Learning from Tech Workplaces

How Research Labs Are Changing to Accommodate New Computational Paradigms

November 2, 2017

Principal / Architect, NBBJ

Editor’s Note: This post was originally published by Laboratory Design.

Workplaces around the world are evolving as organizations like Apple, Google and Amazon seek to design offices that increase collaboration, integrate new technologies and help employees work more efficiently. This ethos is now making its way to the buildings where scientists and researchers work. Here’s why:

 

Research is going digital…

The methods scientists use to conduct research are changing. Labs are traditionally divided into three segments: clinical work, “wet” lab spaces (lab experiments using liquids) and “dry” lab spaces (labs using computers). Analysis and discoveries are becoming increasingly computation-based, or dry, compared to traditional wet laboratories.

From 2013 to 2015, the National Institutes of Health’s dry research funding for networking and IT R&D increased 40%, growing from $521 million to $729 million. The past decade has seen an explosion in data-intensive life sciences, including genomic research and medicine centering on healthcare customization and treatments based on patient DNA sequences.

The focus on data and computing in science fields is creating a shift in roles. There are close to twice as many dry bench scientists — including computation, informatics/clinical outcomes and clinical scientists — than wet bench scientists working today. Dry labs also require about 20% less space, at a little under 100 square feet per person versus close to 125 square feet per person in a wet lab.

Data creation, metadata (data about data) management and data curation are increasingly becoming the domain of the scientist. Lab benches are drying out.

 

Innovations require collaboration.

Social network modeling and studies show that collaboration, not just within teams but between teams, is crucial to increased productivity, idea generation and effective communication. The denser and less siloed the social network, the more creative the lab. New or repurposed science workspaces have a responsibility to accommodate these findings.

100909_00_b_w_btm_n42_large

The Building for Translational Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA (photo courtesy Sean Airhart/NBBJ)

Translational research and medicine, a biomedical field that blends research, clinical work and community health efforts, is becoming the norm. Carrying research from theory to implementation is now happening all in the same space. Research is becoming increasingly cross-disciplinary and interdependent.

From a design perspective, distance matters. Visual transparency between wet and dry labs is critical to supporting interdisciplinary and serendipitous connections by helping increase social ties. Organizations like Brigham and Women’s Hospital are bringing benchside (medical research), bedside (clinics) and imaging facilities together under one roof.

The recently opened Allen Institute in Seattle intersperses collaborative meeting spaces, neuroscience and biomedical research zones and labs into one building to investigate how our brains and cells function.

 

How can research organizations design for data?

Tech companies focus on maximizing human performance in their offices. These businesses typically emphasize key factors to attract data scientists: company mission, amenities, brand expression, an activity-based workplace and mobility.

050229_01_n13

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA (photo courtesy NBBJ)

Here are a few design takeaways from the tech field that could be applied to science workspaces:

  • Provide creativity-boosting open collaborative and more sheltered huddle spaces for work, as well as in-between spaces like a café, lounge or even just an area to refresh and recharge. A balance between prospect and refuge areas is critical. A classic example, the Louis Kahn-designed Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, weaves in these principles through the open courtyard to the more enclosed offices.
  • Numerous studies have documented the stress-reduction effects of nature. So bring in some green — simulated or real — and orient work spaces toward views.
  • Building in ways to get exercise at work improves cognitive levels. Providing exercise-oriented amenities or access to outdoors and places to move — such as stairs and areas for stretching and other light activities — can help.
  • Bring in visual interest. A beautiful environment is proven to increase blood flow in parts of the brain that center on emotion and reward, which can help increase engagement and motivation.

 

Design for interdisciplinary work.

Designing better spaces is about understanding, optimizing and anticipating spatial needs. It’s about reallocating available space — learning how space is being used and which space is underused. For new projects, it’s about identifying core challenges and designing appropriate solutions. But more importantly, it’s about people.

Banner photo courtesy Lara Swimmer/NBBJ.

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX

How Can Healthcare Institutions Become Disaster-Ready?

A Conversation About Healthcare Resiliency and Design in Seattle

September 6, 2017

Healthcare Partner, NBBJ

The Pacific Northwest is a beautiful place to live and work. But with that beauty comes the potential for natural disasters — everything from earthquakes to volcanic eruptions. Combined with the uncertainty associated with climate change, how should local healthcare systems address these issues to protect their patients, safeguard their assets and conserve resources?

We decided to convene a “Disaster Ready” series of panel discussions, design workshops, articles and papers to address this important topic of resiliency. This summer in Seattle, Puget Sound Business Journal healthcare reporter Coral Garnick moderated a lively discussion on the importance of resilient healthcare facilities.

The panelists — John Hooper (Magnusson Klemencic Associates), Christine Kiefer (Harborview Medical Center), Onora Lien (Northwest Healthcare Response Network) and Mackenzie Skene (NBBJ) — shared their expertise, including resiliency best practices from healthcare projects located in areas vulnerable to natural disasters.

The following is an edited recording of that discussion. From designing “upside-down hospitals” that protect against rising sea levels, to advocating for policies that require more from critical care facilities, learn what healthcare systems can do locally and beyond to withstand the unknowns of a changing environment.

 

 

Here are a few highlights from the conversation:

The definition of resiliency
“I’ve also had the chance to work in New Orleans, following up on Katrina and replacing the hospital damaged by Katrina, and it changed my whole view of resiliency at that point, because it was less about buildings, and it was more about the people, and the operations, and the continuity of the mission.”
—Mackenzie Skene

The importance of practice — and community
“The drilling, the practice, the scenarios and learning the communication… I can’t say enough: it shouldn’t just be us practicing in isolation, but the system practicing together.”
—Christine Kiefer

Who’s responsible
“I worry a lot that the work of preparedness often lives with one champion within an organization, one emergency manager or part-time facility person who’s tasked to do a lot of this. While I recognize there’s a lot of competing demands, in order for us to really move the needle, there has to be a more inclusive strategy within the organizations, and the accountability and the responsibility needs to live much broader than just an emergency manager.”
—Onora Lien

What we can fix, today
“There’s one or two [older buildings] on a campus … that the infrastructure may go through, the medical gasses, the power, the water, et cetera. That’s what I worry about. It’s that small percentage that, if you fix that one or two buildings, you’ve improved your resiliency by a factor of two or three. If you’re going to pick a low-hanging fruit, do those.”
—John Hooper

 

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX

Hurricane Harvey Shows the Danger of Not Planning for Healthcare Resilience

In the Absence of Government Leadership, Healthcare Providers Must Take the Initiative to Secure Their Patients’ Health

August 31, 2017

Partner, NBBJ

Editor’s Note: Portions of this post previously appeared on Modern Healthcare.

President Obama’s Executive Order 13690 — signed in 2015 — made it the official policy of the U.S. government to improve the resilience of communities against the impact of flooding. This included special requirements for federally-funded healthcare projects, including adding three feet to base flood elevation when building federally-funded hospital facilities in flood-prone areas. But it also extended to other types of projects, including assisted living facilities and even power generation facilities.

Unfortunately, President Trump revoked this policy on August 15, 2017 — ten days before Hurricane Harvey made landfall near Houston, Texas, and shut down at least 21 of the region’s hospitals.

Growing research that shows climate change will cause hurricanes of greater intensity, as well as increased risk for flooding, in coastal communities across the United States. In a flood event, every foot counts. Building three feet above flood elevation — as required by President Obama’s regulations — could mean the difference between full hospital functionality and a complete failure of electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems.

Take, for example, Hurricane Katrina. Flooding during that disaster closed more than half of the region’s hospitals — and all of the hospitals within New Orleans itself — immediately after the hurricane. Over a decade later, some of those facilities remain closed. We saw a similar event after Hurricane Sandy in New York City, which damaged numerous hospitals, including five which remained closed a month after the disaster hit.

Even after these storms — which combined killed at least 1,400 people and caused $183 billion in damage — there are relatively few formal protections in place to safeguard healthcare facilities from storms. We believe the solution to creating more resilient healthcare facilities requires a partnership between healthcare institutions, government agencies and professionals in the building industry. We understand that additional regulations are not always the right answer. But we are concerned with President Trump’s decision to revoke the executive order without adding any protections or considerations in their place.

My firm worked on two major hospital replacement projects in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. There, we instituted an “upside-down hospital” design strategy which placed critical infrastructure typically relegated to the basement high above flood stage, in some cases seven floors up. At University Medical Center in New Orleans for example, the first “mission critical” floor is located 21 feet above base flood elevation.

While it’s possible the rollback of President Obama’s regulations will save money in the short term, it will likely cost healthcare systems more in the long run. A study by the National Institute of Building Sciences found that every $1 of public funds spent on disaster mitigation saves society $4. LSU’s Hurricane Center also found that stronger building codes related to wind damage before Katrina would have saved $8 billion alone. It is generally cheaper to retool infrastructure before a disaster hits.

One bright spot: only projects with Federal involvement were covered by President Obama’s executive order — and by President Trump’s rescindment of it. We continue to work with private healthcare institutions, particularly on the Eastern Seaboard, who understand the stakes and are willing to make the necessary investments. And even Federal projects, with client approval, are permitted to exceed the current requirements — but they are no longer required to, and therein lies the danger.

Healthcare systems in the United States face a myriad of challenges, including increased operating costs, switching to a value-based reimbursement model, an uncertain political environment and rapidly advancing technologies. So it’s understandable that hardening against climate-caused disasters may fall to the bottom of the priority list. But we’ve seen what can happen when that is the case.

Image courtesy of Pixabay.

Share this:  envelope facebook twitter googleplus tumblr linkedin
Comment Follow nbbX
Next Page »