APPA

Additionally, participants speculated about the influence they believed campus elements had on current and prospective stu- dents as well as employees. Describing the condition of a public bathroom in a campus building, one interviewee lamented that "if parents or [prospective] students . . . go in there, they've got to think that this university doesn't care about the buildings at all." In line with Bitner's framework, there were some notable differences in the questionnaire scores between students and employees on various scales. OF PARTICULAR INFLUENCE In addition to the broad influence reported by participants, the data analysis also indicated categories of specific elements that had a particular influence. Unsurprisingly, respondents noted overwhelmingly that examples of items in poor condi- tion, generally related to cleanliness or level of maintenance, influenced their experiences. Additionally, people reported that decorative elements outdoors influenced them very positively. Bitner categorized such elements as implicit communicators and suggested they have a particular importance in forming first impressions and communicating norms and expectations of be- havior. Importantly, elements in poor condition were described by interviewees as significant signals to current and potential community members. One participant agreed that visible "main- tenance issues create an impression on what [visitors] should expect with the rest of the university." Other prominent themes of individual elements that emerged from the study were the influence of pedestrian and vehicle travelways, along with the functionality of academic spaces. One interviewee described the university walkway system, as "effec- tive," while another suggested that they were successful in "com- fortably moving [people] between the network of buildings" on campus. Conversely, in some cases, the walkways and roadways were identified as presenting challenges for people with differing abilities, with one interviewee referencing her photo and stating, "Look, a crosswalk that goes nowhere," and another suspecting a lack of sensitivity in a decision to "take out the ramp and put a set of stairs in." With respect to academic spaces, respondents shared mostly negative experiences and identified elements of the facilities that did not meet their needs. One participant described the functionality of one classroom as "undermining the educational experiences of students" because she perceived the furniture as uncomfortable and the technology outdated. Another reported feeling "cheated" out of higher education due to a particular classroom's condition. Students also talked about the problem of current classroom spaces being insufficiently outfitted to accommo- date small group projects, coupled with a lack of effective spaces for out-of-class team assignments, noting that "we just go find space off-campus, at Starbucks or something." While the specific findings cannot necessarily be generalized to other in- stitutions, the results have implications for campus administrators as well as FM departments. Administrators may do well to establish a culture that encour- ages a community of shared stewardship of the physical facilities. Related to this study, participants identified visual cues across campus in the form of both deco- rative elements outdoors, and elements in poor condition that influenced their experiences. Both sets of elements were described as influencing current campus stakeholders and potential new students and their families. While FM depart- ments are tasked with upkeep and repair, 26 MAY/JUNE 2017 FACILITIES MANAGER Get Your Piece of the Pie! 952.988.9000 www.geronimoenergy.com/repunits Renewable Energy Project Units (REP-Units) A customizable, addi ve solu on with Green-e Cer fied Renewable Energy Credits

• Cover