Build Up Programme Evaluation 2011

An Evaluation of the University of Westminster’s

Build Up Programme Final Report March 2011

Report by Kairos Associates Ltd

Build Up Evaluation March 2011 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..............................................................................5

1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 9

1.1 The Build Up Programme .............................................................. 9

1.1.1 Programme outputs and measures of success ....................... 11

1.2 Evaluation Aims and Methodology ............................................. 11

1.2.1 Aims........................................................................................ 11

1.2.2 Methodology ........................................................................... 12

2 Performance against Targets ....................................................... 13

2.1 Recruitment and registration data .............................................. 13

2.2 Registration criteria ..................................................................... 14

2.3 Delivery of activities .................................................................... 14

2.4 Measures of success ................................................................... 15

3 Evaluation Findings ........................................................................ 17

3.1 Strand One: Career Development Centre ................................... 17

3.1.1 Bookings and attendance......................................................... 18

3.1.2 Participant feedback ................................................................ 18

3.1.3 CDC consultant feedback ........................................................ 19

3.1.4 Strand One evaluation summary.............................................. 20

3.2 Strand Two: Overview ................................................................. 20



3.3 Strand Two: School of Architecture & the Built Environment .. 22



3.3.3 ABE course deliverers’ feedback ............................................. 24

3.3.4 ABE: Strand Two evaluation summary..................................... 24

3.4 Strand Two: Westminster Business School .............................. 25



3.4.3 WBS course deliverers’ feedback ............................................ 27

3.4.4 WBS: Strand Two evaluation summary.................................... 27


3.5 Strand Two: School of Electronics and Computer Science ...... 28



3.5.3 SECS course deliverers’ feedback........................................... 29

3.5.4 SECS: Strand Two evaluation summary .................................. 29

3.6 Strand Two Evaluation: Overall Summary ................................. 29

3.7 Strand Three ................................................................................ 30

3.7.1 Introduction.............................................................................. 30

3.7.2 Borough High Street project..................................................... 31

3.7.3 Canal Terrace Shops project ................................................... 34

3.7.4 Haringey project....................................................................... 37

3.7.5 Haringey Heartlands II project.................................................. 40

3.7.6 London Bridge Viaducts project ............................................... 43

3.7.7 Retrofitting Soho project........................................................... 45

3.7.8 Strand Three projects summary............................................... 47

3.8 Online Participant Survey ........................................................... 48

3.8.1 Survey scorecard..................................................................... 48

3.8.2 Participant comments .............................................................. 48

3.8.3 Online survey summary ........................................................... 49

4 Build Up Participant Stories ......................................................... 50

4.1 Erica Jong: Architect ................................................................... 50

4.2 Adrian Lannon: Surveyor ............................................................ 50

4.3 Margaret Reynolds: Architect ..................................................... 51

4.4 Susan Schnadhorst: Environmental Advisor ............................ 52

4.5 Andrew Smith: Planner ............................................................... 52

4.6 Stephen Ware: Architecture ........................................................ 53

4.7 Naghmana Zia-Ud-Din: Architect ................................................ 53

4.8 Participant stories: Summary ..................................................... 54

5 The Stakeholders’ Perspectives .................................................. 55

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 55

5.2 The Career Development Centre consultant team .................... 56

5.2.1 Challenges............................................................................... 56

5.2.2 Successes ............................................................................... 56

5.2.3 Lessons learned ...................................................................... 56


5.2.4 Impact...................................................................................... 57

5.3 Alan Mace, Project Lead: ABE .................................................... 58

5.3.1 Challenges............................................................................... 58

5.3.2 Successes ............................................................................... 58

5.3.3 Lessons learned ...................................................................... 59

5.3.4 Impact...................................................................................... 59

5.4 Walaa Bakry, Academic Project Lead: WBS .............................. 60

5.4.1 Challenges............................................................................... 60

5.4.2 Successes ............................................................................... 60

5.4.3 Lessons learned ...................................................................... 61

5.4.4 Impact...................................................................................... 61

5.5 Sibyl Coldham, Project Adviser: Westminster Ex change ......... 61

5.5.1 Challenges............................................................................... 62

5.5.2 Successes ............................................................................... 62

5.5.3 Lessons learned ...................................................................... 62

5.5.4 Impact...................................................................................... 62

5.6 Comments from Build Up Partners ............................................ 63

5.7 The stakeholders’ perspectives summary ................................. 63

6 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... 64

Appendices

Appendix A: Course List

Appendix B: Participant Feedback Form

Appendix C: Online Survey Data

Appendix D: Participant Profile Data

Appendix E: Participant Feedback Form Data


Executive Summary Introduction In December 2010, the University of Westminster completed the delivery of the Build Up programme, a match-funded project supported financially by HEFCE’s Economic Challenge Investment Fund and Westminster City Council’s, Westminster Works Programme. The initiative also received the active support of the sector’s Professional Bodies, London First, the Linking London Lifelong Learning Network and professional practitioners. The programme was a collaborative effort, bringing together the Career Development Centre (CDC), School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Westminster Business School (WBS), School of Electronics and Computer Studies (ECS) and Westminster Exchange (WEx). Launched in July 2009, the primary aim of the programme was to provide built environment professionals, who had been adversely affected by the recession, with the opportunity to re-evaluate their careers and enhance their skills in preparation for the predicted up-turn in the economy. The team delivered over a hundred professional development workshops, short courses and projects to over 850 participants during the project’s 18 month time-span. The programme was structured into three strands. Strand One, “Career Focus”, was delivered by the CDC. The one day interactive workshops encouraged participants to identify their own developmental needs and build networks with other professionals. Strand Two, “Developing Talent”, was delivered by ABE, WBS and ECS (although a school restructuring meant that ECS had to withdraw from the project early). This comprised of a suite of CPD courses which offered participants the opportunity to enhance their business, technical and communication skills within a multi-disciplinary context. The third strand of the programme, “Innovative Collaboration” was based on live project work. Participants worked in inter-disciplinary teams on projects defined in collaboration with local authorities, business improvement districts and not-for-profit organisations. The project aims were to develop inter-professional working techniques and identify new environmentally conscious ways of looking at urban issues. Evaluation The main aim of the programme evaluation has been to measure success against the predicted outputs written in the original bid to HEFCE. The participants’ assessments of the programme were investigated via various means, including the analysis of over 600 feedback forms, focus groups, interviews and an online survey. The evaluation also sought to identify what impact the programme has had, not only from the perspective of participants, but also those of University of Westminster staff and external partners. Performance against Targets The Build Up programme has, on the whole, successfully met the targets and objectives set out in the original bid; exceeding targets for registration numbers and the number of places on offer. The aims of generating income by selling Build Up elements as redundancy packages to businesses and the setting up of special interest groups were not met. The reasons given for this were the high participant demand and lack of resources and capacity. However, responding to participant demand by delivering additional elements of the programme at subsidised rates did help towards meeting the income generation target.


Strand One Sixteen one day Career Focus workshops, attended by 200 participants, were run during the lifetime of the Build Up programme. Additional targeted careers related sessions were also scheduled according to participant interest. These included: “Professional services labour market”, “Starting your own business” and “Pitching yourself on paper”. Build Up registrants were also offered the opportunity to have a one to one 45 minute careers guidance interview at a subsidised fee. A total of 408 bookings were received across all of the Strand One elements. The final attendance total was 283, a non-attendance rate of 30%. • The overall feedback of the participants was positive. • The inter-disciplinary networking and expert input was considered highly valuable. • The 30% drop-out rate had a detrimental effect on some of the workshops and the

interactive exercises. • The high recruitment levels of architects diminished the value of the inter-disciplinary

learning in some of the workshops. • The low uptake of paid-for 1 to 1 careers guidance confirms experience of a

reluctance of professionals to pay for this type of professional development. Strand Two Sixty-seven Strand Two short courses were delivered over the duration of the programme. In addition to these, participants were offered the opportunity to undertake professional examinations (PRINCE2), attend a RIBA symposium and take up places on externally delivered Urban Design London Courses. A total of 1406 bookings were received across all of the Strand Two elements. The final attendance total was 1025 which represents a 27% drop-out rate. The feedback forms received represented the views of 621 participants; 66% of the 945 participants who attended the courses. The overall score awarded by the participants was 84% of the total available score. The scores were high across all three of the schools and the participants’ comments supported the view that a majority of the course deliverers were well informed and skilled. Many of the participants felt that the courses could have been enhanced by delivery over a longer period of time, incorporating more case studies and, in some cases, more sector specific knowledge. The administration of the courses initially received some criticism; however, the introduction of new online systems in January 2010 improved service levels. The main issues appear to have been around the quality of the training rooms, unreliable equipment and cancellation of courses at short notice. Few comments were received relating to the overall non-attendance rate of 27%, but it did not appear to affect the success of course delivery. Strand Three The evaluation of the projects was carried out through interviews, focus groups, case studies and qualitative participant feedback requests. Whilst the specific project aims were defined by the commissioners, the underpinning tenet was that of addressing local environmental issues by utilising innovative, sustainable and, where appropriate, low carbon approaches. As such, these projects met the desired outcomes for improving the knowledge and skills of the participants in these areas within a multi-disciplinary context.


The experience common to all of the participants was the challenge of working with a team that experienced changes throughout the duration of their projects, either due to participant drop-out or the change of the commissioning agency personnel. The key challenge for the commissioners was to effectively integrate and support the teams with restricted resources. Participants reported that their technical skills and professional knowledge were enhanced through working on the projects. In addition, the most commonly reported benefit was that of increased confidence. The commissioning bodies were of the view that the project experience and outputs have had a positive impact on their organisations and the parts of London that they related to. All of the projects reported on were completed and high quality reports presenting innovative solutions were produced by the teams. There were additional, unplanned outcomes e.g. the use of the project outputs for political lobbying, the enhancement of community engagement in local issues, the presentation of project outputs at Architectural Festivals, and the continuation of participants’ working relationships with some of the commissioners. Stakeholders’ perspectives The programme offered the University the opportunity to enhance the skills, knowledge and experience of delivering demand responsive CPD to a new audience. All involved took advantage of the opportunity to develop new skills both in the design and delivery of continuing professional development interventions and increased knowledge of the needs and demands of professional learning within the built environment sector. One of the key challenges was the rate of the project set-up and implementation and the need to develop effective forms of communication across all of the schools and departments involved. It was also apparent that the University’s processes were challenged by the need to accommodate the fast moving set up of non-traditional participant registration and project management processes. Whilst the development of new business relationships through Build Up was not as successful as hoped for, external relationships with local authorities, business improvement districts, community groups and specialist consultants have been enhanced and could prove valuable for the future. The Build Up programme has influenced practice within the University, with more collaborative projects being discussed, consideration of different ways of designing short courses and an increased confidence in delivering to a professional audience and managing complex projects. The success of delivering a creative and innovative programme that has supported a large cohort of professionals at a difficult time in their careers has enhanced the University’s reputation, provides a wealth of positive stories and increases the University’s credibility when pursuing new project funding.


Summary of findings The Build Up programme has been successfully delivered; exceeding numerical targets and meeting many of its desired aims. The participants’ evaluation of the programme was extremely positive. Where improvements were suggested, they were generally related to the quality of the venues which often did not meet professional expectations. The interactive, practical nature of the delivery was successful, with participants appreciating the quality of the input, sector-specific practice-based approach and inter-disciplinary peer working. Where content enhancements were suggested, they were for the inclusion of more sector-specific materials, case studies and input from external representatives of the built environment sector. There have been anecdotal reports of participants’ employment opportunities and success being directly attributed to their attendance on the programme; the live projects in particular. However, the most commonly reported impact of the programme has been the positive effects on the confidence and morale of the participants. Build Up gave many a sense of structure and of taking control over their lives by engaging in something positive and developmental. The issues raised by the swift implementation of the programme highlighted the structural challenges that the University has if it plans to deliver demand-led professional development interventions. The central administrative, contracting and financial process frameworks will need to become more adaptable if the facilitation of beneficial and commercial business-facing relationships to become more commonplace across the University and consideration will need to be given to developing a seamless process for the registration and management of non-traditional, professional participants. Promoting, both internally and externally, the successes of the programme and any new initiatives will require an effective institution-wide marketing and communications strategy. The programme has also provided a valuable developmental experience for the staff involved; enhanced knowledge of the built environment sector; increased skills in the design and delivery of different models of CPD courses to new audiences and a greater understanding of the management and delivery of a complex, collaborative projects and partnership working. This experience, along with the development positive relationships with a broad network of external contacts appears to be driving the momentum towards new ways of working with colleagues and external consultants, professionals and organisations.

The findings of this evaluation suggest that Build Up has had a wide-reaching positive impact, not only on the participants and University staff, but also on the reputation of the University across the built environment sector and London as a whole. It has started new conversations within the University and provided a different model of working. There now exists an opportunity to take forward the lessons learned, pursue the development of new relationships with external organisations and businesses and explore the potential of inter-disciplinary and collaborative working, both within and outwith the University.


1. Introduction 1.1 The Build Up Programme The University of Westminster was awarded a match-funded grant of £400,000 from HEFCE’s Economic Challenge Investment Fund (ECIF) in April 2009. The fund was offered to universities to develop interventions that would pro-actively address the impact of the recession. The University secured a further £80,000 from the Westminster City Council’s, Westminster Works programme and the initiative also received the active support of RIBA, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Construction Industries Council, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers, London First and the Linking London Lifelong Learning Network. The programme was launched under the name of “Build Up” in July 2009 with registrations commencing in August 2009. Its primary aim was to provide built environment professionals, who had been adversely affected by the recession, with the opportunity to re-evaluate their careers and enhance their skills in preparation for the predicted (at the time of writing of the ECIF bid) up-turn in the economy. The delivery of Build Up was structured into three “Strands”. Strand One, “Career Focus”, was delivered by the University’s Career Development Centre and offered each Build Up registrant the opportunity to attend a one day interactive career evaluation workshop in which participants were encouraged to:

• build networks with other professionals (virtual and physical); • identify their own development needs; • create their own professional development plans and; • access a range of information and learning/development resources.

Additional targeted careers related sessions were also scheduled according to participant interest. These included: “Professional services labour market”, “Starting your own business” and “Pitching yourself on paper”. Build Up registrants were also offered the opportunity to have a one to one 45 minute careers guidance interview at a subsidised fee. Strand Two, “Developing Talent”, was delivered by three Schools; Architecture and the Built Environment, Westminster Business School and the School of Electronics and Computing Sciences. This strand comprised of a series of short (2 to 5 days) professional development courses which offered participants the opportunity to enhance their skills within a multi-disciplinary context. Appendix A lists the full range of courses offered. The courses covered a range of themes including:

• Climate change • Community empowerment and planning • Design skills • Negotiation and business relationship building • Economic skills in a changing market


• Project management • Promoting business through IT.

The project management courses offered by the programme were submitted for and achieved accreditation from APMG and thus became recognised Prince2 Foundation and Practitioner courses. As a result of this, participants were offered the opportunity to study for, and sit, Prince2 exams organised by Westminster Business School at a subsidised fee. 94% of the Prince2 Foundation candidates and 71% of the Practitioner candidates passed the exams and received industry recognised qualifications. In addition, the 105 participants who attended the Sustainable Construction short courses were offered free registration to the Green Register, thus gaining industry recognition of their learning. As a result of the relationship founded with Urban Design London, the Build Up programme was also able to provide subsidised places for a number of participants on a relevant selection of workshops and seminars. The programme also funded a small number of subsidised places at the RIBA Research Symposium, "Changing Practices". Whilst the initial offer of short courses was underpinned by sector skills gap research and was developed in collaboration with Build Up’s professional partners; the later course schedule was also informed by participant feedback and demand. The third strand of the programme, “Innovative Collaboration” offered participants the opportunity to work in teams, alongside other built environment professionals, to undertake project-based work, involving local authorities, business improvement districts and not-for-profit organisations. The aims of these 8 to 10 week projects were to:

• develop inter-professional working techniques; • identify new ways of looking at urban issues; • develop real solutions to real built environment issues across London; • enhance green skills development and; • outline different approaches to low carbon and sustainable community issues.

Participants were exposed to a wide range of issues and working methods, supported by professional and academic mentors who aimed to introduce them to new approaches to working within the urban environment. The projects were “live” and the final outputs were presented to the project commissioners and published on the Build Up website. Supplementing the formal provision outlined above, the programme offered a variety of informal networking and knowledge-sharing opportunities. All registered participants were issued with University of Westminster ID cards which gave them access to the University’s facilities for the duration of the programme. An event was held in June 2010 to which professional bodies, businesses, local authorities and participants were invited to present their views on the sector’s development, discuss the most effective provision of services to the client, showcase their work and take the opportunity to network. Participants, partners and businesses were also invited to join the Build Up group on business/ social networking “LinkedIn”. To date, this LinkedIn group has over 250 members.


In all, the Build Up programme offered a total of 108 workshops, courses, projects and seminars between August 2009 and November 2010. All participants who achieved satisfactory attendance for any element of the programme received relevant certificates of attendance. 1.1.1. Programme outputs and measures of success The funding bid submitted to HEFCE outlined a range of targets and desired outcomes for the ECIF project. The targets proposed in the bid were: • Induction: Anticipated 800-1000 participants (from May 2009). • SME / Redundancy packages: Anticipated 100+ participants, generating a projected

income of £20,000. (from July/August 2009) • Short course & Master classes: Anticipated 1500+ take-ups some of which would be

accredited so that participants could gain academic credit (P/G) at a charge of £50/5 (from July/August 2009).

• Projects: Anticipated 10 projects and 150 participants (from July/August 2009). The outputs and measures of success were cited as: • Multi-skilled professionals • Re-engagement in the workforce • Improved employability, confidence and networking • Contributions to knowledge (projects) • Interdisciplinary special interest groups • Quality and diversity of engagement and adaptation to different ways of working by

participants and staff, including increased engagement between the University and industry

• Impact assessments – participants, staff, partners, through demographic and other data, surveys and programme evaluation.

1.2 Evaluation Aims and Methodology 1.2.1 Aims The aim of the evaluation of the Build Up programme was to investigate its elements in order to assess: • how well the programme met its objectives; • the quality of the programme (delivery, content, administration, information provided)

from the perspective of the participants; • any impact of the programme from the participants’ perspective (professional and

personal development). • the quality and impact of the programme from the perspective of the University’s

delivery team; • whether the programme has had any impact on the working practices across the

schools involved and the Careers Development Centre; and • whether the programme has influenced wider University practices.


1.2.2 Methodology In order to carry out a comprehensive investigation of the success of programme against these criteria, the following evaluation and data collection methods were used: • Participant Feedback Forms:

Standard feedback forms (see Appendix B for an example) were handed out to participants who attended the 67 Strand 2 short courses that were run. 55 sets of forms were received, representing the views of 621 participants. This represents 66% of the 945 participants who attended the courses.

• Online survey:

An online survey (see Appendix C) was sent to 703 participants at the end of the programme. This invited both a quantitative and qualitative response. 68 responses were received; a return rate of approximately 10%.

• Online Feedback:

Upon completion of each programme element, participants were invited to leave feedback via the Build Up website. 55 participants commented on the courses and programme overall.

• Project and Course Leader Reports:

The four project leads responsible for delivery for each of the schools and the Career Development Centre collated information from the Course Deliverers across all three of the Strands and incorporated them into project reports which were submitted at the end of the programme.

• Participant Focus Groups: Strand 3 participants were invited to attend focus groups in order to discuss their experience on the programme. Three focus groups were organised with 30 people taking part. This represents approximately a third of the 100 strand three participants.

• Individual Case Study Questionnaire: Several participants were asked whether they would respond to a case study questionnaire over the duration of the programme.

• Interviews:

One to one interviews were carried out with individuals who had been involved in the inception, design, development and delivery of the programme.

The data collected by these evaluation methods has been analysed and provides an overview of the programme’s challenges and successes.


2. Performance against Targets 2.1 Recruitment and registration data The primary numerical targets set for the programme were to offer 1500 places to at least 800 participants. The programme exceeded these targets; offering 2568 places and registering 857 participants (an additional 105 registrations were received by people who were ineligible for the programme and were subsequently blocked from booking onto the courses). The full participant and recruitment profiling statistics are available in Appendix D. The participants were offered the choice of 108 different courses, seminars, workshops and projects. Attendance data was collated at the end of each session. Total Bookings: 1937 Total Attendance: 1408 The number of “no-shows” was 246, representing a 27% drop-out rate. Registrations commenced in August 2009 and closed in November 2010. The graph below shows the rate at which registrations took place:

Build Up Registrations: August 2009 to November 201 0Total: 857

51

7975

92

120

68

48 48

40

27

4851

24

44

32

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov

Registrations

There was a notable peak in registrations in December 2010. This was attributed to the distribution of press releases and commencement of recruitment activities by Build Up partners. Recruitment dipped during the Easter and summer holiday periods and at the end of the programme when there was less direct promotion taking place.


2.2 Registration criteria The target audience for the programme was those built environment professionals who had been adversely affected by the recession. The breakdown of registrations is as follows: Status at point of registration Numbers %age Currently unemployed 596 69 Formally under notice of redundancy 44 5 On reduced time working arrangements 117 14 Can demonstrate that current employment is seriously under threat due to the current economic downturn 100 12

In order to be eligible for the programme participants must also have worked within a recognised profession in the built environment sector. The graph below shows the breakdown of professions cited:

Build Up Participants Professions

446

1048278

483021121010952

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Archite

cture

Other (

Eligible)

Survey

ing

Planning

Constru

ction

Urban

Regen

erat

ion

Trans

port

Structu

ral E

nginee

ring

Archite

ctura

l Tec

hnolo

gy

Housin

g

Susta

inabil

ity/E

nviro

nmen

tal C

onsult

ancy

Urban

Design

Building

Service

s

Places on the programme were only offered to professionals who had at least one year’s working experience and not to new graduates. The rationale behind this restriction was that Build Up was designed as an interdisciplinary professional development programme which would encourage professionals would share their knowledge and experience with each other, thus enhancing their understanding of other professional practices and approaches. 52% of registrations came from professionals with five or more years of working experience with a further 17% having over three years experience. 2.3 Delivery of activities (as outlined in the orig inal bid) The majority of the proposed activities were delivered, however, as the implementation of the project took place, necessary amendments were made to the structure of the programme offer. Much of these amendments were in response to high take-ups of the short course and workshop places and the subsequent response to participant demand.


Induction: anticipated 800-1000 participants The original intention was to make the Career Focus workshops a compulsory induction for all participants. The planning process identified issues with the implementation of this criterion for registration including the delaying of the delivery schedule of the other elements of the programme until enough participants had undertaken the workshops. The decision was taken that this element would be made optional. In total, 200 of the 857 registered participants booked places onto this element of the programme. SME / Redundancy packages anticipated 100+ participants This element of the programme was not delivered. It became apparent that the high level of up-take from the core constituency (unemployed) meant that the Build Up team did not have the capacity to develop the courses as offers for business as part of their redundancy packages. As one of the outputs of the project was to raise £20,000 through fees, the team reviewed the services that the programme could offer through subsidizing fees. The programme offered subsidised One to One career guidance interviews, and obtained Prince2 accreditation for the project management courses, thus enabling the offer of subsidised exams leading to industry recognised qualifications. These innovations within the programme both responded to participant demand and interests and generated an income of £12,340. Short course & master classes: anticipated 1500+ ta ke-ups (some of which would be accredited) This objective was achieved with the booking of 1937 places on the programme. The short courses were not accredited. The reasons cited for this were that, at the point of the programme launch the University’s accreditation service was still in its pilot phase which would delay the accreditation of the Build Up courses. The high uptake of places meant that the Build Up team did not have the capacity to organise the retrospective offer of academic credits. Projects : anticipated 10 projects and 150 participants Ten projects and two “mini-projects” were offered. However, the recruitment dip during the holiday times resulted in the cancellation of two projects. By the end of the programme, 123 participants had booked onto the Strand 3 projects. 2.4 Measures of success (as outlined in original bi d) Multi-skilled professionals The Build Up programme was designed to up-skill professionals; enhancing and broadening their current skills sets. The inter-disciplinary business, built environment, finance and IT development courses on offer set the agenda, along with the challenges of inter-disciplinary team working presented by the projects. The numerous networking opportunities, both face-to-face and virtual offered participants another route to share and enhance their knowledge. Quotes from participants: • It was a practical and very well structured interactive workshop which helps me to

identify my career planning and skills development as well as to exchange information with fellow professionals with a wide range of experiences within the built environment. Thank you.


• Although I was familiar with planning from the point of view of a small architectural practice, I learned a lot... The main gain was to widen my narrow architect's perspective to the larger issues at stake with planning.

• I learned a great deal not only from my immediate group, but from everyone else working on the project, it was great learning from how people from different disciplines (other than my own) approach things. In many ways, I feel I learned as much from my peers on the course as the tutors steering the project.

Re-engagement in the workforce The programme met this measure by offering participants the business, communication and professional skills needed to improve their chances of re-engaging with the workforce, hold a job that was under threat or enhance their self-employability options. Quotes from participants: • It was very useful as I was introduced to my current boss on a BuildUp course. • The course has offered an amazing opportunity to learn new professional skills and

to work within the group in an interdisciplinary way. I am very grateful to be given this opportunity. Our ' inter-group' will continue to work together in view of possible collaborations.

• My experience with BuildUp has encouraged me to engage with local professionals outside of Westminster, attend events and network. The experience had made me a more attractive candidate to potential employers. I am currently working for Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands on large scale projects in the city. I cannot thank the programme enough for giving me the confidence to put myself forward.

Improved employability, confidence and networking Whilst the programme was successful in its aim to up-skill the participants and actively encouraged networking, the overwhelmingly positive feedback received related to the boost that the programme gave to the participants’ confidence and morale. Quotes from participants: • I seek building networks and the introductions possible were worth attending for

alone. • As someone who is unemployed Build Up helped me to remain current and up to

date for networking, job hunting and knowledge. It is unusual to find this quality for free.

• It was great to have the confidence back – not always easy after being made redundant.

• The programme has helped me to realise what I really wanted my career path to be but was a little scared to undertake.

• The encouraging, helpful and impartial environment helped me to realise that I wasn't the only one in my situation and that there were others around for help and support, and that I could learn a lot from their experiences.

Contributions to knowledge The Strand 3 projects, contributed to the knowledge both of the participants and the project organisations who have reported increased understanding of the urban issues addressed in their localities and creative ideas for their solution. As many of the participant teams worked within the commissioning organisations, the informal as well as the formal knowledge exchanges enhanced the mutual understanding of the different


built environment disciplines, the issues faced by the organisations, the challenges and benefits of working with interdisciplinary teams and the creative solutions that can be developed through successful collaborative working. External partner quotes: • Thanks for sending this [project report prepared by the Build Up inter-disciplinary

team] through – it’s a great document which will help shape a number of initiatives for us moving forward. I’ve had one idea for a meeting to showcase it with local residents, businesses and landowners…to review where we’re up to and where we’d like to go with some of the ideas you and your colleagues put forward. [Better Bankside Business Improvement District]

• We jumped at the opportunity to engage with a variety and level of professional expertise that we do not have within the organisation and could not have afforded... Whilst working with the Build Up team was challenging in terms of organisation and our limited resources, they swiftly became engaged with the issues surrounding the Canal Terrace Shops that were of primary concern to the local residents and produced a range of creative and innovative solutions. The fact that the final report is produced to a professional standard that the neither the Forum or the residents could have conceived, has re-invigorated the interest in the Terrace and provided the residents with the confidence, knowledge and language to engage with the Local Authority and push this issue back up the agenda. [Queen’s Park Forum].

Interdisciplinary special interest groups This output was not fully realised by the programme with the LinkedIn group being the sole group to be set up. Quality and diversity of engagement and adaptation to different ways of working The adaptation of the University’s methods of programme delivery, particularly in its collaborative, cross school nature and participant focused approach opened the possibility of new initiatives across the schools. The richness of participants’ and commissioning organisations’ experience derived from the projects offered new ways of working with the University and the sector. New external partner relationships have been formed and existing ones were considered to have been enhanced. 3 Evaluation Findings 3.1 Strand One: Career Development Centre (CDC) Strand One of the programme was delivered by the Career Development Centre and offered each Build Up registrant the opportunity to attend a one day interactive career evaluation workshop (Career Focus). Sixteen one day Career Focus workshops were run during the lifetime of the Build Up programme from late Aug 2009 to Sept 2010, attended by 200 participants (just under a quarter of the total 857 Build Up registrants).

Three additional targeted careers sessions were delivered to provide an overview of the professional services labour market; how to start your own (built environment) business and marketing yourself effectively in CVs / applications. Each session was designed and delivered in collaboration with relevant external experts.


From late March 2010 Build Up registrants were offered the opportunity to have a 45 minute careers guidance interview with a careers consultant from the careers service, at a subsidised cost of £20 per interview.

3.1.1 Booking and attendance Booked Attended Career Focus Workshops 285 200 Additional Workshops 117 77 One to one career guidance interviews (£20 charge) 6 6

A total of 408 bookings were received across all of the Strand One elements. The final attendance total was 283, a non-attendance rate of 30%. 3.1.2 Participant feedback At the end of each Careers Focus and targeted careers workshop, participants were asked as a plenary group to say what they felt worked well and what would make the session even better. The feedback received was then reviewed and appropriate refinements made to subsequent sessions. One of the most appreciated aspects of the careers workshops was the opportunity to network and share experience in a structured, yet relaxed environment with professionals in a similar situation. This seemed particularly relevant and valued in the popular small group/plenary session in which they analysed where the sector was heading. The participants were very positive about the reflective nature of the day, culminating in the chance to review and discuss their own career goals, current strengths, skill gaps and next steps. The session on the importance of networking and strategies for using this as a professional enhancement and job hunting tool was favourably received; as was the opportunity to practise their ’30 second elevator pitch’ and hear those of others. Once the administrative procedures for the programme were fully established, the participants appreciated ease of registration and advance information on the format and expectations for the day. Internet based information was readily available; however, participants still appreciated a paper copy handout of web links to useful resources and information, particularly on sector trends. The most significant ‘even better if…’ comment was that a number of the groups expressed an interest in hearing from industry experts during the Career Focus workshops. The involvement of industry businesses/professionals in the delivery of the additional targeted career development sessions was cited as one of the strongest elements of these sessions. Participant quotes: • It was a practical and very interactive workshop which helped me to identify my

career planning and skills development as well as to exchange information with fellow professionals with a wide range of experience within the built environment. [Career Focus participant]


• The career coaching certainly forces you to think deeply about your skills and knowledge, about the future of your discipline and what they need to work on personally to be ahead of the game. [Career Focus participant]

• Loved the day it was absolutely energising and informative! Thank you so much. [Starting Your Own Business workshop participant]

3.1.3 CDC consultant feedback The key role of the CDC consultants delivering the workshops was to create a relaxed, supportive environment in which the participants could share their experience and expertise within a structured programme. The primary challenge was to be sensitive to negative feelings about the lack of employment opportunities available whilst also encouraging a focus on the participants’ sphere of influence and the positive steps they could take. The consultants found it highly motivational to bring together people and to be able to observe significant, positive changes in the outlook of many of them over the course of the day. The structured, developmental nature of the day, in which participants could get to know each other, review key sector developments, review their own skills, examine the importance of networking and finally set their own goals / plans to move forward seemed to work well. The variety of interactive tasks and formats used throughout the day, encouraging participation, also appeared successful. Participants appreciated the presentations by the Build Up Project Leads about other elements of the programme, particularly the Strand 3 projects. This was an informal arrangement and it was suggested that it was integrated as part of the Career Focus workshop. Although it is acknowledged that presentations and/or networking with built environment recruiters or ‘experts’ would have been useful and appreciated by the Career Focus participants, it was felt that this would have been logistically difficult to arrange due to the multiple, small group nature of the sessions. Networking during the workshops worked well and some of the groups collected participant contact details towards the end of the session. Some of the sessions were dominated by architects. A greater mix of disciplines would have been welcomed within these sessions. However, despite the promotion of the Build Up LinkedIn community, there was little evidence of further networking/dialogue via this tool. Non-attendance at some of the sessions resulted in some small groups. This arguably diminished the experience of some of the participants. The topic areas for the additional targeted sessions were well received and the input from industry experts was consistently popular. The draw of “external” expertise is consistently noted and a challenge for the programme has been to encourage participants to learn from each other as well as look to experts for guidance. There was very limited take up of the offer of 1 to 1 careers guidance at a reduced cost. This is consistent with previous experience that most people are reluctant to spend their own money on this form of career development and support.


3.1.4 Strand One evaluation summary • Over a quarter of the total number of registered participants booked a place on the

Career Focus workshops. • The overall feedback from the participants was positive. • The inter-disciplinary networking and expert input was considered highly valuable. • The 30% drop-out rate had a detrimental effect on some of the workshops and the

interactive exercises. • The high recruitment levels of architects diminished the value of the inter-disciplinary

learning in some of the workshops. • The low uptake of paid-for 1 to 1 careers guidance confirms experience of a

reluctance of professionals to pay for this type of professional development. 3.2 Strand Two: Overview The three schools delivered 67 short courses over the duration of the programme. In addition to these, participants were offered the opportunity to undertake professional examinations (PRINCE2), attend a RIBA symposium and take up places on externally delivered Urban Design London Courses. 3.2.1 Booking and Attendance Booked Attended Strand 2 Short Courses 1297 945 Additional Activities 109 80 A total of 1406 bookings were received across all of the Strand Two elements. The final attendance total was 1025 which represents a 27% drop-out rate. 3.2.2 Participant feedback Feedback forms were received from 55 of the 67 short courses run. These forms represent the views of 621 participants; 66% of the 945 participants who attended the courses. The full feedback form data is attached as Appendix E. The quantitative results were based on a scorecard ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = low) with a maximum overall score that could have been awarded being 35,067. The score awarded was 29,614 which comprised 84% of the maximum possible score. The proportion of scores of 4 and above was 82%, which rises to 95% if the score of 3 is included. The graph below shows a month by month breakdown of these scores:


Build Up Strand 2 Participant Feedback Scorecard

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Sep-09

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

Mon

th

Number

Max Score

Total Score

The following graph shows the percentage of the overall possible score, month by month:

Participant Rating of Build Up Programme

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10

%ag

e

%age

The highest score percentage is 89% which is the rating of the courses held in June 2010. During this month, three ABE courses were rated by 39 participants with a resulting rating of 88%. One SECS course was also rated by 3 participants at 95% of the overall possible score. No June feedback forms were received for WBS courses. The lowest score percentage was 75% rated in September 2010. This rating was the outcome of feedback from 24 participants who undertook two WBS courses during that month.


3.3 Strand Two: School of Architecture and the Buil t Environment (ABE) ABE delivered 36 short courses between September 2009 and November 2010. The course offer was designed to provide professional development in the areas of the built environment sector that had been highlighted by research as having significant skills shortages. Additional places on a variety of Urban Design London (UDL) workshops and a RIBA symposium were funded by the programme. 3.3.1 Booking and attendance Booked Attended ABE Short Courses 706 500 UDL Workshops 21 21 RIBA Symposium 6 6 A total of 733 bookings were received across all of ABE’s Strand Two elements. The final attendance total was 527 which represents a non-attendance rate of 28%. 3.3.2 Participant feedback Of the 36 ABE courses delivered, 32 sets of feedback forms were received. These forms represent the views of 74% of the 500 course participants. The total score awarded was 17,722 which is 84% overall possible score of 21,191. The proportion of the scores of 4 and above is 83%, rising to 95% if the score of 3 is included. The first table below shows the overall scores from the three key sections of enquiry on the feedback form (the fourth section refers to taking additional courses, and is not relevant to the quality of the courses delivered). The second table gives a course-by-course breakdown of the total possible score: Table 1 Section: Total Score Max Score %age Overall Impression: 5914 6795 87 Content of Course: 5424 6529 83 Customer Service: 3837 4810 80 Total 15175 18134 84%


Table 2

Course Title No of

times run Max

Score Actual Score %age

Consulting/Involving Local Communities 3 2085 1699 81 Delivering Mixed Tenure 1 390 351 90 Design Awareness 1 160 127 79 Designing in Sustainable Transport 2 1110 944 85 Development Finance 3 1590 1254 79 Low Carbon Development 1 400 319 80 Making the Public Realm Inclusive 2 890 819 92 Masterplanning 4 1690 1401 83 Partnership Building in London 1 830 718 87 Passivhaus 2 1186 1023 86 Personal and Professional Presentation Skills 1 410 359 88 Planning for Climate Change 1 210 200 95 Planning for Housing and Development Viability 1 1380 1272 92 Planning for Non-Planners 1 635 557 88 Retrofitting the Built Environment for Sustainability 2 1860 1376 74 Selling/Marketing Yourself 2 1165 1012 87 Sustainable Construction: Introduction to the Green Register 3 4615 4142 90 Urban Design and the Planning System 1 585 493 84 Total: 32 21191 17722 84

The feedback scores are consistently high with five of the courses receiving a rating of 90% and above. Only two of the courses received a rating below 80%. Feedback form comments The comments on the feedback forms were generally positive. The lecturers were considered to be knowledgeable; delivering well-prepared lectures; raising interesting points and encouraging discussions and interaction. A majority of the negative comments related to the organisation and situation of the venues including changes of venues at short notice, poor presentation equipment, uncomfortable temperatures and poorly produced hand-outs. In some cases no hand-outs were distributed. The content of the courses was considered to be useful and appropriate; although in some cases it was felt that too much information was being covered in too short a period of time. Many of the participants felt that they needed extra days and more time allocated to case studies. The administration of the programme (customer service) was considered to be helpful and organised. In some cases, it was noted that the administration had improved with the introduction of the new Build Up web-site and online booking/communications systems in January 2010. After this date, most of the concerns were related to the course information not having been sent enough time in advance for the participants to prepare.


Participant comments: • Patricia was a great speaker and showed a high level of professional experience in

the topic. Very satisfied with the lecture. [Consulting &Involving Local Communities] • Exceptional level of information outstanding critical analysis of policies. [Planning for

Housing and Development Viability] • Very well organised. Would recommend this to organisations/housing groups to

educate them on the environment. [Sustainable Construction – An Introduction to the Green Register]

• Best Build Up strand 2 course I have been on. Excellent practical knowledge. [Partnership Building]

• Lecturers were knowledgeable, able to convey concepts & incorporate meaningful exercises. Would have liked two days on the improving the realm for pedestrians. [Sustainable Transport]

• Good handouts and resources such as planning and real case studies. Learnt lots about planning in wider context i.e. sustainable development, political. [Planning for Non-Planners]

3.3.3 ABE course deliverers’ feedback For a majority of the courses the number of the attendees remained constant throughout. In the instances of low attendance, or participant drop-out, the course leaders encouraged the participants to work closely together. The attendees were receptive and engaged. It was noted that, where it was offered, participants particularly appreciated specialist input, guest speakers and site visits although it was suggested that more case studies and current examples should be incorporated into some of the courses. Some of the course leaders noted that mixing skills and disciplines as well as inputs given by specialists were very important aspects for the success of the course. However, some found managing the mixed levels of understanding of the specific subjects challenging. There were various comments about administrative issues and the booking of appropriate rooms and equipment. In some instances the rooms were changed at short notice, too small or the presentation equipment was faulty. 3.3.4 ABE: Strand Two evaluation summary • The non-attendance rate was 28%. • The courses were rated very highly by the participants, receiving a rating of 84% of

the overall possible score. • The courses receiving the highest scores at 90% and above were Delivering Mixed

Tenure, Planning for Housing Development Viability and Sustainable Construction. • The participants’ feedback comments supported the high score, relating in particular

to the expertise of the course deliverers. • Administration issues were experienced around the booking and notification of

venues, although improvement in administration was noted after the introduction of the new Website.


• Some of the venues were considered to be of poor quality. • Participants felt that the content of some of the courses could have been delivered

over a longer period of time. • Sector specific case studies, input from external experts and site visits were rated

highly. • Whilst the mixed disciplines and skills levels of the participants added a challenge to

delivery, this mix was also considered to be important to the success of the courses. 3.4 Strand Two: Westminster Business School (WBS) WBS delivered 25 short courses between September 2009 and November 2010. A broad mix of business development courses was initially scheduled; however the later schedule was responsive to participant demand. WBS also co-ordinated the PRINCE2 examinations; offered to participants at a subsidised rate. 3.4.1 Booking and Attendance Booked Attended WBS Short Courses 536 408 PRINCE2 Exams 82 53 A total of 618 bookings were received across all of WBS’s elements. The final attendance total was 461 which represents a non-attendance rate of 25%. 3.4.2 Participant feedback WBS delivered 25 courses and 19 sets of feedback forms were received. These forms represent the views of 56% of the 408 course participants. The total score awarded was 10,637 which is 84% overall possible score of 12,711. The proportion of the scores of four and above is 80%, rising to 96% if the score of three is included. The first table below shows the overall scores from the three key sections of enquiry on the feedback form (the fourth section refers to taking additional courses, and is not relevant to the quality of the courses delivered). The second table gives a course-by-course breakdown of the total possible score: Table 1

Section: Total

Score Max

Score %age Overall Impression: 2199 2536 87 Content of Course: 2101 2535 83 Customer Service: 1474 1855 79 Total 5774 6926 83


Table 2

Course Title Number of times run

Max Score

Actual Score %age

Understanding Accounting and Finance 2 1235 1052 85 Negotiation Skills 1 800 671 84 Introduction to Project Management 2 1475 1262 86 Reaching New Customers and Contracts 1 360 342 95 Project Management in Practice 3 2280 1868 82 Leadership & Personal Development 4 3050 2495 82 PRINCE2 Foundation 3 1826 1545 85 PRINCE 2 Practitioner 3 1685 1402 83 Total 19 12711 10637 84

The rating across the WBS elements was consistently high with none falling below 80%. Notably “Reaching New Customers and Contacts” was the highest rated at 95%. Feedback form comments The general impression given by the WBS short course feedback forms was very positive. The participants liked the flexible and professional approach and found a majority of the courses entertaining, well balanced and informative. As with the ABE short courses, some of the participants felt that there was a lot to get through in a short period of time. Again, in similarity with ABE, some participants stated that they would have liked to have received more case studies and “real life” examples of the theories/information being offered. A common view, however, was that there was a good mixture of well-prepared lecturers who managed to offer up-to-date and in-depth views of the issues. It was also felt by some of the participants that the lecturers did not always adapt the courses to their needs and noted differences in the standards of lecturers (particularly in the Leadership and Professional Development courses). Some participants commented on instances of low quality handouts and the lack of access to on-line materials (particularly for the PRINCE2 courses where the cost of supporting books was considered prohibitive). Additionally a number of the PRINCE2 participants felt that they would have benefited more if course preparation material had been sent in advance. It was suggested that the course information available on the website could have been more comprehensive. Whilst the view of the administrative processes and customer service were, on the whole, positive, many participants had experienced problems with late notice of the scheduling of the courses and venues with some of the courses being cancelled at the last minute. There were also some experiences of technical problems, such as the failure of the projector or with the computer, and a poor classroom environment (noisy, poor temperature). Participant comments: • Excellent course overall. It would however be good to have some real life examples

specific to the construction industry. [Introduction to Project Management] • Fascinating, the lecturer was extremely experienced and knowledgeable.

[Leadership and Personal Development]


• Talk about more scenarios would be perfect but generally very good. [Negotiation Skills]

• The lecturers are excellent, well prepared and flexible. [PRINCE2 Practitioner] • Very pleased indeed, Zubin is a really exciting speaker and he has given me many

examples that I can use in my business - so worth attending. [Reaching New Contracts and Customers]

• This course exceeded my expectations. The tutor used scenario based teaching to keep the group engaged. [Understanding Accounting and Finance]

3.4.3 WBS course deliverers’ feedback A majority of the course leaders’ comments coincided with those of the participants. Some mentioned the number of participants not arriving or dropping out of the courses (in particular the initial five-day project management courses) as problematic. However, the key issues mentioned were those of the administration short notice and scheduling of the courses. Some of the courses were run over four evenings in one week which was considered too onerous. It was suggested that these courses could be run over a period of three to four weeks which would leave some room for the participants to engage in some reflective learning and application of the skills learnt. It was also suggested that more visual aids be made available to participants. For the most part, the content and pace of the courses were deemed appropriate to the audience. Some of the course deliverers felt that they would have benefited from more sector specific knowledge, and the lack of this made it difficult to pitch the sessions, particularly as some of the participants had more experience in certain areas than others. It was also suggested that more sector specific case studies should be introduced to the courses. There were some comments about issues with the rooms, with courses taking place whilst a new site was being re-developed, some of the presentation equipment not working and inappropriate room layouts. 3.4.4 WBS: Strand Two evaluation summary A summary of the evaluation of the WBS courses is as follows: • The non-attendance rate was 25%. • The courses were rated very highly by the participants, receiving a rating of 84% of

the overall possible score. • The course receiving the highest scores at 95% was Reaching New Customers and

Contracts. • The participants’ feedback comments supported the high score, relating in particular

to the expertise and delivery style of the course deliverers. • The content of the courses could have been enhanced by additional sector specific

material. • The content of some of the courses could have been delivered over a longer period

of time. • Administration issues were experienced around the booking and notification of

venues and last minute cancellations. • Some of the venues were considered to be of poor quality and inappropriately set up.


3.5 Strand Two: School of Electronics and Computer Science (SECS) It was originally intended that SECS would deliver a similar number of short courses to WBS. However, the delivery period coincided with a restructuring of the school; which resulted in a lack of capacity for programme delivery; hence only six short courses were delivered between February and June 2010. 3.5.1 Booking and Attendance Booked Attended SECS Short Courses 55 37 A total of 55 bookings were received for the SECS short courses. The final attendance total was thirty-seven which represents a drop-out rate of 33%. 3.5.2 Participant feedback SECS delivered six courses and four sets of feedback forms were received. All of the feedback related to the Website Development courses delivered. These forms represent the views of 62% of the 37 course participants. The total score awarded was 1,219 which is 88% of the overall possible score of 1,380. The proportion of the scores of four and above is 89%, rising to 98% if the score of three is included. The first table below shows the overall scores from the three key sections of enquiry on the feedback form (the fourth section refers to taking additional courses, and is not relevant to the quality of the courses delivered). The second table gives a course-by-course breakdown of the total possible score: Table 1

Section: Total

Score Max

Score %age Overall Impression: 410 460 89 Content of Course: 405 460 88 Customer Service: 296 345 86 Total 1111 1265 88

Table 2

Course Title Number of times run

Max Score

Actual Score %age

Website Development 4 1380 1219 88 Total 4 1380 1219 88

Feedback form comments The numerical ratings for these short courses were consistently high, which reflects the participants overall satisfaction with the course content, although some participants found the pace to fast for them and would have preferred to have spent more time studying the subject. A majority of the comments related to the rooms used for the training, which were considered uncomfortable, noisy, too hot and lacking in natural daylight. There were also some technical issues with passwords not working, and not being able to access the online material off-site.


The administration of the courses received high ratings, although some participants did not receive the pre-course information. Participant comments: • Really enjoyed the course. I was lucky enough to grasp it quite quickly, and the

lecturer always had something more for me to do - a new task, an extra challenge. I learned lots. She also helped me with extra requests I had, outside of the basic syllabus, showing me more resources and methods. [Website Development]

• Many thanks for the informative, hands-on training - it motivates me to start building my own websites! [Website Development]

3.5.3 SECS Course Deliverers’ Feedback No feedback was received from the Course Deliverers. 3.5.4 SECS: Strand Two evaluation summary • The non-attendance rate was 33%. • The courses were rated very highly by the participants, receiving a rating of 88% of

the overall possible score. • The pace of the course was considered to be to fast for some of the participants. • The venues were considered to be of poor quality with an uncomfortable working

environment. 3.6 Strand Two Evaluation: Overall Summary The evaluation of Strand Two received consistently positive ratings. The scores were high across all three of the schools and the participants’ comments supported the view that a majority of the course deliverers were well informed and skilled at delivering interesting interactive courses. Many of the participants felt that the courses could have been enhanced by delivery over a longer period of time, incorporating more case studies and, in the case of WBS, more sector specific knowledge. One the whole, however, the pace and content were considered to be well balanced; with the interactive elements and input from external experts being highly valued. The administration of the courses initially received some criticism; however, the introduction of new online systems in January 2010 improved service levels. The main issues appear to have been around the quality of the training rooms, unreliable equipment and cancellation of courses at short notice. The course deliverers found the participants to be motivated and engaged. They addressed the challenges of delivering to inter-disciplinary, mixed-skills level participants and considered this to be a strength of the programme. Few comments were received relating to the overall non-attendance rate of 27%, but it did not appear to affect the success of course delivery.


3.7 Strand Three We initiated Build Up at the University of Westminster for two very good reasons. First and most obviously to support built environment professionals during the recession. Second, to begin to address the skills shortages in the built environment, particularly in the area of urban regeneration and low carbon solutions. All professions are notoriously defensive about their boundaries, and built environment professionals are no different in drawing lines between which bits of knowledge and expertise they own. The problem is that the built environment itself, in all its complexity, does not lend itself to being divided up into simple chunks of expertise. What is needed is a new type of urban professional, who is alert enough to cross professional boundaries and join up the bits. The ambition for the project strand of Build Up was that we would begin to initiate such thinking by assembling groups of diverse professionals, each with no particular axe to grind, and each willing to learn from each other. Of course multi-disciplinary teams are often assembled to deal with urban complexities, but it is usually the case the tasks are assigned according to professional skills. In Build Up projects this division is neither necessary nor relevant. The evidence from the outputs from the teams is that this small experiment in true interdisciplinary working has been very successful, and it acts as marker of the wider ambition of Build Up. Professor Jeremy Till Dean of Architecture and the Built Environment University of Westminster 3.7.1 Introduction The project strand was designed with the intention of addressing the shortage of a new kind of urban professional who has the skills and vision to cross normal disciplinary boundaries. Much of the learning was intended to come from the experience of working on the same project with a range of other professionals, allowing skills and methodologies to be interchanged. Participants were exposed to a wide range of issues and working methods which may not have been encountered previously, allowing the identification and development of new approaches to working with urban issues. The following reports are based on six of the eight projects delivered. The evaluation of the projects was carried out through interviews, focus groups, case studies and qualitative participant feedback requests. The resulting reports outline the success of the projects in meeting the objectives set out above along with the perceived impact of the live project experience.


3.7.2 Borough High Street Project Commencement Date: November 2009 Duration: 10 weeks Project Commissioner: Valerie Beirne, Better Bankside Better Bankside Better Bankside is a Business Improvement District (BID) operating in the area of London just south of the River Thames between Blackfriars and London Bridge which included part of Borough High Street. The BID is a company that is owned by about 460 local businesses with a remit to represent their concerns and needs. Project Context Although Borough Market is very successful, Borough High Street is underperforming. It is currently and will continue to be subject to a number of impacts associated with the redevelopment works. Infrastructure works for Thames Water and Thameslink are a disruption to the area. The pavements are cluttered and the street will handle large volumes of traffic, including construction traffic for the foreseeable future. On a more positive note, the development of the Shard and the subsequent remodelling of London Bridge Station will bring large numbers of new visitors to the area. Better Bankside was due to seek a further five year term of operation and was proposing to extend its remit further south along Borough High Street. The BID therefore, wanted to carry out a diagnostic of the northern section of Borough High Street. The purpose of this was to develop its knowledge base and increase the evidence base which would inform future BID interventions.

Project Outline The Build Up project team was commissioned by Better Bankside to work with stakeholders on the development of a strategy for Borough High Street. The focus of the project as on a small street of the street identified as having potential to be incorporated into the BID area. The project brief was to: • Identify ownership of the premises • Clarify the aspirations of the

landlords • Identify the potential for

improvement of the public realm • Rationalise the street furniture and

signage • Improve the east-west pedestrian

links • Identify the potential for future BID

projects. Challenges A large inter-disciplinary team was brought together for this project. This presented a challenge logistically with not all of the team being available at the allotted meeting times and some team members leaving during the project. As with any large team there were a number of different dynamics to contend with. A key challenge, therefore, for the team was to negotiate their roles and responsibilities in response to these changes. A challenge for Better Bankside was the development of the project brief. Initially, the brief was defined before the composition of the team was finalised. There were not, however, as many property professionals or surveyors as expected on the team, which meant that the initial desired outcomes of the project were not fully met. This was, however, balanced out by the unexpected and very positive outcomes of the project.


The logistics of working with a large team proved a learning curve for the BID and the team members alike. Much of the work was carried out in the locality and the University of Westminster. On reflection the BID suggested that basing the participants in their offices would have aided communication and facilitated better understanding of the project by other members of the BID team. Achievements By overcoming the initial challenges of working on this project, the team gained considerable experience of working through a brief with a client. None of the team had worked with a BID before. They had to think holistically about the area; pedestrian routes, the legibility of the built environment, the agencies involved in shaping the urban form and the tensions that arise from differing priorities. By successfully working together the team engaged with the stakeholders in the locality and subsequently produced a report that has proven to be highly influential and has galvanised people in the neighbourhood to take the issues forward. Both the process of developing the final report and the document itself have contributed to the thinking about the future of Borough High Street. A key achievement of the work was that the Build Up team identified the St George’s are as an important gateway into Borough High Street. From Better Bankside’s perspective, the experience of being involved in this project has helped to motivate them and focus their priorities for the area. Using the momentum generated they have carried out further studies, looking at some of the issues in more depth and commissioned more work around the street. This has helped them to frame their position on how the development of Borough High Street should be moved forward.

Impact: Better Bankside BID Perspective As previously mentioned, Better Bankside were planning their case for the extension of their mandate for the next five years from February 2010. They saw this collaboration as an opportunity to develop an evidence base for the extension of their remit. They already had an established knowledge transfer partnership with the University of Westminster and were keen to explore other areas of partnership working. Motivated by the potential benefits, Better Bankside were very proactive in using the project to bring together partners including Transport for London, neighbouring BIDs and community groups to discuss the work. Better Bankside was shared the final report with stakeholders which has helped to support their partnership working with these agencies. The process of developing this project report with the Build Up team and local stakeholders raised the profile of the locality’s issues and built an unexpected momentum for action. The local arm of a national organisation representing pedestrians in the area, Southwark Living Streets, used the Build Up team’s document as part of their lobbying for substantial improvements to the public realm. As a result of this lobbying, the issues raised within the report were also picked up by the local MP and councillors who included it on their election manifestos. “Living Streets picking up the mantle… they started to ruffle a lot of feathers. I’m not saying it’s completely because of Build Up but it think that was very much a part of that momentum that’s been built around Borough High Street… So it’s kind of interesting…that’s one of the unexpected outcomes. I’d say that it has kind of helped build up a head of steam over the issue.


And while maybe some of the proposals in the document aren’t particularly realistic in terms of deliverability, it has helped to raise awareness and raise the profile of the need to do something positive with the street.” Impact: Participants’ Perspective “This was an opportunity to be doing something positive and also to show that I am being pro-active during this difficult time. It has helped me think about how best to operate my business efficiently and increase the skills that I can offer clients.” As previously mentioned, none of the participants had worked with a BID before. As such they reported that the experience of working through a brief designed to solve complex issues provided them with an insight into what, for many of them, was a new dimension of urban design. The process of negotiation, both within the team and with the stakeholders increased many of the participants’ confidence in managing the often conflicting priorities that arise on a development project and a more depth understanding of the challenges of complex communication and interdisciplinary team working. “…this has been valuable as it has given me the opportunity to work with other professionals in a similar situation and to work on a project that involved a number of stakeholders whose different views required consideration and negotiation.” Some of the participants developed strong relationships with the community groups involved with a couple continuing to work with Living Streets in order to convert the final report into an effective lobbying tool.

“I will be using the information to increase my client base and hopefully the Borough High Street project may help in finding similar work of that nature” The sharing of their experience of unemployment with people in a similar position helped to raise morale and increased motivation to look at different ways of seeking work; inspiring one participant to set up her own business. Many felt that the relationships built, with each other, and with some of the stakeholders would aid this endeavour. “I have shared experiences with other members of the group and have been able to glean information from the group in different fields of the built environment. The relationships that have been gained should bear fruit in the future.


3.7.3 Canal Terrace Shops Project Commencement Date: June 2010 Duration: 10 weeks Project Commissioner: Fabian Sharp, Queen’s Park Forum Queen’s Park Forum The Queen’s Park Forum (QPF) was created in 2003 by the Paddington Development Trust with funding from the Westminster City Partnership. Its remit is to: • Provide a voice for the local

community • Influence and improve vital services • Strengthen partnerships between

the local community and service providers

• Identify opportunities to tackle the unmet needs of residents

• Support and celebrate social, community and cultural life in Queen’s Park

Project Context The Queen’s Park Forum has a close relationship with the local community and was aware of the high level of concern about detrimental effects on the neighbourhood, and its residents, of the run down shops at Canal Terrace. Located in the Queens park Conservation area (#29) and designated as a low carbon zone, there remain only a handful of active shop-fronts within the parade. The majority of units have become vacant, converted to residential uses, or are being used for non-active shop fronts, many of which are boarded up. The Terrace is under-occupied and many of the ground floor units have been subject to poor levels of maintenance. Attempts had been made to bring the issue to the attention of the Local

Authority; however, it became apparent that the different departments within the Authority had different (and often conflicting) priorities. QPF did not have the requisite resources or professional knowledge to present and negotiate a case for a consolidated vision for the shops. Nor did they have access to the funds required to commission the range of professionals that would be required to make such a case. QPF was concerned that the residents’ voices were not being heard and that the issues raised were being pushed further down the agenda in favour of other priorities. The loss of impetus was of particular concern as core funding for the Forum was under threat, which would leave the residents with even less resource to drive this issue forward. Therefore, the proposal from the University of Westminster to work with a team of built environment professionals from the Build Up programme offered the opportunity to develop a vision for Canal Terrace and provide QPF, and the residents, with some additional tools with which to advance their objectives. The nature of the project met with the objectives of the Build Up programme to enhance the inter-disciplinary skills of the team members, develop their knowledge of low carbon urban development and community engagement practices. It also offered participants the opportunity to develop an understanding of Local Authority structures and policy development. Project Outline The interdisciplinary Build Up team was, therefore, commissioned by QPF to carry out research on the potential to improve the negative impact of the Canal Terrace shops and bring them back into commercial use at ground floor level.


The project brief was to: • Establish ownership of properties • Consider the impact of Maida Hill

market • Look at the potential for encouraging

the creative industries into the area • Develop a long term vision for the

area which would inform incremental changes

• Develop mid term interventions that could improve the appearance of the units

QPF launched the project by arranging for a presentation and meeting with representatives from Westminster City Council (WCC) and others concerned with the Terrace. The Build Up team, a group of nine experienced professionals with skills in planning, architecture, development, and transport, met separately with a series of experts on conservation, retail and urban realm. The team also spoke with a series of property agents, occupiers of units in the Terrace and officials at WCC. The final project report is based on the findings from these meetings and its review of WCC policy and professional analysis. Challenges As previously mentioned, QPF’s core funding had been cut and further cuts had been threatened. This resulted in a restructure of the QPF team and the departure of the main point of contact for the Build Up team. Whilst another QPF project co-ordinator was put in place, managing the Build Up team was stretched the Forum’s resources. Similar issues with restructuring within Westminster City Council meant that, whilst they were very open to working with the Build Up team, their involvement was restricted.

At around the same time, the University of Westminster’s project lead for the team moved on to another post. The composition of the team was also subject to changes, with one member finding employment and moving to China and another two taking on paid work which restricted their involvement in the project. These changes resulted in a period of transition that the Build Up team found difficult and contributed to the project running over schedule. In mitigation of the effects of these challenges, the support staff at the university offered additional lectures, tutoring and supervision sessions which served to consolidate the team, renegotiate their workloads and drive the project forward. Achievements By overcoming the challenges outlined above, the team produced a high quality project report outlining a vision for the future of the Terrace, and interim measures that could be taken to improve the aesthetics of the shops. This has been submitted to QPF and initial feedback to this report has been positive. The productive relationships developed between the team and QPF has resulted in the Project Commissioner expressing a desire to maintain links with the team members. Impact: Queen’s Park Forum Perspective The Project Commissioner saw the impact of the project as being more than just the production of a useful project report which has given them the information, and language, to carry forward discussions with increased confidence. He observed that, whilst initially the Build Up team members were carrying out the project tasks on a professionally intellectual level, they swiftly became more engaged with the


issues and the community members involved. This involvement instilled a new sense of purpose into the campaign to improve the Terrace and helped to raise its profile. One result of this was that the local residents organised a weekend of clearing and cleaning up the Terrace. The increased confidence in positive action has led to a renewed commitment to carrying on the work of QPF should the funding be cut completely. (Since the time of the interview, the Paddington Development Trust has secured funding to support QPF until 2014. The residents, are also planning to set up a Parish Council which will enable them work alongside QPF and improve their engagement with the Local Authority). The Project Commissioner is hoping to be able to maintain contact with the team members and is also open to future collaborations with the University of Westminster. Impact: Participants’ Perspective “For me I think it was about learning strategies and how to involve different stakeholders and big groups of professionals, and basically pushing a project forward together…” Despite the challenges presented to them, the team were overwhelmingly positive about their experience on the project. They reported an increased confidence in and understanding of inter-disciplinary working, community engagement and communication with a variety of stakeholders, including an increased understanding of working with a local authority and insights into the workings of decision makers. The issues presented by the project were broad and there was a sense of pride that they had been able to work together effectively to address the

challenges and develop some creative, sustainable, solutions for the area. “..in the future it will be very beneficial working with built environment teams in the public and private sector… you are going to see where people are coming… and see how you can overcome possible problems. It is all about problem solving” They felt that they had enjoyed good relationships with QPF, the residents involved and Westminster City Council, stating that they felt confident that they had made good contacts with whom they would have confidence in communicating in the future. All interviewed felt that the project had enhanced their professional knowledge, and skills and had increased their confidence in their presentation and networking capabilities. “Well you know, it is an exchange of skills you know, you learn something every day, so I think it’s good”. They also noted that their involvement in the Build Up programme was worthy of including as something of merit on their CVs. This, in some cases, has also led to them putting themselves forward for work that they would not have considered prior to the project.


3.7.4 Haringey Project Commencement Date: November 2009 Duration: 8 weeks Project Commissioner: Marc Dorfman, Haringey Council Project Context The London Borough of Haringey has a series of assets, a diverse population, some fine heritage buildings and large areas of green space, which make up more than 25% of its total area. The borough also faces a range of challenges in common with other London Boroughs. These include issues of social sustainability such as addressing a long-term shortfall in housing provision. The council is also seeking to address environmental sustainability by, for example, increasing levels of recycling and addressing a legacy of car dominated design that discourages walking and cycling. Project Outline The council was keen to use the project to give its junior managers greater experience of managing external consultants and of overseeing time-specific projects. Working alongside officers within the council offices, the Build Up team contributed the Council’s progression of a series of six sub-projects collectively designed to help shape the future of the area. Project A: Haringey planning and regeneration education centre. The aim of the project was to review and suggest improvements to earlier Haringey Council plans for a drop-in and education resource for the public to access information on the built environment.

Project B: Tottenham Hotspur strategic planning application. The aim of the project was to produce a response analysis to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s planning application for a new stadium. This included assessing the overall level of public support and addressing specific infrastructure and technical issues related to the application. Project C: Tottenham Green – Improving the public realm. The aim of the project was to produce an urban design and development framework for Tottenham Green. This would build on existing council improvements to an area dominated by a busy one-way traffic system and suggest new ways of threading together the public assets (buildings and open spaces) in the area. Project D: Alexandra Palace project initiation document. The proposal was to use heritage regeneration specialisms in order to review the current position and propose alternative scenarios. The aim of this project was to assist in the early stages of the new proposal to remodel the future of Alexandra Palace. Project E: Haringey sustainable design and construction guidance. The aim of the project was to critically review current good practice in sustainable design and construction from a range of local authorities, and to draw on this to inform the development of guidance for Haringey Council. Project F: Scoping study of spatial planning policies. The aim of the project was to collaborate with other Haringey Council departments in order to conduct a detailed comparative analysis of the present planning policies in neighbouring boroughs. The goal was to identify common policy which would form the basis for future work in the area.


This was a complex project which gave Build Up participants the opportunity to work with a range of local authority and regional bodies, engage in detail with the strategic planning process and develop skills in clarifying project-related issues whilst delivering a client brief. Several issues and concepts were addressed over the course of the project: • Consideration of public need- how

better to include people in local authority work through providing a welcoming environment

• Process of major planning applications- how these are handled and how competing interests are weighed up

• Urban design work- how the public realm could be adapted to provide a more pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environment

• Complexity of partnerships- level of management required for successful outcomes, and the long timescale involved in project management

• Green construction problem-solving. Challenges This was a different model for Build Up as the participants were located within the local authority and were sub-divided into pairs to work on a range of different projects. For participants, who were all new to local authority work, the challenge was to grasp quickly the demands of working in a large, highly structured organisation. The demands of democratic accountability meant that projects often had to go through several lines of accountability. For the council’s staff, the challenge was to clarify briefs and roles. Both groups had to work out the best way of picking up live projects, advancing them,

and then handing them back to the organisation to continue after the participants had left. Achievements The participants were successful in progressing each of the projects and presenting the outcomes to the Council. The developments made on each of the six sub-projects were combined into a series of outputs for the project as a whole, including: • Identification of potential for further

development of sub-regional planning policies

• A review of good practice in neighboring authorities has provided a strong reference point for the council.

• Exploring the potential for developing sub-regional policies could free up officer time in individual authorities to focus more on delivery.

The participants provided new cross-disciplinary thinking and external perspectives to local authority-led regeneration and planning. In effect, they brought a non-planning and a non-local authority perspective to the problems they were addressing. The addition of these mini-teams to the council’s staff also gave new opportunities for junior managers in the borough to experience working with and supervising new staff, and of helping to manage a time limited mini-project. Impact: Haringey Council Perspective The Project Commissioner was not available for interview within the timescale of this evaluation. However, in response to the success of this project he approved the commissioning of a second Build Up project team in 2010.


Impact: Participants’ Perspective “Many thanks for the opportunity to have a glimpse from within and have the opportunity to add a sub-regional policy project to my references. Overall it gave me a better understanding of the inner working of a London Borough, It has been very fascinating and useful.” As previously mentioned, none of the participants had previously worked within a Local Authority. For all of them this was a useful opportunity to understand better the demands of local authority work – in particular the requirements of the local democratic process including the relation ship between officers and elected members. Aside from the enhanced knowledge of planning policy development and the operation of a range of Local Authority offices, many of the participants reported an increased confidence and ability to network and communicate across professions. “It was a great way to become familiar with the UK planning system and associated vocabularies which are so useful when networking with other professionals. The added benefits of working both within the inter-disciplinary teams and as consultants to the Council was also reported as enhancing confidence and broadening the participants’ perspectives on potentially different ways of working. This was a valuable opportunity for the team to develop their skills in clarifying and delivering to a client’s brief. “Due to the nature of the Haringey Project, I discovered what it’s like to work as a consultant with a given brief…It’s given me the confidence to work as a consultant – how to define a brief and produce the agreed products within a set time limit.”

Overall, the feedback from the participants was positive, with an appreciation of the development of communication skills, policy and planning and the operation of council offices being considered particularly useful. Some found the focus on planning in this project more detailed than they had expected, but still considered the experience worthwhile and informative. “I found the Haringey project to be a great form of informal CPD … and is feeding into some of the projects I am setting up independently in collaboration with various organisations”.


3.7.5 Haringey Heartlands II Project Commencement Date: October 2010 Duration: 8 weeks Project Commissioner: Marc Dorfman, Haringey Council Project Context Following on from a previously successful collaboration with the University of Westminster’s Build Up Programme, the Director of Planning at Haringey Council commissioned a second Built Up team to work with their Planning and Regeneration department. This project was, in a number of aspects, different from other Build Up strand three initiatives. For one, the participants were commissioned as a team who came together on a regular basis, but they worked in smaller sub-teams as consultants on individual projects in collaboration with the council staff. The sub-teams worked alongside officers in the Planning and Regeneration Department in their offices in Tottenham. The foci of the projects were primarily planning oriented. Project Outline The Assistant Director of Planning at Haringey identified a number of issues for the Borough and outlined the following four projects that would look at the potential for developing these areas. Project A: The production of a Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This was a three-part project, the aims of which were to: • Illustrate a Sustainable Design and

Construction (SDC) planning guidance publication.

• Develop case studies of best practice examples local to Haringey.

• Establish an SDC champion’s network of construction professionals actively operating “green” construction practices within the borough.

Project B: South Tottenham Industrial Estate. The estate is a fragmented cluster of industrial buildings with high occupancy, but many of which are in need of updating. The project aims were to: • Assess the level of industrial/

employment activity on the estate. • Review the level of industrial activity

and how this has changed over recent years.

• Research the main employers/ businesses on the site.

• Establish the level of occupancy on the estate.

• Evaluate the physical condition of the buildings and the overall environment.

• Form a clearer picture of the appropriate form of employment designation for the site.

Project C: Brunel Walk – Housing Capacity Study. Brunel Walk in Haringey is the site of a currently dilapidated hostel. If demolished, the site could provide scope for the construction of a new housing development. The aim of this project was to develop ideas for the regeneration of Brunel Walk, a narrow strip of land 180 metres long by 18 metres wide. Project D: Hollywood Green, Wood Green Town Centre. Haringey Council have a budget of £85k designated for public realm improvements for the area outside the Hollywood Green cinema. The aim of the project was to propose a


spatial design for this area within budget. The projects defined met the Build Up programme’s objectives of offering professional development in sustainable development, inter-disciplinary working and the green agenda. Challenges As with other teams, the Haringey project team found that their numbers diminished over the duration of the project. There were initially 15 team members with professional backgrounds in architecture, urban development, and planning, surveying and construction. This number dropped to 10 by the project end. Two members left as a result of finding employment, a further three for personal issues. This presented a challenge to the remaining team members who had to manage expectations, renegotiate their roles, workloads and responsibilities. Not all of the team members were based in London (one was based in Scotland) and effective methods of communication were essential to the success of the project delivery. An additional challenge was that of Haringey Council’s organisational changes resulting in a large number of redundancies. Whilst the team were not directly affected by these changes, they needed to negotiate the various issues and dynamics that arise during such a period of transition within a large organisation. The sheer scope of some of the projects, the size of the sites etc., presented a time-management challenge for some of the teams and it became clear early on that well defined roles and a commitment to agreed deadlines were essential to the delivery of the required outputs.

All of the team reported that they would have benefited from more technological support as the facilities within the Council were outdated and there were none offered by the University. The team did, however, receive structured tutorial and supervision support from the University of Westminster for the duration of the project. This enabled them to address many of the issues raised by the challenge of working together, but on separate projects. Achievements The team displayed a great deal of flexibility and commitment. In doing so, they managed their initial difficulties over the “drop-outs” and all delivered professional, high quality, project outputs. Each sub-team presented their findings to Haringey Council in December 2010 and the initial feedback was extremely positive. As a result of this successful collaboration, Haringey Council have offered the Build Up team the opportunity to continue working in the Council offices (on an unpaid basis) until the end of March 2011. Impact: Haringey Council Perspective The Project Commissioner was not available for interview within the timescale of this evaluation. However, he did re-iterate the Council’s commitment to supporting the Build Up team as mentioned above. Furthermore, he expressed a desire to continue to collaborate on future projects with the University of Westminster. Impact: Participants’ Perspective “Yes I approached the agency since it started and I got positive feedback, for doing something actively which I didn’t get before… and I have been put forward for jobs which I wouldn’t have if I wasn’t doing this.”


The team were overwhelmingly positive in their evaluation of their experience of the project. They all reported an increased understanding of the demands of working in and with a local authority, along with the added challenges and interest of observing a large organisation in a period of transition. The changes there, and within their own team enhanced their comprehension of the strengths and pitfalls of collaborative working and all of them benefited from working with professionals from a variety of disciplines. It was, in fact, the complexity of the organisation within which they worked and the variety of different professionals that they worked with that many of them cited as boosting their confidence the most. Many also reported that the interaction with the team members and project colleagues lifted their morale after experiencing the isolation of unemployment. “Personally – it was great to have the confidence back – not always easy after being made redundant”. Whilst the projects had a strong slant towards planning, all of the team felt that they had gained further insight into a range of different built environment professions that they had not had before. Being exposed to completely new ways of working had been informative and developmental for them. The supporting lectures and workshops offered by the University further developed their professional skills and knowledge. “I think it helped me become more confident in deal with different professionals whom I wouldn’t normally meet…Because not one professional has got the full understanding, especially on the sustainability issue…”

This multi-faceted experience also raised awareness of the opportunities to develop relationships and network both externally and within the Council. Those who were not working at a distance and could spend more time within the Council Offices felt that they particularly benefited from the relationships and informal networking opportunities. “I enjoyed the challenge of going down to the Council and getting in behind them and how they operate…” As a result of this project, the team discussed the possibilities of working together to promote their findings, and continuing to work with the Council. They also expressed an interest in retaining links with the University in the future, either through some formal networking events or, if offered, more professional development initiatives. “I think this programme has changed my perception of the University, for the better…it ties in with industry and it makes, certainly architects, seem much more commercially savvy, though it pains me to say that…”


3.7.6 London Bridge Viaducts Project Commencement Date: January 2010 Duration: 10 weeks Project Commissioner: Shane Ward, Team London Bridge Team London Bridge Team London Bridge (TLB) is a Business Improvement District (BID) funded by local businesses in the Tower Bridge/London Bridge area. The organisation carries out a wide range of activities to improve the area including place marketing and promotion, making the local environment cleaner and greener and improving safety and the perception that the area is safe. Project Context The area covered by TLB contains a range of Victorian viaducts with arches underneath. Although some work has been carried out by Southwark Council, to lessen their impact on people’s sense of safety, there are more arches that still require attention. Feedback from local workers, residents and especially visitors is that people do not venture south through the tunnels due to a continued poor and intimidating environment, a fear of crime, poor signage and a lack of people and businesses. This hinders the knitting together of the world class river front with the historic and bohemian Bermondsey Street neighbourhood. Project Outline TLB wanted to carry out a study of those streets in its area which are dominated by railway arches. The purpose of the study was to provide baseline information and to suggest potential future projects which could make the area more pedestrian friendly

by reducing the perception of crime in the area and by making north-south pedestrian routes more legible and useable. The project brief was to focus on design proposals to improve the areas in and around the system of arches that run from Tower Bridge Road through to St Thomas Street. The project aims were to: • carry out business and stakeholder

consultations; • identify public realm improvements; • improve north-south pedestrian

links; and • identify areas which had potential for

possible future TLB capital projects. Challenges The team underwent a number of changes through the duration of the project. Some participants had not understood the time commitments which resulted in commitments to deliver parts of the work not being met. Others dropped out of the team at various points. These changes initially created some tensions within the team. There were a series of disagreements as to the direction of the project. However, these gave way to a series of negotiations which outlined a clearer understanding of roles, responsibilities and workloads. By the end of the project, however, the production of the report became the responsibility of a small core of the team who put in a huge amount of work to complete it. Another challenge that was commented on the team was the way in which they had made assumptions about their knowledge of inter-disciplinary working. The project forced them to review these assumptions and to develop effective communication and negotiation strategies both within their team and with the project stakeholders.


Achievements The team produced a highly professional and visually attractive final report. The client was impressed enough to recommend that the report was presented at the London festival of Architecture and supported its publication in the trade press and related media. The success of this project can be summed up by the following quote from Suzy Nelson, the team’s mentor: “I think the Team London Bridge Build Up project was a success, because the client and a small core of the project team members put an enormous amount of work into the project. The client treated them like the professionals that they were and introduced them to a wide variety of stakeholders in the area. It provided a great opportunity for the core team members to apply their skills in practice and this has been important for a number of them subsequently finding employment; in one instance through a recommendation from our client at Team London Bridge.” Impact: Team London Bridge Perspective The project commissioner was not available for interview but has, however, reported his opinion that the project was a great success, with the final report providing a wealth of practical recommendations that could be taken forward. TLB also supported the presentation of the report at the 2010 London Festival of Architecture. Impact: Participants’ Perspective “I have worked with people from different backgrounds in the industry and had the opportunity to work on a project that I may never have had the chance to have encountered other than with Build Up. During this time the team has researched, designed and presented for groups of people that

have taken the information seriously and have considered options that were presented to them.” The interdisciplinary element of this project was seen as a real learning experience for many of the participants, some of who had not worked with professionals from other disciplines before. The positive outcomes from having to negotiate their roles with each other and address the challenges of communication and delivering the project to time had increased confidence and morale. They were extremely proud of the project outputs and confident that they could utilise them to their benefit in the future. “I think that’s a real sort of selling point that you have had that client interface and learnt to help them to develop a brief. [To learn that] what’s needed is to be creative in a social context” Enhancement of career prospects was cited as a strength of the project. Some had ideas for self-employment and working in partnership together; some had received interview offers directly from contacts of the other participants; and others gained work as a result of recommendation by the project commissioner. “I think I definitely know more about social interaction with the other professions and other architects with different points of view… I am entering into looking for work again stronger than I was before.” .


3.7.7 Retrofitting Soho Project Commencement Date: October 2009 Duration: 10 weeks Project Commissioner: Soho Community Environment Trust Soho Community Environment Trust The Soho Community Environment Trust receives financial support from The Crown Estate, Westminster City Council, English Heritage and Shaftsbury PLC. Part of its remit was to carry out a scoping study of the Soho area of London with a focus on how it could be adapted to be more environmentally sustainable and setting out policy guidelines for implementing sustainable retrofit technologies. Project Context Carbon emissions in Soho are eight times that of the average for Greater London. The initial scoping study carried out by the Trust had provided the evidence supporting the general potential of retrofitting in the improvement of environmental sustainability, including the reduction of carbon emissions, within the area. The Trust wished to take the general principles set out in the scoping study and to apply them in the study area; to move from the theory of retrofitting to setting out what could actually be delivered on the ground. Project Outline The Trust commissioned the Build Up project team to carry out a building-by-building study and recommend interventions for reducing Soho’s carbon footprint and upgrading the overall environment. The project brief was to focus on specified sub-areas within the original study and to map them relation to:

• intensity and activity levels; • mix of land uses; and • individual variations of building

typology. The team were required to consider the implications of working with listed buildings; how the buildings were used and current adaptations (e.g. air conditioning, refuse collection). The intention was that the data collected would be used to enhance the understanding of the built environment in the study area, and of ways to improve its efficiency in terms of thermal performance, carbon emissions and resource use. Challenges A key challenge for the team was the management of time and workload. The research was time intensive and produced a large amount of data. The time allocated by the team for the writing of the report was, therefore, restricted. Some members of the team had to drop out of the project (new work and other commitments) before the writing of the report. This left the remainder of the team with a heavier workload than expected. Some participants found it difficult to balance external commitments with the time that the project demanded and the team, therefore, had to renegotiate their roles and inputs. There were also some organisational issues within the University; meeting rooms were sometimes double-booked or subject to last minute changes. Achievements The participants fully engaged with the potential and limitations of various retrofitting options. They used this knowledge and their skills to successfully take broad principles and apply them in practice.


The project team identified a number of potentially appropriate sustainable technologies and produced a comprehensive report suggesting possible and practical interventions. Impact: Soho Community Environment Trust Perspective The project commissioner was not available for interview. English Heritage and Westminster City Council have, however, continued to work in the area and the findings from the study have been provided to them in order to inform this work. Impact: Participants’ Perspective “I found these approaches to be incredibly interesting and presented a holistic approach to the problems we face. I learned that no building can be sustainable in isolation as it is the lifestyle of the users and occupants that help to define a large part of the sustainability aspect.” The participants had not worked in an interdisciplinary team before, and most had little knowledge of the principles of retrofitting. They reported an increased understanding of the issues, importance of practical solutions; different approaches to achieving them and their limitations. “It has helped me realise that… built environment professionals cannot carry on with ‘business as usual’. It is imperative that we integrate our skills to ensure the best solutions are achieved to improve the sustainability of buildings”. One of the repeated aspects of the programme that was considered valuable was that of working together on a project with professionals who had been affected by the recession. Aside

from the insight gained into different professions, the impact of this experience for many of the participants was been to raise their confidence and morale in personally challenging times. Many reported keeping in touch with their team peers, particularly via the Build Up LinkedIn networking group. “We are mostly all on the Build Up LinkedIn site as well. I have been on LinkedIn for a year previously but was glad to extend my connections.” Some have been inspired to look for different ways of enhancing their CVs and identifying work opportunities. Others have been inspired to learn more about the green agenda; involve themselves in related charity work or undertake research projects. In some cases, employment opportunities were attributed directly to their participation in Build Up. “Since completion of the project, I had had an interview for a job. I found out from the interviewer that one of the reasons they were interested in me was due to my participation in the Build Up project”. Participants who have taken up work since the programme have also reported using the experience to inform their practice. “The knowledge I gained through the Build Up course helped me with a research project that I carried out on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust on planning for low carbon communities.” All of the project reports can be viewed on the Build Up website: www.build-up.org.uk


3.7.8 Strand Three projects summary The projects presented the participants with a wide variety of issues and challenges to address as inter-disciplinary teams. Whilst the project contents were defined by the commissioners, the underpinning tenet was that of addressing local environmental issues utilising innovative, sustainable and, where appropriate, low carbon approaches. As such, these project met the desired outcomes for improving the knowledge and skills of the participants in these areas and in within a multi-disciplinary context. Challenges Common to all of the participants was the challenge of working with a team that experienced changes throughout the duration of their projects, either due to participant drop-out or the change of the commissioning agency personnel. The management of this change and of the inevitable professional differences arising from inter-disciplinary working required the development of strong negotiation, time management and communication skills. The key challenge for the commissioners were to effectively integrate and support the teams with restricted resources. In some instances, the commissioning organisation was itself undergoing major change. Achievements All of the projects above were completed and high quality reports outlining innovative solutions were produced by the teams. However, the unexpected outcomes of these projects were impressive, from the use of the outputs for political lobbying, the submission into Architectural Festivals and competitions to the continued engagement of many of the team members with the commissioners and local communities. Impact Whilst all of the participants reported the development of their professional skills and knowledge whilst working on the projects; the most common report was that of an increased confidence coming from the interaction with a variety of different professionals, community members and peers. The importance of the social contact when experiencing the isolation often felt during periods of unemployment cannot be under-rated. This is evidenced by the reported increased levels of confidence and positive outlook for their future prospects. The projects all took place in London and the commissioning bodies have been clear that they have had a positive impact both within the organisations and within the identified localities; often enhancing their engagement with local community members. Important lessons have been learned about the value of inter-disciplinary approaches when looking to improve the urban environment.


3.8 Online Participant Survey The online survey was sent to 703 participants at the end of the programme delivery. Sixty-eight responses were received; a return rate of approximately 10%. The participants answered the following questions and had the option of leaving qualitative comments. The full data set is available in Appendix C. 3.8.1 Survey Scorecard

Questions Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score4

Score 5

How successful was the programme in helping you to evaluate your career?

9

13% 10

15% 19

28% 19

28% 11

16%

How successful was the programme in helping you to update your skills?

3

4% 5

7% 13

20% 23

34% 24

35% How successful was the programme in enhancing your understanding of interdisciplinary working?

9 13%

6 9%

18 26%

23 34%

12 18%

How useful do you think that the experience of the programme will be to you in the future?

3 4%

2 3%

15 23%

30 44%

18 26%

How useful was the programme in encouraging you to build networks with other professionals?

6 9%

11 16%

11 16%

24 35%

16 24%

Questions Yes No Don't Know In your opinion, did the programme successfully promote innovative ways of addressing urban and environmental issues?

46 68%

9 13%

13 19%

Would you buy professional development courses from the University of Westminster in the future?

34

50% 11

16% 23

34%

Would you consider undertaking academic courses at the University of Westminster in the future?

45

66% 8

12% 15

22% 3.8.2 Participant comments Follow is a selection of some of the comments made in response to the questions: • Very good programme as I gained knowledge and practical experience working on a

real project. The quality of the training is excellent and so is the use of facilities in the UoW. As someone who is unemployed Build Up helped me to remain current and up to date for networking, job hunting and knowledge. It is unusual to find this quality for free.

• Excellent program. Enthusiastic teams with well prepared courses. I learned a lot in a friendly multi-disciplinary environment. It has been very helpful in terms of knowledge readily applicable to upcoming projects and in terms of self-motivation.


• I think Build-Up was fantastic, and I am sorry that it is ending. I think many people in the built environment professions are facing similar uncertainties due to the recession and cuts.

• It helped me to realise exactly what I wanted to do and the steps that I could take to reach my goals. The environment was very supportive which helped evaluation in a positive way rather than reflecting on the negative.

• I really enjoyed the Build up course, with the careers workshop helping me to really evaluate exactly what career path I wanted to choose and having the courage to actually go for it!

• All of the workshops were extremely supportive and encouraged a thought process both about what you already knew but how to build upon your skills and examine the surrounding environment both built and natural in a slightly different way. Many thanks again for a brilliant few months and please continue to run courses like this in the future!

• I thought the programme was extremely well thought through. The trainers were excellent and the programme certainly helped me get through a redundancy situation I was in. I was able to network with professionals who were in a similar situation to me so gained support through this process and made new friends. The course has offered an amazing opportunity to learn new professional skills and to work within the group in an interdisciplinary way.

• The programme got dazed redundant professionals off the streets, and opened up many channels of communication. The absurd number of authorities and regulations attempting to control sustainable issues can only benefit from some free-floating thinking.

• Very useful in introducing key players in London and key factors of large city sustainability. Passiv Haus contacts and information invaluable. Could be useful in providing contacts via the website.

3.8.3 Online Participant Survey: Summary As only 10% of the participants responded to the survey, the results many not be representative of the views of the cohort as a whole. It is also useful to bear in mind that not all of the respondents participated in the Career Focus workshops and Projects and did not, therefore, benefit from the specific career development, networking and inter-disciplinary team working opportunities offered by these elements. Having said that, the scores for were consistently high. With the exception of Question 1 (44%), scores of 4 and above totalled over 50% rising to over 70% in all questions when the score of 3 is included. The comments offered support the view that the programme offered high quality professional development opportunities that were appreciated both for their technical input and the enhanced confidence that most of the participants experienced.


4. Build Up Participant Stories Over the duration of the programme, various students were sent questionnaires and/or interviewed about their experience on Build Up. The following stories are examples of the variety of professionals, their experiences and their thoughts about the programme. 4.1 Erica Jong: Architect Erica worked in a corporate architectural practice (400 employees) until she resigned and relocated to New York. Her experience covers commercial, hospital, education, masterplanning, residential and museum projects. Finding it difficult to settle in New York, she recently returned and has set up her own practice which has proven difficult in the current financial climate. Erica registered on the Build Up programme with a view to expanding her knowledge of the current built environment issues within London and hoping to develop her network of contacts. Following on from a positive experience on the Strand 3 “Borough High Street” project, during which she learnt about the urban development issues presented in Southwark, Erica has entered the RIBA “Forgotten Spaces” competition. She has also utilised the knowledge gained of the area and the contacts made (collegiate, potential funders and Better Bankside, the project commissioner) to plan further projects, both for the purpose of entering competitions and paid work. She found her experience both informative and enjoyable and highly values the contacts that she has made. The programme has inspired her to develop new ideas and a collaborative approach to working.

“I hope to keep a relationship with the team members, the University, the mentor, the local authorities and others that I met along the Project. Hopefully we can all contribute and collaborate in the future. It is truly an interesting process and journey.” [Erica Jong] 4.2 Adrian Lannon: Surveyor A qualified Quantity Surveyor, Adrian was made redundant from his job with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in June 2009. He found that there were a lot of professionals in construction chasing the same work which made gaining employment problematic so decided to register with the Build Up programme to develop his professional and personal skills. Adrian participated in a Career Focus workshop and a variety of short courses from Strand 2, including project management and Leadership and Personal Development. He also participated in the Haringey Heartlands Strand 3 project. He found the inter-disciplinary work useful as it gave him a chance to learn more about different professions and methods of communication. The access to the University’s facilities, such as the library proved valuable to him as the programme inspired his interest in further studies. Adrian has personally benefited from the networking opportunities made available as it has given him the confidence in his communication and presentation skills that have enabled him to present himself as a freelance Quantity Surveyor. The Build Up learning experience has also influenced his decision to undertake further part-time study in Civil Engineering. This confidence is particularly important to him as he has learning difficulties and now intends to encourage/assist others with similar challenges to return to


education. He also believes that participating in the programme has reflected well on his reputation with both clients and potential employers. “I will stay in touch with people and staff on Build Up as I understand how important that sector of learning is. It has given me a good sense of encouragement and made me realise how university experience can help to overcome difficult periods in work life.” [Adrian Lannon] 4.3 Margaret Reynolds: Architect Margaret Reynolds is an architect with AC Architects, specialising in low-carbon design, as well as Tutor for the RIBA Office-Based Exam at Oxford Brookes University. Margaret has been involved in numerous projects combining teaching and community involvement with low-energy refurbishment, renewables and green spaces. She was salaried until November 2008 when her firm experienced cash-flow problems. She volunteered to be made redundant on the understanding that if she brought work into the practice she would be reinstated after the cash flow hiatus. Despite bringing two projects in to the practice, Margaret was not re-instated on a salary and was left needing to find additional work. “It became so difficult to find a proper job except through existing contacts, so the Build Up Strand 3 live project in particular became part of my coping creatively with the lost cause of searching for a full-time job. The most notable changes in my firm involved work tenders becoming more competitive, more contractors going bust, and it became clear that students were becoming more desperate for work – my firm in particular had some very

talented ones coming through for work experience and Year Out positions.” [Margaret Reynolds] Margaret attended two Strand 2 courses, Passiv Haus and Redevelopment in Conservation Areas, and also participated in the Strand 3 project, Retrofitting Soho. The key benefit for Margaret was that the programme highlighted the need for the development of new approaches to inter-disciplinary working and provided her with a unique opportunity to work with and learn from other professionals. “The Soho Sustainable Refit Strand III workshops were based on this excellent, multi-disciplinary project which updated me on many things not strictly related to Soho, but I also learned more about CCHP, anaerobic digestion, rainwater attenuation and the consequences of London flooding as well as ‘conservation mentality’ from working alongside professionals from different disciplines than architecture. One assessor from In Build had many ‘low-energy’ information leads which provided the basis for my public speaking on ‘Sustainable Housing’, while another services engineer allowed me to soak up his experience in low-energy design, including borehole installations in numerous London locations. Build Up highlighted the urban perspective on energy issues and helped me broaden my low-energy design specialty.” Getting to know number of professionals that she had never heard of before and finding that she had plenty to contribute was a confidence boost for Margaret. She also found it fascinating to hear the different perspectives of other professionals, businesses and residents along with having the chance to develop a deeper understanding of urban design


tools and enhance her skills and knowledge of the processes of local consultation and community participation. Margaret remains in contact with her project team through a Google group site and the Build Up LinkedIn group and has already had various job leads suggested through the latter. 4.4 Susan Schnadhorst: Environmental Advisor Susan has been working within the sector, first as a sustainability consultant and then as an environmental advisor with a remit to provide sustainability advice on the company’s building portfolio. The beginning of the economic downturn meant that she had to accept a four-day week from her employer for a period of six months from the autumn of 2009-10. The recession subsequently had more drastic consequences when the work for sustainability consultancy became scarcer and her employer completely changed its focus, shed over half the workforce and moved into carbon management and energy efficiency work; an area within which Susan had no expertise. Susan participated in the Masterplanning, Urban Design and Urban Leadership courses from Strand 2 and the Strand 3, Retrofitting Soho project. She found the approaches offered on the courses and projects to be enlightening, presenting her with a holistic approach to urban development that she had not considered before. She also valued the opportunities to have open discussions with other professionals, which led to a deeper understanding of the issues faced by them and the sector as a whole and has in contact with several of the professionals from the project.

“I learned that no building can be sustainable in isolation as it is the lifestyle of the users and occupants that help to define a large part of the sustainability aspect… I have a direct understanding of the silo mentality of most disciplines.” [Susan Schnadhorst] The knowledge that Susan gained through the courses and project directly aided her work by helping her with a research project on planning for low carbon communities that she carried out for the Energy Saving Trust. Whilst she plans to continue her career as a sustainability professional, Build Up has left her with a continued interest in masterplanning and urban design and she hopes to gain more professional expertise in these areas. 4.5 Andrew Smith: Planner Andrew is a trained planner who has worked in development management, planning policy and regeneration projects work in the London Boroughs of Barnet and Newham. Up until May 2010 he was a Regeneration Officer working on a varied workload including urban design strategies, project planning and acting as a Town Centre Manager for East Ham. The recession had saw public funds dry up and the town planning work where he worked being reduced, leaving him under-employed and, eventually, redundant with the market for planners becoming more competitive. Andrew attended a Career Focus workshop, a variety of short courses from Strand 2 and the Strand 3 Haringey Heartlands project. He felt that the mix of professionals was a bit skewed towards architects, but still found the inter-disciplinary element of the programme useful. Andrew felt that he learnt a lot technically, particularly from the short courses and through the development of


a “Champions’ Network” for Haringey Council. “I have learnt new techniques in presentation, graphics and have become more confident as an individual. The support on mock interviewing by the careers service made a noticeable improvement on my interview technique… The work has filled a gap in my CV and made me more viable as an employee.” [Andrew Smith] A key value of the programme for Andrew was in the networking and sharing experience with people in the same position. He also felt that the short courses were excellently developed for professionals. Andrew has now started to offer consultancy planning advice. The offer of Haringey Council to continue to provide office space to the Build Up team has enabled Andrew to maintain his and work with his new contacts and consider options for marketing an inter-disciplinary service to potential clients. He hopes to build upon the networking set up as part of the project and develop further contacts with professionals in Haringey. 4.6 Stephen Ware: Architecture After working for architecture firms for a couple of years, Stephen decided to study a Diploma in Architecture at the University of Westminster, which he completed in 2008. He had been unable to find any form of employment, even voluntary work, since completing his course. He joined the programme with the hope that the development of his knowledge and skills would open the door to new employment. Stephen participated in various Strand 2 courses, of which he found “Building for the Future: Passiv Haus” the most interesting and has continued to study this subject. He also participated on the

Strand 3 “Borough High Street” project. He was challenged by working with strangers with different backgrounds but felt that the experience improved his organisational and communication skills and gave him a greater understanding of the flexibility required to work within a multi-disciplinary team. Through his participation on the programme, Stephen has gained a deeper understanding of the requirements of architecture within an urban setting, and an insight into what is involved in an urban projects and the interaction between designers, planners and clients etc. Stephen is hearing impaired and he particularly appreciated the support received from the University of Westminster and the project mentors. Stephen continues to seek paid work and is also collaborating on a design competition entry with two other Build Up participants. He remains positive and plans to complete his Part 3 studies. “…I gained a lot from this opportunity. It made me feel really motivated and stimulated. It was great to be doing something worthwhile. Unemployment is isolating and frustrating. I met some nice people in a similar situation to myself. I was able to learn a lot about the way they worked and developed ideas and it was great to be part of a team again and to be appreciated.” [Stephen Ware] 4.7 Naghmana Zia-Ud-Din: Architect Naghmana is a qualified architect who worked with a company dealing with high end residential work until he was made redundant in December 2008. At the beginning of the Build Up programme, he was in the process of setting up his own architectural practice. His main reasons for attending the courses were to increase his knowledge base and increase his skills whilst looking for work.


Naghamana attended the project management courses which he found extremely useful, particularly in the setting up of his business. He also undertook the Strand 3 “Borough High Street” project. He found the project particularly valuable as it gave him the opportunity to work with other professionals in a similar situation and to work on a project that involved a number of stakeholders. Naghamana shared his experiences with other members of the team and

says that he has learnt much from them. He believes that the relationships forged, and the skills gained on the project will be beneficial to him in the future. “This was an opportunity to be doing something positive and also to show that I am being pro-active during this difficult time. It has helped me think about how best to operate my business efficiently and increase the skills that I can offer clients.” [Naghmana Zia-Ud-Din]

4.8 Participant Stories: Summary The Build Up programme has highlighted the variety of ways in which professionals from the sector have been affected by the recession from reduction in working hours, drying-up of public and private sector contracts to redundancy. They also indicate the difficulties that new graduates will be facing in the sector as the stories tell of both experienced and inexperienced professionals finding difficulties in gaining employment in a crowded job market. Apart from the resilience that is required when dealing with such difficult times, those affected have been required to develop creative approaches to managing their time and finding work. It is here that Build Up appears to have offered inspiration and confidence. The technical and professional development opportunities have been seen as very useful and appreciated, however, what appears to have been most highly valued has been the time spent with people from different disciplines who are in similar situations. The learning from each other, networking and input from University mentors and staff appeared to have increased confidence and inspired creative approaches to improving the participants’ situation. All of the participants have stated that they have improved their communication skills and that the programme enhanced their understanding of the skills required for a modern “Urban Professional” to be successful. They have also committed to maintaining their new contact networks; many stating that would welcome the opportunity to develop inter-disciplinary team projects in the future. Whilst some have not yet found full-time employment, all of them have investigated areas of employment and continued studying that they had not previously considered.


5 The Stakeholders’ Perspectives

“At a school level I think the important thing is that it has set the precedent but also the methodology of getting people across the school working together, and particularly the idea of interdisciplinary learning and working through the projects has been really important. One thing that we want to carry through in the next stage is that idea as part of a much more expanded programme. At a University level I think that the fact that very quickly a group of schools and administrators were able to coalesce around a single project was almost unique actually, and I think that working relationships being held together by the central Build Up team have also been quite productive. I think probably the biggest thing the Build Up has programme done is the sort of soft side of enhancing the reputation of the school and the University as a kind of wider entity in as much as I, continually going around London, get feedback from people saying ‘That is an amazing thing that you did’ “ Jeremy Till, Dean: School of Architecture and the Built Environment 5.1 Introduction The evaluation of the project from the University team’s perspective aims to highlight the lessons learned from the programme and what, if any, impact that it has had on the University and schools involved. Following are summaries of the interviews carried out at the end of the project. 5.2 The Career Development Centre consultant team (Louise Bamford (Project Lead), Margaret Clements a nd Frances Gow: The CDC team were already experienced in working with ABE to support the students of built environment professions and expected the involvement in the programme to be an extension of the work already done. The programme offered the opportunity for them utilise their expertise in order to support a social initiative; to improve their overall knowledge of the sector and work with a different type of audience. Whilst they had some experience of working with professionals who were studying MBA programmes at Westminster, this different professional cohort represented a developmental opportunity for the team, particularly for those who had not worked with ABE before. Furthermore, as CDC works with all of the schools, the programme represented the opportunity to work on a cross-school project which, they hoped, would strengthen the collaboration with the schools. 5.2.1 Challenges One of the key challenges was managing the negative perspectives of participants who were struggling with the consequences of unemployment and a difficult job market. The facilitators had to work hard to keep a focus on the participants’ sphere of influence; what they could do to affect change, rather than on how difficult their situations were. A second challenge was keeping up with the changes in the sector as these were happening very quickly.


The underpinning tenet of the workshop was for the participants to work together and learn from each other. This worked well when there was a reasonable number of participants, however, the non-attendance rate of 30% of those who booked meant that some of the workshops were poorly attended and the facilitators had to work harder to encourage the few participants in the group. 5.2.2 Successes All three of the team felt that a key success was that of observing the increasing positivity and confidence of the participants over the duration of the workshop. They felt that this was aided by running full day workshops which enabled a good work-flow and plenty of time for interactive sessions. The positive feedback from participants, both on the day and through the online feedback supported the view that the workshops had been both informative and confidence-building. Another success was the team’s ability to flex both the workshops and the additional targeted sessions in response to participant demand. The organisation of the additional sessions was a challenge as external experts, who did not charge the University, needed to be brought in at short notice and offer interventions that were suited to the participants’ needs. All three of these sessions were oversubscribed (although the attendance at one of them was disappointing) and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Preparation for and facilitation of the sessions significantly increased the built environment sector knowledge of the participating Careers Consultants. The collaboration with the ABE project lead also added value to the team’s work; particularly when he attended the workshops in order to answer participant queries about the programme as a whole. More input would have been welcomed from the other schools; however, the capacity to deliver this was limited. The team worked together more closely than normal and derived many benefits from presenting together, including being able to observe colleagues delivering. The more collaborative and facilitative style of delivery and focus on the participants being the experts in their field was considered key to the success of meeting the workshop outcomes and the positive response from the participants. 5.2.3 Lessons learned Budget restrictions limited the amount of catering that could be provided during the sessions. The dispersion of the participants, particularly at lunchtime meant that the time was not utilised as efficiently for networking as it could have been. Many participants also saw peer networking as of limited value as they were all in the same situation. They did not always realise that through networking with each other, they were potentially opening the channels to each other’s contacts. More onus, therefore, could have been put on a more creative, less lateral, approach to networking. The level of infrastructure and support needed to deliver the project was a learning curve for the team. The speed within which the project was implemented meant that some of the administrative processes were being put in place as the workshops were taking place. This was a resource intensive process and it would be debateable whether the CDC would now have the capacity to participate in such a programme.


The fact that the participants were not charged to attend the workshops was a factor in the 30% non-attendance rate. Some processes were put in place to mitigate this; however, tighter sanctions for non-attendance may have been more effective. 5.2.4 Impact Build Up has offered a variety of professional development opportunities for CDC. As part of the preparation for the programme, staff received training on the use of Neuro-Linguistic Programming techniques. The approach adopted by the practice of NLP is now considered valuable in delivering many other aspects of the work of the CDC. The programme also provided a valuable opportunity to work with clients who were typically experienced in their chosen career and at a later stage of their career development than many of the student population who use the CDC. The experience of successfully addressing the needs and issues presented by this client group is now being utilised within CDC work with other analogous groups; in particular MBA students, PhD research students and the increasing numbers of mature students who are attending the University. The delivery of the workshops required a greater emphasis on facilitation and the creation of a supportive environment for the sharing of participant knowledge and experience. These skills are being utilised to enhance career workshop delivery within the University, which, whilst interacted, have tended to have a greater focus on the present as the expert who provides careers information and advice. In saying that, the built environment sector knowledge gained by the Careers Consultants is being used to enhance the advice and guidance that they are able to offer ABE students. Additional Comments “The NLP/coaching training that the staff received was beneficial in enhancing their group facilitation skills and boosting their confidence in working with a heterogeneous group of professionals, who had a range of issues with which to deal. It takes confidence to run a whole-day workshop which is client-led, and where you are not sure what emotional baggage may emerge, and the three consultants involved grew more at ease with this challenge with each workshop. The other benefit (for me in particular, as Project Manager of the matrix accreditation) was that we were able to draw on the staff’s experience of constantly tweaking the format of the Career Focus workshops based on participant feedback as evidence to present to that matrix assessor.” Jayne Bakewell, Senior Manager, Career Development Centre.


5.3 Alan Mace, Project Lead : ABE The main aim for ABE was to be able to bring some social benefits to the participants through the programme. In addition this, Build Up offered the opportunity for the school to increase their collaborative cross-departmental work, develop new and different materials and to approach delivery new ways. The collaboration required by the delivery of the projects would also, it was hoped, enhance ABE’s external relationships. 5.3.1 Challenges The inherent problems with establishing a project within quite a short time highlighted some of the structural issues within the University’s systems and processes. Understandably these systems had not been designed with such a project in mind; however, they did result in administrative problems at the outset of the programme, including the registration and management of a large cohort of participants. There were also issues around communication of the way in which things were to be organised and run within such a tight timeframe. Some communication problems around budget management were experienced, with the need to keep a tight eye on the budget and commissioning complicating the attempts to get bring in external consultants to deliver when required particularly early on when the speed of delivery necessitated and during the summer when there were few ABE staff available. The timing and balance of setting up the live projects required negotiation; recruitment to the projects was vital to the confirmation of project commencement and, whilst care was taken to not raise the expectations (of both the participants and the commissioning agent); a couple of the projects had to be cancelled due to lack of participants. The engagement of project commissioners was also challenging in some cases, with initial interest not always being followed through with continued input and support. In one particular case, this had a detrimental effect on the team’s outputs and experience as they felt that they had a lack of direction or commitment from the commissioning body. The extension of Build Up’s duration presented an expected challenge to ABE delivery as the project lead left the University at the end of August 2010. A new member of the team from ABE needed to be quickly integrated and provide transitional support to the final project participants. 5.3.2 Successes The University provided a creative and useful programme to a large number of participants and has started a conversation within ABE about ways in which people can work with each other. It also offered the school different options for the development and delivery of courses; asking the question “What does a short course look like?” The social benefits for the participants were more expansive than anticipated. The importance of the social contact reported by participants seemed, in some cases, almost more important that the formal course content. The programme successfully gave them an opportunity to work with other professionals in a structured environment which gave them a sense of control over their lives and of doing something positive for themselves. The success on the whole of the live projects has enhanced ABE’s relationships with the commissioning agents, for example, Haringey Council working with the participants beyond the end of the project.


Through working with BIDs, Local Authorities, community groups and the sector’s professional bodies, the project has been effective in enhancing the University’s engagement with professional practice and reputation within the sector. 5.3.3 Lessons learned In order to develop demand driven, professional development courses, the provider needs to be responsive and flexible. The implication of the experience of the Build Up project for the school and the University is that it would need to be more adaptable to successfully provide a suite of such courses. Research reports on the sector skills needs underpinned the initial decisions about which courses to run. The popularity of certain courses such as project management and the economics of development did not always reflect what these identified skills were. There was definite gap between what the participants thought would make them more employable and what employers thought. In addition a clear focus on the marketing of courses is vital, including careful consideration of the title of a course (one course received excellent feedback, but recruitment to it was difficult until the name was changed). The importance of commissioner engagement throughout the duration of the live project improves the focus and quality of the final outputs. Participants, whilst highly motivated, require a strong direction from the commissioner alongside the support from the University, to feel that they are producing a valuable, practice-based piece of work. 5.3.4 Impact The Build Up programme has sown the seeds of a different way of cross-professional working for ABE. The potential for it is to change the way people work; how they think about course offering and how they address the challenges of inter-professional communication. Plans are to deliver more short courses based upon the Build Up model and there is potential for the live project model to enhance the way in which traditional students work. The Build Up website, with its enhanced registration and participant management functionality will also be adapted to enhance ABE’s service to professional participants. Working closely with external consultants such as the Green Register, has meant that the school has benefited from different areas of expertise and new ideas. Should these new connections be developed, they could prove valuable. The school also has a potentially beneficial network of Build Up participants who could potentially pay for courses, support other initiatives or provide their own expertise. The development of this network via LinkedIn and additional events could enhance the schools inter-disciplinary and CPD offer. The lessons learned need to be championed by the schools in order to feed into new practices and development. The Build Up website is a tangible reminder of the connections that have been made that need to be nurtured and developed.


5.4 Walaa Bakry, Academic Project Lead: WBS The Build Up programme offered WBS the opportunity to work with a sector that they had not previously engaged with and with participants that were not traditional undergraduate, or even postgraduate, students. This new audience presented them with the opportunity to amend and deliver some of their courses differently and gauge the response to them; a sort of market research and testing that the School hoped would confirm which would be the most useful offer to the built environment sector. There was also the desire to deliver courses that would help participants to find work or hold on to the work that they had. 5.4.1 Challenges As with many projects, the key challenge was setting up the administrative processes. In this case, processes for registering large numbers of participants, ascertaining eligibility and communicating with them, had to be set up very quickly and was, initially, problematic. The University’s system for dealing with non-traditional students was severely tested and was a cause of concern at the beginning of the project. Once an online registration and communication system (hosted on a website outside of the University systems) was implemented, many of the administrative issues were diminished. These challenges partly arose from the University systems and structures not being designed to work with this type of project. The University’s ability to deliver short course/executive courses during term time was severely tested due to lack of teaching accommodation and staff availability. In addition, the quality of some of the teaching space available was below some participants’, many of whom had held senior positions prior to being made redundant, expectations. Initially, communication across the schools involved in the project was challenging. It took time to get used to working collaboratively as opposed to the more standard practice of independent project and course delivery. 5.4.2 Successes The initial portfolio of courses was tested and refined, giving WBS a clear understanding of which topics were of most interest to the sector. It enhanced the Schools knowledge of the most marketable business short courses. Many of the courses were oversubscribed and the student response and evaluation was been very positive. WBS courses received an average of 87% of the highest possible score regarding participants’ overall impression of the course and an average of 83% regarding course content. The project also enabled the School’s delivery team to test a new way of delivering courses, taking into consideration that a majority of the courses were run from 9am to 5pm, a variety of delivery methods were utilised. The vast majority of participants had a strong professional experience which helped to enrich and enhance WBS staff ability to deliver short courses to these type of participants in general and to the built environment sector in particular. The introduction of PRINCE2 accredited courses including PRINCE2 Foundation exams proved highly successful. The examination costs were charged, at a heavily subsidised rate, to the participants, thus generating an income of £11,770 which helped towards the project’s target of £20,000 income generation.


The pass rate for the foundation exam was 94% and for the practitioner exam was 71%. As these project management qualifications are highly valued in the sector, obtaining this professional qualification improves participants’ employability with at least one participant citing this study as a reason that she was offered an interview and subsequently a new job. 5.4.3 Lessons learned A variety of lessons have been learned, both from the challenges outlined above, and the participants’ feedback: • Research the sector and produce more sector specific course content. • Start collaborative work earlier in the project; setting up multi-disciplinary course

design teams. • Ensure cross-school senior management buy-in and activity from the outset in order

to facilitate cross-school collaboration. • Set up appropriate and seamless participant registration and management systems

before launching and promoting the programme. • Improve the systems for room bookings and the quality of the rooms on offer. • Develop efficient systems for managing non-traditional learners. 5.4.4 Impact The experience of participating in the project has enhanced the School’s practices and delivery skills to a new audience and has confirmed the areas of demand within the built environment sector. This offers the School the opportunity to offer its courses to a wider community and to focus on a new sector. The project has also added momentum to the initiation of further cross-school work at University level. WBS is currently in discussions with SABE about the design and delivery of a sector specific project management qualification. The endorsement of the Build Up programme by the Sector’s professional bodies and subsequent success of the project has enhanced the School’s reputation both within an outwith the University. 5.5 Sibyl Coldham, Project Adviser: Westminster Exc hange The notification of the ECIF bid came through at the time when the University was discussing third stream income provision. There were differing views as to what the development of, and market for, CPD meant and this project had the potential to encourage different groups to work together on this. One driver for this was the potential to develop lasting relationships with new public and private sector practitioners and businesses and to build University staff’s confidence in working with them. The project also presented an opportunity to develop the Dean of ABE’s vision for enhanced inter-disciplinary working within the school and the built environment sector. All of these drivers were underpinned by the social bias of the programme which met with the University’s values of corporate social responsibility.


5.5.1 Challenges One of the key challenges for this project was keeping the balance between the delivery of short courses and developing the external contacts that been hoped for. The speed with which the programme had to be implemented meant that the focus became more on the recruitment of participants and delivery of the programme elements rather than fostering new business contacts. The capacity of those who originally wrote the bid to influence the direction of activity was limited, as their time had not been factored into the bid and some of the objectives of the project seem to have become obscured by the practicalities of setting up and running of such a large project. The internal University systems proved problematic, particularly as the University was undergoing a re-structuring which resulted in complicated recruitment processes and a significant delay in recruiting to the project team. In particular, the re-structuring of ECS meant that they were unable to fulfil their original commitment to the project. The financial, marketing and IT systems were also not designed to support the operation of a time-limited project of this scale which resulted in delays, complications and a huge additional workload for the project implementation team. 5.5.2 Successes Whilst the scope of external relationship development has not been as wide as hoped for, there have been successes in this area, in particular with the Local Authorities and BIDs. Internal communications have opened up as well, and the project has enhanced the potential for new collaborative working and bids. The project has met its overall targets, despite the challenges which has enhanced the University’s experience of delivering such initiatives, as such; it has provided good training about what a project really is. 5.5.3 Lessons learned One of the key lessons learned is to front-load the communication about the project i.e. talk more to all of the departments/schools involved and prepare them for the challenges of delivery. It would also have been beneficial to “talk it up more” and promote the positive aspects of taking on and delivering new initiatives, particularly around business engagement. 5.5.4 Impact The programme has been a catalyst driving conversations within the University about the way in which departments and schools can collaborate and a new way of delivering professional development programmes. Whilst this may be a coincidence, there does appear to be a cultural change, with collaborative developments being discussed more frequently. This experience can be also be utilised to support the ability to run other projects. All of the ABE live projects were run in London and, as such, have had an impact on London overall. The positive outcomes from these projects and the Build Up programme overall has provided the University with good stories to tell and an enhanced reputation.


5.6 Comments from Build Up partners “Economic recovery remains fragile, and whilst there are some signs of growth it is important that sectors crucial to London’s success, such as construction and urban design, are supported in as many ways as possible. This is particularly the case with new and growing sectors, such as green construction and retrofitting. One way of doing this is through ensuring the skills base in these sectors is fit for purpose, for the benefit of employers, employees, would be employees and London as a whole. The Build Up programme played a very important role in helping to deliver this and London First looks forward to working with the University of Westminster on any future legacy activity.”

Mark Hilton: London First “The need to upskill and develop networks is critical to architects if they are to remain resilient during the recession. Build Up offered a timely response to the recession and RIBA London was extremely pleased to offer the opportunity for our members to take part in such a valuable programme. The high percentage of architects who participated demonstrated the need for a programme of this kind.” Rachel Borchard: RIBA London “I think all in the built environment benefited from this programme and the effort that went it by all involved. The courses were many and varied and that was its strength.” John Anderson: RICS Professional Groups and Forums 5.7 The stakeholders’ perspectives summary Notwithstanding the social element of the Build Up programme, which aligns with the University’s values of corporate social responsibility; one of the main drivers for the stakeholders was to develop the University’s skills, knowledge and experience of delivering demand responsive provision. Each of the schools, CDC and WeX were involved in conversations about what such provision might look like. All involved took advantage of the opportunity to develop new skills both in the design and delivery of continuing professional development interventions and increased knowledge of the needs and demands of professional learning within the built environment sector. One of the key challenges, and biggest learning curves, was the rate of the project set-up and implementation and the need to develop effective forms of communication across all of the schools and departments involved. It was also apparent that the University’s processes were challenged by the need to accommodate the fast moving set up of non-traditional participant registration and project management processes particularly during a period of organisational restructuring. The timing of the programme was concurrent with the University’s increased focus on generating third stream income through enhanced engagement with private and public sector organisations. Whilst the development of new business relationships through Build Up was not as successful as hoped for, external relationships with local authorities, business improvement districts, community groups and specialist consultants have been enhanced and could prove valuable for the future. Should the University choose to actively nurture the relationships with the networks of the participants and LinkedIn group members, there is potential for further engagement with business.


The Build Up programme has influenced practice within the University, with more collaborative projects being discussed, consideration of different ways of designing short courses and an increased confidence in delivering to a professional audience and managing complex projects. The success of delivering a creative and innovative programme that has supported a large cohort of professionals at a difficult time in their careers has enhanced the University’s reputation, provides a wealth of positive stories and increases the University’s credibility when pursuing new project funding. 6 Summary of Findings The Build Up programme has been successfully delivered; exceeding numerical targets and meeting many of its desired aims. The participants’ evaluation of the programme was extremely positive. Where improvements were suggested, they were generally related to the quality of the venues which often did not meet professional expectations. The interactive, practical nature of the delivery was successful, with participants appreciating the quality of the input, sector-specific practice-based approach and inter-disciplinary peer working. Where content enhancements were suggested, they were for the inclusion of more sector-specific materials, case studies and input from external representatives of the built environment sector. There have been anecdotal reports of participants’ employment opportunities and success being directly attributed to their attendance on the programme; the live projects in particular. However, the most commonly reported impact of the programme has been the positive effects on the confidence and morale of the participants. Build Up gave many a sense of structure and of taking control over their lives by engaging in something positive and developmental. The issues raised by the swift implementation of the programme highlighted the structural challenges that the University has if it plans to deliver demand-led professional development interventions. The central administrative, contracting and financial process frameworks will need to become more adaptable if the facilitation of beneficial and commercial business-facing relationships to become more commonplace across the University and consideration will need to be given to developing a seamless process for the registration and management of non-traditional, professional participants. Promoting, both internally and externally, the successes of the programme and any new initiatives will require an effective institution-wide marketing and communications strategy. The programme has also provided a valuable developmental experience for the staff involved; enhanced knowledge of the built environment sector; increased skills in the design and delivery of different models of CPD courses to new audiences and a greater understanding of the management and delivery of a complex, collaborative projects and partnership working. This experience, along with the development positive relationships with a broad network of external contacts appears to be driving the momentum towards new ways of working with colleagues and external consultants, professionals and organisations.


The findings of this evaluation suggest that Build Up has had a wide-reaching positive impact, not only on the participants and University staff, but also on the reputation of the University across the built environment sector and London as a whole. It has started new conversations within the University and provided a different model of working.

There now exists an opportunity to take forward the lessons learned, pursue the development of new relationships with external organisations and businesses and explore the potential of inter-disciplinary and collaborative working, both within and outwith the University.

Documents

Build Up Programme Evaluation 2011