Redefining design features for mitigating performance gaps in higher education buildings Open Access

Higher education (HE) buildings are designed to facilitate teaching, research, learning and other academic-related activities through spaces like classrooms, libraries, cafeterias, workshops, lecture halls, auditoriums, laboratories, administration offices and green spaces (Abisuga et al., 2020). The spaces cater to specific end-user needs, requiring careful consideration during the early design phase. However, given the nature and specific functionalities of the spaces, the designers often face significant challenges in fully addressing all varied end-user needs (Gooding et al., 2021). Research highlights that many HE buildings elicited dissatisfaction from their end-users across various types of spaces, including campus buildings (Adewunmi et al., 2011; Bae et al., 2021; Hassanain et al., 2016; Ikediashi et al., 2020; Jurković and Lovoković, 2022), classrooms (Yang et al., 2013), accommodations (Adewunmi et al., 2011; Muslim et al., 2012; Sanni-Anibire and Hassanain, 2016; Xu et al., 2021) and laboratories (Amin et al., 2015; Mahmoud et al., 2019). Dissatisfaction was reported regarding thermal comfort, privacy, noise, accessibility, indoor air quality, and safety. In the long run, these cause negative health outcomes, absenteeism, and poor academic progression, which lead to performance gaps and “sick building syndromes (SBS)”, requiring post-occupancy alterations (HEDQF et al., 2022; Lavy et al., 2019).

The primary cause of performance gaps in HE buildings is the lack of understanding of the diverse end-users’ needs and expectations during the early design stage. In the standard practice, designers rely on the client brief to ensure the project remains aligned with the client’s vision from the start to completion (Architects’ Council of Europe, 2013; Gormally et al., 2019). There may be differences between the client’s priorities (e.g. value for money, return on investment, and speedy construction) and its end-users (e.g. comfort, health and well-being). Most previous research on building evaluation models and simulations focused on energy performance, targeting to minimise operational costs (Di Biccari et al., 2022). Recently, Hajirasouli et al. (2024) stated that HE is lagging behind in integrating digitally-enhanced teaching environments to support pedagogical requirements. Moreover, many studies observe that HE buildings still require a systematic approach to produce interactive and functional spaces to support end-user productivity, engagement and active participation (Abbasnejad et al., 2024). Capturing end-user requirements in a systemised manner may inform the designers upfront in reducing the identified gap, however, the process of procuring end-user requirements remains underdeveloped and fragmented.

End-user requirements vary based on the specific tasks they perform within a building. For instance, the expectations of students, academics and professional staff vary from each other due to on their varying tasks (Gooding et al., 2021). Thus, it is crucial to determine the distinct requirements of each end-user group to provide optimal design solutions that can mitigate performance gaps. However, previous studies focused mainly on specific user groups, such as students (Najib et al., 2012; Prowse et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2013) or academics (Abdullah et al., 2012). Moreover, they did not comprehensively address the user requirements across all key design features. Developing a comprehensive user requirement acquisition guideline is critical as the early design stage provides the greatest opportunity to align user needs with design outcomes, thereby mitigating performance gaps. Additionally, it is essential to integrate the perspectives of diverse end-users alongside those of the design and facility management (FM) professionals to ensure the project brief is comprehensive for designing high-performance HE buildings. Therefore, this study aims to develop a comprehensive framework of design features to effectively mitigate performance gaps in HE buildings.

The research deployed a two-stage qualitative approach to achieve the aim, as shown in Figure 1. Stage I involved a systematic literature review (SLR) to uncover design elements and features from previous research. Stage II involved focus group (FG) discussions with end-user groups and FM professionals to validate and enhance the list from diverse perspectives.

An SLR includes searching, selecting articles with predefined criteria, and synthesising the relevant literature. This ensures that all relevant articles in the specified context are analysed, enhancing the reliability and credibility of review findings (Ellis and Goodyear, 2016). The literature search was performed on five databases, known for retaining high-quality articles in the built environment field, including Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Engineering Village and Emerald Insights, and Google Scholar. The following search strings were utilised:

• (1)

  (“higher education*” OR university* OR campus) AND (“building design”) AND (“design review” OR “design assessment”) AND (pre-occupancy) AND (“design quality indicator*” OR KPI*) AND (“user satisfaction” OR “user perception” OR “user requirement*”)

• (2)

  (“higher education*” OR university*) AND (“building design” OR “concept design”) AND (“performance evaluation” OR “performance assessment”) AND (indicator* OR KPI* OR attribute* OR feature* OR criteria)

• (3)

  (“higher education*” OR university* OR campus) AND (post-occupancy OR “performance assessment*” OR “performance evaluation*”) AND indicator* OR KPI*) AND (user* OR end-user* OR occupant*)

The search commenced by pre-setting some filters: “English” for language and “journal articles” for article type, resulting in a total of 548 articles. This result was exported to Covidence, a platform designed to facilitate the SLR process in an automated, reliable manner (Pellegrini and Marsili, 2021). This study used Covidence for streamlining and screening the selection of articles. The platform facilitated systematic screening of titles, abstracts and full-text reviews, ensuring an organised and transparent selection process. Covidence enabled the authors to independently screen the articles and then integrate individual results through discussions, minimising subjective bias. This led to extracting relevant articles through a rigorous and structured approach. Accordingly, 196 duplicates were removed, leaving 342 publications for screening. The selection of articles was based on criteria that addressed HE building designs or performance, design aspects, evaluation of HE buildings (pre/post occupancy evaluation), and end-user engagement in design. Publications that did not match this threshold were removed. In addition, backward and forward citation tracking was used within articles to locate influential studies on the topic, resulting in 38 journal articles. Moreover, a search was performed on Google to find professional institutions' design guidelines for HE buildings, discovering two frameworks: the Higher Education Design Quality Forum (HEDQF) and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) (Brandt et al., 2020; HEDQF et al., 2022). Five green building guidelines, LEED, BREEAM, HQA, CASBEE and GreenStar (BREEAM, 2023; Green Building Council of Australia, 2013; LEED, 2014), were selected owing to their widespread use in assessing building design and sustainability. A total of 45 scholarly sources were reviewed. The metadata of these were systematically extracted based on key findings, methodology, sample participation, and design elements and features. A thematic analysis with an inductive approach was adopted to allow design elements and features (themes) to emerge independently, rather than being pre-defined. The coding process involved multiple stages, beginning with initial open coding and progressing to a more refined categorisation of broader themes. The authors had discussions to achieve consensus and consistency in theme categorisation. This iterative process allowed a rigorous literature analysis to draw meaningful findings.

Four FGs were conducted to validate stage 1 findings and discover new design elements and features to meet diverse user needs. FGs were chosen because they allow for gathering rich information and perceptions on a specific topic. Moreover, they stimulate participants' experiences, opinions, attitudes and feelings, encouraging insights that may not emerge through surveys or conventional interviews (Leung and Fung, 2005). The participants were selected from one university in Australia with a mix of three end-user groups (students, academics, and professional staff) and facilities management (FM) professionals to capture diverse perspectives on HE building design requirements. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure a good mix of stakeholders who can provide diverse insights on the subject matter (Sargeant, 2012). The recommended number of FGs falls between three and six, and the participants range from four to twelve (Carlsen and Glenton, 2011; Guest et al., 2006). Sandelowski (1995) emphasised the importance of balancing the sample size, as few or too many participants/groups can compromise the quality of FG discussions. Therefore, this study recruited 4 to 8 participants per group and Table 1 summarises each FG participants’ details. Selecting a single university in Australia may restrict the generalisability of the findings to other university settings and cultural contexts. Nevertheless, this limitation is acknowledged in this study.

The researcher facilitated the FG discussions, introducing the study’s purpose while ensuring confidentiality and a supportive environment for open and honest dialogues. Data was captured through audio recordings, note-taking, and participant worksheets. The discussions were organised by themes identified in the SLR to ensure a systematic and streamlined data collection across all groups. Initially, participants were invited to express their views to validate the design elements and features identified from the SLR. Then, the researcher prompted the participants to provide additional design elements and features. The data collected from each group was aggregated and analysed at the group level, following the approach recommended by Hughes and Dumont (1993).

The FGs had four distinct groups, each representing a diverse cohort as presented in Table 1. The student group consisted of undergraduate and postgraduate students to offer insights from different academic levels. The academic group had senior and junior-level faculty members to provide varied perspectives on teaching, research and space utilisation. Professional staff participants were selected from various administrative roles to provide insights from different operational and management perspectives. Additionally, to capture the university’s perspective, different designated professionals were selected, including architects, project managers, and facility managers, each offering distinct insights on planning, designing and long-term functionality of HE buildings. Each of these participants varied significantly in their experience, enabling the researchers to accommodate diversity to understand their needs to determine the design features. In terms of the student group, undergraduates focused on collaboration and social settings, whereas the postgraduate students emphasised the need for private, research-focused environments. More experienced participants from academic and professional staff highlighted some essential recurring issues they encountered over the years, which were then validated and agreed upon by other participants. This collective approach helped identify critical design considerations that address both immediate and long-term end-user needs in HE buildings.

The analysis first aimed to identify design elements and features from the literature review to facilitate the acquisition of end-user requirements of HE buildings in the design phase. The SLR identified 44 design features grouped into 12 design elements: spatial configuration, aesthetics, accessibility, privacy, ergonomics, environmentally friendly options, lighting, indoor air quality (IAQ), thermal comfort, building services, and learning and teaching enablers. This was then carried forward to the FG discussions, where participants across each group contributed insights into validating and enhancing the design elements and features. This process led to the establishment of 84 design features organised under 13 design elements. The consolidated findings are presented in Table 2, organised into three aspects: (1) findings from SLR, (2) modifications suggested by FGs and (3) newly identified design elements and features. The following sections discuss the consolidated findings under each design element.

End-users’ productivity is highly influenced by how spaces are arranged within HE buildings. Preiser (1995) linked occupants’ behaviour with spatial configurations, citing issues like poor toilet placements near offices causing odour and air quality concerns. Students placed next to trafficked areas showed poor performance and high blood pressure (Leung and Fung, 2005), while inadequate storage led to clutter, distractions and tripping hazards (Abisuga et al., 2020). These lead to psychological and physiological effects among students. The SLR found six design features: layout arrangement, dedicated spaces for informal gatherings, kitchenette, private meeting rooms, secured storage spaces and breakout areas. These were carried forward to the FG discussions. It was observed that end-users were curious and actively contributed to refining the list to address their functional requirements, whilst FM professionals largely agreed with the design features drawn from the literature.

Three originally proposed design features were refined based on the end-user groups’ feedback. Professional staff recommended having various sizes of private meeting rooms, highlighting, “Private meeting rooms should comprise various sizes; we need rooms for individual and group meetings.” They also suggested changing “secured storage” to “storage adequacy”, stating, “… not necessarily all storage spaces need to be secured, we need accessible storage spaces too, so things where you can put stationery or equipment”. Academics emphasised the inclusion of backpack lockers for storing personal belongings. Moreover, both students and academics highlighted the importance of incorporating fun elements into breakout areas. Both groups recognised the importance of short, engaging breaks to enhance productivity and well-being, mentioning, “if we could allocate some fun features like video games and table tennis for playing, it would be engaging instead of having spaces for just sitting and reading”.

Moreover, eight new design features were proposed, including hot-desks, first-in-family pupil or staff spaces (parenting facilities and childcare facilities), focused quiet spaces, recreational spaces, technical or troubleshooting support spaces, dedicated waiting rooms for appointments or meetings, shower and changing rooms (linked with changing rooms) and amenities, as presented in Table 2. Overall, this design element includes 14 design features. Three were adopted without changes, three were modified, and eight were newly proposed. The end-user groups contributed significantly to refining the design features, suggesting different features, while the FM professionals made minimal suggestions. This highlights the value of diverse end-user perspectives in shaping comprehensive design solutions.

This design element includes design features related to décor, appearances, pleasantness and texture of HE spaces (Lau et al., 2014). The texture, colour and comfortable atmosphere significantly influence end-users’ mood, memory, and productivity, thereby enhancing the overall students' learning experience. Accordingly, both exterior and interior design choices identified in the literature were carried forward to the FG discussions.

Only students proposed changes to the literature findings, suggesting the inclusion of “patterns” as an additional option for interior and exterior design choices. In addition, they introduced the concept of a historical/achievement wall to showcase milestones and accomplishments, justifying “This would bring a sense of pride and motivation for us to know how the institution has developed over the years, and we could celebrate the institution’s legacy and student achievements”. On the other hand, both professional staff and FM professionals expressed concerns about identity and the ease of maintenance and practicality in design. Additionally, FM professionals proposed understanding user preferences for ceiling design.

Personalisation was strongly emphasised by academics and professional staff who highlighted its impact on their work and well-being. One academic shared, “I’m an academic, and I have my differences. The more personalised it is, the more effective and efficient. One of the reasons that I prefer to work from home is that I cannot have my space personalised”. Similarly, professional staff emphasised, “My workstation was placed in front of a wall. I was constantly looking at a white or light-coloured wall. That’s when I noticed the strains in my eye, and the doctor told me it was due to my eye adjustments … This can be prevented if we could personalise our workspace”. In contrast, FM professionals highlighted the challenges in accommodating individual needs, and advocating for uniform designs, stating “It’s very challenging to meet every user’s need, and it’s not feasible; we tend to provide a standard environment to match every user’s need”. This divergence reflects a tension between the feasibility of standardisation and the end-users' desire for tailored work environments.

In summary, this design element comprises seven design features, reflecting the SLR findings and the collective preferences of end-user groups and FM professionals. Notably, personalisation was included despite the FM professionals’ disagreement, as it aligns with end-users’ needs for tailored spaces to enhance their sense of belonging, satisfaction and well-being.

Compared to other general population, HE students experience higher levels of study-related stress, depression and anxiety due to the competitive environment, where high academic performance is expected (Lau et al., 2014). Incorporating a connection with nature within HE buildings has been shown to positively impact mental well-being (Peters and D’Penna, 2020). Direct contact with natural elements or views of nature can reduce stress and alleviate anxiety. Therefore, the literature identified five natural landscape design features within this element: window views, courtyards or green spaces, rooftop gardens, study gardens and indoor plants.

The findings were presented in the FG discussions, where FM professionals did not contradict the originally proposed design features. However, end-user groups offered valuable insights, leading to the following changes: (1) the design element “biophilia and views” was renamed to “connection with nature” for clarity and better understanding, (2) the indoor plants feature was modified, and (3) a new design feature, waterscape design, was added.

Professional staff and academics raised concerns over indoor plants, particularly regarding the responsibility for their maintenance, stating, “Indoor plants need maintenance, and if we do not look after them, they die. Designers spend 1000s of dollars on indoor plants, but then designers don’t think about who’s taking care of those plants.” Likewise, academics stated, “… I suddenly feel responsible for it, and then I begin to get all anxious. I’ve got to look after them, and sometimes they die; that really makes me feel sad and responsible …”. As a result, indoor plants were perceived as more of a burden by end-users. Students proposed a new design feature: waterscape design. One student explained, “… Water has that soothing sound that reduces anxiety, and it gives a relaxing feeling by just looking at it”. This addition underscores the potential for water features to create calming, stress-relieving environments within HE buildings.

In brief, this design element comprises six design features, including one newly proposed feature. End-user groups provided unique insights, particularly regarding indoor plant design, reflecting a balance between user preferences and practical considerations to enhance the connection with nature in HE buildings.

Campus accessibility and convenience significantly affect students’ satisfaction (HEDQF et al., 2022). Effective wayfinding systems are essential to guide students, staff, and visitors throughout the campus premises. Lack of signage can lead to late arrivals, missed appointments, and difficulty in accessing locations, ultimately causing user dissatisfaction (Hassanain et al., 2012). Kim et al. (2018) found that locational accessibility is a key reason why end-users reject campus spaces. The literature identified three design features: proximity to designated parking and other transportation, signage and wayfinding, and disabled access.

During the FG discussions, participants emphasised the need for a universal design solution that ensures inclusivity, belonging and dignity for all end-users within HE buildings. Based on this feedback, several changes were made:

• (1)

  The design element’s name was revised from “accessibility” to “inclusivity and accessibility” to reflect a broader focus.

• (2)

  The “disabled access” design feature was modified to address not only physical access but also a wide range of other access needs.

• (3)

  Seven new design features were introduced, including disabled restrooms and designated parking, designated spaces for relaxation (sensory rooms), design for neurodiversity and sensory disabilities, dedicated safe spaces, gender-neutral toilets, the language of diversity and friendly and inclusive evacuation routes.

The varied perspectives from these FGs collectively emphasised the importance of prioritising inclusiveness in the design of HE buildings. These suggestions highlighted the need for physical, sensory, and cultural inclusivity, aiming to create a more welcoming and equitable space for all end-users. As a result, ten design features were identified as essential inclusion in this design element.

A sustainable building is defined as a facility that integrates a holistic architectural design approach to create an environmentally and end-user-friendly environment. This approach incorporates the triple bottom-line principle, addressing environmental, social, and economic aspects (Hopkins, 2016). Designers must ensure that the design meets these principles to be truly sustainable. However, as this study focuses on user perspectives, sustainable elements that concern only end-user behaviour are included. Hassanain et al. (2022a) emphasised the need for electric charging stations, cyclability, walkability, and energy conservation features (automatic faucets, light sensors, IAQ sensors, and waste recycling) in the design of campus buildings. These design features appeal to the image of HE buildings and promote environmentally friendly practices. SLR findings suggested the inclusion of six design features, as presented in Table 2, and then these were carried forward to the FG discussions.

Both the end-user groups and the FM professionals did not contradict the views. However, some user-suggested features were afterthoughts for designers to consider. For example, academics raised concerns about e-waste, noting, “There’s a lot of e-waste: monitors, keyboards, and other electronics, but no system to discard them effectively … I sometimes take the e-waste home to dispose of it”. They also highlighted the need for secured bicycle storage following a theft incident, saying, “One of our staff lost her bicycle in storage, so it should be secured”. Additionally, FM professionals recommended changing the term transportation to mobility, explaining, “… Transport includes car and bicycle, but walking is not a transport. It is the mobility option, so we could change the wording from transport to mobility …”. This adjustment broadens the scope to include all forms of sustainable movement.

Moreover, two new design features were proposed: flexible and multipurpose spaces, and water discharge and recycling. Both FM professionals and students emphasised the importance of flexibility. FM professionals expressed, “… the more flexible, the more adaptable the spaces are, the easier to create spaces that everybody likes”. Students recommended multipurpose spaces to reduce underutilised areas, justifying “When we go through the corridors, we always see that one space is full of people and the other is empty”. Academics raised concerns over wastewater discharge, asking, “… do we recycle it, or does it go to the sewerage system? I would like to know what happens to wastewater”. In brief, this design element was revised and expanded to include eight design features, incorporating two new additions and refining two original ones. These practical suggestions underscore the value of integrating “afterthought” design features into the design phase.

Lighting plays a critical role in HE buildings, influencing both the functionality and well-being of its end-users. Proper lighting is essential for visibility and creating an environment conducive to learning, teaching, productivity, and comfort. The ability to control the lighting enhances end-users’ preferences for spaces; for instance, during summer, being unable to control the bright light could result in painful glare, headache and fatigue. Kim et al. (2018) highlighted the discomfort of end-users being unable to control lighting or ventilation, which often results in rejecting learning spaces. Accordingly, this design element identified three design features: natural lighting, individual or multizone controllability and task lighting. These were validated and refined in the FG discussions by the end-users and the FM professionals.

FM professionals emphasised the importance of maintaining consistent lighting in shared spaces, advising against giving end-users control. They stressed, “We want the lighting to be consistent; we can’t have certain areas in the room that are quite dark, and certain areas to be bright. So it has to be uniform … It’s very difficult to offer switches; for instance, if one person wants the lights to be off and the other does not prefer it, it leads to chaos. It’s really impossible for us to give control”. However, this stance conflicted with end-users’ preferences for personalised lighting control. One argued, “I want to control the light brightness; for instance, I prefer to dim the light to read, and sometimes the light is too bright, and I don’t feel comfortable, so an option to dim the light would be effective to personalise my interest”. Though the end-users prefer lighting adjustments for comfort and productivity, designers focus on consistency for ease of system management. This highlights a conflict between user preferences and design practicality. Striking a balance is essential to support inclusivity, as fixed lighting can be unsuitable for end-users with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) or other sensitivities.

Four new design features were incorporated based on suggestions from the FM professionals and the end-user groups. These include colour preferences, window blinds options, security path lights, and emergency lights. The FM professionals highlighted the importance of colour preferences and window blinds, whereas, academics emphasised the need for security path lights to enhance safety during late hours, indicating, “… especially when I leave the office at late hours, I have to walk a long way to my car, and I prefer to have some sort of security path lights to guide me through the pathway”. Students advocated for emergency lights to ensure safe evacuation during power outages; they expressed, “In case of a power outage, we need emergency lighting to evacuate the building safely …”.

In summary, this design element comprises seven design features, with three derived from the SLR and four from FG discussions. Among these, one feature, control over lighting, elicited conflicting opinions from the user groups and the FM professionals. While the end-users prioritised customisable lighting for comfort and productivity, the FM professionals favoured uniform lighting for consistency and practicality. This divergence highlights the need for an adaptable solution that balances these perspectives and effectively meets user needs.

IAQ is the condition of the air within or around the building; it directly affects the end-user’s health and well-being. Maintaining appropriate IAQ is especially critical in HE buildings, which accommodate a diverse population engaged in extended activities. Poor air quality has been linked to distractions, annoyance, and negative learning outcomes (Hassanain et al., 2016). Stringer et al. (2012) emphasised prioritising good air quality due to its profound effect on academic activities. One key aspect of IAQ is ensuring odourless environments, as unpleasant odours can create an unwelcoming atmosphere, reducing engagement and satisfaction. Two design features were identified in the literature: natural ventilation to intake fresh air and olfactory comfort. These were reviewed in FG discussions, leading to the following outcomes:

• (1)

  The originally proposed design features were unanimously agreed upon across all FGs, and

• (2)

  Three additional design features were proposed: extraction and IAQ monitoring, air filtration and interior cross-contamination prevention.

During the discussions, no substantial differences were observed between the end-users and the FM professionals with regard to these design features. However, a key difference emerged in their priorities: the FM professionals emphasised airflow extraction for practicality and system efficiency, while end-users prioritised air quality transparency and creating environments that minimise infection risks. Academics raised concerns, quoting, “How do we know that the air is good? I am always concerned about it …” Professional staff suggested displaying air quality publicly, sharing, “… Can’t we publicly display the air quality as I have seen in Japan, so you know when you’re walking into a space what the levels are and if I am safe to enter?”. Similarly, the students stressed filtration systems to prevent contamination, stating “… even if we are using a mechanical ventilation system, I prefer it to be filtered to avoid contamination”. These discussions emphasised the inclusion of design features such as extraction and IAQ monitoring, air filtration and interior cross-contamination prevention.

After refinement, this element now encompasses five design features, with two derived from the SLR and three emerged in the FG discussions. Concerns over air intake were emphasised across the end-user groups, highlighting the importance of health and well-being. This reflects the need for proper ventilation and air quality control in HE buildings.

Thermal comfort is defined as “a state of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment” (ASHRAE, 2004). Concerns over thermal comfort have been consistently highlighted in numerous studies, with performance gaps in buildings often attributed to issues related to inadequate thermal conditions (Amin et al., 2015). Thermal comfort and academic performance are closely interrelated, as uncomfortable conditions can hinder concentration, learning, productivity, and overall engagement in educational settings. The ability to control the environment has been identified as a crucial factor in ensuring end-user comfort. In this context, the study identified three key design features to enhance thermal comfort: heat island reduction, individual/group control, and HVAC system sensors.

During the FG discussions, no new features were suggested, and all participants agreed with the originally proposed three features. However, a significant debate arose among the FM professionals, who expressed concerns about providing individual or group control over thermal settings. They emphasised the preference for maintaining a minimal standard to ensure compliance with expected guidelines and operational feasibility, as exemplified in the following quote: “… that’s one of the challenges we always face. Because certain people like it to be very low temperatures, like 20°C …, so we cannot give individual controls for users. Rather, we want it to be set at minimum standards …”. On the other hand, the end-user groups expressed their discomfort with the existing thermal conditions within HE building and highlighted their frustration over the lack of control to adjust these conditions to their preferences.

While the FM professionals resisted providing control over the thermal environment, the end-users strongly advocated for it, highlighting a recurring misalignment of priorities contributing to the performance gap in HE buildings. As a compromise, the FM professionals proposed smart control systems for automated thermal adjustments. However, disregarding the control over thermal performance is not recommended as HE building end-users may face many diverse effects, compromising their work and learning. Therefore, this design element includes the three original design features (heat island reduction, individual/group control, and HVAC system sensors) with the addition of the SMART control feature.

Privacy and quietness are major concerns for HE building end-users. Individual learners often value personal, distraction-free spaces where their work remains private (Harrop and Turpin, 2013). While quieter, acoustic designs benefit individual learners, teamwork-oriented learners may not be concerned about noise. Emotional connections to universities may foster student commitment, participation, and resilience. Hence, this design element consists of three features related to visual privacy, acoustic privacy and workspace layout arrangement within spaces.

As corroborated with the SLR findings, the end-user groups consented to all three proposed design features and highlighted their discomfort and preferences regarding privacy in their current HE settings. Visual privacy emerged as a significant concern, particularly for academics and professional staff, who highlighted the challenges of working on confidential documents in open spaces. While they preferred not to be isolated in cubicles, the lack of adequate privacy was heavily criticised. Similarly, noise was identified as another major source of discomfort, contributing to frustration among students, professional staff, and academics and impacting their overall productivity and well-being. Conversely, discussions with the FM professionals revealed that privacy was not considered a priority in their design approach, highlighting a disconnect between their focus and the end-users’ concerns. They commented, “When academics are in the university, they will be teaching and doing other activities. So, when they prefer to do some confidential work or mark papers, they can book focus rooms for a few hours and do their work. So that’s the principle we are adopting at the moment”.

Additionally, the FM professionals proposed adding furniture arrangements as another design feature, stating “… you might want certain furniture arrangements like we have now, where you can take a personal phone call, or you want to have a quick two-person meeting without a meeting room, so you would need sort of arrangements for privacy, like including screens, partition dividers and so on. So, we need to include furniture arrangements in this element”. This perspective suggests that visual privacy for end-users can be effectively achieved through strategic furniture arrangements, but this had to be disclosed to the FM professionals during the design phase.

Ergonomic comfort in HE buildings heavily relies on the arrangement of furniture and workstations. Ergonomically comfortable furniture keeps students focused and attentive. Studies like reconfigurable or even movable furniture to accommodate end-users of different sizes (Dong et al., 2022; Hassanain et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2013). The lack of consideration for ergonomics features in furniture and workstations can lead to musculoskeletal disorders and health issues over time (Mahmoud et al., 2019). This highlighted two design features: ergonomic appliances and ergonomic, comfortable furnishing.

The observation from the FG discussions revealed no substantial differences between the FM professionals and end-user groups. However, the design element of ergonomics underwent two key changes: (1) a revision proposed to an existing design feature, ergonomic comfortable furnishing, and (2) the addition of a new feature, hand dominance and hand use behaviour (left- and right-hand options).

Firstly, the originally proposed design feature, ergonomic comfortable furnishing, was revised to ergonomic adjustable furnishing. This alteration was prompted by the feedback from the FM professionals, who emphasised the need for adaptability to accommodate diverse user preferences and ergonomic needs. Secondly, a new design feature, hand dominance and hand use behaviour (left- and right-hand options), was introduced. This addition was particularly informed by discussions with the student participants, who highlighted, “… issue is that a lot of chairs aren’t always ambidextrous. So, people who are left-handed do not perform work effectively as they’re designed for right-handed …”. This distinction illustrates that even seemingly small features like hand preferences can highlight the unique needs of different user groups, emphasising the importance of user-centred design to address specific preferences. This design element, therefore, includes three key design features that emphasise ergonomic preferences, addressing the specific needs and comfort of diverse user groups within the HE environment.

This design element includes systems that are essential for maintaining the functionality, comfort, and safety of end-users in HE buildings. These services are crucial to supporting the day-to-day operations of an organisation without disruptions. For example, safety and security are among the most important concerns for end-users of HE buildings. Similarly, the literature identified water, electricity, and network connectivity as significant design features.

FG discussions were conducted to examine these findings, and all the groups unanimously agreed on the originally proposed design features without any modifications. However, three new design features emerged: stationery and food retail, low and ease of maintenance, and cleaning and hygiene. The need for stationery and foot retail was proposed by the professional staff group, who emphasised the practicality of having on-site amenities. This feature underscores the need for convenient on-site facilities to enhance end-user convenience. The other two features, low and ease of maintenance and cleaning and hygiene, were suggested by both the end-user groups and the FM professionals. These were consistently endorsed across the FGs with academics, professional staff, and FM professionals, emphasising the importance of selecting materials and systems that are low-maintenance, easy to clean, and hygienic. However, these considerations were not prominently reflected in the preferences expressed by the students, indicating a variation in priorities among different end-user groups.

In summary, this design element focuses on the utilities and services essential for ensuring end-user comfort, functionality, and the seamless operation of HE buildings. It comprises seven design features, four of which were derived from the SLR while the remaining three emerged through the FG discussions.

A HE building space should encourage learners to be actively involved in learning and collaboration. The spatial design should provide a personalised and inclusive environment to support the changing needs. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide closures, tremendously affecting 91% of the global student population in HE buildings and transforming teaching methods (International Association of Universities, 2020). Consequently, universities evolved from face-to-face teaching to e-learning settings in real-time (Deshmukh, 2021). COVID-19 has accelerated the change in the educational experience through the adoption of digital technologies, creativity, and innovation in the education system. The integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the adoption of blended learning environments are essential to accommodate end-users' diverse learning styles and preferences. Learning is no longer confined to a physical context (Victorino et al., 2022). For example, many spaces are becoming more isolated as students and academics adapt to working remotely. Having dedicated spaces for learning is no longer a solution for HE buildings; it requires drastic changes to support digital education. Based on the SLR findings, this design element equips five design features: flexible learning space, mobile learning, connected learning, visual and audio interactive learning, and printing solutions, allowing end-users to determine their preferred choice in their learning and teaching spaces.

The overall FG discussions did not suggest any changes to the originally proposed design features. All the participants emphasised that those features are significant. However, a critical element, “research,” was identified as missing from the proposed design features. This recommendation, endorsed by all the end-user groups and FM professionals, underscores its vital role in the context of HE buildings. For instance, academics stated, “… the research aspect is a bit different. We have laboratories that are just meant for research and teaching. So, we need to include the research aspect into learning and teaching, because, if not, it will be disregarded”. Furthermore, the FM professionals highlighted the absence of specific guidelines for designing labs or research spaces in their design standards document, citing the unique nature of each lab. They suggested adding a design feature to capture user-specific requirements for labs and research spaces, ensuring clarity and alignment with user needs. Moreover, two new design features were proposed; one by the FM professionals and the other by professional staff. The FM professionals identified teaching and recording booths as a significant feature for hybrid learning environments and online education. They shared insights based on recent experiences, stating, “We need to have a dedicated space for lecturers to record their online delivery, and we have designed one after COVID for one of the universities”. This demonstrates a post-pandemic shift in educational infrastructure, where institutions prioritise flexible and technology-enabled learning spaces. The professional staff emphasised the importance of incorporating a dedicated charging station as a design feature to support students' technological needs. They observed a recurring issue with inadequate charging infrastructure, noting, “There’s not really a lot of spaces where students could plug their laptop into a socket and work; even in libraries, it’s lacking, and students comment on this frequently”. This feedback highlights a growing demand for accessible and functional charging spaces in educational environments, reflecting the increasing reliance on laptops and other digital devices for academic work.

Given these changes, the design element was renamed “learning, teaching, and research infrastructure/enablers” to reflect the inclusion of research spaces. It now comprises eight design features, with five originating from the literature and three from the FG discussions.

The FM professionals newly introduced the design element of safety and compliance during the FG discussions, along with three design features. They stated, “Safety design talks about risk avoidance, material selection, and safe operation”. For example, low shelving on the way where you can hit your head, no sharp edges or finger traps, no slippery floors. From a designer’s perspective, safety in design considers whether a space can be accessed securely and whether all functions can be performed in a safe environment. The inclusion of features like materials to avoid, safe arrangement of design and equipment, risk avoidance, safe containment devices and avoidance of microbial contamination emphasises the importance of creating environments where end-users can function without exposure to unnecessary risks.

The findings reveal that diverse user groups possess unique perspectives and requirements, confirming Bullinger et al. (2010) and Gooding et al. (2021). For instance, students primarily emphasised the need for spaces that enhance academic performance and well-being, highlighting specific features like achievement walls and accommodation for hand-use preferences (left or right handedness). Cheryan et al. (2014) stressed the significance of displaying students' achievements, noting how this enhances the sense of value and aspirations and celebrates success. Likewise, Gumasing et al. (2022) revealed the importance of user-fit workstations in supporting academic performance and creating a stress-free, task-efficient environment. Academics focused on the teaching and faculty work requirements, with family-friendly spaces emerging as a notable concern. This aligns with the growing momentum for family-friendly campuses that support academics and students with parental commitments (CohenMiller et al., 2018). Professional staff provided an administrative perspective, with particular emphasis on maintenance-related aspects, which align with the survey findings of Driza and Park (2014). Overall, these varied perspectives collectively offered a well-rounded understanding of user needs, enabling the identification of comprehensive design elements and features tailored to HE buildings. A fundamental principle of user-engaged design is to align user requirements with those of FM professionals who are compliance-conscious and minimise discrepancies (Norouzi et al., 2015). To address this, the FM professionals’ perspective was incorporated to balance end-users’ needs and professionals’ perspectives. Therefore, prioritising one group’s needs over another is highly likely to cause performance gaps in HE buildings. A HE design guideline should enable meeting the needs of all user groups.

Figure 2 presents a novel framework that consolidates the 13 design elements and their associated 84 features, which are critical for creating high-performance HE buildings. It comprises 40 new design features that are not present in the existing literature. This enhances the existing body of knowledge related to briefing, participatory design, user-centred design, and co-design by providing comprehensive design requirements for procuring high-performance HE buildings. Moreover, they encompass the outcome of the analysis of perspectives of diverse end-users and FM professionals in a consolidated manner, minimising conflicts and maximising end-user satisfaction.

The findings of this study offer significant practical implications for designing high-performance HE buildings. The framework of 13 design elements and 84 features provides designers and FM professionals with a comprehensive guideline for creating efficient, functional, and user-centric spaces. This framework can inform the development of a user brief, complementing the project brief in the early design phase. By integrating a user brief, recurring issues of end-user dissatisfaction can be mitigated, end-users, ensuring stronger alignment between design intent and user needs. This approach contributes to the creation of functional, inclusive and high-performing HE buildings. Design professionals can leverage these findings to make informed decisions, proactively identifying and addressing potential design shortcomings before construction begins, ultimately enhancing the overall usability and effectiveness of HE spaces.

The findings of this study can help HE institutions address all three pillars of the triple bottom line—environmental, social, and economic sustainability—through strategic design and policy development.

Environmental Sustainability: By prioritising sustainable design principles, HE institutions can reduce their carbon footprint, lower energy consumption, and minimize operational costs. Implementing environmentally responsible practices can position institutions as leaders in sustainability, reinforcing their commitment to green initiatives.

Social Sustainability: Enhancing inclusivity and accessibility ensures equitable access for all users, fostering diversity, participation, and well-being. Designing spaces that support collaboration, engagement, and holistic development contributes to a more inclusive academic environment that promotes social sustainability.

Economic Sustainability: Operational efficiency can be improved by integrating ergonomic design, durability, and ease of maintenance, reducing long-term costs. Additionally, high-performance buildings enhance institutional appeal, attracting students, faculty, and research collaborators, thereby strengthening financial sustainability.

Overall, these findings promote best practices in HE building design, enabling institutions to create cost-effective, adaptable, and high-quality spaces that support educational excellence while advancing sustainability across all three dimensions.

Though this study provides a comprehensive framework for guiding designers and FM professionals in systemising end-user requirements in HE buildings, there are certain limitations that offer opportunities for future research:

• (1)

  Cultural and climate contexts – This study primarily focused on the Australian context, which experiences mixed climatic conditions – summer, autumn, winter and spring – and is influenced by Western design perspectives. Future research could explore the applicability of the framework across other climate settings, such as tropical and arid regions, and diverse socio-cultural and economic contexts, including Asia, the Middle East and Africa, to enhance its global relevance.

• (2)

  Establishment of design guides – Future studies could focus on translating the existing framework into a standardised design guide for practical application in HE institutions. This would involve examining HE institutions' governance, functional roles, and the process of user engagement in design to ensure the guidelines are appropriately tailored and effectively implemented.

• (3)

  Systemising user engagement practices – Further studies may explore effective user engagement strategies in HE institutions to provide structured mechanisms and clarify decision-making roles to better capture and address end-user requirements.

• (4)

  Development of design and building evaluation frameworks – The research could expand its focus to building evaluations, covering both pre-occupancy and post-occupancy assessment to identify performance gaps. This would help governance bodies, designers, and FM professionals at universities detect mismatches between design intent and actual end-user expectations, reducing the need for costly post-occupancy modifications or renovations.

This study addresses a critical knowledge gap by developing a framework of design features that mitigate performance gaps in HE buildings. Through a qualitative approach combining a systematic literature review and focus groups, 13 design elements and 84 design features were identified, enriching the existing body of knowledge on briefing and end-user-engaged approaches in HE building design.

The findings have significant practical implications for advancing HE building design. By providing a structured framework for a systemised user brief, this study offers a proactive strategy for ensuring user-centric, functional, and adaptable spaces. A systemised user brief serves as a critical tool in aligning design intent with user needs, improving occupant satisfaction, well-being, and academic performance. Additionally, it facilitates collaborative decision-making among designers, clients, facilities managers, and other stakeholders in the pre-design phase, ensuring that end-user requirements are clearly understood and systematically integrated into the design process. By embedding these insights early, HE institutions can reduce design inefficiencies, minimise post-occupancy modifications, and enhance long-term operational effectiveness.

Furthermore, adopting these findings promotes a sustainable approach to HE building design by addressing all three pillars of the triple bottom line. Environmental sustainability is supported by features such as energy-efficient HVAC systems, heat island reduction, natural ventilation, and waterscape design, reducing carbon footprints and operational costs. Social sustainability is strengthened by incorporating inclusive learning environments, universal design principles, culturally responsive spaces, and breakout areas that foster well-being and collaboration. Meanwhile, economic sustainability is enhanced through durable, low-maintenance materials, adaptable spaces, and high-performance infrastructure that improve cost efficiency and long-term asset value. By integrating these sustainability-driven design principles, HE institutions can create cost-effective, adaptable, and high-quality spaces that support educational excellence while fostering resilience and long-term performance.

Despite the study making a valuable contribution by establishing design elements and features that can enable the creation of high-performing HE buildings, there are certain limitations. The study has not shown how the new knowledge can be integrated into the user-centred design process for forming project briefs and guiding the design. Hence, future research is suggested to develop a framework for user-engaged design that leverages the new knowledge and addresses the shortcomings of existing approaches such as participatory, user-centred and co-design. Another potential limitation of this study is the selection bias introduced by purposive sampling within a single university, which may have influenced the FG discussions and limited the generalisability of the findings. To address this, future research could adopt broader and more diverse participant selection strategies to enhance the generalisability of findings. Moreover, this study is limited to the Australian context. Future research could explore the framework’s applicability across different climatic, socio-cultural and economic contexts to assess its global relevance. Finally, building on this study’s findings, future research could examine higher education institutions' governance and stakeholder engagement processes to systematically standardise the user engagement framework. This would support the effective integration of user briefs and evaluation processes into HE building design, enhancing alignment between design intent and user needs.

• This research obtained ethics approval from Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group – SEBE on 16.10.2024. Reference number is 2024/HE000540. The research followed the ethical guidelines set forth by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2023) of Australia.

• The research was supported by the Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholarship Scheme.