IT activities were discontinued in the autumn of 2019 with the establishment of a University-wide IT organisation.”

“It is due to these factors as well as changes in our local environment (e.g. Campus Gotland) and the changing needs of students, researchers and teachers that the tasks, functions and coordination of the facilities managers need to be reviewed.”
 

According to the report, what is the biggest shortcoming of the campus management organisation? 

“The inquiry was not tasked with drawing up proposals for changes to the campus management organisation, but rather to analyse and report on the current situation and various needs for change.”

After this surveying, the analyst, Post-retirement Professor Göran Magnusson, will draw up a proposal of prioritised measures in accordance with the Vice-Chancellor's decision.

Some problems and opportunities with the current campus management organisation are as follows:
 

  • Organisation 

The facilities managers represent a very small organisation compared to other independent units at the University, which means that it is vulnerable to a certain extent. Increased cooperation between the facilities managers would strengthen the organisation and reduce the vulnerability.
 

  • Coordination and cooperation

The campus coordinator, Peter Götlind, who serves as the facilities manager at Campus Observatoriet, regularly convenes meetings with the facilities managers and directors. While these are important, they rarely lead to coordination of activities. Some coordination would be an advantage, such as the ability to share staff when there is a sudden shortage, whether this be a facilities manager, technician or receptionist.

The facilities managers would also benefit from having access to a shared human resources specialist with good knowledge of local conditions to handle more complicated staff matters. 

For many of the centrally-decided work tasks, the facilities managers have developed procedures that are tailored to their own activities, but make cooperation within the University more difficult. There is a need to agree on “best practice” for how some of these tasks should be handled. 

All of the facilities managers demand clarification of how a boundary should be drawn between their areas of responsibility and those of University IT Services (UIT). This mainly applies to maintenance and new procurement of AV and video equipment in classrooms and meeting rooms, but also applies to simpler IT support. The case management system used by UIT is often not suitable for such cases.
 

  • Finances

Several facilities managers have trouble funding the educational facilities. A current and growing problem concerns areas for students’ self-studies, i.e. reading places and group rooms. There is a general perception that there is a central directive regarding study spaces, but not regarding the scope or funding of the assignment. Students often choose to conduct their self-studies at places other than “their” campus, which makes planning more difficult for the facilities managers.

In addition to the direct cost of study spaces within the individual management area, the departments indirectly pay for study spaces within the University Library’s (UUB) premises, where the cost forms part of the total library budget. Several representatives of the management areas want a detailed central directive regarding study spaces at the campus areas, including spaces at UUB. 

On average, bookings of the various types of rooms in TimeEdit amount to maximum 50 percent of maximum utilisation, in some cases significantly less. If rooms with low utilisation cannot be used for other purposes – or be phased out – the facilities manager is burdened with a cost without benefit. The cost can be reduced through increased joint use of classrooms within the University, but the departments have an ambivalent attitude towards this. While they do want to reduce their premises costs, they mainly want to use nearby educational facilities by setting various local restrictions in the booking system. A more advanced booking and charging system for classrooms which weighs together both proximity and shared use would probably lead to a lower collective need of classrooms. 
 

  • Student services

The student liaison officers interviewed indicated that the educational facilities are generally of a good standard, but underscored the need for self-study spaces, both reading places and group rooms. The students assume that they have access to such spaces at all campus areas, and that they are situated in spaces where they can work relatively undisturbed. 

The restaurants on the University’s campuses serve lunch at a price that is higher than what the average student is willing to pay. There is a desire for cheaper alternatives and greater availability during the afternoon and evening. 
 

  • Work environment

In relation to the technical-physical work environment, all of those interviewed commented positively on their own work environment and the contribution that the facilities managers made to the work environment in their respective area.