Why space utilization reports may not be actionable enough for higher ed leaders

For decades, colleges and universities have expanded the campus footprint even as existing space remains underutilized. This unchecked growth is costly: more than two-thirds of the lifetime expenses of any new space occur after construction. Consider offices, which are typically occupied less than half the time but carry an average lifetime cost of $1.2 million per 1,000 square feet.

To rein in these costs, leaders first need a clear picture of how their campuses are actually being used, which is where space utilization studies come in. While some institutions conduct utilization studies in-house, others outsource to consultants due to a lack of time or expertise among staff. These reports, whether conducted internally or by outside consultants, measure room-by-room use and often promise insights on how to optimize these spaces.

But campus leaders want more than spreadsheets—they expect consultants to bring industry expertise, interpret results, and provide actionable recommendations. To test whether these reports truly deliver strategic value, EAB reviewed 20 space utilization studies from third-party firms.

Common elements of consultant space utilization reports

EAB reviewed reports from boutique higher education consulting firms, architecture and design firms, and one from a large consulting firm. Regardless of firm, reports followed a similar structure, including a summary of key findings and methods, analysis of utilization by room and space type, and recommendations for improving space utilization.

Most reports used the same methods to evaluate utilization, including on-the-ground observations, scheduling data, building inventories, floor plans, staffing data, and enrollment data. Additionally, some firms gauged space use behavior through staff and student surveys.

EAB’s analysis found that nearly two-thirds of content was consistent across reports, providing an opportunity for cross-report insights. In this blog, we share three key findings from our analysis:

1. Policy recommendations are mostly similar across reports
2. Consultants inconsistently interpret utilization data due to benchmark variation
3. Most reports lack campus-specific next steps

For details on each finding, continue reading below.

Key findings from EAB’s space utilization report analysis

1. Regardless of utilization results, reports highlight the same space policy recommendations

Across reports, more than three-quarters of space policy content was identical. Common guidance included:

While these recommendations are valuable, they’re not customized and offer little value to those with existing policies and standards. Furthermore, campus leaders will recognize that putting this advice into practice is easier said than done, and these reports did not provide implementation guidance.

Ready to improve space management? EAB’s Space Optimization 101 webinar details foundational space management practices to help leaders overcome barriers to better space use.

2. Despite similar utilization results, interpretations vary due to inconsistent benchmarks

Across reports, the same utilization patterns emerged: classrooms see peak demand from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. but sit empty during off-peak hours, offices are rarely used, and labs are underutilized in some departments but in short supply in others. These results reflect the most pressing space utilization challenges institutions relay to EAB.

Despite similarities, consultants’ judgments of these results varied. Some institutions with high utilization rates were told they faced serious problems, while others with lower rates were deemed on target. The difference lies in the benchmarks. Some reports compare results to peer averages, others to government or regulatory body targets, and still others to institutionally defined goals.

Institutions are often drawn to benchmarking as an opportunity for objective assessment, but variations in chosen benchmarks leave room for subjectivity. Furthermore, utilization benchmarks don’t show how effectively space is used, just how utilization compares to others.

For guidance on selecting space metrics that are tied to institutional priorities, explore EAB’s Space Productivity Metrics Toolkit.

3. Next steps for campus space are limited or absent

Most reports stopped short of offering concrete guidance. They presented broad utilization patterns, such as “30% of classrooms are used less than half the time,” and then defaulted to the same generic policy recommendations repeated across studies. As a result, institutions are left to sift through room-level data on their own to determine next steps.

A smaller share, roughly one in four, went further, recommending practices like converting specific spaces, decommissioning underused areas, or planning new builds. Some even added context with projected return on investment and estimated project timelines. This level of analysis helps inform strategy but is rarely sufficient to make change, as sound data alone often fails to overcome organizational barriers.

For insights on addressing cultural barriers to change, watch EAB’s webinar on Targeted Interventions for Offices, Research Labs, and Classrooms, which helps institutions weigh which utilization changes are most promising within their campus culture.

Move beyond diagnosis to action on space optimization

Space utilization reports are useful for uncovering utilization patterns, starting campus conversations, and providing baseline analysis for institutions that lack the internal bandwidth to measure utilization. However, leaders must manage expectations as these reports often feature generic policy recommendations, subjective results analysis, and limited implementation guidance.

For leaders ready to improve campus space management, EAB’s research on Putting the Built Environment to Best Use offers deeper insights on both policy and implementation, helping institutions not just measure space, but optimize it.

Eva Bohn

Research Associate

Read Bio

• Eva Bohn's LinkedIn page