University estates are under more pressure than ever. Changing patterns of campus use, rising operational costs, ageing buildings and tightening sustainability targets are all forcing institutions to make difficult decisions about how their spaces are managed, maintained and invested in.

But without accurate, connected data, those decisions can quickly become reactive rather than strategic. Many universities are still working with fragmented systems, incomplete asset records and disconnected information, making it harder to understand how buildings are really performing and where investment should be prioritised.

In the article below, first published in Campus Estate Management Magazine, Dee Cooper and Kate Davis explore the data gap facing university estates teams, why it matters, and how specialist support can help institutions move from assumption-led decision making to evidence-led estate strategy.

Discover how universities can unlock better insight, improve long-term planning and manage their estates with greater confidence.

‍Universities are rightly recognised as centres of knowledge, innovation and research. Yet when it comes to managing the estates, many institutions are operating with a surprisingly incomplete view of their own assets.

In an era defined by data, the higher education sector remains one of the few where billions of pounds’ worth of estate portfolios are often managed without a single, reliable source of truth. Universities know broadly what they own, but not always in enough detail to make confident decisions. How large is the estate in real terms? Which buildings are over-used and which sit half empty? What condition are plant assets actually in? And what will it realistically cost to maintain, refurbish or replace them over the next 10 or 20 years?

Without accurate, connected data, estates planning becomes reactive rather than strategic. Decisions are made based on partial insight, competing priorities and short-term pressures - not because estates teams lack expertise or commitment, but because they lack the information they need to act decisively.

At a time when student numbers are fluctuating, income streams are under pressure and sustainability commitments are tightening, universities cannot afford to manage estates in the dark.

An estate designed for another era

The way campuses are used today is radically different to how they were even a decade ago. Revenue-generating activities, such as conferences and hospitality, have not returned to pre-pandemic levels for many institutions. Teaching patterns have shifted too, with lectures increasingly compressed into shorter teaching days that start later and finish earlier. The result is that intensive use of space is happening in a narrower window - while in many cases the total estate size remains unchanged.

In other words, universities are paying to heat, cool, clean, maintain and secure buildings that are increasingly underutilised.

Reducing estate spend in this situation is exceptionally difficult. Buildings cannot be switched on and off like software licences. Maintenance liabilities remain, regardless of how frequently a facility is used. And for institutions with a legacy of historic or listed buildings alongside 1960s and 70s stock, rationalisation is rarely straightforward.

The challenge is not just financial; it’s operational. When space usage becomes more uneven, asset wear becomes less predictable. A plant situated in a heavily timetabled building degrades faster, while underused assets deteriorate in different ways through idleness. Without reliable, joined-up data, estates teams are left managing by assumption rather than evidence.

A fragmented data landscape

In the main, universities are not short of information. However, access to data can be challenging - such as timetabling systems, access card readings, and contractor reports. Equally, further challenge lies in the fact the data is fragmented and rarely resides in one place.

In some cases, this data isn’t digitalised and is still stored as physical paper copies. In other cases, where systems are in place, they don’t always talk to one another. Data is held in silos across departments and suppliers. There is no single version of the truth, and no simple way to connect operational insight with strategic planning.

This fragmentation makes it harder to maintain clear oversight of compliance activity - evidencing statutory checks, identifying emerging risks and anticipating maintenance needs becomes far more difficult. By contrast, when information is consolidated, estates teams can track obligations more reliably, avoid unplanned expenditure, and provide stakeholders with greater confidence that assets are being managed responsibly.

Outsourcing can add a further layer of complexity regarding access to data. GDPR and commercial constraints often mean that data held by the university cannot be shared freely, making it difficult to build a complete picture of building usage, against which to intelligently plan service outputs. Meanwhile, estates teams must manually interpret fragmented reports, compare incompatible formats and fill in the gaps with experience and instinct.

The result is that senior leaders are often forced to make decisions about multi million pound assets based on partial visibility. Which buildings should be prioritised for refurbishment? Where should investment be deferred? Can space be safely consolidated? These are strategic questions, yet too often they are answered with operational-level data.

The funding paradox

Even where the benefits of better data are universally accepted, securing investment in systems can remain a challenge.

Facilities management technology typically competes for funding within IT budgets - and in a tertiary education setting, teaching and learning systems will always take precedence over estates. Quite understandably, investment that directly supports students is prioritised over infrastructure that operates behind the scenes.

But this creates a long-term efficiency trap. Without modern systems to manage the estate, inefficiencies continue unchecked. Reactive maintenance replaces planned intervention. Minor issues escalate into major failures. Energy usage goes un-optimised. And opportunities to consolidate space or improve utilisation remain hidden.

Over time, the financial impact of this far outweighs the initial cost of investing in technology.

From spreadsheets to strategy

Digital estate management tools are not simply about replacing paper logs or scattered spreadsheets. When implemented properly, they become powerful strategic enablers.

Asset management systems provide a live record of building components - from air handling units and boilers to fire safety equipment and lifts. They log installation dates, service schedules, warranty information and fault history, creating transparency and continuity even a s staff change.

This enables a move away from ‘fix on failure’ towards planned, preventative maintenance. In the same way you wouldn’t wait for a car engine to seize before servicing it, critical infrastructure should be managed before breakdown occurs - not after.

Over time, this approach allows universities to build accurate lifecycle plans, budgeting for replacement and upgrades in a structured way rather than reacting to crisis. When estates teams understand which assets are nearing end-of-life, they can align replacements with wider refurbishment plans, reducing duplication and disruption.

Timetabling and space management software adds another layer of intelligence, revealing where buildings are working hard - and where they are not. Underutilised areas can be repurposed, consolidated or even released. Heavily used spaces can be prioritised for investment to improve student experience and operational resilience.

Contract management platforms can also bring a level of commercial rigour that is sometimes missing. KPIs can be monitored automatically. Performance deviations flagged early. Accountability made visible.

In short, technology enables universities to act like the sophisticated asset managers they already are - in principle, if not yet in practice.

The capacity gap

However, implementing and interpreting these systems requires specialist expertise that many institutions understandably lack. Universities rarely employ data analysts within estates teams - and neither should they need to. The requirement is intermittent, not constant. Paying for in-house expertise year-round is neither realistic or cost-effective.

This is where consultancies like Litmus FM provide real value. Rather than requiring universities to build permanent in-house capability, specialist partners can be embedded when needed. They help select appropriate systems, oversee implementation, clean and structure data,and - crucially - translate insight into strategy.

Software alone doesn’t solve the data problem. Technology must always be deployed with purpose. What matters is how it’s configured, populated and interrogated. Estate modelling, investment planning and risk analysis require experience not just of systems, but of the realities of managing complex campuses. Data should answer real questions, drive real decisions and deliver tangible outcomes.

A future built on insight

Universities don’t need to become technology companies. They don’t need to employ teams of analysts and they shouldn’t feel obliged to navigate this complexity alone.

What they do need is clarity - from trusted partners who understand both the sector and the systems that support it. By working with specialists who can bring structure to complexity, insight to information and strategy to data, universities can bridge the knowledge gap that stands between them and truly effective estates management.

If this article resonates with your current challenges then please get in touch for an infomal chat here.

‍

The Litmus FM Team