What is a value-driven solution to maximizing our needs for flexible life science lab design?

We researched the space typologies typical of life science labs and arrived at a set of archetypes differentiated by functionality, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. Our research tested three life science lab design types: traditional/fixed, flexible, and adaptable. In order to scrutinize variances in design, we created a survey. Each participant was a stakeholder with unique design priorities, and these differences contributed to a broad-based understanding of the concerns facing scientific organizations.

Our goal was to establish both financial and experiential value in lab design — a balance between efficient work and healthy margins. We believe there is an intersection where efficient work overlaps with prohibitive costs, a point where more flexibility yields diminishing returns. We created a user-generated list of priorities that encapsulate the drivers of experiential value — and in doing so, we discerned what is necessary, and what is not necessary, in building ideal life science labs.