Most institutions have a governance structure for managing campus space — but having one and having one that works are very different things. In the 2026 State of Space Management in Higher Education report, a joint survey with Huron of 31 universities, 78% said they have centralized governance and 90% have a named person responsible. Yet 65% rated their governance efficiency as average or below.
In this Bow Tie Tuesday episode, Veena Vadgama, Chief Marketing Officer at CampusIQ, sits down with Alyson Goff, Senior Director of Insights and Strategy, to unpack why governance structures fall short and what institutions can do to make them work — including how real-time space occupancy data removes the politics and puts campus planners in the driver's seat.
Having a governance structure is not enough. Policies, decision makers, and processes need routine evaluation and engagement to stay effective.
Too many members turns governance into information sharing. One respondent said their meetings became listening sessions rather than true governance bodies where strategic direction could occur.
A campus master plan does not equal strategic space decisions. Many institutions confuse having a plan with having guiding principles for day-to-day space allocation.
Tiered governance models work. George Mason University uses an executive decision-making body of three to five vice presidents, an advisory committee with delegated authority, and subject matter subcommittees that build grassroots champions.
Data creates trust and transparency. When everyone can see the data behind space decisions, it shifts the conversation from personal territory to objective evidence.
Space is political, but data depersonalizes it. Instead of fighting over who owns which rooms, campus planners become true partners to their end users by grounding conversations in what the data shows.
Want to go deeper? Download the full 2026 State of Space Management in Higher Education report for insights from 31 institutions on how they are rethinking campus space governance:
Veena Vadgama [00:00:00]:
Data informed governance. One of the insights that came out of the first annual State of Space Management Report, Lessons from Leaders that CampusIQ did with our partner Huron. It was released this year and one of the insights that came out was: "How do institutions actually govern their campus space and is having a governance structure good enough?" So that's what we're digging in today. I want to welcome back Alyson Goff, our Senior Director of Insights and Strategy here at CampusIQ. We're going to dive into insight number four from the report. And Alyson, this one surprised me. So welcome.
Alyson Goff [00:00:37]:
Thank you for having me again.
Veena Vadgama [00:00:39]:
Here's what jumped out at me from the data. 78% of the institutions we surveyed told us they have centralized governance over space. 90% said they have a named person responsible for space decisions on paper that sounds great, structure's in place, and someone owns it. That seems like it's half the battle. But then when we asked how effective that governance really is, 65% said that the governance efficiency was average or below. So Alyson, you work with these institutions every day. What is going wrong? Why does having the structure not translate into effective decisions?
Alyson Goff [00:01:22]:
So that's a loaded question. But it's hard. And so you have to have a structure in place. But those policies, the decision makers, have to routinely be evaluated and engaged. And I think that's what we find is many institutions have standards around office space allocation or general standards around classroom and teaching lab utilization, or who gets assigned to space, who doesn't. But where it really gets tricky is when you think about other space types. So thinking about research labs, that is very challenging. It's how do you manage that? But simply put, it's having people, leaders who are willing to own decisions make some folks unhappy. And that's hard, especially when you're competing with all of the other aspects that are required to run an institution.
Veena Vadgama [00:02:19]:
I want to read a quote that came from the study from one of the respondents. I think it captures some of this. It says "The current structure includes too many members, often turns meetings into information sharing and listening sessions. Rather than serving as a true governance body where strategic direction planning and effective space management can occur." So that's a pretty candid statement, Alyson. Is that what you see when you work with institutions that do have a governance body already in place? And then what does it actually look like when the governance committee is actually working well?
Alyson Goff [00:03:00]:
Yeah, so I think there's this misconception that if I have a campus master plan, then I can make strategic space decisions, and that is not true. And so I think that there's that misalignment and many institutions don't have what are often called guiding principles. It's very transactional in many institutions. There's a space request and we do some type of assessment. Some type of rubric is applied and then we're allocating or saying yes or no. And I think when I saw that quote, that really was what reflected in my mind is the reason you have so many members is because everybody has to have representation on this governance structure. And so some models that I've found that work well, George Mason University comes to mind. They have an executive level decision making body. That is comprised of I think three to five of their executive vice presidents. We're talking provost level who are making some critical decisions. But then they have an advisory committee and they have been delegated certain authorities. So if the decision involves less than a certain amount of square footage of space, then they're authorized to make that decision. But then they're supported through different subcommittees, which are comprised of subject matter expertise. So research is the easiest example. Having been on their side of it as a Director of Space Management, I absolutely did not want to dictate research space use policy by myself. Because the folks that are in the academic colleges and schools know those disciplines so much better than I do. So when you see that subcommittee structure, it really, when you're building grassroots champions. You're getting the peers of people who are going to be impacted by any policy design, they're getting it directly from them so that it's still a lot of people, but they're organized in a meaningful and impactful way, rather than putting everyone in the same room and then just reading off a list of action items because that's a meeting that could have been an email.
Veena Vadgama [00:05:28]:
If you could design a high functioning data governance group, give me some must haves as part of that takeaway.
Alyson Goff [00:05:39]:
Right. So you mentioned data governance groups, and I think that's also some of the insight that we gathered is we've for so long made decisions based on anecdotal information or just our gut, but now we have so many different data inputs. We can understand where people have been assigned. We understand where courses are, and then obviously with technology like we have at CampusIQ, we can understand when people are actually present in space. And so there has to be visibility and transparency in that data. People need to, as appropriate, be able to go look at the data that's being associated with their unit. And so that again is you're building champions so that they can say, okay, yes, this data is up to date. And then knowing that that's what decisions are based on. And then when those data points are used to inform decision making, there's confidence and trust that it is as fair as possible. You're never going to make everyone happy. There's not enough resources to do that. But if everyone understands the rules of the road, I found that there's more success in those governance structures.
Veena Vadgama [00:06:55]:
Excellent. I really appreciate that you brought the data connection back to it. In the report we do talk about the fact that 95% of the institutions still rely on the registrar data or the course schedules, and 39% are now moving towards having that real time occupancy data that kind of changes the conversation. So in your mind, having access to that space occupancy data, it's kind of a game changer for these conversations. Does it affect the speed of the decisions or the quality or both?
Alyson Goff [00:07:32]:
I think I would lean more toward quality. Where I think it escalates the decision making process is that we can just bring together multiple years or multiple semesters of data and quickly get to the trends, the patterns. But there's again, confidence because we all understand the starting point. And so yeah, maybe as I answer the question, maybe it's both. But it's changing. It's rooting that gut feel of these spaces aren't well used with actual data or it's proving what you're hearing from end users that like, no, I'm telling you this space is heavily used on the weekend, but you're not here to see it, so don't penalize me for what you can't see.
Veena Vadgama [00:08:25]:
So let's talk about the elephant in the room. Space is political on campus. Departments don't want to give up their rooms. Deans want to protect their square footage. You hear it all the time. So how does this data change that dynamic? Does it make these conversations easier, or does it actually make them harder at first?
Alyson Goff [00:08:43]:
I think it makes them easier, because it becomes about the data. It's not a personal reflection on you as a person. It's okay, this is what the data's telling me about how this space or this collection of spaces is being used. It's an entryway into conversation because there's always the qualitative component and there's always the human component. I am a broken record about this because it's why we say data informed decision making. And so often what's not reflected in space data right now is the quality of space and how the qualitative component can impact the usage. So I always, when I see a classroom inventory that averages 19 square feet per seat, that's a qualitative indicator to me that I'm broadly trying to fit modern pedagogy into dated facilities. And the same could be true for underutilized research labs. We're trying to put modern research in dated spaces. So yes, I can't be as efficient per square foot. So I think it just allows you to get to the important questions more quickly and can help problem solve. Really problem solve, rather than this being an endless fight about you're not going to take my space. It becomes more, I think it puts space planners and managers in the driver's seat to actually be a true partner to their end users.
Veena Vadgama [00:10:21]:
So the data is depersonalizing it, and then it's suddenly not about who owns the room, it's what does the data show. So you can have an intelligent, ideally a non-emotional conversation that's grounded in fact. Alyson, thanks so much. It was a really great conversation. For folks watching, the full 2026 State of Space Management report is available on CampusIQ.com. You can download it for free. There are five insights total, and we have been working through them one by one in our Bow Tie Tuesday series. Alyson, before I let you go, any parting words of wisdom.
Alyson Goff [00:10:55]:
Don't be scared about governance, start lightweight, just kind of put a framework around it. But it really will make a difference in how you and your institution manage space.
Veena Vadgama [00:11:08]:
Perfect. Thank you. Thank you Alyson. Thanks for another great Bow Tie Tuesday and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week.