This is the first in a series of two articles about the differences and similarities between how facility design decisions are made in the corporate vs. academic research environments with regards to recruiting scientific talent. This article discusses 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 of the campus, and technical amenities.

“We talked to senior people, including the facility managers and users, at 10 institutions to get their recruiting story and to take metrics about this issue of academic vs. corporate,” says Bill Wilson, a principal at Wilson Architects in Boston. “We utilized a tool called a focused interview process where we recorded data from a questionnaire, and the answers were rated in terms of not being important to a facility, being minor, somewhat important, more important, or very important.”

Academic research facilities involved in the focused interview process 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. Each of the 10 buildings serves as an example to illustrate the importance of the individual features.

Criteria is Key

The first feature on the questionnaire pertains to criteria and inquires whether the quality of the space outranks quantity. This is defined by asking how much of the space is performance-oriented and is there a clear chemical and code strategy to support the answer. Special criteria implemented in the building must also be considered. There seems to be a consensus among the corporate and academic facilities that quality is more important than quantity. Facilities with associated medical schools are equally interested in quantity and there is a major push to build as much space as quickly as possible.

Boston University’s attitude about quality is that “recruits are looking for both quality of science and colleagues.” The University of North Carolina’s philosophy states “quality of space is key provided you have enough to begin with.”

Meanwhile, the University of California, Berkeley says many faculty members are giving up space to come into their institute, and AstraZeneca facility managers believe “quality of science and quality of space are paramount.”

The best example for the quality issue is the LISE facility at Harvard, which actually consists of two buildings with a small tower above ground and an underground portion that includes a 10,000-sf cleanroom, a high-bay space for cryogenics and low-vibration imaging space in the basement. The 135,000-sf facility, scheduled for occupancy in early 2007, will provide a link between the physics, engineering, and applied science communities on campus.

Ten imaging rooms are at the lowest level with the cleanroom above that area, then the grass and trees on top of that with the tower emerging out, so two-thirds of the building is actually hidden.

The new facility is viewed as an asset for the entire science program at Harvard and is a tool for hiring scientists to work in multiple departments. The building supports Harvard’s investment in open-ended, basic research.

“They have a perfect record in recruiting that they attribute to this building. They have already hired people because they will have the ability to use imaging, the cleanroom, and characterization suites,” says Wilson. “They were able to reduce the size of the faculty floors from 4,000 to 3,200 square feet because the quality is there and space is not an issue.”

The facilities that make the investment to include cleanrooms, imaging suites, and low-vibration electromagnetic interference shielding offer a high-quality work environment.

“They create a playground of exotic scientific environments, and that is where quality becomes a recruiting issue,” adds Wilson. “The quality of space, quality of people, and quality of science are factors that are nearly indivisible.”

Lab as a Destination

The second question revolves around whether a lab must be viewed as a showpiece or primary destination. This could mean the lab is extremely accessible, centrally located, and connected in some way to the surrounding facilities. It could also mean the lab is quite distinct, that there is a special parking arrangement, or that there is a focal space or gathering area.

Corporate facilities put more emphasis than the academics do on having a focal space, a special arrival or parking sequence, and being distinct. Academics, on the other hand, feel it is most important to be accessible and connected in order to facilitate interdisciplinary and collaborative research.

The Clark Center at Stanford University is a prime example of a lab that serves as both a destination and focal point. The 146,000-sf Center, completed in 2003, facilitates interdisciplinary research in bioengineering, biomedicine, and bioscience. The Center consists of three labs facing each other around an outdoor space or focal point.

“It is a warehouse of laboratory activity that blends itself right into social activity. If you are in the labs, you can look at the activity taking place on the other side,” says Wilson. “Stanford was looking for this type of high-profile experience.”

There are a variety of opinions among the facilities regarding the idea of a laboratory being a destination. Harvard, Berkeley, and the University of North Carolina place a high priority on connectivity. The University of Chicago believes location is important, but the building does not have to be a signature design. Harvard wants a known address, a goal that was achieved with the Broad Institute, but espouses the philosophy that architectural cache is not an issue.

“The corporate respondents are looking to create a sense of place as a means to recruit into the science setting,” notes Chris Martin, a principal at Wilson Architects.

Designing for Change and Flexibility

The next feature explores the value of incorporating a flexible design to accommodate future changes. Discussions center around a range of issues including a robust design with generous floor-to-floor height, large accessible shafts, and a zoned mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure.

A flexible design might also feature modular units, overhead services, moveable casework, and wet/dry convertible labs. The ability to easily and quickly reconfigure labs ranks higher on the list of importance in the corporate environment than in the academic setting. Flexibility in the academic facilities is based primarily upon the type of science, but still is not viewed as the highest priority.

AstraZeneca invests the time and money necessary to make its research-and-development buildings flexible enough to accommodate future adaptations. The investment in its infrastructure is paying off with the ease of making changes. AstraZeneca continues to assess and refine its site approach to lab infrastructure.

“AstraZeneca’s idea was to have a big open laboratory ballroom and the company has been very conscious about maintaining that with the future expansion,” says Martin. “Oversized shafts, along with plumbing, electrical, and teledata risers, are used to bracket the ballroom.”

The wet zone is inboard and the support services are outboard. There is a two-to-one ratio of support labs to dedicated labs within the biolab environment. The ratio is one-to-one in the chemistry labs. The investment in the outboard equipment zone is becoming more important at AstraZeneca than moveable casework in terms of flexibility. The overhead MEP system also allows for easy reconfiguration since the coils are in the penthouse and there is minimal reheat piping.

Integrated into Context

The fourth question is whether the context of a facility makes a difference when recruiting. The context includes the campus atmosphere, amount of natural light, exterior views, and availability of outdoor spaces.

“Again, there is a divergence between corporate and academic,” says Wilson. “The corporate facilities are seeking to establish a sense of community, but the academic environment has already achieved this goal for the most part.”

The new LSE building, completed at Boston University in 2005, is a multidisciplinary research building that focuses on biochemistry, biomedical engineering, and bioinformatics. The University is seeking to create a broader definition of campus in order to create beneficial relationships with other institutions in an attempt to become known for thinking about the whole. Promoting the integrated campus is a major selling point for the University’s recruiting efforts.

Other facilities like those at Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Chicago say the sense of an integrated community is not an important part of their recruiting strategy.

Technical Amenities

Technical amenities were defined in the interview process as new technologies, special enclosures, and equipment planning/technical support. Corporate research facilities seem to have a consensus that all three of these technical areas are very important. Meanwhile, the academic entities rank new technologies as more important, special enclosures as somewhat important, and equipment planning/technical support as borderline between minor and somewhat important.

The 230,000-sf Broad Institute, designed by a mathematician, is organized in a unique manner. The facility is very high throughput with an abundance of robotic equipment used for chemical biology and genetics. Experiments typically done at the bench are being done by robots, so thousands can be completed per hour 24 hours a day.

The first floor of the Institute consists of a lobby and museum. Researchers in different disciplines are located throughout the building so there is never an entire floor housing the same type of scientists. The code category allows for high chemical usage and heavy equipment.

Information technology and administration are located at the top of the facility, along with the vivarium and cell components lab. The floor plan is a stacked design with oval conference rooms. Offices are located on one side of the building with a large kitchen breakout area situated in the middle of the labs, which are on the opposite side of the facility. The labs are a combination of fixed and moveable casework. Despite housing a lot of equipment, especially in the chemical analysis area, the building is very open. Overhead services are available to support the high-tech building.

The various research facilities have differing opinions on the importance of technology and the role it plays in recruiting.

“The most sage advice came from the chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina who said having the ability to add technology is more important than the technology itself,” says Wilson.

Final Analysis

The answers provided by the 10 institutions show that quality supersedes quantity and that decisions regarding recruitment impact the organization, as well as the individual science communities, and disciplines. An effective recruitment strategy is one that targets new talent, retains existing researchers and staff, and develops a dynamic culture. Users and key stakeholders should be organized in whatever manner is necessary to pursue the recruitment goals and the design of the facility should support those objectives.

“The LISE building is an interesting example of a mixed response where the criteria of the building are driving its success more than the cache of the architect,” says Martin. “Human touch is valued by all, but certain institutions are trying to create a sense of community and draw people into them. Everyone is seeking interaction.”

Part II of this series will examine the remaining features that play a role in helping corporate and academic institutions make facility decisions regarding their recruiting strategies.

By Tracy Carbasho

We welcome your Questions and Comments

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