Part II of this series continues the discussion on features that are key to the recruiting efforts of private-sector and academic research facilities. The remaining issues include the reinforcement of teamwork via social settings, computing/visualization, human factors, richness of programs, and visual appearance.

Part I discussed the first five of 10 features that play a role in the decision-making process, including quality criteria, labs as a destination, flexible design, integration into the context, and technical amenities.

Wilson Architects in Boston gathered information from facility managers and users at seven academic facilities and three corporate research institutions to determine which features rate the highest in importance for attracting scientists. Questionnaires were completed during a focused interview process, and the answers were rated as being not important to recruiting efforts, being minor, somewhat important, more important, or very important.

Academic facilities interviewed were the Laboratory for Interface Science and Engineering (LISE) at Harvard University; the James H. Clark Center at Stanford University; the Life Sciences & Engineering (LSE) building at Boston University; the Biomedical Research Building III at Vanderbilt University; the new Science Complex at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill; Stanley Hall at the University of California, Berkeley; and the Center for Integrated Science (CIS) at the University of Chicago.

Corporate participants were AstraZeneca’s research-and-development center in Boston; the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass.; and the Wyeth chemistry research building in Pearl River, N.Y.

Social Setting Reinforces Teamwork

The next question on the survey asked participants how important it is for their research facility to offer opportunities for social interaction. Designs can feature formal or informal layouts with corridors that encourage interaction, gathering spaces, common break rooms, office clusters, and open labs with no doors between them.

“The design of social space is partially a reflection of your culture, the message you want to send, and the kind of teamwork you are hoping to promote,” says Chris Martin, a principal at Wilson Architects.

Corporate participants believe office clusters are the most essential factor in fostering teamwork, followed by a design layout with corridors, and common space where meals can be shared. The academics do not view any of these features as very important, but rank the layout of the facility as the highest priority, followed by team space and office clusters.

The 160,000-sf Wyeth building is a good example of a facility that places high value on offering researchers an abundance of opportunities for collaboration. The labs facilitate teamwork by facing each other in an open floor plan. Other amenities include a large atrium with comfortable seating and natural lighting, break out areas in visible locations, an informal great hall, and various formal areas that can accommodate from 80 to 300 people.

The importance of the social setting is different for each facility with the Broad Institute and Harvard placing high importance on eating areas. The Institute features nine eating areas with some floors having one at each end, while Harvard views the café as part of the scientific infrastructure. Berkeley has what it calls “forced interaction” with offices and labs that are separated with neighborhoods of mixed disciplines. The University of North Carolina does not place much emphasis on break areas and even the senior people at Wyeth state such amenities typically get cut from the budget, if necessary, because they are often not utilized.

Computing/Visualization

Computing and visualization were also rated by the facilities with an apparent consensus among academics that these issues are somewhat vital, although the corporate facility managers place less emphasis on their value to recruiting. The overall question pertains to how much computing power is necessary and what type of server is required to support the technology.

This topic also focuses on the requirements for wireless capabilities and whether computers will be used in the labs, the offices, and special visualization suites.

“We saw a migration of computing into the typical lab setting, into the office, and we are not creating special visualization suites,” notes Wilson. “The computing capability is a priority that needs to be provided, but it is not a big recruitment tool. It is just expected when people arrive.”

Vanderbilt’s 360,000-sf Biomedical Research Building, which represents a joint venture between the medical school and the arts and sciences departments, requires top-notch computing capabilities to support its research in neuroscience, genetics, biophysics, and bioengineering sciences.

The driving force behind the new Center for Structural Biology is to have an overarching organizational idea for recruitment. A mega lab concept combines six principal investigators into a 40 to 60 person suite with access to all of the structural biology resources.

Computational pods are grouped around each pair of faculty hires, and each suite consists of four graduate students in a glass-walled office where they spend 90 percent of their time.

“The thought was to create this little community of shared workrooms in a fairly intimate setting with a dense pack of people,” adds Martin. “The Center encourages use of the lab by other departments in order to promote cross pollination among researchers.”

A visualization center, featuring a high-tech conference room, is located at the end of the mega lab. Also located nearby are an x-ray diffraction room and a nuclear medicine suite. A local server hub supports the high-tech building and fosters collaboration within the computing center. Vanderbilt’s attitude is that the idea comes first and then the tools must be acquired to support that idea.

Importance of the Human Factor

All institutions recognize the importance of including human factors, or people friendly amenities that improve the work environment, but some features are rated as more vital than others. The questionnaire focused on the issues of lighting, acoustics, office options, parking, the ability to ride a bicycle around campus, and the availability of showers and nursing stations.

“There is a mixed response with everyone caring a fair amount about lighting. I find it surprising that the academics say the bikes and people friendly features are less important and in some cases, I think that’s because they already exist,” says Bill Wilson, a principal at Wilson Architects. “In other cases, I think corporate environments are trying to build a sense of community and they feel these features are very important to their ability to recruit.”

The Science Complex at the University of North Carolina represents a facility that was designed to create a sense of community and connectivity to surrounding buildings. The 480,000-sf complex utilizes 38 tunnels, bridges, and other connections to link seven buildings.

“Link that idea of connectivity to the lab environment. Each one of those connections represents an opportunity for the intermingling of breakout space, creating a rich environment for science,” says Martin. “It is very valuable to create a science community.”

The complex features a 200-seat lecture hall, conference rooms, a broad floorplate, and plenty of natural light. Although the academics do not place an overall importance on break space, they do believe it is valuable to a science environment. Parking does not seem to be a big factor in recruitment for the academic institutions, but it does rank higher among corporate research facilities.

Richness of Programs

All of the institutions that participated in the interview process have multidisciplinary buildings. Therefore, the next question regarding the importance of having different disciplines working in the same building drew anticipated responses. In particular, respondents were asked to rate the importance of having multidisciplinary/cross-disciplinary programs, vivaria, greenhouses, cleanrooms, and nanotechnology research space. The corporate institutions rated the presence of multidisciplinary programs, vivaria, and greenhouses as very important, while the cross-disciplinary programs were borderline between more important and very important among the academics.

“We asked this question with a specific tag about special life sciences and special physical sciences features,” says Wilson. “It is not surprising that life sciences fell into the corporate realm and the physical sciences fell into the jurisdiction of the academics.”

Stanley Hall at Berkeley brings together many disciplines in biology, engineering, and chemistry to work in the 285,000-sf facility, which includes 11 floors and overlooks the San Francisco Bay. Theoreticians in computational bioinformatics and computational physics are scattered throughout the building, working among researchers in the fields of structural biology, synthetics, allied biochemistry, biophysical chemistry, imaging, tissue engineering, and enzymology.

The building, owned by the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research (QB3), is purposely designed to ensure the intermingling of researchers in various disciplines. Every office pod includes a biologist, a chemist, an engineer, a theoretician, administrative support, and interactive spaces. Scientists being recruited to work at Stanley Hall are giving up as much as 50 percent of their typical space in order to conduct their research in the facility. In order to get a spot in the building, researchers must apply and go through a stringent admissions process, whereupon acceptance has to be agreeable to the deans, the departments, and the QB3 Review Committee.

The mindset of other institutions regarding program-rich features varies with Harvard saying connection between buildings is important and the University of Chicago believing that “collaboration means not going outside.”

Importance of Visually Appealing Appearance

Having an aesthetically pleasing facility topped the list of importance among corporate interview participants. Meanwhile, academic institutions rated appearance a little lower on the scale of significance. The question took into consideration the appearance of both the interiors and graphics.

The CIS, now called the Gordon Center, at the University of Chicago accommodates researchers in biology, chemistry, and physics. The building fits in well with the nearby facilities because of its pristine exterior and architectural style. The interior features high-quality finishes, a breathtaking atrium, and natural light emanating through large windows.

The value of the visual appearance ranged from Wyeth’s preference for simple interiors to Berkeley’s view that the look and feel of a building are important.

Taking Risks

“We saw different risks. Harvard says they are not going to change, but are just going to evolve slowly by adding younger faculty. That was the same attitude at Boston University and the University of North Carolina,” says Wilson.

On the other hand, AstraZeneca took the corporate risk to create a presence in the United States. Companies with facilities where the design is on the edge and they are looking to create a new culture are also considered to be taking high risks with their recruitment strategies.

Parting Words

The primary areas of convergence among the corporates and academics are in four areas. First from Part I, there is a consensus that criteria are key and a quality lab environment is critical. It is also believed that teamwork can be reinforced by using social settings to promote interaction.

“Computing areas are important, but we are seeing them migrate into the typical lab and office environments,” notes Martin. “A point of convergence among different institutions is the desire for a visually appealing environment, achieved with natural lighting and simple design decisions.”

Divergent responses occur primarily in the areas of designing for change, integrating into context, and providing technical amenities. The idea of integrating into context can take on different meanings relative to leveraging the facility’s context to help with recruiting. The ability to provide technical amenities is becoming less of a priority in certain facilities, depending on the type of research being conducted.

By Tracy Carbasho