By Gina Lovasi, PhD, MPH, the Dana and David Dornsife Dean and Professor of Epidemiology at Drexel University's Dornsife School of Public Health

We have taken our snowflakes down, and put up a few lunar new year decorations around the 2nd floor of Nesbitt Hall. This is the space where I am honored to interact with students, staff, and faculty on a daily basis. In a time when many changes are beyond our control, we can still decide how we show up for each other. We have a community puzzle going in the common area, and people have brought in baked goods or encouraging notes to share. Our departments and centers are likewise using common areas and convenings to create identity and foster a sense of belonging.

Yet some aspects of planning our space use are more contentious. This month, I led a conversation with our faculty, staff, and student leaders about how to be more efficient with our use of our available offices and workstations (which I have usually referred to as cubicles or desks, but our space planning colleagues recommend this loftier term). I reached out to two dozen ASPPH leaders from top ranked schools in the last two weeks, in an effort to understand if the steps we are considering such as faculty office sharing are unique. I’m grateful that 22 of 24 leaders took the time to respond, even with all the other changes we are navigating.

How leaders feel about space decisions: Perhaps the most common sentiment was simply that space discussions are difficult. Leaders described the need for a more efficient approach as a “space crunch” or noted that “paying for underused space is killing my budget.” As far as the broader set of those working at the school, I thought one leader summed up a common sentiment: “Is everyone happy? Certainly not!”

Strategies to mitigate concerns seemed to focus on transparency and creating a sense of agency for smaller groups such as departments or centers. Yet getting to something that works well and addressing inconsistencies was indicated to be still on the horizon or in progress by more than half of the schools. In one instance the space consolidation was quite sudden due to a fire, giving me perspective that even though I would like more time, it could be worse.

Formalizing Guidelines: Guidelines were shared at the university or school level, though in some cases existed only informally or varied across departments. In several instances guidelines were noted to be in revision to streamline, or only “loosely starting to be enforced.” My takeaway was that it can take time to move toward agreement on and alignment with space guidelines.

Office Allocation by Days on Campus: Many of the approaches to space set a threshold for days per week in the office. Commonly, guidelines restricted assignment of a dedicated office for a single faculty or staff member to those on campus 3+ days per week or at least 50% of the time, though I also saw instances of a threshold at 2+ or 4+ days per week. Several guidelines specified groups that were or were not eligible for an assigned office. Those in hybrid work arrangements who were not assigned a dedicated workspace either had shared space or hoteling arrangements.

Tools and Strategies Used for Implementation: Space renovations were discussed as a way to make space more suitable for efficient use, as was having a person or committee that could troubleshoot issues. Several leaders pointed to the use of scheduling software, and one had established a calculator to transparently estimate the space needs for a team. External funding levels or space occupancy were used in dynamic approaches to space allocation from year to year, such that a high level of occupancy or increased funding in the past year could be the basis for requesting more space, and low occupancy or lack of funding as a basis for relinquishing space. Workspace occupancy was assessed by self-report, documented agreement between the person and their supervisor, using card swipes into the building, or a periodic space audit.

Ways to Encourage Presence and Collaboration: Despite the continued preference by many for hybrid or remote work, there was a clear appreciation of the importance of having interactions on campus. Some leaders noted that providing food at meetings has helped to encourage in-person attendance. Others had taken a “neighborhood” or “landing zone” approach to create opportunities for interactions within a theme such as global health. I found it interesting that a key incentive to be in the office is having other members of one’s team present, so hopefully a higher occupancy of the spaces can actually catalyze more presence and collaboration.

I look forward to staying in touch with other leaders as we find our way. Knowing that we are not alone in tackling these challenges is reassuring. However, hearing about others’ experiences has forced me to adjust my expectations of how quickly and seamlessly we can get to a future state where our space use is more efficient, mission-aligned, and vibrant.

Follow Dean Lovasi on LinkedIn for insights on public health, higher education, academic research, and the innovative work happening at the Dornsife School of Public Health.