Beyond Counting Rooms: A Strategic Approach to Space Utilization A Conversation with Matt Thompson & Brittney Myers
Higher education institutions today are facing an array of planning challenges: enrollment volatility, capital constraints, and shifting pedagogies. In this climate, the conversation around space planning has become an institutional question, not just a facilities question. Counting rooms and tracking hours are a step towards strategic decision making aligned with institutional missions, growth, and long-term priorities.
Higher Education Planner Matt Thompson and Senior Project Manager Britney Myers have brought this strategic mindset to campuses navigating similar challenges, but each has a unique culture and distinct needs. Successful space planning exercises, then, must be rooted in engagement, listening, alignment, and planning at the right scale at the right time.
Space Decisions Are Not Made in a Single Silo Matt and Brittney recently presented to a diverse audience at the SCAPPA Tri-Association conference, where they used live polling during the session to glean insights about the teams, challenges, tools, and questions involved in space planning endeavors. The most valuable space planning discussions involve a multidisciplinary team of players: facilities professionals, planners, architects, and campus administrators all influence space decisions, often from very different vantage points. Aligning these perspectives is key to understanding and designing for future space needs.
Building a common language across teams (and across institutions) is essential to success, since data travels across roles, committees, departments, administrative structures, and even institutions. Peer benchmarking is important, and an apples-toapples comparison requires that team members understand what’s being measured and how space is classified. Much of this work is, of course, done by humans making judgment calls, particularly for multiuse or complex spaces; clarity and communication help space planners understand what’s happening on the ground.
Meeting Campuses Where They Are
Even the small sample size of conference attendees revealed a wide spectrum of institutional capability with space tracking. Tools included everything from manual sign-in sheets to scheduling databases, facilities inventories, or advanced sensor based analytics (or no tracking at all). Many are still trying to define where to begin.
Participants also generated a live word cloud identifying key space challenges. These included scheduling conflicts, under- and over-utilization, budget constraints, siloed decision making, and maintenance/occupancy issues. Commonly underutilized spaces revealed through polling were libraries, private offices, and auditoria, while commonly overbooked spaces included huddle rooms, tech-enabled classrooms, and event spaces.
This variation underscores a critical point: there is no one size fits all approach to planning for space utilization. Space planners must be adept at helping institutions scale from basic to advanced techniques, and provide guidance for sequencing these steps realistically.
Effective space planning starts with an honest assessment of current capabilities and defines the next achievable step. That progression, rather than a leap to the most sophisticated tool, is what builds long-term planning capacity. Assuming every campus is ready for sensor-driven analytics risks alienating teams and undermining trust in the process.
Why Scale Matters: Connecting Micro Data to Macro Decisions
Not all utilization metrics are created equal. A room level data point tells a very different story than a campuswide trend. Confusion arises when teams measure at one scale but attempt to make decisions at another.
As Matt explains, the right metric depends on the level of decision making. “Space metrics only become powerful when they are connected to the scale of the decision at hand. Room level metrics are operational. As you move up to the program, college, and campus levels, you need blended metrics that align with strategy and growth.”
Connecting microlevel data to macrolevel decisions allows utilization to inform strategic plans,
capital budgets, enrollment trends, and accreditation benchmarks. When data remains isolated at the operational level, its institutional value is limited. However, when all stakeholders begin with a shared sense of purpose and a common understanding of the various scales that inform the broader discussion, strategic solutions are easier to design.
The Value of Qualitative Insight
It’s worth noting that, while quantitative data gathering is extremely important, utilization data alone rarely tells the full story. Two classrooms may appear identical on paper, yet perform very differently in practice. This is where qualitative analysis becomes essential.
Brittney emphasizes that design professionals add value by pairing data with lived experience. “Institutions can generate data outputs on their own. The difference comes when you engage users and test that data against real conditions. That is how you uncover misalignments and avoid over or underreacting to the numbers.”
What is your biggest challenge related to space on your campus?
schedule programming budget utilization
For example, a space flagged as overutilized may simply need targeted renovation rather than a whole new building. Conversely, a space that appears adequate in reports may be functionally obsolete due to layout, technology, or condition, leading to inefficiency in use. Taking the time to understand the full context prevents institutions from pursuing the wrong “big solution” by informing recommendations that are rightsized and actionable.
From Reactive Fixes to Proactive Capability
Many institutions arrive at the space planning process through crisis: a program grows unexpectedly, scheduling breaks down, or a capital request surfaces without context. These are symptoms of reactive planning. Common symptoms of reactive planning are inefficiency, imbalance, and underutilization.
Proactive space analysis looks different because it relies on repeatable metrics, scenario testing, and alignment with institutional priorities – before a space crisis occurs. Most importantly, proactive space analysis is an ongoing process rather than a onetime study. The result isn’t a report that sits on a shelf; it’s building authentic planning capability so that findings can evolve as fast as the institution (or college or department) does.
A proactive space planning exercise moves through a process of information gathering, programming analysis, scenario planning, space analysis, communication of findings, and development of growth frameworks. Of note: stakeholder engagement is a recurring step throughout the process, not just the first or the last step.
Depending on the scenario, the steps might not be strictly linear, and the process might require iterations and overlapping phases.
Measuring What Matters Across Space Types
Instructional, research, and office spaces are used differently and must be evaluated accordingly. Space planners commonly use codes referenced in the Postsecondary Education Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual, often referred to as FICM-codes. Introducing FICMbased metrics creates a common language for peer comparison, whether that is seat fill rates, net assignable square feet per researcher, or office headcounts. Tracking is often uneven due to differences in ownership, policy, tools, and data quality. This inconsistency is not a failure, but an opportunity for expert judgment to guide interpretation and recommendations.
Standardized metrics, applied thoughtfully and informed by qualitative experience, are what make utilization actionable across programs and campuses.
Turning Data and Engagement into Action
Enrollment shifts and mismatched space types are putting pressure on institutions nationwide. Libraries, private offices, and auditoriums often show chronic underutilization, while technology enabled classrooms and collaborative spaces are consistently overbooked.
In this environment, utilization studies must function as decision support tools. When paired with live feedback loops and stakeholder engagement, they inform renovation strategies, capital prioritization, and long-range planning.
The most effective institutions treat utilization research as reusable knowledge. It shapes client studies, internal tools, and future thought leadership. Most importantly, it helps campuses align space with who they are and where they are going.