Faculty Research Commons Study

The Libraries’ Faculty Research Commons (“FRCs”) at both the Hunt Library and the Hill Library were designed as alternative spaces for faculty to work independently or meet with colleagues away from their personal offices. The Libraries recognized the need for an assessment of their use and the extent to which they are meeting faculty needs. This project was designed to provide a more thorough understanding of how both FRCs are currently utilized and and to provide direct evidence of user behavior and perceptions.

The four sets of heatmaps show the percentage of time in use, total reservations, maximum occupancy, and in-room technology use.

Heat maps of the Hill Library and Hunt Library Faculty Research Commons. At Hill, there were middling to high rates of occupancy. Half the time the Lounge was observed, there was at least 1 person in it. Hunt Library had lower rates of occupancy, except for two workrooms.

How many total reservations per room were there in 2023? In the Hill FRC, most rooms had over 175. In the Hunt FRC, most rooms had around 60, except for the conference room, which had 178.

What's the maximum percentage of occupied seats in use at one time? There was a lot of variance at both libraries. In the Hill FRC, the lounge had 13% and the workrooms had between 33-50%. At Hunt, the lounge had 15%, and the workrooms had between 25-100%.

How often was in-room tech being used? At Hill, it was used infrequently except for one focus room. Similarly at Hunt, it was used infrequently except for two workrooms.

Overview

Research Questions

Who is using the Faculty Research Commons at both Hunt and Hill?
Which rooms are being used/reserved the most? How frequently?
Are the open spaces being used? How frequently?
What are faculty members using the spaces for?
What are their needs, and are the spaces meeting their needs?

Open space with work tables, long couches, and glass-walled work rooms

Hunt Library's Faculty Research Commons

Brightly lit room with sofa chairs, work tables, and a glass-walled work room

Hill Library's Faculty Research Commons

Highlights From Our Findings

Positive perceptions. Current users of the FRCs at both libraries have extremely positive perceptions of the spaces, with 95% of survey respondents rating their experience as either “excellent” or “very good.”
Heavy use. Card swipe data shows that both FRCs were heavily occupied, with over 17,000 total uses during the 2023 calendar year. Observational data indicates that most of this use was in the enclosed rooms.
Faculty across campus use the FRCs. Over 60% of faculty from the colleges of Education, Textiles, and Engineering, over 50% of Natural Resources faculty, and over 40% of Agriculture & Life Sciences faculty utilized the FRCs at least once in 2023. An additional 347 faculty from 75 non-academic units, and 42 separated faculty, used the spaces.
- Heaviest users. Seventy-one percent (71%) of use was from the colleges, with COE representing 22% of total use. The other 29% of use was from other offices and units on campus, such as Libraries staff.
- Power users. 2023 usage data indicates that there were 104 power users who used the FRCs between 24–341 times each.
Drop-ins vs. reservations. Over half of FRC users utilized the spaces on a drop-in basis, while 37% percent of users made reservations using our online room reservation system. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the reservations were made by users from the colleges, 26% from the Libraries and NC LIVE, and 9% from Non- Academic Units and Post Baccalaureate Studies respectively.
Highly reserved and used spaces. The conference rooms are highly reserved spaces, in addition to some of the medium-sized workrooms. Patrons were most often observed using the medium-sized workrooms, in addition to the focus rooms at Hill.

Seating for ten people in a Hill faculty conference room. — *Faculty Conference 2312G* *in the Hill Library was a frequently reserved space.*

Lounges are lightly occupied. Our observations found that the open spaces (lounges) at both FRCs tended to be less heavily occupied. While they were occupied 52% of the time, most observations recorded only one or two occupants.
How rooms are used. Room reservation data indicates that the enclosed rooms in both FRCs are utilized roughly equally for group work (52%) and individual work + Zoom meetings (47%).
Low tech use. Our observations and survey indicate that the technology within the rooms is not heavily used. A number of survey respondents and event organizers indicated having issues with the in-room technology.
Natural light. There is a high demand for individual work spaces with natural light, as indicated by survey respondents, room reservation data, and observations.
Event usage. Event organizers using the FRCs appreciate access to these spaces where they can bring together faculty groups, often from multiple departments.

General Recommendation

The high usage of both FRCs, the number of power users, and the high satisfaction levels among current users indicate that the FRCs are valued by faculty and staff seeking their own designated spaces on Main and Centennial Campus. Any future move or significant alteration of either FRC should take into consideration the user population’s needs and rely on additional user research.

Recommendations for Both FRCs

Improve maintenance of in-room technology, so that patron options for desktop use, projection, and Zoom are consistently functional. Technology was improved in both FRCs over the spring 2024 and should continue to be improved going forward.
Replace some of the lounge seating in the open spaces with more individual and group work seating. As a survey respondent indicated, this could also provide an unreservable space for groups to meet when all rooms are reserved.
Work with Housekeeping to ensure that both spaces are cleaned regularly. Based on our observations, the spaces did not always exhibit an acceptable level of cleanliness.
Based on faculty feedback, consider making coffee and tea available, as well as other small amenities such as stocking the kitchenette with plates, utensils, and napkins.
Consider improving signage and general wayfinding, especially for events.
There were multiple complaints about how cold both FRCs are.

Hunt Faculty Focus room 5 2 1 1 with work desk and chairs and exterior window. — *Faculty Focus 5211* *is one of the most frequently used spaces in the Hunt FRC. However, the large window means the temperature of the room may fluctuate more often than desired.*

Hunt Recommendations

Add a controllable shade to the open area and very sunny rooms (5211 and 5231) in Hunt FRC, to allow users to better regulate temperature.
Revisit the area near the mounted screen in the Lounge to determine how this zone might be used more effectively, as the technology is not currently being utilized.
Add laptop docking stations, and at least one desktop, to the focus rooms.
Consider furnishing Faculty Lounge 5231 with a standard four-person table and chairs instead of lounge furniture.

Faculty Lounge 5231 with lounge chairs, coffee table, and exterior windows in the background — *Faculty Lounge 5231* *at the Hunt Library FRC was used less often than other rooms of this size.*

Hill Recommendations

Replace one or more of the computer workstations in the focus rooms with laptop docking stations.
Improve signage about how to access the FRC for graduate students, who do not have card access but sometimes attend events with faculty.

How We Did It

This study used card swipe and room reservation data from calendar year 2023, and surveys and observations deployed in the spring of 2024 to analyze the use of both Faculty Research Commons.

Door Swipe and Room Reservation Data

We looked at how many people were using the spaces, how often they were using them, the reasons they were using them, the rate of individual room usage, average uses per person, and what colleges and non-academic units they represented. The ratio of faculty headcounts per college was compared to the percentage of uses per college to discover the colleges with the highest use.

Observational Data

Using a template, we captured observational data during three weeks of the semester. The data collector did a walkaround of the space and noted which rooms were occupied and the number of occupants, whether in-room technology was being used, and whether there was evidence that occupants were using Zoom. Observations were noted on a print template and summarized in a series of heat maps overlaid over the floor plans as shown below. In total, the team captured 56 observations.

In-Space Survey

Survey data was collected from users within both FRCs about which room they were working in, their current activity, the number of people they were with, and their impressions. Using table tents left in each room, the open area, and kitchenette of each FRC, the team promoted an online survey that could be accessed by a QR code. We collected 22 responses.

Event Organizer Survey

Both FRCs are occasionally used by groups from across campus who are planning programs or events for faculty. Six faculty or campus partners who had offered programs in either the Hill or Hunt FRC over the past 1.5 years were sent a survey. Data was collected about location and type of programming, why they chose the FRC, what worked and didn’t work, and suggestions for improvement.