THE SYSTEMS APPROACH TO SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS, THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SCHOOLS By Gordon Earl Peckham A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 ABSTRACT THE SYSTEMS APPROACH TO SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION— THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS, THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR MICHIGAN SCHOOLS By Gordon Earl Peckham This study of the systems approach to school construction consisted of three sub-studies. The first sub-study was conducted to determine what the planners and users of systems school buildings perceived to be the potential benefits of the systems approach to school construction. The second sub-study was conducted to determine those fundamental conditions that a select group of experts in the school plant planning field perceived to be impor­ tant for the full realization of the potential benefits of the systems approach to school construction. The third sub-study was conducted to determine the extent to which those conditions perceived to be important for the full realization of the potential benefits of the systems approach to school construction are to be found in Michigan. Gordon Earl Peckham Twenty-four potential benefits were identified through the use of questionnaire data that were submitted by users and planners of systems buildings in the Cali­ fornia School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project, the Toronto Study of Educational Facilities project, and the Florida Schoolhouse Systems (SEF) (SSP) project. Lower construction costs, higher quality of con­ struction, shorter project delivery time, and more flexible school buildings are among the potential benefits that may be realized in systems school construction. The use of systems does not appear to guarantee these benefits, but it has permitted them. Twenty conditions perceived to be important to the optimal realization of the potential benefits of the systems approach were identified through questionnaires submitted by a select group of nationally and internationally recog­ nized experts in the school plant planning field. Many of these conditions are equally important to the traditional approach to school construction, but some are distinctive. Systems projects that are designed to develop one or more new building systems have special requirements particularly related to the need for a large-volume market. The single-school systems approach requires subsystems already on the market. Data used to compare the existing conditions in Michigan with those conditions perceived to be important Gordon Earl Peckham to systems construction were obtained through personal interviews. Sources of information included: the Michigan Department of Education, the Health Department, school ad­ ministrators, the Michigan Association of School Adminis­ trators, a school attorney, architects, the Fire Marshal, and a building trades union official. School board members and school administrators in Michigan generally are not aware of the potential benefits that may be realized through systems construction. The -Michigan Department of Education has not pro­ moted systems construction in Michigan. Large scale systems development projects are not feasible for Michigan at this time. The off-the-shelf use of systems is the approach to systems construction that currently offers the greatest promise to school districts in Michigan. There are no identifiable conditions in Michigan that prevent use of this approach. At the same time, there are no indications of pressures that would hasten the widespread use of this approach. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge his sincere appreciation to the many people who helped to make this study possible. Appreciation is expressed to my advisor and dissertation committee chairman. Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, for stimulating and encouraging my efforts throughout the preparation of this study. The writer is also grateful to committee members Dr. James W. Costar, Dr. Ployd G. Parker, and Dr. James B. McKee for their assistance, particularly during the initial stages of development of this research project. I am especially indebted to my wife, Betty, whose sacrifice and understanding during the research and writing of this study were a great assistance. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Page INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 BACKGROUND .................................... 5 Need for the Study.......................... 8 THE PROBLEM.................................... 9 Statement of the Problem....................... 10 A n a l y s i s ........................................10 Delimitations .............................. 11 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....................... 14 A s s u m p t i o n s .................................... 14 D e f i n i t i o n s .................................... 15 2. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...........................22 The Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program (CLASP) in England. . The School Construction Systems Develop­ ment (SCSP) Program in California . . . . 25 28 The Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) in Toronto.................................... 32 The Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) in Florida........................................35 Individual Systems Projects.................... 39 S U M M A R Y ........................................... 43 iii Chapter 3. Page METHODOLOGY AND P R O C E D U R E .................... 49 THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL B E N E F I T S .......................................49 4. THE CONDITIONS IMPORTANT TO THE OPTIMAL REALIZATION OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEMS A P P R O A C H ................ 54 MICHIGAN COMPARED .......................... 59 S U M M A R Y .................................... 60 ANALYSIS OF D A T A .............................. THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL B E N E F I T S ............................. THE CONDITIONS IMPORTANT TO THE OPTIMAL REALIZATION OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS. 5. 62 62 . 79 CONDITIONS IN MICHIGAN COMPARED FOR COM­ PATIBILITY WITH CONDITIONS IMPORTANT TO SYSTEMS TECHNIQUES ....................... 93 S U M M A R Y .................................... Ill SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY ................ . . . 118 118 The Potential Benefits.................... 119 Conditions Important to Systems Building. 122 The Compatibility of Conditions in Michigan................................. 126 D I S C U S S I O N ................................. 129 Implications for Michigan................ 141 C O N C L U S I O N S ................................. 144 RECOMMENDATIONS............................. 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... iv 151 Page APPENDICES Appendix A. B. Request for Information Which Was Sent to the Planners and Users of Systems S c h o o l s .................................... 154 Request for Information Which Was Sent to Recognized Experts in the School Plant Planning Field............................. 163 v LIST OP TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. Page Numbers of Questionnaires on the Potential Benefits of Systems Building Sent and Returned, by Classification . . . . . . 64 The Extent of Agreement Among Select Planners and Users of Systems Buildings With State­ ments of the Potential Benefits of Sys­ ................ tems Building, by Project 68 The Extent of Agreement Among Select Planners and Users of Systems Buildings With State­ ments of the Potential Benefits of Systems Building, by Classification ................ 75 The Extent of Importance Accorded to State­ ments of Conditions Said to be Important to the Full Realization of the Potential Bene­ fits Inherent in Systems Construction as Perceived by Selected Authorities in the School Plant Planning Field ................ 82 vi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A phenomenon having great significance for the American society during this period is that of people involvement— involvement of people in those affairs that are important to their social, economic, and political life styles. Involvement areas for the citizenry that appear to be high on the priority list are those few areas still remaining where individuals feel they have a voice; a voice that can be heard, and a voice that will count. This is particularly the case for activities dependent upon taxpayer support through referendum elections. The public school system of Michigan fits very neatly into this category. Citizen involvement in public school affairs, today, is no longer comprised of electing a board of education to make the decisions for the community to support with unquestioning acquiescence. No longer is there more than a limited contentment to give free rein to school people to make any kind of decision that could impose financial obligations upon a community. Today, school patrons are looking for a greater piece of the 1 2 action. They desire a greater role in determining what will happen within the public schools; an involvement demanding programs of greater excellence and requiring accountability. With mounting demands being made upon the schools, accompanied by inflationary trends of the times, it has come to be more and more difficult to convince the taxpaying public that it is receiving a reasonable return for the many dollars it invests in the educational enterprise. The literature is replete with instances of the taxpayer revolt which gives evi­ dence to this position. The taxpayer is not content with the return received from his tax dollar. He has balked, and it is only with increasingly fervid reluctance that he becomes willing to loosen the purse string controlling the outward cash flow. Voted dollars come directly from the taxpayer, and only to the extent of his willingness. He is not asking to be coddled, but he is demanding assurance, an assurance his dollar will purchase a dollar's value. Such assurance is not easily extended today. School taxes account for a major proportion of the local property tax levy in Michigan. Usually the larger share of school taxes are for operational pur­ poses, but even so, the portion of the local tax levy for construction purposes is very significant in a number of school districts. Voted construction dollars 3 are difficult to obtain, and even once obtained, the purchasing power is diminished at a rapid rate by the inflationary process. Supporting this observation are several salient points extracted from a national study: 1. During 1969, building costs rose 10 percent or more in many parts of the country. 2. Less than one-half the dollars requested for construction in 1969 was approved by the voters. 3. The cost of building a new school has increased by 40 percent in the last decade. 4. School building costs have increased by 133 percent since 1947. 5. On-site labor costs have increased by 63 percent since 1967. 6. Off-site labor costs have increased by 61 percent since 1967. 7. Material costs have increased by 19 percent since 1967. 8. Interest rates on some bond issues have been in excess of 8 percent.■*" Paradoxically, school districts are confronted, it seems, with a perplexing problem of trying to obtain greater results with fewer dollars that are diminishing 10rlando F. Furno and James Doherty, "The Cost of Building in 1970: Out of Sight!" School Management (Reprint from July and August, 19707"! 4 in purchasing power. Those school districts requiring expansion or replacement of buildings and facilities are confronted not only with gaining taxpayer acceptance of additional obligations, but in addition, they must deal with a construction cost situation that tends to soar unrestrained. The spiraling costs of school construction tend to exacerbate the growing lack of confidence tax­ payers have in the financial astuteness of school officials. Thus, demands are being made for fiscal responsibility as they have never been made in the past. The challenge to school officials is clear. The demands for accountability dictate that capital outlay dollars for construction must be expended in the most education­ ally defensible way; in a manner that promises maximal return for the amounts invested. The need, therefore, is for educational facilities that are functional and can adapt to changes in program throughout the structural life of the facilities— buildings having reasonable initial costs and reasonable long-term costs of oper­ ation. School buildings require sizeable investments in most communities. If school officials are to maintain any semblance of public confidence, it is essential that they be accountable to the public for wise expenditures of public funds. It becomes imperative, then, to examine current capital outlay expenditure practices to determine 5 if such practices can be modified in a fashion that permits better accomplishment of established objectives. To meet such a challenge, one that requires satisfying educational objectives while maintaining support of the citizenry, is none too easy a task. to be no viable alternative. Yet, there appears The challenge remains! BACKGROUND Early in 1970, it was reported that a method of school construction had been developed in Florida that had demonstrated "better schools could be built, that they could be built more quickly (construction time was as short as 6 months for complete elementary schools), and with fewer dollars." o The vehicle receiving credit for this time-cost-quality phenomenon is Systems Con­ struction. Should this account prove to be accurate, and should the systems approach be applicable and feasible in other localities, it would behoove school officials to become acquainted with this process. The systems approach may be able to offer a great service to school con­ struction programs and, at the same time, offer evidence to the taxpaying citizenry of a greater commitment to accountability. There may be a potential waiting to be tapped. 2 "Florida's System Schools, Rx for More School vs. Fewer Dollars," Council of Educational Facilities Planners Journal, January/February, 1970, p. 12. 6 While systems construction has been in use in Europe, Russia, Canada, and the United States, its appli cation in school construction is not commonplace. The "grandfather" of systems schools originated in England following World War II with the development of the Con­ sortium of Local Authorities Special Program (CLASP). Capitalizing on the CLASP experience in standardized building components, bulk bidding procedures, and new management and construction practices, the School Con­ struction Systems Development program was begun in Cali­ fornia in the early 1960s. This systems program was followed by Toronto's Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) and Florida's Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) in the middle 1960s. The claims that are made for higher quality con­ struction, and the declared financial savings coupled with the additional claims for reduced construction time have caused a considerable amount of discussion to be generated among school officials. Much of this dis­ cussion has been on the surface rather than in depth. There has been no concerted trend to jump onto the systems "bandwagon," but rather, caution has become the key word. Many school people who might act are inertia bound; they resist most change. is wait and see. For them, it There are those who doubt any benefits can be derived from the systems approach. There are 7 those who believe certain benefits are available but too many obstacles stand in the way of their attainment. And then there are those who just do not know what to think. Apparently lacking an adequate source of readily available information, and having no first-hand experience with the systems approach, perhaps the great majority of schoolmen are in a relatively poor position to make any kind of rational judgment regarding systems construction. For lack of time and sufficient opportunity to ferret out the required data, they remain uninformed. When involved in systems discussions, one hears many questions regarding the systems approach. What do building construction systems really have to offer? Why have Michigan school districts failed to do more with the systems approach? Can a single school district, by itself, build systems schools? Will the legal structure within which schools must operate permit such practices as bulk bidding, fast-tracking, and cooperative purchasing? consortia? Is it permissible to establish How well will a systems school accommodate individualized learning, the changing role of the teacher, grouping requirements, and open-space activities? Will systems accommodate traditional as well as innovative curricular programs of instruction? And then, how about the Department of Education, the Fire Marshal, and the construction unions? Are 8 they willing to cooperate in such a venture? "red tape" will there be? How much Is the systems approach advantageous or even feasible in given situations? As questions such as these are very significant, they merit the attention of those persons charged with the responsibility of planning and expediting the con­ struction of school plants. When questions remain un­ answered, and when claims, counter-claims, and opinions are glibly offered, the school planner finds himself in a state of uncertainty, to say the least. Yet he must find his way through this quandary if he is to have reasonable confidence and assurance that he has estab­ lished an appropriate position on the use or non-use of systems in meeting the construction needs of his school district. Need for the Study At no one point was there a sufficient gathering of information available from which one might obtain answers to his questions regarding the systems approach to school construction, and then make an educated decision. There was a need, therefore, for an overview study of systems building. This study was initiated to determine those bene­ fits that were perceived to be potentially available through using the systems approach, and, also, to 9 ascertain what were perceived to be conditions that must pertain to acquire them. Until information of this kind is made available for facilities planners to study, their ability to consider the pros and cons of systems construction will remain severely restricted. THE PROBLEM It is desirable that facilities planners have adequate and up-to-date information on all important technological developments in the school construction industry. It appears that systems building may be at the stage of development where school planners no longer can justify not being familiar with the systems approach and the implications it has for school construction. Familiarization with the systems approach calls for an awareness of systems technology, an awareness of new management techniques, a conversancy with systems rhet­ oric, and a general knowledge of what the systems approach is all about. An assemblage of data encom­ passing the potential benefits and the conditions under which the systems approach is applicable, will be helpful to planners who wish to make decisions regarding the possible implementation of the systems under specific circumstances and given conditions. 10 Statement of the Problem The problem was to determine what the current planners and users of systems school buildings per­ ceived to be the potential economic and educational benefits inherent in the systems approach to school construction, to determine conditions perceived by selected experts that must exist for optimal utilization of the benefits, and to test the possibility of using systems building in Michigan. Analysis The study was divided into three distinct sub­ problems which received treatment as three separate sub­ studies. Thus, the solution to the problem called for solving the three sub-problems that follow: Sub-Problem 1 The problem was to determine what was per­ ceived by the current planners and users of sys­ tems school buildings to be the potential eco­ nomic benefits and the potential educational benefits inherent in the systems approach to school construction. Sub-Problem 2 The problem was to determine those funda­ mental conditions that a select group of experts in the school plant planning area perceived to be 11 important for the full realization of the potential benefits inherent in the systems approach to school construction. Sub-Problem 3 The problem was to determine the com­ patibility of conditions existing in Michigan school districts with those conditions per­ ceived to be important to the full realization of the potential benefits of systems construction. Delimitations In order to narrow the scope of the study, the investigation to determine the perceived potential bene­ fits in Sub-Problem 1 was limited as follows: 1. The study was confined to the School Construction Systems Development program (SCSD) in California, the Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) in Metropolitan Toronto, and the Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) in Florida. 2. Data for the study were obtained in March and April, 1971, and were limited to those submitted by principals in systems buildings, superinten­ dents or directors (or their designees) of those districts having systems buildings, and from members of the system project staffs. 3. Data were limited to those obtained through a mailed questionnaire. 12 4. The sample was composed of forty-six building principals, twenty-nine school district adminis­ trators, and four systems project staff personnel. The investigation to determine the fundamental conditions in Sub-Problem 2 was limited as follows: 1. The study was confined to the perceptions of twelve persons generally conceded to be among the most knowledgeable educational facilities planners in the United States. Their extensive experience and backgrounds have qualified each for a reputation of being highly competent, and their opinions in school plant matters are highly respected. Included in this select group were nationally and internationally known archi­ tects, systems program directors, and high-ranking officials from Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. (EFL) and the Council of Educational Facili­ ties Planners (CEFP). In addition, this select group included key personnel from Stanford Uni­ versity's School Plant Planning Laboratory, California's Department of Education Bureau of School Planning, and the Facilities Development Staff of the United State Office of Education. 2. Data for the study were obtained during the months of March and April, 1971. 13 3. Data were limited to those obtained from respon­ dents to the mailed questionnaire. The investigation to compare the conditions deter­ mined in Sub-Problem 2 with those conditions under which Michigan school districts, normally operate, as required in the investigation of Sub-Problem 3, was subject to the following limitations: 1. Sources of data were limited to the State of Michigan Department of Education and those state agencies that function with the Department of Education as reviewing agencies of school dis­ trict building programs to the extent such data were available. Information required for the study and unavailable at the above sources was obtained in the Lansing and Detroit metropolitan areas from architectural firms, from a school attorney, from a labor representative, and from school district administrators in Tri-County areas of Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties exclusive of Detroit. 2. The data for the study were collected in April and May, 1971. 3. The collection of data was limited to those obtained by personal contact with the source. 4. The investigation was confined to that which was applicable to the Tri-County area. 14 5. The investigation was limited to public school districts having grades kindergarten through twelve. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A basic premise upon which this study was formu­ lated was that if rational decisions regarding use or non-use of the systems approach are to be made, the decision maker must have access to considerably more information than that which is readily available to him at this time. There was no one source of information that included the potential benefits of, and the conditions required by the systems approach to school plant planning which incorporated facts and opinions codified for immediate use. Thus it was appropriate to assemble pertinent data from perceptions held by recognized experts— those select persons who have been closely associated with the systems approach, and those whose expertise and knowledge qualified them to make informed judgements. Assumptions 1. The opinions of recognized experts in the field of school plant planning are valid in the absence of data that have been established experimentally. 15 2. Developers and users of systems programs and systems buildings have studied the problem sufficiently to make valid judgements. 3. Although differences exist among the fifty states and Canada, there is enough similarity among them that the potential benefits attrib­ utable to the SCSD, SEF, and SSP have universal applicability. 4. There are identifiable conditions that increase or decrease the advisability of using the systems approach to school plant construction. Definitions Literature in the school plant planning field contains numerous terms which are in common usage and generally understood by most readers of school planning literature. Such terms are in frequent use throughout this study without benefit or need of special definition. For some terms used in discussions of the systems approach to school construction there is no common understanding of their meanings. The term "system," for example, has been taken to mean a number of different things ranging from a simple construction brick to a complex school building structure. As there is no commonly recognized lexicon of systems terms to which the reader may refer, those terms requiring clarification of meaning as used in this study are defined below: 16 Building System or System.— The composite of interrelated and integrated component subsystems with a base of information which defines the relationships among the components, which together, or with the addition of other parts or components, form a building. Normally the components are mass-produced. ► Building System, Closed.— A building system with interface requirements predetermined to the extent that only given manufacturers1 components integrate exclusively with one another. Building System, O p e n .— A building system with interface requirements that permit components or sub­ systems from different manufacturers to be used inter­ changeably, and thus permitting numerous options. BSIC.— Building Systems Information Clearinghouse. CEFP.— Council of Educational Facilities Planners. CLASP.— Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program. Compatibility.— The coordination between two or more components or subsystems. Component.— A unit designed to perform a given task. A subsystem is a precoordinated building component. 17 Consortium.— A cooperative of school districts joined together for the purpose of pooling their require­ ments, receiving joint bids, and nominating successful bidders on their assumption that bulk bidding and pur­ chasing reduces costs. E F L .— Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. Fast-tracking.— A process of overlapping certain steps in the building process to provide increased effi­ ciency by reducing the amount of time normally required in the building process. General Contractor.— The firm to whom a school district has awarded a contract for construction of a school building. HVAC.— The heating, ventilating and airconditioning subsystem. Industrialization.— The shifting of work from the school building site to a factory or shop where the more efficient assembly line procedures can be employed in the manufacture of building parts. On-site manual labor is replaced by mechanization wherever possible to obtain the highest level of productivity and quality. Interface.— The boundary where two subsystems join, touch or affect each other. Interfacing 18 compatibility involves predetermined ability of compo­ nents to "mesh” as contrasted to on-the-job cutting and fitting. Modular.— Having standardized dimensions which make for exact fit in a number of arrangements. Tinker Toys are an example of modular objects. Off-the-Shelf.— A term describing products or components which have been developed to perform given tasks and are available for purchase, ready made. Open-Space.— The free-flowing area within a building, usually limited in the amount of visual and acoustical separation between teaching stations or areas. Space becomes increasingly open as partitions decrease and area increases. Performance Specification.— A construction spec­ ification based on performance criteria consisting of user needs as distinguished from a descriptive spec­ ification. Prebidding.— The bidding of subsystems before the general contract is bid in multi-stage bidding procedures. Regulatory Agencies.— Agencies having regulations affecting school districts, The Health Department, the Department of Education, and the Office of the Fire Marshal are regulatory agencies. 19 SCSD.— School Construction Systems Development. S E F .— Study of Educational Facilities. SSP.— Schoolhouse Systems Project. Subcontractors.— Those contractors who contract with the general contractor to perform a specific task which is a portion of the over-all general contract. Subsystem.— A component part of a building sys­ tem. Examples of subsystems are structure, lighting- ceiling, HVAC, demountable partitions, etc. Subsystems are often referred to as systems. Systems Approach.— The systems approach to school construction is the process used in school build­ ing "systems programs." It involves viewing the planning, construction, and building use processes as interrelated and interdependent, and as working together for the overall objectives of the whole. Common to the approach used in systems programs are the following: 1. The preparation of user requirements. 2. The development of performance specifications based upon user requirements. 3. The industrial development of compatible com­ ponents (the development may be sponsored by a 20 consortium) and/or off-the-shelf selection of components as a solution to the performance specifications. 4. The prebidding of compatible components (sub­ systems) . 5. The bidding of the general contract based upon the preselected subsystems. A basic characteristic of the systems approach is its standardization and industrialization of major com­ ponents as contrasted with custom building in con­ ventional construction programs. It implies in-factory rather than on-site construction. Systems Building.— A building in which two or more subsystems are used, one being the structure. Also a construction process which utilizes performance specifications based on user requirements, and the integration of components or subsystems into a coordi­ nated who l e . Systems Programs.— Examples of systems programs are the School Construction Systems Development the Study of Educational Facilities (SCSD), (SEF), and the Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP). User Requirements.— The needs of the building users including educational requirements, code and 21 regulatory agency requirements, and other needs peculiar to school districts that participate in systems building programs. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature on construction of schools with sys­ tems methods and systems products was nearly non-existent until after World War II. In fact, the building industry in general had been characterized by its slowness to respond to modern techniques. A few years ago, Jan C. Rowan wrote that a carpenter could rise from his 18th Century grave and begin working on a contemporary con­ struction job without drawing much attention.^" recently, William W. Chase wrote: More "No one would think of building a little red schoolhouse today. Yet the same old-fashioned method used to build little red schoolhouses is still being used in constructing present-day schools." 2 This may all be changed by the systems approach to construction. The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature and report on the progress made by the systems approach to date. ^■Jan C. Rowan, "Editorial," Progressive Archi­ tecture , June, 1968, p. 93. 2 William W. Chase, "Off-the-Shelf-Schoolhouses," American Education, January-February, 1971, p. 8. (Hereinaiter referred to as "Off-the-Shelf-Schoolhouses.") 22 23 The first reported example of industrialized or systems building was that used in the construction of London's Crystal Palace in 1851. The designer, Joseph Paxton, used a method now known as "prefabrication" to build the 800,000 square-foot structure with mass3 produced parts. In 1910, an article written by Walter Gropius, a German architect, proposed the industrialization of housing. It is reported that he recommended repetitive production of parts that could be "made by machine to the same standard dimension and with provision for 4 interchangeability of parts." And in 1919 a building system was introduced in England that consisted of cast-in-place concrete walls using factory-made steel forms. It was designed to con­ struct housing up to four stories in height. Known as Easiform, the system is still being used.^ After World War II, a number of countries in Europe utilized systems building in their housing industry. Among them were Czechoslovakia, England and Wales, Denmark, Germany, France, Holland, Sweden, and 3 "Systems Building," Engineering News-Record, October 30, 1969, p. 64. (Hereinafter referred to as "Systems Building.11) 4Ibid. 5Ibid. g Russia. Cost figures are reported to be rather elusive but the United Nations study of industrialized building concludes systems have reduced building costs by 10 to 7 15 percent. There have been numerous articles written about systems building. But as this investigation is based upon the systems approach in school construction, the review of the literature, from this point forward, will be limited to authoritative sources that describe school building systems as they have evolved for use in the United States today. The review is presented in five categories: 1. The Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program (CLASP) in England. 2. The School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) Project in California. 3. The Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) in Metropolitan Toronto. 4. The Schoolhouse Systems Project 5. Individual systems projects. (SSP) in Florida g Peter Barnard Associates, "The Role of the Ontario Housing Corporation in System Building" (Ontario Ontario Housing Corporation, August, 1970), p. 53. (Mimeographed.) 7 "Systems Building," p. 74. 25 The Consortium of Local Author­ ities Special Program (CLASP) in England Systems construction of schools in the United States has been patterned after the CLASP program of prefabricated construction. The CLASP system of con­ struction was developed in answer to England's post-war shortages of manpower and materials and the problem of having to provide classroom space for over a million youngsters in a seven-year period— the equivalent of O over 400 new schools per year. In 1946, the County Council of Hertfordshire was responsible for the development of a school building system. Prefabricated building components were manu­ factured and assembled on the site with minimal labor and lowered skill requirements. Eleven schools were built from components in 1947 with twenty-one more approved for the following year. The importance of this accomplishment was that for the first time, schools had been built from components on a serial basis rather 9 than on a one-by-one basis. g School Construction Systems Development, British Prefabricated School Construction, Report Number 2 (Stanford, California: School Planning Laboratory, 1962), p. 7. (Hereinafter referred to as Prefabricated School Con­ struction.) 9 Ministry of Education, Building Bulletin 19: The Story of CLASP (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961; , p. 7. (Hereinafter referred to as Building Bul­ letin 19.) 26 The cost of construction was high and the rate of construction was too slow to meet the acute need. Devel­ opment work had been centered around one-story elementary schools and there was need for secondary schools with several floors. A further complication was the reduction in the construction allowance per child. It is reported to have dropped by one-third from 1949 to 1 9 5 1 . ^ The Ministry of Education began assisting in the development work. Efforts were made to decrease square foot costs and the amount of space per student. plans were not the answer. Standard As there had been no national standards for component development, the problem was to find suitable dimensions around which a closed system could be evolved. Early attempts resulted in systems of concrete, aluminum, steel, and combinations of steel and other m a t e r i a l s . ^ In 1955, the Nottinghamshire County Architect's Department and the Education Department reviewed thirteen systems of construction. They decided upon a dimension grid that could adequately meet the different structural requirements in educational buildings. None of the existing systems was completely suitable as the "^School Construction Systems Development, Prefabricated School Construction, p. 7. ■^Ministry of Education, Building Bulletin 19, p. 9. 27 requirement was for a system that would accommodate single-story primary buildings as well as three-story high school buildings. The system reported to be the best suited was one that had been used at Belper; a system that could be modified, and one that could remain within the cost limits set by the Ministry of Education. 12 Working as a team to design the systems components, individual architects were assigned to each element of construction such as the steel frame, the windows, the roof, the floor slab, and others. It was the responsi­ bility of each architect to determine specifications and to develop drawings for his own particular area. Each component had to satisfy all possible arrangements with other components in the overall system. Nottinghamshire committed all its new schools in the 1957-58 building program to the newly developed sys­ tem. Other local authorities were invited to join with Nottinghamshire and utilize the advantages that could be gained from quantity production. Seven banded together in 1957 to form the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program which became known as CLASP. 13 The benefits of the consortium are described below: The principal economic advantages of the Consortium are three-fold. First, the Consortium and its special purchasing procedure, makes it possible to build good 13Ibid., p. 15. 28 schools in the CLASP system at a price well within the cost limits laid down by the Ministry of Edu­ cation— buildings which give good value for money, which can be individually designed to meet the user's requirements and which provide a high stan­ dard of finishes. Secondly, the use of the CLASP system makes it possible to erect buildings more rapidly with a smaller labor force. Thirdly, the system dispenses with the need for costly special precautions against mining s u b s i d e n c e . 14 The CLASP system was used on thirty-one projects in 1958-59, forty-eight projects in 1959-60, and by 1962-63, it was scheduled for a program of ninety projects— an average start of one project every four 15 d ays. The School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) Program in California The first school construction systems program in the United States was the School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project established late in 1961. Ezra Ehrenkrantz, now the President of Building Systems Devel­ opment, Inc., had studied the British systems building methods and concluded industrialized building would work in the United States. In September of 1961 at a joint national conference sponsored by the Architectural Forum and Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. plans for SCSD were laid. (EFL), the Ehrenkrantz, with support from 14Ibid., p. 19. 15 School Construction Systems Development, Pre­ fabricated School Construction, p. 27. 29 Charles Gibson of California's State Department Bureau of School Planning, was able to convince Harold Gores and Jonathan King from Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. (EFL) that the time was right to give systems a try. It was agreed that if school districts could be found that were interested in using mass-produced and standard­ ized components to find a broad variety of solutions to their construction problems, EFL would support the idea's development.^ 6 Thirteen school districts were interested and participated in the development of School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project. 17 With a grant from Educational Facilities Laboratories, and through the com­ bined efforts of the School Planning Laboratory at Stan­ ford University and the Department of Architecture of the University of California, Berkeley, the SCSD project was launched.18 The task was to prepare specifications for build­ ing components that would meet the requirements of all thirteen districts. A system was developed that used one 16 Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., SCSD: The Project and the Schools (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., 1967), p. 16. 17Ibid., p. 22. 18 John C. Gardner, "Component Systems for MassProduced Schools," American School & University, April, 1970, p. 18. 30 set of basic building components. These components were designed to integrate exclusively with one another as a closed system. The components included: the structural- roof system, the air-conditioning and heating system, the lighting and ceiling system, and the partitions sys­ tem. It was reported early in 1964 that the components accounted for one-half of the construction costs of a school building, and that the components could be obtained for $1.50 less per square foot over the same elements in a conventionally built school— a savings of 18.4 percent. 19 The same account reported the following findings of SCSD: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Using components that are both modular and flexible, schools can be built to accommodate the changes in teaching programs as forseen by most educators. With components, schools can also afford to build with far higher standards of lighting, acoustics, and air-conditioning. A vigorous product research and development effort by manufacturers can be seeded by rela­ tively modest outside investment to create clearcut performance specifications. Manufacturers can be brought together to design separate products that work as a single inte­ grated system, eliminating much waste and inefficiency. Components need not cramp the design freedom of architects and engineers; SCSD's choices, in fact, are architecturally "neutral" and adaptable. And they free designers of time-consuming detail for more basic planning work. Bernard Spring, "School Costs Cut by New Com­ ponents," Architectural Forum, February, 1964, p. 112. 31 6. School districts willing to band together can use their combined purchasing power to change traditional building procedures standing in the way of better and less costly construction techniques.20 The most significant contribution of SCSD, accord­ ing to Boice, was the creation of a structure that organized all segments of the building industry's resources. The concept was to create a large market, to provide adequate time for industry to develop compo­ nents for this market, and to offer the entire market as an incentive for industry to participate in the project. 21 Thirteen schools grouped together and formed a market for approximately $30,000,000 in school construction. 22 Eighteen months after the first construction was begun, SCSD components were being used in over 400 buildings across the country; about half of them were schools. 23 Also, a number of other systems projects are reported to have been based on the strategies and procedures developed by the School Construction Systems Development teams. Among them are the following: 1. Toronto. Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) 20Ibid., p. 113. 21 John R. Boice, "A History and Evaluation of the School Construction Systems Development Project, 19611967" (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Ed.D. disser­ tation, Stanford University, 1970) , p. 436. 22Ibid., p. 437. 23Ibid., p. 442. 32 2. Montreal. Research in School Facilities (RAS) 3. Florida. Schoolhouse Systems Project 4. Alabama. University Construction System (UCS) 5. Detroit. Construction Systems Program (CSP) 6. University of California. (SSP) University Residential Building System (URBS) 7. University of California and Indiana University. Academic Building System 8. Boston. 9. Georgia. (ABS) Boston Building System for Schools Georgia Building System (GSSC) (BBS) 24 The scope of this study encompasses only two of the above— the Toronto and Florida Projects. The Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) in Toronto Metropolitan Toronto is composed of six boroughs, each with its own school board. The Metro Board is com­ posed of members from the borough boards, and controls the building programs of the boroughs. Disturbed over spiraling construction costs, but encouraged by the Cali­ fornia School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project, the Metro Board created the Study of Educational Facilities (SEF). According to John Murray, Academic- Director of SEF, the project received support from the Ontario Department of Education and Educational ^ I b i d . , p. 440. - 33 Facilities Laboratories, Inc. (EFL). The general goal of the program was to obtain more reasonably priced buildings that would reflect the needs of both the students and the teachers.^ The study was to direct attention to: 1. 2. 3. Development of systems and components specifi­ cally for school use; More effective application of principals of modular construction in achievement of greater flexibility of interior design; Reduction of the cost per square foot of school building construction so as to provide better value for expenditures in terms of function, initial costs, environment, and maintenance.^6 The staff for the Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) prepared technical performance specifications for. ten subsystems. These subsystems were intended to con­ stitute about 75 percent of the total cost of a building. The subsystems were: Structure, atmosphere, lighting- ceiling, interior space division, vertical skin, plumbing, electric-electronic, casework, roofing, and interior finishes.^ 25 John Murray, private interview in Ontario, December 16, 1970. 26 Study of Educational Facilities, E3 Educational Specifications and User Requirements for Secondary Schools (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1970), p. ix. 27 Study of Educational Facilities, "The Study of Educational Facilities" (Printed brochure, 1970). (Here­ inafter referred to as "Study of Facilities.") 34 Early in 1969, the Metro Board nominated ten suppliers for the subsystems. Each had the responsibility to develop and manufacture one of the ten components for the SEF program. 28 Twenty-two buildings with a total square foot area of 1,254,412 were scheduled to be built by September of 1971. The target price was $19.10 per square foot excluding equipment, site work, professional fees and escalation. An escalation clause was included in the suppliers' contracts to prevent bids from being inflated, and to protect the bidders against rising costs over the period of construction. 29 High interest rates caused a reduced volume of local construction in the Toronto area to the point where conventionally bid construction costs remained constant or dropped. The Metro Board reported: "The escalation clause is therefore adding to SE F 's costs rather than stabilizing them, and a different method of meeting this problem must be developed for the next system." 30 In March of 1971, cost figures for the first eleven schools revealed all but one of the schools were 28 Velma Adams, "The Trend to School Building Sys­ tems," School Management, August, 1969, p. 26. (Here­ inafter referred to as "Trend to School Building.") 29 Study of Educational Facilities, Facilities." "Study of 35 over budget. The fact that one had been built for less than the target price, it was reported, indicated the system can provide the promised savings. 31 Reasons cited for higher costs were said to be due to lack of experience and lack of information. Cost controls have been strengthened and all schools in Phase II are reported to be under budget " . . . ing to current information. accord­ It is anticipated that further strengthening of cost control procedures . . . will produce schools which have lower initial costs than can be obtained with conventional construction." 32 The Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) in Florida As a result of the achievements made in the SCSD program in California, school planners in Florida became interested in systems construction. With help from the School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) staff, meetings were held with the Department of Education and school planners from six counties to determine what to do about systems development in Florida. The meetings began early in 1966 and by September, the Florida State Board 31 "Costs of SEF Schools" (report prepared by the Metro Staff under the auspices of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, March 10, 1971), p. 1. (Mimeo­ graphed .) 32Ibid., p. 2. 36 of Education had given approval to the first phase of -the project. The project was to produce the following results: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Complete evaluation of previous experience with school construction systems in England, Cali­ fornia and elsewhere. Determine interest and support from school dis­ tricts, industry, and others for a Florida project. Determine the applicability of systems to dif­ ferent types of school buildings and school centers. Outline procedures for organizing and initiating a project. Develop an estimate of the cost of administering a project and recommendations for f i n a n c i n g . 3 3 With Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. (EFL) and the State of Florida sharing operational costs of the project on an equal basis, the first phase of the program was launched in October, 1966. Dr. Harold Cramer was named Educational Director and James Y. Bruce, AIA, was named Project Architect. 34 The objectives of the Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) were basically the same as those of the California SCSD project. According to James Bruce the objectives 33 Schoolhouse Systems Project, First Phase Report; Florida Schoolhouse Systems Project, Floyd T. Christian, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tallahassee, Florida, 1967, p. 2. 34 "Florida's Systems Schools: Rx for More Schools vs. Fewer Dollars," Council of Educational Facilities Planners Journal, January/February, 1970, p. 10. (Hereinafter referred to as "Florida's Systems Schools.") 37 were to build more flexible and better schools, to build them more economically, and to build them more rapidly. 35 The Florida SSP project was sanctioned by the state education department and was therefore open to participation by all school districts within the state. Educational need was specified as the "key requirement" that formed the base of the following five-step procedure: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Identification of the user's requirements Analysis of technical research Preparation of performance requirements Development of products and 36 Pre-bidding of the coordinated subsystems. An overview of Florida's Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) was included in the 1970 SSP report. It indicated that during the three-year period following SSP's inception in 1966, thirty projects costing more than $30,000,000 were bid. Architects and educators were reported to be in agreement that the buildings were better buildings, and that they had been built faster. 37 The results of the first SSP program in Florida showed construction time could be reduced by as much as 35 James Bruce, private interview in Tallahassee, Florida, December 21, 1970. (Hereinafter referred to as private interview.) 36 37 "Florida's System Schools," p. 11. Schoolhouse Systems Project, Second Phase Report: Florida Schoolhouse Systems Project, Floyd T. Christian, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tallahassee, Florida, 1970, p. 4. 38 25 percent. For this program, performance specifications had been developed for only three major subsystems: structure, ceiling-lighting, and heating-ventilatingair-conditioning 38 (HVAC). In Program 2 of SSP, three new subsystems were added to the performance specifications. carpeting, cabinets, and partitions. They were: Comparing costs for components used in the first program with the same components in Program 2, it was found that costs were reduced by 16 percent during a period when normal costs were increased by 5 percent. 39 Program 3 used all six of the subsystems as did Program 2. But a comparison of costs for like components that had been used in each of three programs revealed, after normal increases, a net savings of 20 percent in the third program over the first program.4^ Leon County bid six schools in 1968. foot costs ranged from $13.50 to $17.30. The square In this case, it was found that as the percentage of systems costs increased in proportion to the total building cost, the square foot costs decreased. 38 41 "Florida's Systems Schools," p. 12. 39_, . , Ibid. 40Ibid., p. 14. 41Ibid. 39 According to James Bruce, Project Architect for the Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP), systems schools, on the average, cost $2.11 less per square foot than did non-systems schools during 1969-70. He estimates the difference between systems and non-systems costs may be as much as $4.00 or more per square foot by 1971-72. 42 Bruce cites the Bradford Middle School in Starke, Florida, as an example of a systems school that is adaptable. Increased enrollments and changes in the school program created the need for relocating interior walls twice in two years. The only cost for this "remodel­ ing" other than normal staff salaries, was the wages paid to several students who assisted the principal and the custodian according to Bruce. 43 Individual Systems Projects Systems school building in the United States began with the California School Construction Systems Develop­ ment (SCSD) project and has grown to include other development projects such as Toronto's Study of Edu­ cational Facilities Systems Project (SEF) and Florida's Schoolhouse (SSP). Now, systems construction is no longer confined to large multi-school development projects. 42 Manufacturers have exhibited an interest in Bruce, private interview. 40 researching and developing components that can be pur­ chased off-the-shelf for the construction of single or multiple buildings. William Chase reports there pre­ sently are more than 100 manufacturers engaged in developing compatible building components for architects to use. 44 These components can be and are bexng used in single school projects. As early as 1965, School Management reported on three districts in three parts of the nation that built single schools using different architects and different educational specifications, but all using the same build­ ing system— the SCSD components. The buildings included a high school in California, an elementary school in Nevada, and a middle school in Illinois. 45 The architectural firm of Marshall Erdman and Associates, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin has been reported by School Management as having successfully used off-theshelf items in their construction of elementary and middle schools. all its schools. The same basic materials were used in The firm, itself, prefabricated a number of the building parts in its own factory. 44 45 These Chase, "Off-the-shelf Schoolhouses," p. 10. "How Three Districts xn Three Parts of the Nation Built Three Schools at Three Different Levels with Three Architects and Three Sets of Educational Specifi­ cations All Using One Building System," School Management, May, 1965, pp. 123-30. 41 were assembled later on the site. Many of the materials used were purchased in bulk quantity. The firm's "one- stop shopping" for building design, manufacture of com­ ponents, and construction of buildings resulted in buildings that were constructed in five or six months according to the report. Costs were reported to be only about two-thirds the price of conventionally designed and built schools. 46 K/M Associates, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana is another architectural firm that has employed the use of systems to construct individual buildings. Although their system-built schools have been constructed one at a time, they report their experience has been like that reported about Florida's SSP schools— reduced planning and construction time, reduced costs, flexi­ bility, and more adequate facilities. Through their involvement with systems building that produced more than a dozen schools, K/M found the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Using building systems, a firm can provide better buildings in less time at the same or lower costs than by conventional construction techniques. An office which uses building systems effec­ tively can use this fact to advantage when approaching potential clients. Two-stage bidding is a technique which may be used effectively by an architectural office on single projects. Use of performance specifications is a valuable method of bidding some components. 46 Adams, "Trend to School Building," p. 55. 42 5. An architectural office can use both the dimension and "performance" modules of building systems to advantage in design and design devel­ opment. 47 The experience of K/M with their first twelve systems-built schools has prompted Chase to comment: "The experience that K/M Associates, a relatively small independent firm, have had with the systems approach is indicative of a future trend in construction generally." 48 Larger architectural firms have also decided to use systems components already on the market. Robert T. Scheeren, AIA, and The Perkins and Will Partnership in association with Myers and Shannon, Architects are using prebid systems components in the Armstrong School District in Pennsylvania. Four separate projects in that package total slightly less than half a million square feet. Caudill Rowlett Scott 49 (CRS) were commissioned in 1970 by the Union Free School District No. 25, Merrick, Long Island, New York to construct additions to three elementary schools totaling 25,600 square feet of 47 Building Systems Information Clearinghouse, K/M Associates: A Case Study in Systems Building (Stanford, California: Systems Division, School Planning Laboratory, 1970), pp. 8-10. (Hereinafter referred to as Case Study in Systems Building.) 48 William W. Chase, "Systems and the Single School," Construction Products and Technology, September, 1970, p. 46. 49 Building Systems Information Clearinghouse, Case Study in Systems Building, p. 4. 43 construction. The Merrick project is reported to be the first systems project to use fast-track scheduling and building systems together. This combination reportedly will save time beyond that normally expected from the use of building systems. 50 From the examples cited, the use of systems no longer seems to be limited to massive development or application construction projects. There are enough off-the-shelf items to do many things in systems build­ ing. In fact, there are over 900 schools around the country that incorporate one or more of the building components developed for the California SCSD schools. 51 What is important is that individual school districts have begun to make use of existing systems and systems techniques. SUMMARY As much of what has been written about one systems program is usually applicable to another, an effort was made to avoid redundancy by limiting this review to four major systems development projects and to four examples of smaller individual projects. The development projects included the experiences of several architects: 50 Marshall BSIC, "Newsletter," March 30, 1970, p. 1. ^Chase, "Off-the-Shelf-Schoolhouse," p. 43. 44 Erdman and Associates, Inc.; K/M Associates, Inc.; Robert T. Scheeren, AIA, and The Perkins and Will Part­ nership in association with Myers and Shannon; and Caudill Rowlett Scott. The authoritative literature on each of the projects makes these points in sum: 1. Britain is The CLASP system of prefabricated schools in the forerunner of systems programs in the United States. Following World War II, England had a great classroom shortage. She lacked manpower and materials to overcome this problem through traditional building methods. Systems of prefabricated components which could be manufactured in a factory and assembled at the building site were developed. As none of the early systems was adequate to meet all needs, selection of the one "best" system was made and much effort went into its development. In 1957, seven local authorities joined to make use of this single system. The group known as the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program (CLASP) claimed several benefits from this merger. First, they were able to get buildings that met the needs of the users on an individual basis, that looked nice, and that were within acceptable cost limits. Secondly, the buildings could be erected faster and with a smaller labor force. Finally, the type of structure 45 eliminated the need for precautions against mining sub­ sidence. By 1962-63 there was an average of one CLASP project started every four days. 2. The School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project was the first such project in the United States. With an EFL grant, and through the combined efforts of Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, SCSD was established in 1961. With cooperative planning among thirteen school districts, performance specifications were developed that could meet the needs of all thirteen districts. The components represented about 50 percent of a school's cost and were reported to be less expensive than their counterparts in conventionally built schools. SCSD found that flexible and modular components permitted a higher quality of con­ struction that met program needs. Modest seed money to develop performance specifications encouraged manufac­ turers to research, design, and develop integrated sys­ tems that would eliminate waste and inefficiency. Further, SCSD found that components freed designers of detail work without hindering design freedom. School districts that were willing to join together could take advantage of better and less costly building techniques. At least nine major systems projects have been developed which were based on SCSD practices. 46 3. Toronto's Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) was created in 1965 and funded by EFL and the Ontario Department of Education. Their goal was to develop systems and components for school construction that would reduce costs and yet achieve greater flexi­ bility of interior design. Performance specifications were developed for ten subsystems which together would constitute about 75 percent of a building's cost. In 1969, the suppliers for the ten subsystems were selected and each developed and manufactured his own component. Twenty-two buildings with an area of slightly more than one and a quarter million square feet were scheduled for completion by September of 1971. Cost figures released in March of 1971 indicated only one of eleven completed school buildings had come in under the budget. Factors affecting the increased costs were explored. The strengthening of the cost control procedures is expected to result in schools with lower initial costs than those that can be obtained with conventional methods. 4. Florida's Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) was begun in 1966 with basically the same objectives as those of SCSD: to build better schools; to build them more rapidly; and to build at a lower cost. The SSP was sanctioned by and received leadership from the state department of education. Thus it was open to all 47 districts in the state. The purpose of SSP was to identify user requirements, analyze technical research, prepare performance specifications for the development of pro­ ducts, and to handle pre-bidding of coordinated sub­ systems . Thirty projects totaling over $30,000,000 were bid in the first three-year period. Architects and edu­ cators agreed they were better buildings compared with conventional buildings. Figures showed a financial advantage in favor of systems which tended to increase with subsequent phases of the project. Estimates indi­ cate savings may mount to $4.00 or more per square foot by 1972. Proof that interior walls are easily rearranged was twice demonstrated in the Bradford Middle School. 5. Systems construction is no longer confined to large development projects. More than 100 manu­ facturers are engaged in developing compatible building components for single-school projects. Off-the-shelf components are reported to have been in use by 1965. Marshall Erdman and Associates, Inc. have used off-the-shelf components to construct schools in five or six months at two-thirds the price of conventionally built schools according to reports. K/M Associates, Inc. are reported to have built twelve separate systems schools with results like those of the large SSP project: reduced planning and 48 construction time, reduced costs, flexibility, and more adequate facilities. It is said their experience with building systems is indicative of a future trend in con­ struction generally. Large architectural firms are also using systems components already on the market. The Perkins and Will Partnership are using prebid components in a Pennsylvania school construction program. Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS) are reported to be the first to use both systems and fast-track scheduling. This combination is being used in New York to construct elementary school additions. The use of systems no longer is limited to large development projects. There are enough off-the-shelf items to do many things in systems building. Individual schools have begun to use existing systems and systems techniques. It is reported that over 900 schools around the country incorporate building components developed for the SCSD schools in California. Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE The three-fold purpose of this study was (1) to identify the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach to school construction as such benefits were perceived by the current users and plan­ ners of systems school buildings; (2) to identify the conditions that are important to the optimal realization of the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach as such conditions were perceived by authorities in the school planning field; and (3) to identify the extent to which conditions in Michigan school districts are compatible with conditions impor­ tant to the application of systems techniques. This chapter describes the methods and procedures used in gathering and ordering the necessary information on each of these problems. THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS No data are available from a rigorously c o n ­ trolled experiment with systems building versus buildings 49 50 with more traditional approaches. But systems buildings have been built and the planners and users have had experience with both approaches. This gives special value to their perceptions of benefits obtained. Scattered, individual examples of systems school buildings may be found, but this portion of the study focused only on those groups of occupied systems school buildings that had been constructed as a part of one of the following development projects: struction Systems Development the School Con­ (SCSD) project in Cali­ fornia; the Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) project in Toronto, Canada; and the Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) in Florida. Schools included in these projects were representative of any of those that might have been included in this study. And it was from personnel associated with these buildings that information was solicited. The selection of the population for the study posed no problem. superintendents The building principals and their (directors of education in Canada) were in the most advantageous position to identify the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach, and they were selected. As both the Toronto SEF and the Florida SSP projects were still in operation, two staff members from each of the projects were included also. 51 Names and addresses of the principals and superin­ tendents of the School Construction Systems Development project were secured from the Building Systems Information Clearinghouse (BSIC) in California. John Boice, the editor of that organization's newsletter, was formerly the project coordinator for the California SCSD project. Names and addresses of the principals and directors of education in Toronto Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) project schools were obtained from Dr. John Murray, SEF's Academic Director. Names and addresses of the principals and superintendents of schools in the Florida Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) were obtained from a list prepared by the Assistant Project Architect, James Barnes. The combined group totaled seventy-nine persons from whom data was requested. The questionnaire method for the collection of data was determined to be the most expedient approach for obtaining the desired information. As the problem was one of identifying what were perceived to be the potential benefits of the systems approach, the require­ ment was for an open-ended questionnaire that listed a number of possible benefits to be judged by the recipient. The material for the content in the body of the questionnaire was derived from several sources. First, the literature revealed a number of potential benefits. Secondly, several of the Toronto systems schools were 52 visited and a lengthy interview was held with Dr. John Murray, Academic Director for the Study of Educational Facilities (SEF). Finally, the systems schools in the Tallahassee, Florida area were toured. At that time, the Schoolhouse Systems Project Architect, James Yates Bruce, and his assistant, James Barnes, were interviewed. On the basis of the information gained through reading, visiting systems schools, and interviewing systems project personnel, a list of the potential benefits of systems building was developed and the questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire was critically examined by a jury composed of a university professor, a community college professor, and a school district administrative staff member. Several items were consolidated and ambiguous language was clarified. The resulting instru­ ment was one having twenty-two items for the respondent to assess and to indicate whether he considered each to be a potential benefit of the systems approach in school construction. It dealt with such topics as educational planning, staff performance, educational environment, trends, traffic flow, flexible space and adaptability, design time, construction time, costquality factors, remodeling, and expansion of facilities. Three separate cover letters were designed to accompany the questionnaires. The first was a 53 mimeographed letter with typed-in name and address which went to all of the selected persons in the Toronto and Florida programs including the project staff personnel. The second letter was a fully typed letter that went only to the superintendents of the School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project schools in California. This letter had been preceded by a previous typewritten letter that requested permission from the superintendents to use their systems schools in the study. The third letter was also typed and was designed for the California SCSD principals. The extra effort given to the cover letters to the principals and superintendents in Cali­ fornia was intended to encourage their cooperation. The novelty of occupying a systems school had not had time to wear away in the recently constructed schools of Ontario and Florida, and this, by itself, provided adequate inducement for a satisfactory return of the question­ naires . The questionnaires, with their accompanying cover letters and stamped self-addressed return envelopes, were mailed in March, 1970. The mailing list included the names of eleven principals and ten superintendents in California; eleven principals, six directors of edu­ cation, and two SEF project officials in Metropolitan Toronto; and twenty-four principals, thirteen 54 superintendents, and two SSP project officials in Florida— a total of seventy-nine persons. Copies of the questionnaire and letters appear in Appendix A. Thirty days after the questionnaires were mailed, responses had been received from fifty-three persons. Included were twenty-seven principals, twenty-two superintendents or directors of education, and four systems project officials. This was a 67 percent return and all areas were represented. The results of the questionnaires were then tabu­ lated and additional benefits suggested by the respon­ dents were recorded. THE CONDITIONS IMPORTANT TO THE OPTIMAL REALIZATION OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH This portion of the study was conducted to identify the conditions that are important to the optimal realization of the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach as such conditions were perceived by authorities in the school planning field. Efforts were made to identify these important conditions. Initial efforts consisted of interviewing State of Michigan Department of Education officials, architects, and school superintendents. Discussions were held with the Director and two Supervisors in the School Management Services Division 55 of the Michigan Department of Education. Although none of these persons had had direct experience in systems school construction, each was able to make a contribution based on his general knowledge of the systems approach. As their roles included that of granting approval for school construction programs, their ideas regarding the matter were meaningful. Conditions which they perceived to be important were listed. Four architects were asked what they believed to be the important conditions for the optimal realization of the potential systems benefits. Two of them were from large firms in Grand Rapids and in Lansing; the other two were from smaller firms located in Lansing and Marysville, Michigan. None of the architects had built a systems building but all were uniformly con­ vinced that systems building would be the "coming thing" in the years ahead. All of the architects had examined systems buildings and were familiar with systems pro­ cesses. Thus they contributed a list of what they believed were the important conditions that had to exist for the maximal realization of the potential systems benefits. An attempt was made to lengthen the list of items by contacting school district superintendents and obtain­ ing their views. It was found that superintendents, as a group, had little opportunity to become acquainted 56 with the systems approach to school construction, and that they had given very little serious thought to the matter. They were unable to add any items to the list. After the preliminary investigation with the Management Services Division personnel, the architects, and the superintendents of schools, it was decided to make the study more global. There did not appear to be enough people in Michigan that could speak authorita­ tively about the systems approach. But there were people around the country that could speak authorita­ tively. Some of them could be identified and their perceptions could be obtained by means of a questionnaire. On the basis of the information obtained from the Department of Education and the architects, an open-ended questionnaire was designed. The question­ naire listed the items suggested by these advisors and provided that each item be rated according to its importance to the success of systems school construction projects. This questionnaire was examined by the same three-person jury that examined the "perceived benefit" questionnaire and was modified according to their recommendations. The finished questionnaire contained twenty items to be rated in importance. Included among them were such factors as volume purchasing, joint bidding, size of the systems program, consortiums, building codes, 57 and financial considerations. Also included were items involving the school district architect, the school staff, the school administration and board of edu­ cation, the community, and labor unions. The question­ naire invited comments regarding the items and suggested that any additional factors perceived to be important should be added. Twelve persons in the United States were selected to be recipients of the questionnaire. Their reputations are especially respected by their peers in the field of educational plant planning. Their backgrounds repre­ sented a wide range of expertise; they were nationally and internationally known experts. The twelve were: Harold L. Cramer, Administrator of the Florida School­ house Systems Project (SSP); Wallace B. Cleland, Technical Director of Detroit's Construction Systems Program(CSP); John R. Boice, Coordinator of the former School Con­ struction Systems Development (SCSD) project and now Editor of the Building Systems Information Clearinghouse (BSIC) newsletter; Ezra Ehrenkrantz, Project Architect for the former School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project, and now President of Building Systems Development, Inc.; Harold B. Gores, President of Edu­ cational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.; William W. Chase, Deputy Director of the Facilities Development Staff, U.S. Office of Education; John Lyon Reid, FAIA, 58 eminent architect and former advisor of the School Con­ struction Systems Development (SCSD) project; William W. Caudill, FAIA, internationally renowned architect and Director of the Rice Institute School of Architecture; James D. MacConnell, Director of the Stanford University School Planning Laboratory and former advisor to the California SCSD project; Frank Brunetti, Associate Director of the Stanford University School Planning Laboratory; Dwayne Gardner, Executive Secretary, Council of Educational Facilities Planners (CEFP); and Floyd Parker, President-elect of the Council of Educational Facilities Planners. Letters to each of the above persons were typed on Michigan State University letterheads over the signature of Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, Chairman of the investigator's Doctoral Committee. The questionnaires with cover letters and stamped, self-addressed return envelopes were mailed in mid-March, 1971. Copies of the cover letter and questionnaire appear in Appendix B. Thirty days after the questionnaires were mailed, responses had been received from all persons. There had been a complete return and the responses were tabulated and the comments included with them were recorded. 59 MICHIGAN COMPARED There have been no studies made in Michigan to identify the extent that conditions in Michigan school districts are compatible with those conditions that are perceived to be important for the optimal realization of the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach to school construction. The purpose of this study was to test the conditions identified by experts as being important, against the relevant con­ ditions currently prevailing in Michigan. The responses made by the twelve widely recognized experts to the questionnaire above, served as a test basis. In order to test these conditions against the status quo, existing conditions in Michigan were identi­ fied. The areas of concern (there were twenty con­ ditions perceived to be important) required gathering data from a number of sources. Much was obtained by personal contact with officials in the Michigan Depart­ ment of Education. A school attorney furnished infor­ mation on Michigan laws. A sanitarian gave information on practices of health departments. Six school adminis­ trators and an officer of the Michigan Association of School Administrators gave other professional information. Four Detroit area architects, the Fire Marshal Division 60 of the Michigan State Police, and the American Federation of Labor Building Trades Council were contacted and additional data were obtained from them. All these data were secured in May, 1971, by means of direct personal interviews, some of which were by telephone. The data were categorized according to each of the twenty important conditions, and an item-by-item comparison was then made between the status quo and that which had been perceived to be important. SUMMARY This chapter described the procedures used to obtain information necessary to this study. was divided into three separate sub-studies. the sub-studies were conducted to identify: The study Briefly, (1) the perceived potential benefits of the systems approach to school construction, (2) the conditions perceived to be important for the optimal realization of these bene­ fits, and (3) the extent to which conditions in Michigan are related to those perceived to be important to the systems approach. The perceived potential benefits were identified, through the use of a questionnaire, by users and planners of school buildings in the California School Construction Systems Development (SCSD) project, the Toronto Study of 61 Educational Facilities (SEF) project, and the Florida Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP). The conditions perceived to be important for the optimal realization of the potential benefits of the systems approach were identified through questionnaires by an authoritative group of experts who are widely recognized for their reputations in the school plant planning field, both nationally and internationally. Data used to compare existing conditions in Michigan with those perceived to be important to the systems approach were obtained by personal interviews. Sources of information included the Department of Edu­ cation, the health department, school administrators, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, a school attorney, architects, the Fire Marshal, and a building trades union official. The next chapter reports the findings from these investigations. Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA Data gathered by the methods described in Chapter 3 are presented and analyzed in this chapter. They are pre­ sented in three general areas that correspond to the sub­ problems: (1) the identification of the potential eco­ nomic and educational benefits of the systems approach to school construction as such benefits were perceived by the current planners and users of systems school buildings, (2) the identification of the conditions that are important to the optimal realization of the potential economic and educational benefits of the systems approach as such conditions were perceived by authorities in the school planning field, and (3) the identification of the extent to which conditions in Michigan school districts are compatible with conditions important to systems techniques. THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS The investigation entailed obtaining perceptions from planners and users of systems buildings. A question­ naire was sent to three classifications of persons: 62 63 Principals of systems schools; Superintendents of schools (or Directors) of districts within which are systems schools; and staff of current systems projects. All persons in each of the three classifications have been associated with systems building. Table 1 lists the numbers of questionnaires on the potential benefits of systems buildings that were sent and the number returned classified according to the role of the planners and users. Questionnaires were sent to the principals of all of the schools in the three development projects. Eleven were sent to principals of California's School Con­ struction Systems Development (SCSD) schools; 11 were sent to principals of Toronto's Study of Educational Facilities (SEF) schools; and 24 were sent to principals of Florida's Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP) schools. Altogether 46 school principals were polled. The superintendents of schools (or directors) of the districts in which the same schools are located also were sent questionnaires. included: By development project, they SCSD, 10 superintendents; SEF, 6 directors; and SSP, 13 superintendents— a total of 29. Only two of the development projects had staffs at the time of the investigation— SEF and SSP— and questionnaires were sent to two members of each of their staffs for a total of 4. 64 Table 1 Numbers of Questionnaires on the Potential Benefits of Systems Building Sent and Returned, by Classification Classification 1. 2. Principals of systems schools Project Number sent Number returned Percent returned SCSD SEF SSP All three 11 11 24 46 7 7 13 27 64 64 54 59 Superintendents SCSD of schools (or SEF directors) of districts within SSP which are sys­ All three tems schools 10 6 13 29 10 5 7 22 100 83 54 76 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 4 0 100 100 100 21 19 39 79 17 14 22 53 81 74 56 67 3. Staff of cur­ rent systems projects 4. Totals for each Project SCSD* SEF SSP Both SCSD SEF SSP All three * SCSD has no staff. 65 By project, the selected persons included 21 SCSD contacts, 19 SEF contacts, and 39 SSP contacts. Altogether there were 79 questionnaires disseminated. The percentage of return was satisfactorily high. One hundred percent return was made by the SEF and SSP project staffs. As a group, the superintendents and the directors scored next highest in the rate of return. All SCSD superintendents and all but one of the SEF directors replied. The SSP superintendents ranked lowest within the group with slightly more than half the questionnaires returned. In total for the group, 22 of the 29 requests were honored which accounted for a 76 percent return. Principals scored lowest of the three groups in the rate of responses. SCSD and SEF returns were identi­ cal in number (seven out of eleven) with a percentage of 64. The SSP principals responded 10 percent less well than their peers although in absolute numbers, their response was greater than that received from any other group. In total, the school principals returned 27 of the 46 questionnaires. This was a 59 percent return. In sum, there were 53 responses or a 67 percent return. By project, the percentages of return were: SCSD, 81; SEF, 74; and SSP, 56. The returns were great enough to provide the data needed to determine the potential economic and educational benefits of systems buildings as they were perceived by those most directly experienced. 66 The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain the perceptions of selected people regarding the potential benefits of the systems approach in school construction. Twenty-two statements of-potential bene­ fits had been developed on the basis of information gained from reading, visiting systems schools, and interviewing project staff personnel. The questionnaire sought to determine the extent of agreement to each statement by the respondents. The data was tabulated by project (SCSD, SEF, and SSP) in Table 2 and by Classification (Principals, Superintendents or Directors, and Project Staff) in Table 3. An analysis of the data in Table 2 follows: A number of persons did not respond to some of the questions. Some persons indicated that they did not know or were uncertain. Others did not respond to one or more of the statements. classified not usable. All such responses were Only the usable responses were used in determining the amount of agreement. Opportunity was given to the respondents to add to the statements of potential benefits. chose to do so. Three persons One said, "Obsolescence of subsystems can be designed in and substitution of obsolete sub­ systems may be accomplished without disturbing other systems." Two others, in substance said that off-site 67 fabrication contributes to quality as the factory assures a better product. Table 2 revealed that there was an overwhelming combined majority agreement with every statement of potential benefit. Everyone surveyed agreed that sys­ tems buildings are generally well adapted to accommodate new trends in education as seen by the teaching staff (statement 5) and that space flexibility will be increasingly valuable in the long-range use of systems buildings (statement 10). Toronto's SEF respondents were also in complete agreement that systems buildings provide maximal flexi­ bility to meet educational needs (statement 3); that built-in adaptability of the systems school may add to the life of the building (statement 9); that an adaptable systems building will tend to encourage innovation in the curriculum (statement 11); that reduced construction time in the systems approach helps to solve over-crowding problems by permitting earlier occupancy (statement 14); that the systems approach is better adapted to make use of fast-tracking procedures than is the traditional approach (statement 17); and that expansion of systems facilities can be accommodated in an orderly fashion with minimal demolition (statement 22). The Florida SSP respondents were in strong agree­ ment with the above. 68 Table 2 The Extent of Agreement Among Select Planners and Users of Systems Buildings With Statements of the Potential Benefits of Systems Building, by Project Statement Replies by project Agreement Not : Usable Yes No 1 . The systems approach en­ courages the educational planning team to make a thorough study of the educational program and how it may need to be changed. 2. SCSD SEF SSP All three Systems building with per­ SCSD formance specifications, SEF requires the staff to be ­ come more precise in stat­- SSP All three ing their needs and de­ veloping user require­ ments . 15 12 18 45 2 1 2 5 0 1 2 3 12 12 17 41 5 1 4 10 0 1 1 2 3. Systems buildings provide maximal flexibility to meet educational change. SCSD SEF SSP All three 15 13 15 43 1 0 6 7 1 1 1 3 4. SCSD Systems buildings provide a learning environment for SEF SSP current needs as well as, All three or better than, do non­ systems buildings. 12 11 13 36 3 1 5 9 2 2 4 8 5. Systems buildings are generally well adapted to accommodate new trends in education as seen by the teaching staff. SCSD SEF SSP All three 17 13 19 49 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 SCSD SEF SSP All three 13 10 15 38 2 2 4 8 2 2 3 7 6. Systems buildings are more responsive to the total student environ­ ment needs than are con­ ventional buildings. 69 Table 2 (continued) Statement _ Replies by project Agreement Yes No . Usable 7. SCSD Traffic flow in systems SEF buildings is more easily accommodated than in SSP All three traditional buildings. 10 8 13 31 5 4 4 13 2 2 5 9 8. SCSD Systems' built-in flex­ SEF ibility permits interior space to be altered SSP All three easily and inexpensively. 12 12 19 43 5 1 2 8 0 1 1 2 9. The built-in adaptability SCSD of the systems school SEF may add to the useful SSP All three life of the building. 14 13 19 46 2 0 2 4 1 1 1 3 10. Space flexibility will be increasingly val­ uable in the longrange use of the systerns buildings. SCSD SEF SSP All three 17 13 18 48 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 11. An adaptable systems building will tend to encourage innovation in the curriculum. SCSD SEF SSP All three 14 13 17 44 2 0 1 3 1 1 4 6 12. Design time can be reduced by using stan­ dardized components or subsystems in systems construction. SCSD SEF SSP All three 8 12 15 35 6 0 2 8 3 2 5 10 13. Systems building gen­ erally reduces on­ site construction time which results in a re­ duced project delivery time. SCSD SEF SSP All three 7 14 15 36 6 0 5 11 4 0 2 6 70 Table 2 (continued) Statement 14. Reduced construction time in the systems approach helps to solve over-crowding problems by permitting earlier occupancy. Reduced constructional time in the systems approach assists cur­ riculum development by permitting educational programs to become op­ erational sooner. Volume market, off-site fabrication, and effi­ cient field assembly help systems building costs to approximate or remain below conven­ tional construction costs. The systems approach is better adapted to make use of fast-tracking procedures than is the traditional approach. Replies Agreement by — ---- — project Yes No wot fal SCSD SEF SSP All three 6 13 13 32 8 0 5 13 3 1 4 8 SCSD SEF SSP All three 6 9 13 28 8 1 7 16 3 4 2 9 SCSD SEF SSP All three 12 8 16 36 4 4 5 13 1 2 1 4 SCSD SEF SSP All three 8 11 11 30 3 0 6 9 6 3 5 14 10 7 12 29 5 4 7 16 2 3 3 8 It is difficult, if not impossible, to build non­ systems schools at a SCSD lower cost than systems SEF schools if the educa­ SSP tional requirements, All three quality of materials, and learning environment are kept at equal levels. 71 Table 2 (continued) Replies Agreement Statement ^7 project Yes No Not ITctaKl p usaDxe 19. With systems, con­ struction costs for like quality are less. SCSD SEF SSP All three 11 9 10 30 5 1 7 13 1 4 5 10 20. The economy in systems involves reasonable initial costs and low long-term costs of operation and remodel­ ing. SCSD SEF SSP All three 11 7 13 31 4 1 4 9 2 6 5 13 21. The more subsystems in a building, the easier it is to predict costs of the total building. SCSD SEF SSP All three 9 7 15 31 4 1 4 9 4 6 3 13 22. Expansion of systems facilities can be accommodated in an orderly fashion with minimal demolition. SCSD SEF SSP All three 13 10 17 40 1 0 4 5 3 4 1 8 72 The California SCSD group was barely in agreement that systems building reduces on-site construction time and delivery time. Less than half of them agreed that systems would permit earlier occupancy and thus relieve over-crowding. The California SCSD group barely agreed design time can be reduced by using standardized compo­ nents or subsystems in systems construction (statement 12). They barely disagreed that reduced construction time in the systems approach assists curriculum development by permitting educational programs to become operational sooner (statement 15). By contrast there was complete agreement by the SEF respondents, and nearly complete agreement among the SSP groups that use of components will cut design time. Both SEF and SSP respondents were in strong agreement with the statement that reduced construction time assists curriculum development. Statements 1 and 2 which dealt with such potential benefits as educational planning and the development of user requirements averaged an agreement approaching 90 percent. There was approximately an 80 percent agreement among those polled that student environmental needs and traffic flow were better met in systems buildings than in conventional buildings, and that systems' built-in 73 flexibility permits easy and inexpensive alterations to interior space (statements 6, 7, and 8). On the average, about three-fourths of the respon­ dents were in agreement with the cost benefit items which included such factors as lower costs than conventional construction, lower costs for comparable quality, lower initial and long-term costs, and better predictability of the total building costs when systems are used (statements 16, 18, 19, 20, and 21). At least 63 percent or more of the respondents agreed with every statement. And in the majority of cases, more than 80 percent of the respondents agreed that the statements were, indeed, statements of potential benefits. Every statement elicited one or more unusable responses. The range of not usable responses numbered from 2 to 14. The three statements that had the greatest number of unusable responses were: the systems approach is better adapted to make use of fast-tracking procedures than is the traditional approach (statement 17); the economy in systems involves reasonable initial costs and long-term costs of operation and remodeling (state­ ment 20); and the more subsystems in a building, the easier it is to predict the costs of the total building (statement 21). All other statements had 10 or fewer not usable responses. 74 Table 3 was developed to illustrate the extent of agreement among principals, superintendents and directors, and systems project staff with statements of potential benefits of systems building, by classification. The four project staff members were in complete agreement with all of the statements of potential bene­ fits with one exception: one staff member was uncertain that reduced construction time in the systems approach assists curriculum development by permitting educational programs to become operational sooner (statement 15). Both the superintendent and the principal groups judged all of the statements to be statements of potential benefits although just over half of the superintendents agreed it is difficult, if not impossible, to build non­ systems schools at a lower cost than systems schools if the educational requirements, quality of materials, and learning environment are kept at equal levels (statement 18) . As a group, principals tended to submit the fewest usable responses to statements 17 through 21 which dealt with fast-tracking and construction costs. For these five statements, the principals submitted only about 60 to 70 percent usable responses. Superintendents tended to respond with usable replies to more statements than did the principals. Because of this, superintendents tended individually to 75 Table 3 The Extent of Agreement Among Select Planners and Users of Systems Buildings With Statements of the Potential Benefits of Systems Building, by Classification Statement 1 . 2. Replies by classification The systems approach Principals encourages the educa­ tional planning team Supts. to make a thorough study Pro j . staff of the educational p r o ­ All three gram and how it may need to be changed. Systems building with performance specifica­ Principals tions, requires the staff Supts. to become more precise Proj. staff in stating their needs All three and developing user requirements. Agreement : ----Yes No „ . 24 17 4 45 1 4 0 5 2 1 0 3 20 17 4 41 6 4 0 10 1 1 0 2 3. Systems building provide Principals maximal flexibility to Supts. meet educational change. Proj. staff All three 22 17 4 43 4 . 3 0 7 1 2 0 3 4. Systems buildings pro­ vide a learning environ­ Principals ment for current needs Sup t s . as well as, or better Proj. staff All three than, do non-systems buildings. 18 14 4 36 5 4 0 9 4 4 0 8 Systems building are generally well adapted to accommodate new trends in education as seen by the teaching staff. 25 20 4 49 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 5. Principals Sup t s . Proj. staff All three 76 Table 3 (continued) Statement Replies by classification Agreement Yes No N t Usable 6. Systems buildings are Principals more responsive to the Supts. total student environ­ Proj. staff All three mental needs than are conventional buildings. 18 16 4 38 5 3 0 8 4 3 0 7 7. Traffic flow in sys­ tems buildings is more easily accom­ modated than in tra­ ditional buildings. Principals Supts. Pro j . staff All three 14 13 4 31 7 6 0 13 6 3 0 9 8. Systems' built-in flexibility permits interior space to be altered easily and in­ expensively. Principals Supts. Proj. staff All three 24 15 4 43 2 6 0 8 1 1 0 2 9. The built-in adapta­ bility of the systems school may add to the useful life of the building. Principals Supts. Proj. staff All three 24 18 4 46 1 3 0 4 2 1 0 3 10. Space flexibility will be increasingly valu­ able in the longrange use of systems buildings. Principals Supts. Pr o j . staff All three 24 20 4 48 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 5 11. An adaptable systems building will tend to encourage innovation in the curriculum. Principals Supts. Proj. staff All three 21 19 4 44 2 1 0 3 4 2 0 6 12. Design time can be reduced by using standardized compo­ nents or subsystems in systems construction. Principals Supts. Proj. staff All three 19 12 4 35 3 5 0 8 5 5 0 10 77 Table 3 (continued) Statement Replies by clas­ sification No 18 14 4 36 6 5 0 11 3 3 0 6 Principals Supts. P r o j . staff All three 16 12 4 32 6 7 0 13 5 3 0 8 Principals Supts. Proj. staff All three 14 11 3 28 8 8 0 16 5 3 1 9 Volume market, offsite fabrication, and efficient field assem­ Principals bly help systems build­ Supts. ings costs to approx­ Proj. staff imate or remain below All three conventional con­ struction costs. 17 15 4 36 6 7 0 13 4 0 0 4 The systems approach Principals is better adapted to make use of fast track­ Supts. ing procedures than is Proj. staff the traditional All three approach. 11 15 4 30 6 3 0 9 10 4 0 14 Principals Systems building gen­ Supts. erally reduces on-site construction time which Proj. staff All three results in reduced project delivery time. 14. Reduced construction time in the systems approach helps to solve over-crowding problems by permitting earlier occupancy. 16. 17. Not Usable Yes 13. 15. Agreement Reduced construction time in the systems approach assists cur­ riculum development by permitting educational programs to become op­ erational sooner. 78 Table 3 (continued) Statement 18. It is difficult, if not impossible, to build non-systems schools at a lower cost than systems schools if the edu­ cational requirements, quality of materials, and learning environ­ ment are kept at equal levels. Replies by clas­ sification Agreement ~ N