Satisfaction Level Of University Campus Facilities: A Survey Study

The purpose of the study is to examine student user profiles in the University’s campus. Methodologically, the aim is to explore which survey factors most affect the overall satisfaction perceived by users. Because of the possibility that this research will take much time to execute and tend to be complex, the author decides to conduct a pilot survey for this topic research. Also to refine research set of question in a further questionnaire, it gauges whether the research goals and design are realistic.

Participant Details

This assignment focuses on the satisfaction level to the university campus facilities, judged on the basis of the survey response of the students. It must be mentioned in this context that the participatory guidelines for this particular survey had been completely voluntary and also anonymous. 24 volunteers were chosen in this survey, all of them were given a questionnaire to fill containing questions each with 5 options. The discussion section will elaborate and evaluate the answers given by the volunteers and the verdict will be based on the inclination represented in the answers.

As any standard survey outline, the first question of this survey asked the volunteers about the type of student that they are. The answers from the collected data on this question suggest that almost 95.83% of the volunteers were foreign transfers studying and residing in the campus as international students. Only 4.17% of volunteers were the local or native students. Considering the numerical data, 23 out of the 24 participants were international students of the university and the remaining one belonged to the locals.

The second question asked to the participant on the survey was concerned with the degree of the students, and the answers indicated that 8.33% of the students were undergraduates, 66.67% of the students were post graduates, and remaining 25% of participants were PhD scholars. It has to be understood here that in total 22 participants of the survey were post graduate and PhD students indicating that almost 90% of the participants of the survey were older students of the campus and had been associated with the university for a significant amount of time. This had been extremely beneficial for this survey as these participants will be much more adept with the university infrastructure and will be able to convey more relevant judgment.

The next question asked a relevant and valid question to the survey, this question judged the efficiency of the laboratory facilities on the basis of 5 different parameters. The first parameter has been suitability of the facilities, where 40% indicated it being average, 35% of the participants agreed to it being above average, and 25% indicated at being excellent. The next parameter judged was general comfortability and appearance, where the 50% of the participants claimed it to be average; hence it can be considered that the facilities present are not above the level of average. Cleanliness was the next parameter, where 30% claimed it to be below average and 30% claimed it to be excellent, and 25% thought it to be above average. As 55% claimed it to be above average it can be considered reliable and accurate. The parameter of acoustic received mixed response from the participants, however 45% regarded it to be average. And lastly indoor air had been deemed average by 45% and above average by 35%. Therefore all four of the parameters were considered average by the majority while the aspect of cleanliness was regarded as below average by the majority.

Efficiency of Laboratory Facilities

The next grading was for teaching or studying facilities, where the suitability of the facilities was regarded as above average by 41.67%. General appearance and comfort was ranked average by the majority of 45.83% of participants, alike cleanliness by the majority of 45.83% as well. 45.83% of the participants regarded acoustics of the studying facilities to be above average and 43.48% considered indoor air to be average. Considering the judgment of the majority, the teaching facilities provided by the university was average or above and needs improvements.

The general purpose of the university was judged in the next question, using only 4 parameters this time. The general appearance and comfortability was average again in the eyes of the majority of 41.67%. The aspect of cleanliness received mixed remarks with just 37% considering it average and 33% above average. Acoustics received a clear majority of 45% while indoor air was judged as average and above average by same percentage of participants. Hence it can be said that the general purpose of the assignment was not up to par as the other facilities.

The next question asked the participants how they would like to improve the general purpose facility as provided by the university authority. 8.33% of the participants did not know whether they would like it or not, and a contributing factor to this can be the fact that two of the participants were undergrads in this survey and they might not understand the relevance of this question as they have not been in this university for a lone amount of time and are just being introduced to the facilities provided by the university. One of the participant deemed the improvements not like at all, and it can be accorded to as personal judgement and low expectations. But as this lenient view is negligible in numbers, it cannot be regarded as an accurate review. 33.33% considered the need for improvements to be somewhat likely, indicating that these participants were either confused or they were too accustomed to the standards already. 16.67% considered the need to improve general purpose and cleanliness of the university facilities to be very likely, and in combination with the last recent data it can be considered to be the majority in this case. Only 8.33% of the participants considered the needs for improvement to be extremely important. Hence considering the majority opinion it can be said that the students of this university are accustomed to the facility standards however improvements are still required and would be appreciated as well.

Teaching or Studying Facilities

From the question no 9, it is found that 25% of the participants accepted that they need the changes and the renovation in facilities. This can help to maintain the building and the equipments of an organization. Among the 24 participants, 20.83% participants chose the second option ‘probably need’. This shows that they are confused about the benefits of adoption of the changes and renovation in the organization. 33.33% participants that are 8 people did not respond to the particular question. On the other hand, 20.83% respondents selected the ‘probably don’t need’ option. From this response, it is seen that these participants do not think that there is any need of changes and renovation in the facility management.  No one chose the last option ‘definitely don’t need’.

From the question no 10, it is seen that in between 24 participants, no one rated the student accessibility and quality of service as poor. Therefore, the percentage is 0.00%. On the other hand, 37.50% rated the 1^st option below average and 8.33% rated the 2^nd option below average. 37.50% voted the student accessibility as the average and 41.67% rated the quality of service as the average. On the other hand, 50.00% rated the 1^st option above average and 2^nd option gets the above average rate 50%. It is noticeable that no one voted the last option ‘excellent’ for both the parameters. Hence, it can be said that the student accessibility and quality of service need development for the future progress.

From the question no 12, it is found that no one chose the 1^st option ‘extremely long’ as they do not have to wait for the long time to make request regarding the facility maintenance. 2 respondents that is 8.33% stated that they have to wait for the long time to make the request regarding the facility maintenance. 3 respondents that is 12.50% chose the 3^rd option ‘somewhat long’. From this response, it is clear that the respondents had to wait for sometimes for requesting about the facility maintenance. Therefore, they had to keep patience to request their demands. However, 20.83% chose the 4^th option that is ‘not so long’. Therefore, they had not to wait for long time to request about the facility maintenance. 8.33% that 2 participants chose the 5^th option that is ‘not at all long’. This result shows that some of the participants did not wait to request their demands regarding facility maintenance. 50% participants chose the last option that is ‘don’t know’. This result shows that the 50% do not have interest to share their views on the particular answer.

General Purpose of the University

The result of the question no 13 shows that no one chose the first option ‘extremely well- maintained’. Therefore, no participants think that at this university the facility fault remedy is maintained in well- manner. 9 participants that is 8.33% selected the second option that is ‘very well- maintained’ as they think that the facility fault remedy is maintained in well- manner at this university. On the other hand, 41.67% that is 10 participants selected the 3^rd option that is ‘somewhat well- maintained’. From this analysis, it is clear that most of the participants think that the facility fault remedy is maintained in average manner in the university. No one chose the next option that is ‘not so well- maintained’ as no one things that the facility fault remedy is not maintained in well manner. 41.67% that is 10 participants chose the last option that is ‘don’t know’. They do not want to answer for the particular question. hence, t5hey are not forced to answer the question. From the particular analysis, it is found that at the university, the improvement of facility fault remedy needs improvement as it will help the organization to grow up.  

From the result of 14^th question, it is seen that no one selected the 1^st option ‘poor’ for the first parameter ‘accessibility’. However, 20.83% selected the 2^nd option ‘below average’ and 33.33% chose ‘average’.  29.17% chose the ‘above average’ option and 16.67% chose ‘excellent’. On the other hand, 4.17% chose the poor option for the parameter public transport. 16.67% chose below average, 33.33% chose average, 41.67% chose the above average, and 4.17% chose the last option. For the parameter ‘location and amount of the cycle ways and walkways’, 13.04% chose the 1^st option poor, 4.35% chose below average, 47.83% chose average, 30.43% chose the above average, and 4.35 chose the last option. For the next parameter ‘maintenance of the cycle ways and arrangement’ 8.33% chose the 1^st option poor, 12.50% chose below average, 58.33% chose average, 12.50% chose the above average, and 8.33%chose the last option. For the next parameter ‘car parking arrangement’ 4.17% chose the 1^st option poor, 12.50% chose below average, 79.17% chose average, 4.17% chose the above average, and no one chose the last option. For the next parameter ‘bike racks’ 12.50% chose the 1^st option poor, 25% chose below average, 50% chose average, 12.50% chose the above average, and no one chose the last option. For the next parameter ‘easy to move’ 8.33% chose the 1^st option poor, 8.33% chose below average, 50% chose average, 25% chose the above average, and 8.33% chose the last option. For the next parameter ‘safetyt’ 4.17% chose the 1^st option poor, 12.50% chose below average, 37.50% chose average, 37.50% chose the above average, and 8.33% chose the last option.

Improvement of General Purpose Facility

For the next question that is question no 15, it is seen that the participants rated the outdoor areas of the university. For the cleanliness, the no one chose the 1^st option that is ‘poor’. On the other hand, 16.67% chose the below average option and 29.17% chose the average option. 25% chose the above average option and 29.17% chose the excellent option. No one chose the poor option for the parameter ‘care of lawns and plants’. 4.17% chose the below average option and 29.17% chose the average option. 37.50% chose the above average option and 29.17% chose the excellent option.

For the last question that is question no. 16, the analysis showed that no one is very dissatisfied with the rate of the satisfaction with the facilities at the university. On the other hand, 8.33% chose the second option ‘somewhat dissatisfaction’ and 25% chose the 3^rd option ‘neither satisfied not dissatisfied’ option. Therefore, they are neutral. 50% chose the next option ‘somewhat satisfied’ and 16.67% chose the last option ‘very satisfied’. From the analysis, it is seen that most of the participants are satisfied averagely whereas no one is unsatisfied with the rate of the satisfaction with the facilities at the university.

Conclusion: 

From the entire analysis, it can be seen that local student re much higher in number than the number of the international student. Students pursuing postgraduate degrees and attending course work are much higher in number followed by the PHD students and then comes the undergraduate students. No students are pursuing their degrees in postgraduate research as well as others. Cleanliness is the most important factor that the university workplace facilities pays importance to and other workplace facilities that follow this are suitability, general appearance and comfort ability, then acoustics and indoor air in a gradually decreasing manner. In case of laboratory facilities, general appearance and comfort ability is paid the most importance which is then followed in a decreasing manner like cleanliness, then suitability, with same preference been recorded in acoustics and indoor air. In reviewing the study facilities it is found that lowest rate is provided to the acoustics, then indoor air, then general appearance and comfortability, suitability and then cleanliness getting the most positive reviews. Moreover reviewers have provided the highest marks in general appearance and comfortability with the next in line being acoustics and indoor air being equal and cleanliness coming at last in the case of general purpose facilities. When comments were expected to check how the students wanted to change the environment of the general purpose facilities condition as well as cleanliness at the university, about 33.33% commented to be somewhat likely and 29.7% stating that they are not likely to do so. Very few people about 4.17% stated that are not likely to do so. This states that a changed environment is indeed expected by lot of people. When students were asked about their perceptions of the need or no need to renovate the facilities of the university, most of them remained neutral stating with the more strength towards the need of the development and renovations. In case of facility management about half the number of students stated that they were above average in case of student accessibility as well as better quality of service with the next category of students stating it to be average. Therefore no current alterations should be done in this case. Moreover students were also found to be neutral while suggesting for renovations in the facilities with students being aligned to need of renovations. Hence initiatives of renovations can be discussed. Students have suggested that they do not have to wait too long when they ask for facilitity maintenance with next groups of students’ response signifying that the waiting time is present but not long enough to get irritated. However initiative should be taken so that this response can be changed into ‘not at all’ for all students in order to keep up with the reputation of the university. The fault remedy is also stated by them to be somewhat well maintained that expresses the fault remedy system working well. Accessibility of the students were marked to be average, public transport to be above average, cycle ways and walkways to be average, car parking to be average, bike racks of being average and easy movement to be average. Hence movement and campus accessibility is average and university should try s little bit more to gain excellence in the categories. The outdoor areas are liked by the students and have marked excellence in them in both cleanliness and care of lawns and plants. Altogether, the students are somewhat pleased and therefore the university should follow the results and data analysis to alter and modify the facilities so that excellent reviews are provided by students.