Lab design and the expert: experience brings benefits, pitfalls By June Hanley “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind, there are few.” — Shunry Suzuki This is one of my favorite quotations. As a laboratory planner for an integrated AEP (architecture, engineering, and planning) firm that specializes in science and technology facilities, I engage with lots of “experts.” And, as a self-proclaimed amateur psychologist—mostly because I am fascinated with the dynamics of how people work together to create buildings—I want to address the roles of experts in the life of a project. Indeed, before a project ever gets underway, it has passed through the hands of many, many experts. Clients are continually cautioned to seek “expert” advice, especially for complex facilities such as research labs. But does excessive expertise carry its own risks? Before it’s a project When a scientific research or teaching facility is first conceived as a project, the experts within an owner’s ranks are consulted. What kind of facility should it be? How big? Who ought to occupy it? Where on the campus should it be located? What types of space? And the No. 1 question: how much should it cost, and how are we going to pay for it? Once those questions have been answered, an RFP (request for proposal) is put out on the street, and then the next cadre of experts is convened: this time within our firm (and every other firm in our industry). These experts are not the people who will ultimately plan and design the project; rather, they are the business development and marketing experts, along with the firm’s management. They answer questions such as: Does the project fit with our marketing strategy? Do we have a good chance of winning? What strengths can we show that apply to this project type? What prior relationship do we have with this client? Do we have the expertise in-house, or do we need to team with another firm? Is it a “go” or a “no go?” If it’s a “go,” who’s writing the proposal? What should our fee be? And most important (except for fee, to management): Who is our team? Who are our experts? The next set of experts to shape a project is the client’s selection committee. Typically made up of senior-level management and administration, plus some potential occupants and facilities personnel, the selection committee is charged with choosing the next team of “experts.” Sometimes, the selection committee has a very clear set of criteria; other times, gut feelings govern decisions about whom to short-list and to interview. The interview becomes, essentially, a “my experts meet your experts” session, to decide on the team that will ultimately plan and design the facility.   A team of experts can be inspiring, but sometimes it’s the childlike “charm of ignorance” that leads to true breakthroughs. Photos: 123rf.com (top) and stock.xchng (bottom). Okay, we got it…now what? Once an AEP firm is awarded the project, the question becomes: “What are we going to do with it?” Now the role of expertise for the design team really comes into play. Right from the start, the interaction between experts representing different disciplines within the AEP team, and their ability to work with those who will occupy the facility as well as the client’s project management team, is critical. Ultimately, the success of the project depends on how the expertise is received and incorporated into the design at each stage of a project. All too often, there is no discussion or even consideration of this vital component of successful team interaction. As a design team, we have won this project ostensibly due to our expertise. We have demonstrated our skills to the client, both in design and in communication. We have presented projects in our qualifications that illustrated our ability to deliver a successful facility. We have convinced the client that we, above all other teams, are the right experts for the job. Yet consider these less-than-complimentary views of the expert: “It is, after all, the responsibility of the expert to operate the familiar and that of the leader to transcend it.” —Henry Kissinger “Experts often possess more data than judgment.” —Colin Powell “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.” —Nicholas Butler Is being an expert really a good thing? Opinions about experts are not always positive. Design teams are often led by strong project managers who apply the thinking and strategy from their previous projects to the current one. They may have developed a planning module, a materials palette, or a floor arrangement that worked well for a previous client, and they have a personal investment in that particular solution. Their objective may be to persuade a new client to adopt the familiar strategy, even when the strategy was developed to solve what may be a very different problem. Strong designers often have a tendency to try to talk clients into adopting their vision without first understanding the nuances of a particular type of research and researchers. If you don’t first elicit and then realize the vision of those who will actually work in the facility, it becomes easy to repeat stale work in a delusion that it’s good simply because it’s yours. It is at that point that a designer becomes “state-of-the-past.” Once you become too impressed with yourself, you lose your edge. In her book The Creative Habit, choreographer Twyla Tharp states: “Repetition is a problem if it forces us to cling to our past successes. Constant reminders of the things that worked inhibit us from trying something bold and new.” So our job as planners and designers is to develop our knowledge and hone our skills continually, without getting caught in our own paradigms. We need to investigate the possibilities with a fresh perspective. As designers, we must apply knowledge and lessons learned while viewing the facility as a fresh opportunity to realize a client’s specific goals and objectives through our own eyes and palettes. That is why they are paying us. Reaching a happy medium Articulating a client’s vision doesn’t mean that we simply let them tell us what to design and then design it. Every design team has its own rules of engagement. My job within my firm and within the design team as lab planner and programmer is first and foremost as a catalyst to get the best creative work out of both the client representatives and the design team. My first task is to let the scientists tell me about their science, their expertise. (I ask them to speak as if they were addressing a fairly intelligent 11th grader). Then, I will determine the sizes and arrangement of the spaces, which is my expertise. Scientists are busy people. If they are reluctant to commit the time, my response is: “I’ve been doing this a long time. I could design a building right now, without you saying a word, and it would satisfy 80% of your needs. However, when this facility is finished, I am going to walk away, and you are going to live here. So, if you want it to really work for you, you have to give me input now, so I know what makes you special. I promise you that I will not waste your time, if you promise me that you will give me the time when I need it.” Once the space program is determined, I act as the catalyst and client advocate within the design team to make sure that the goals and objectives of the scientists are not lost in the design process. Working closely with the designer is critical to this success. Sometimes, keeping true to the functional requirements and the clarity of the design can be a challenge, simply because of the rigorous review process. Too many layers of review can result in various people tweaking the design, sometimes for good reason but sometimes not, and often conflicting with one another and with the original concept. For this reason, being a successful communicator can be as important as being a good designer. You have to be able to convey the thinking behind your design and how it meets both the functional goals as well as the vision originally outlined for the project. If you convince the client that you really listened and incorporated their vision into yours, you will nearly always be successful. In the October 2006 issue of Fast Company magazine, senior writer Linda Tischler profiled award-winning graphic designer Paula Scher. “Ultimately … the critical skill for Scher is knowing how to stay fresh, to keep challenging herself by tapping into what she calls ‘the charm of ignorance’. When you’re feeling stale, she says, the best thing you can do to shake things up is to ‘look at what you’ve been doing for the past five years—and stop. The thing that’s most to be feared is doing the same thing over and over again.’” Relate “the charm of ignorance” to “in the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities.” You begin to see that danger lies in being an expert if you aren’t continually challenging yourself to start at the beginning. Pigs is pigs In The Creative Habit, Tharp relates the cautionary tale of Walt Disney and the runaway success—and aftermath—of the cartoon short “The Three Little Pigs.” The cartoon was a huge hit in 1933, and spawned the Depression-era anthem “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” Tharp writes, “Disney’s film distributor, United Artists, urged him to cash in on the success of ‘The Three Little Pigs’ with other pig-related cartoons. He resisted at first but was finally persuaded by his brother Roy. None of the three follow-ups—‘The Big Bad Wolf,’ ‘Three Little Wolves,’ and ‘The Practical Pig’—succeeded like the original, leading Walt Disney to conclude, ‘You can’t top pigs with pigs.’” As designers, and even as “experts,” let’s make sure we’re not just producing the same science facility repeatedly, with only minor variations. Let’s top our previous achievements with something new, different, and even better. June Hanley is a senior associate and senior lab planner at CUH2A Inc. Architecture Engineering Planning (www.cuh2a.com). CUH2A is the world’s largest integrated architecture, engineering, and planning firm dedicated to the planning and design of science and technology facilities.