Alexandra den Heijer

Managing the University Campus

Managing contemporary campuses and taking decisions that will impact on those of tomorrow is a complex task for universities worldwide. It involves strategic, financial, functional and physical aspects as well as multiple stakeholders. This article summarises the conclusions of a comprehensive PhD research project which was enriched with lessons learned in the aftermath of a fire which destroyed the authors workplace. The replacement building allowed her to put her theories and concepts into practice.

The university campus as a knowledge city: exploring models and strategic choices

The development of knowledge cities increasingly depends on collaboration between urban and regional authorities, knowledge institutions and businesses. While a shift from awareness to active collaboration is taking place, the rapidly changing context demands a faster pace. This paper seeks to understand the relationship between urban, corporate and university strategies required to develop knowledge cities and the relevance of the physical setting as an important resource to achieve mutual goals. This paper positions the university campus as a large-scale real estate object and reviews the literature on real estate management and campus development within the frame of the knowledge economy. The methodology uses empirical data of existing comparative studies on university campuses and knowledge cities including the case study in Bogota, Colombia. The paper provides models to support policy makers with management information for their strategic choices. Moreover, it outlines the relevance of involving external stakeholders in campus strategies.

Assessment Tools' Indicators for Sustainability in Universities: An Analytical Overview.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse 12 assessment tools of sustainability in universities and develop the structure and the contents of these tools to be more intelligible. The configuration of the tools reviewed highlight indicators that clearly communicate only the essential information. This paper explores how the theoretical concept of a sustainable university is translated into more measurable variables to support practitioners and academics in assessing sustainability in universities. Design/methodology/approach The main method for this paper was a desk study approach, which incorporated reviewing research papers, graduate theses, academic books, network platforms and websites. Findings The tools reviewed share similar traits in terms of criteria, sub-criteria and indicators. Five benchmarks are essential for a holistic framework: management; academia; environment; engagement and innovation. Practical implications This research can not only be used to improve existing assessment tools but also as a means to develop new tools tailored for universities that face a variety of challenges and lack the ability to measure their sustainability policies. Social implications Making higher education more sustainable through all the criteria mentioned influences students, as well as staff, to maintain a culture of sustainability. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by simplifying and detailing the structure and contents of the tools in a way which indicators are shown, giving a full picture of these tools to enable universities to be more aware of the sustainability issues that affect them.

Smart campus tools - adding value to the university campus by measuring space use real-time

Purpose: The objective of corporate real estate management is to optimally attune corporate accommodation to organisational performance. At universities, the dynamic process to match supply and demand is often hindered by difficulties in the allocation and use of space. This is a challenge for the Dutch universities and perhaps also European universities, which own large and ageing real estate portfolio’s in need of (re)investment: how can universities invest their resources as effectively as possible and not in space that will be poorly used? The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of smart campus tools to improve space use on campus. Design/methodology/approach: First, a survey at 13 Dutch universities is conducted, consisting of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with Dutch campus managers. Then, semi-structured interviews are held with a number of parties in other industries to explore the use of smart tools in other contexts. Findings: The universities’ demand for smart tools is mainly directed at the automatic and continuous collection of real-time space use data for education spaces and giving students insight into the availability of study places on campus. The tools at the Dutch universities focus largely on effectiveness: helping their users in their search to find a space that supports their activities. In other industry sectors, the results suggest that the use of smart tools is more directed towards efficiency: maximizing the use of existing space or optimising the operations of the organisation. Originality/value: Although the use of smart tools in practice has gained significant momentum in the past few years, research on the subject is still sparse. By providing a framework for smart tools, as well as exploring the work done in theory and in practice, the authors hope to increase discussion and research on the subject from the perspective of corporate real estate.

The locations of innovation described through thirty-nine tech-campuses

Purpose This paper aims to describe the different locations of campuses developed to stimulate innovation. The paper aims at supporting strategic decisions in the development of new and existing campuses and similar innovation-driven areas. Additionally, it aims to outline the key role of location for urban and regional competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Design/methodology/approach This paper tests an existing planning tool that proposes location and connectivity as key aspects to stimulate innovation in campus development. This tool is used to analyse and compare 39 campuses with different locations characteristics worldwide. Findings Findings describe five types of location characteristics in existing campuses developed to stimulate innovation. These characteristics are dynamic, and exhibit differences in connectivity aspects enabling more or less efficient access to amenities and knowledge networks. Research limitations/implications Empirical findings were used to revise and improve the planning tool. Further research exploring the relation between connectivity aspects and innovation processes is recommended. Practical implications This paper supports decision-makers of new and existing campuses struggling with location decisions, by outlining that campus’ connectivity is crucial regardless of whether the campus is in an inner-city or a peripheral setting. Improving campus connectivity may be an efficient way to spend the many public and private resources invested on campus development to stimulate innovation. Originality/value This paper provides a unique comparison of cases that can be useful to planners of existing campuses to benchmark their current locations in relation to their ambitions on innovation.

Campus–City Relations: Past, Present, and Future

In the global knowledge economy, attracting and retaining talent is the most important mutual goal of universities and cities. They work together in the worldwide competition for talent. The locations of universities play an important role in the competitive profile of cities and regions because they concentrate this human capital. Simultaneously, the ideal university campus is increasingly resembling a city, with hotels and housing, restaurants, cafes, cultural and sports facilities, business space, and the traditional office and academic space. The campus of the future could be “the city” or “a city” in itself. The authors of this chapter seek to deepen understanding of the dynamic campus–city relations by describing the past, present, and future trends of the physical settings and functional mix of campuses. They discuss two extreme campus models and their associated advantages and disadvantages. The chapter might help stakeholders in universities and cities improve decisions that support their mutual goals.

Campus development as catalyst for innovation

Purpose This paper aims to model the relationship between innovation and real estate, providing campus managers with a tool that illustrates how campus development stimulates innovation and that guides them to add value to their organisations. Design/methodology/approach The authors review previous research and build theory from the study of two cases. They shape a hypothesis by linking various theoretical concepts and by verifying it with empirical data to finally model how campus development stimulates innovation. Findings Findings suggest that campus development facilitates five conditions required to stimulate innovation through decisions and interventions over long-term periods. These findings acknowledge that location is key to explain campus development as a catalyst for innovation. In addition, this paper identifies potential issues in decision-making processes that can inhibit the facilitating role of real estate in innovation. Practical implications A framework clarifying the path to stimulate innovation through real estate will allow campus managers to steer their real estate strategies in line with this specific organisational goal and to better communicate how their decisions add value to their organisations. Social implications Findings advocate a more effective and efficient resource allocation for campus development in and around cities. Originality/value Until now, studies on stimulating innovation through real estate have focussed on workplace level. A core theoretical contribution of this paper is enlarging the application scope of CREM theories to the urban level involving multiple organisations.

Strategic campus development at two European universities – From challenges explored in 2007 to visions, strategic aims and development plans for TU Delft and NTNU in 2017."

In June 2007 the “Competitive Campuses – The Challenge for European Universities” conference was arranged in Trondheim, Norway NTNU in conjunction with ETH Zurich and Sasaki Associates in Boston. The main focus was on the revitalization of the mono-functional campuses to new concepts that stimulate interaction and integration with the city. At that time two contradictory trends emerged: on the one hand the trend to create campus projects that reconcile and reintegrate large-scale institutions with the surrounding urban tissue into open, communicative structures, and on the other hand towards “gated-ness”, the increasing seclusion under the influence of efficiency, economy and social security. During the 2007 conference a group of 16 international experts addressed questions such as: ‘What kind of spatial organization promotes internal knowledge transfer and social interaction while simultaneously integrating with the surrounding urban environment? Which strategies are needed to create sustainable centres of knowledge that are flexible enough to respond to the fast changing demands of industry and society?’ This study investigates if the trends, major questions and the understanding of these challenges for campus development of European universities are relevant ten years later, and how these challenges and opportunities are used in urban and campus planning. Our main focus will be on strategic campus development. This is based on a view that buildings can be seen as functional frameworks for human activity, and thus, that ideas about university space should be reconsidered as activities and demands on performance changes (den Heijer 2011, Beckers et al., 2015). The landscape of learning, teaching and knowledge development is currently moving into new forms altering the needs for working spaces. The comparative study of the two universities in the Netherlands and Norway will be descriptive cases, and they both represent institutions having gone through major changes for campus development and management over the last 10 years. For analysing the case studies we have used a simplified theoretical framework addressing; challenges and opportunities, vision and main objectives, strategic aims and target goals and how these factors are implemented in real projects. The expected outcome will include analyses of how strategic goals and aims for the two institutions align with actual campus development projects and management in large and smaller scale.

City Tour Delft: The Making of a Knowledge City

Delft is a medium-sized city in the western part of the Netherlands with approximately 100 000 inhabitants. It is located between the major Dutch cities of Rotterdam and The Hague and is part of a ...