The myth that scientific progress is made by brilliant individuals working in small secluded labs no longer applies. Solving today's scientific challenges often requires cross-disciplinary research teams working in flexible labs with sophisticated equipment. This trend is driving the creation of new facilities designed to increase interaction and collaboration among teams and individuals, but until recently, there has been little hard data to substantiate the value of socially interactive space.

"We're really looking at how productivity is affected by the interaction of scientists with their colleagues and students, and how facility design impacts that," says Michael Haggans, AIA, a principal architect with Flad & Associates.

In conducting the study, Flad wanted to address the crux of a conflict between two ways of thinking about facility design. On one hand is a belief in the value of design features that enhance social interaction; on the other hand is a drive to reduce project costs, often at the expense of areas where casual social interaction occurs.

"Part of our research is looking at specific projects and trying to make an explicit connection between design and interactivity," Haggans says.

Measuring Interaction

Quantifying the value of collaborative space begins with establishing new metrics. As part of the study, Flad's team set out to define the variables that promote interaction.

"We know there are gains in productivity based on interaction, but the questions are: what types of spaces provide that contact? and how much do they cost?" says Trevor Calarco, AIA, an associate with Flad and one of the administrators of the study.

The metric rating system, dubbed the "Interaction Index" (I²), establishes a relative value for a building's interactive qualities based on three variables: public space, transparency, and proximity.

"We found that we were able to take those three variables and use them to analyze the interactive design qualities of a wide breadth of research buildings," Calarco says.

Public Space

The public space measurement calculates the amount of public area where chance or planned group activities can take place. These areas include atria; hallways; corridors; open stairs; focused meeting areas such as conference rooms and lecture halls; and informal areas like lounges, coffee shops, and breakout areas.

Interestingly, data from the study shows that some of the most important interaction areas are associated with food and drink.

"One thing that we've derived from this is that if you take a snapshot of the event we are all striving to make possible, food and drink are always in the picture somewhere. In our opinion, those facilities managers who say that a vending machine at the end of the hallway is adequate are wrong," says Haggans.

Transparency

The I² transparency rating is a measurement of design elements that promote face to face interaction. These include use of glass doors and walls, open sight lines between or across floors, and open lab spaces. To establish this figure, the study takes the total lineal footage of a facility and calculates how much of it makes use of glass or glazed doors, glass walls, and open sightlines.

"In order to interact with somebody, you actually have to see them; you have to know they are behind that wall. Use of glass expands the individual’s sense of involvement, and opens up personal areas by connecting them to public zones," says Calarco.

According to Calarco, one way to break down the inherent vertical barriers of a multi-story building is to provide openings for sightlines into the floor levels below or above with open staircases and atria.

Proximity

Another significant finding of the study is that proximity between research peers, lab resources, and research assistants is a key factor in increasing productivity.

"The further somebody is away from you, the less likely it is that you are going to interact with them on a daily basis," says Haggans.

The I² formula measures proximity in terms of the average travel distance between three primary areas—principal investigators, research laboratories, and research assistants—on an individual and group basis. The study calculates the distance from the center of one office to the center of adjacent offices.

"The most interesting group dynamic we found was that a research assistant's proximity to the principal investigator is a critical factor, not only for their work productivity, but also for their career advancement," says Haggans.

Sum of the Formula

Taking the sum of these three variables together, Flad analysts plotted the results on a graph indicating each building's interaction probability as a function of its cost per square foot. While improving researcher proximity doesn't cost anything, there are cost differences between using drywall or glass, or having an atrium.

"Interaction results from specific environmental characteristics that have associated costs, but those costs can be justified by the value of increased productivity," Haggans says.

Using the I² model, analysts are able to gauge the relative efficiencies, values, and interactive qualities of numerous floor plate designs.

Applying the Model

To calibrate the models, Flad applied the formulas to projects in process. Among these was the University of Alberta Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science. Using the I² formula, Flad determined that an investment in the facility's atrium—which considerably enhanced transparency and quantity of public space—would result in an increase of $10 per sf, approximately three percent of the project's total cost.

"The theory is that you can take the I² model and apply it to any project in the same way you apply an energy model to a project to predict the amount of BTUs per square foot that it will use," says Haggans.

Other facilities in the study had I² related costs ranging range from $10 per sf to $80 per sf, with the average coming in around $30 per sf.

According to Haggans, increased costs incurred by creating more socially conducive space are recovered in three primary ways: increased researcher efficiency, better researcher retention, and higher quality output.

"Based on the average rates of principal investigator start-up packages, if you retain six principal investigators over five years, you will pay for 100 percent of a $10 per square foot additional capital investment," Haggans says.

Haggans points out that when combined increased creative output resulting in one percent efficiency gains, retaining one principal investigator, and one additional grant a year would also realize a return on the investment within five years.

Lessons Learned

To maximize collaborative interaction, Calarco recommends allocating at least 25 percent of total floor plate size to public space in the form of hallways, circulation areas, formal meeting rooms, and informal association zones.

"Strive for the perimeter of that public space to be 35 percent transparent if not more. Then minimize proximities between researchers to less than 105 lineal feet," Calarco recommends.

He also emphasizes the significance of researcher location when plotting proximities.

"Location of principal investigators on the floor plate is probably the most significant factor in modifying the way the floor can be anticipated to work," he says.

Informal dining and lounge areas where people feel comfortable are also important.

"Food and drink should be part of the programming discussions, even at state institutions. I have worked at some of those institutions where these types of considerations are dismissed because they are not thought to have any real value. The fact is, creation of ideas and information often takes place where food and drink are served," Haggans says.

More to Study

The study is an ongoing process and there are still more questions to answer. Among these are looking more at how food service plays into interaction, the optimal number of researchers a facility should expect to accommodate, and whether or not there are optimum population sizes.

"One thing we are looking at is the notion of defining neighborhoods within buildings and specifying the size parameters of communities; we're looking at some Danish research that indicates there is a breaking point at about 400 people with subsets of neighborhoods of around 50 people," Haggans says.

Other issues the study will explore include whether or not there are optimal floor-plate sizes for maximizing social interaction, and how to overcome the natural barriers of multi-story buildings.

Do open stairways and atria get people to use the stairs more than elevators? We don't know yet. But I know that if the only stairs in the building are at either end, and they are fire stairs, people will use the elevators, which are isolating. The point is, there is still a lot to learn," Haggans says.

To participate in this study, please contact Trevor Calarco (tcalarco@flad.com).

By Johnathon Allen

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894