<div dir="ltr"><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Primary Research Group has released a new report, <strong>Survey of Academic Library Facilities Management: Control of Decision‑Making</strong>, offering a detailed look at how academic libraries and campus facilities units share—or contest—authority over buildings, budgets, and operations.</span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Based on responses from academic libraries across institution types and enrollment sizes, the study examines governance structures, satisfaction with responsibility splits, service workflows, response times, and the extent of library control over key facilities resources. The report combines quantitative tables with extensive open‑ended commentary that reveals how formal policies often diverge from day‑to‑day realities.</span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Five Key Findings from the Survey</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black"></span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">      </span></span><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Shared authority dominates—but not without friction.</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">\ Nearly three‑quarters of respondents (73.33%) report that facilities decision‑making is shared between the library and campus facilities. However, only 48.89% are satisfied with how clearly responsibilities are defined, while 35.56% report dissatisfaction—suggesting that “shared” often means ambiguous.</span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">      </span></span><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Campus facilities systems control most workflows.</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">\ An overwhelming 84.44% of libraries rely on a campus‑wide CMMS or CAFM system for work orders, with only 2.22% using a library‑managed ticketing system. Despite this centralization, many respondents report limited transparency into request status and prioritization.</span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">      </span></span><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Formal service expectations are uncommon.</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">\ Just 15.56% of libraries report having formal, measured service‑level agreements (SLAs) for routine facilities requests. More than 60% say SLAs either do not exist (33.33%) or they are unsure whether any are in place (28.89%).</span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">      </span></span><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Routine repairs are usually fast—but often unpredictable.</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">\ The most common response time for routine issues is 1–2 business days (42.22%), followed by same‑day service (22.22%). Still, one in five respondents (20.00%) report that response times vary widely, highlighting inconsistency across institutions.</span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">      </span></span><strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">Libraries control space more than maintenance money.</span></strong><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">\ While 64.44% of libraries control space planning and 84.44% control room‑booking technology, far fewer control maintenance resources. Only 17.78% control minor repairs budgets, and just 8.89% influence cleaning or custodial scope decisions.</span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;color:black">The report also analyzes differences by institution type, enrollment, tuition level, building age, and library footprint, and includes detailed qualitative insights into communication breakdowns, deferred maintenance, staffing shortages, and contested space use.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><strong><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal"> </span></strong></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><strong><span style="color:black">For an excerpt, table of contents and list of participants, use the following link:</span></strong><strong><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal"></span></strong></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"> </p><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraph" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:15.6933px;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><a href="https://www.primaryresearch.com/AddCart.aspx?ReportID=885" style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://www.primaryresearch.com/AddCart.aspx?ReportID=885</a></span></p></div>