Transforming Research Space Management for a New Era

In an era of expanding research portfolios and heightened expectations for interdisciplinary collaboration, universities face intensifying pressure to strategically plan, manage, and optimize research space. Research facilities, wet labs, maker spaces, core facilities, and computational suites, represent some of the most limited and costly assets in the academic environment. As competition for high-quality laboratories and specialized rooms grows, institutions are re-evaluating entrenched practices, strengthening policy frameworks, and adopting data-driven systems to ensure that space is allocated efficiently, transparently, and equitably. The most successful universities treat research space not as a static inheritance but as a strategic resource that must evolve with the institution’s mission.

Research space management can no longer be a passive process based on tradition. Institutions must create systems and policies that are equitable, strategic, and responsive to funding, collaboration, and future growth. This shift reflects a broader movement across research universities: transitioning from decentralized, inheritance-based space assignments to structured, accountable systems supported by reliable data and shared governance. Leaders increasingly recognize that research success depends on more than grant funding and recruitment; it requires intentional, long-term planning for space and infrastructure: ventilation, utilities, shared instruments, and digital backbones that enable high-impact, safe, and compliant research.

What does success look like? In practice, it means faculty and administrators using a common language and data set, a visible queue of requests with clear criteria and a cadence of review that balances stability for investigators with flexibility for emergent priorities. It also means aligning space portfolio decisions with sustainability goals, regulatory requirements, and total cost of ownership.

Goals and Objectives

This modernization effort is anchored by five core objectives:

• Design effective space allocation models. Establish criteria that balance productivity, collaboration, safety, and strategic alignment. Right-size allocations for wet, dry, and computational research, recognizing their different cost and infrastructure profiles.
• Understand and leverage space management systems. Implement a robust Space Management System (SMS) that integrates with HR, grants, and facilities systems to provide a single source of truth.
• Analyze cultural factors that influence space-use behavior. Surface the norms, such as “squatter’s rights” or informal trading, that quietly shape utilization and access.
• Implement change management strategies. Provide timelines, transition plans, and coaching so that policy changes feel predictable, not punitive.
• Foster communication and collaboration among stakeholders. Create standing forums where faculty, department chairs, research administration, and facilities jointly interpret the data and craft solutions.

These priorities acknowledge that true transformation requires both operational rigor and cultural evolution. Faculty and campus leaders must work together to build transparency and accountability into space decisions.

Looking Back: Understanding the Starting Point

Many universities begin their journey with fragmented practices and insufficient data. Common challenges include:

• Basic or outdated space tracking systems with insufficient data
• Manual reporting processes that absorb staff time
• Minimal research-specific information (e.g., bench length, fume hood counts, biosafety ratings, equipment criteria)
• Outdated policy guidance and uneven enforcement across units
• Shadow inventories and “phantom occupancy” after retirements or grant sunsets

Such environments rely on historical precedent rather than strategic analysis, making it difficult to plan effectively, communicate decisions clearly, or align space with institutional mission and research growth.

Building a Better Model: Systems and Standards

A successful model for research space allocation depends on accurate, centralized, and dynamic information. Modern SMS platforms typically include:

• Building and room codes, categories, and types tied to CAD/BIM floor plans
• Net square feet, capacity, bench and hood counts, and utility constraints
• Departmental and investigator assignments
• Grant and funding associations to connect space with sponsored activity
• Safety designations (e.g., BSL levels) and compliance attributes
• Integration with HR (to track arrivals and departures), proposal systems (to anticipate growth), and facilities work orders (to plan renovations)

A single, integrated system improves planning accuracy, supports reporting, and builds trust by making data transparent and consistent across campus. User-friendly tools, such as dashboards and self-service reports, encourage adoption and sustain data integrity. Equally important is data governance: Define who stewards which fields, how often audits occur, and the escalation path when discrepancies are found.

Benefits

• Streamlined reporting
• Increased transparency
• Improved planning accuracy
• Enhanced accountability

Policy Overhaul: Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

To sustain progress, institutions need to clarify governance and delineate oversight responsibilities for research and non-research space, often via a RACI (Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed) matrix and a published annual review cycle.

Non-Research Space

• Facilities maintain accurate inventory and standards.
• Departments submit formal, time-bound space requests.
• A University Space Committee reviews and approves requests against criteria.

Research Space

• Research administration oversees space assignments and performance reviews.
• Departments maintain data through trained staff “space stewards.”
• A Research Space Subcommittee reviews requests and appeals.

Standardized research space request forms capture space type, square footage, equipment needs, safety requirements, funding sources, strategic alignment, and anticipated revenue or impact. Clear service-level expectations (e.g., review within 30 days) and an appeals process support fairness and accountability.

Implementing Change: From Ownership to Stewardship

The transition from space ownership to shared stewardship marks one of the most significant cultural shifts in academic research environments.

• Vacant or underutilized space reverts to research administration for reallocation.
• Allocations reflect active funding, program potential, and collaborative value.
• Space can expand, or contract based on productivity and evolving needs, with notice periods and transitional support.

Institutions address undisclosed vacancies by partnering with HR to monitor arrivals and departures, tying space to active appointments and sponsored projects. Transition playbooks help administration decant or consolidate labs, identify swing space during renovations, and communicate timelines, minimizing disruption to trainees and experiments.

Fostering Collaboration and Communication

Successful change requires consistent outreach and transparency. Communication strategies include:

• Research town halls, department chair briefings, and PI advisory groups
• Demonstrations of new space systems and tools, with sandbox environments
• Training programs for space managers and faculty, including certification for data entry and interpretation
• Office hours, regular newsletters, and a searchable FAQ with policy exemplars

Ongoing dialogue helps address concerns, explain decisions, and reinforce shared responsibility for space.

Data-Driven Decisions: Evaluating Space Productivity

Modern programs increasingly rely on objective data to guide decisions while guarding against reductive metrics. Common indicators include:

• Grant dollars per square foot
• Room utilization, occupancy, and alternative funding (industry and philanthropy)
• Grant submissions, awards, and pipeline indicators
• Publications, patents, translations, and core facility throughput

Quantitative measures are paired with qualitative assessments from department chairs, center directors, and deans regarding future funding potential, mentorship contributions, community impact, and strategic alignment. Dashboards present trendlines rather than single snapshots, discouraging short-termism and acknowledging disciplinary differences.

Looking Ahead: A Continuous Path

Institutions continue expanding collaborative research models, reallocating space based on program focus, and developing core and community laboratory environments to optimize resources. Annual portfolio reviews, five-year strategic refreshes, and post-occupancy evaluations sustain momentum. As research modalities evolve, the space mix will keep shifting. The guiding principle remains, allocating space where it enables the most mission-aligned, safe, and high-quality scholarship.

Effective transformation requires innovation, collaboration, and persistence.

Key Takeaways

1. Innovate—Assess and modernize legacy systems and practices; invest in integrated data, clear standards, and usable tools.
2. Enlist—Engage stakeholders early, publish criteria, and maintain two-way communication through standing forums.
3. Measure—Combine quantitative indicators with expert judgment to reflect disciplinary differences and future potential.
4. Persevere—Recognize that cultural transformation requires time, leadership, and steady reinforcement.

By Barbara Manley-Smith, Director, Research Facilities at Augusta University