Research laboratory layouts can affect numerous variables such as workflow, safety, functionality outcomes, and traffic patterns. This study suggests that since 2009, there has been a lack of benchmarking comparisons made between the workspace metrics and physical attributes of different medical research buildings. The results from this study identify numerous commonalities found within contemporary laboratory designs, such as an overarching trend towards designs that maximize efficiency, flexibility, and collaboration while balancing private and open workspaces.
To identify physical attributes, workspace metrics, trends, and best practices in laboratory and workspace designs while providing recommendations for future laboratory and workspace renovations.
The area and room measurements of wet laboratories in three different medical research facilities were analyzed using Revit software. All three facilities were built within 12 years prior to when this study took place. These facilities included a university medical research institute (constructed in 2009), a university neurosciences research building (constructed in 2014), and a children’s medical research institute (constructed in 2020).
Data from the Revit models were exported to Excel and JASP for statistical analysis. Evaluated metrics included departmental net square feet (NSF), which refers to the usable floor area available in a given room, department gross square footage (DGSF), which includes the NSF as well as walls, partition thickness, and departmental corridors, and building gross square footage (BGSF), which includes the DGSF as well as spaces for information technology, shafts for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment, stairs, toilets, lobbies, elevators, and all other non-programmed spaces. ANOVA statistical analysis was used to assess mean differences in all three variables between the facilities.
The study divided the spaces in each building into three sub-departments: offices, conferences, and laboratory departments. Offices included open offices, workrooms, and enclosed offices. Conferences included gathering rooms, phone rooms, and conference rooms. Laboratory departments included laboratory rooms and support spaces and were further classified by research type. To further analyze laboratory designs, data on lab modules were also collected, including the number of modules in each lab, along with their width, depth, technical features, and physical attributes.
Lastly, a space syntax tool was used to measure and compare the visibility of floor plans in the three different facilities.
Statistical analysis revealed that average collaboration and lab support space sizes increased significantly over time (meaning increases from the 2009 facility design up to the 2020 facility design). Ratios of laboratory to lab support quantity and square footage decreased significantly over time. There was a significant increase in the ratio of enclosed office spaces to lab spaces in terms of square footage over time. Analysis also found significant alterations in the design of workspace and laboratory areas over time, including an increase in the ratio of enclosed offices to lab space and the ratio of collaborative spaces to lab and lab support areas.
Analysis of the lab modules revealed a general increase in the overall number of modules over time, along with a reduction in size. The newest facility had significantly more lab workstations located outside of lab rooms, creating a higher ratio of lab bench to lab workstation count. There was a significant increase in the number of sinks per lab bench, reflecting a trend towards improved laboratory hygiene. There was also a significant concurrent reduction in the allocation of lab benches, fume hoods, casework, and equipment space per lab room size, meaning there was an overall trend towards increased free space for work or movement.
The space syntax tool revealed that the newest building had the highest levels of connectivity and visibility. Design features which contributed to this were the inclusion of open workspace areas situated at the center of the facility, a more contemporary laboratory layout, and the positioning of lab rooms along exterior glass walls.
The authors note that this study only makes inferences concerning trends and best practices based on spatial data analysis; thus it lacks any data concerning costs, user satisfaction, and user productivity. A relatively small number of facilities were included in the study. All of the facilities included in this study are also from similar geographical areas, and two of them are part of the same university; such similarities may impact the generalizability of the findings.
And Also...
The authors provided helpful color-coded floorplans to help understand facility layouts and visibility levels.