Innovation Spaces:

The New Design of Work

Julie Wagner and Dan Watch
April 2017

The Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Initiative

on Innovation and Placemaking
Innovation Spaces: The New Design of Work

Julie Wagner and Dan Watch

April 2017

The Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Initiative on Innovation and

Placemaking is a collaboration between the Brookings Institution and
Project for Public Spaces to support a city-driven and place-led world.
Using research, on-the-ground projects, and analytic and policy tools,
the Initiative aims to catalyze a new form of city building that fosters
cross-disciplinary approaches to urban growth and development.

Cover Image: Designers of innovation spaces intentionally offer a number of ways people can connect and collaborate.
CIC Rotterdam. Photo credit: Ossip van Duivenbode.
Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction 4
Key findings and insights 7
Why the design of space matters 8
Our approach 8

Section 2: Understanding the rise of innovations spaces 11

What are “innovation spaces”? 11

Section 3: Trends influencing the design of innovative 16

workspaces
Trend 1: The increasingly “open” and collaborative nature of 18
innovation is changing the nature of design
Striking the balance: Designing for both collaborative and 25
individual work
Trend 2: The complexity of innovation is re-valuing 27
face-to-face communication
Programming spaces: Unlocking the true potential of people 41
in workspaces of innovation
Trend 3 : The ubiquitous nature of technology is transforming 42
spaces into “test beds”— experimenting in balancing
organizational desires, technological power, and
human needs

Conclusion 52

About the authors 54

Acknowledgements 55
Appendix A: List of individuals interviewed 56
Endnotes 58
Section 1: Introduction

From cities to small towns to suburban corridors, innovation spaces

are transforming the landscape. Over the past 10 years, these
spaces—such as research institutes, incubators, accelerators,
innovation centers, co-working spaces, start-up spaces and
more—have grown at a considerable pace across the United States
and globally. Yet what easily gets missed is that these innovation Characteristics of
Innovation Spaces:
spaces are physical manifestations of broader economic, cultural and The growth of innovation
demographic forces, elevating what matters in today’s economy. spaces is creating real
confusion over their
At the same time, the ambition to remain cutting edge has differences: what services
they provide, how and
driven leaders of industry, and their architects, down the path of when they contribute to
the process of innovation,
creative experimentation in design. In doing so, the last decade and whom they help.

of design has embodied a shift away from ‘style’ and more toward Incubator
Where startups are sup-
embracing core values aimed to help people flourish under new ported to “incubate” po-
tentially disruptive ideas at
economic and demographic conditions. an early stage. Programs
can include coaching and
Many innovation spaces networking. Spaces can in-
clude wet labs, dry labs and
have evolved from the Research from global real estate firm Jones Lang office space.6 Reduced rent
or month-to-month leases
preoccupation of style to be LaSalle identified co-working spaces to be the are typical. Tech incubators
form another new and
“slick or cool” to the singular fastest-growing type in the United States, growing niche.

ambition of helping people amounting to 27-million-square feet as of 2016.1 Accelerator

Where groups of exp-
flourish. Accelerators, a nascent but growing innovation erienced business owners
and investors “accelerate”
space integrated with programs to accelerate startups, have a cohort of companies
through a short but
experienced rapid growth in many countries. In the United States, intensive program, such
as three to four months,
recent Brookings’ analysis found that accelerators grew from 16 to 170 finishing with a “demo” or
“pitch” day.7 Accelerators
programs between 2008 and 2014.2 In the United Kingdom, another often invest in cohorts in
exchange for a share of
study found that accelerators grew from 18 to 59 programs between equity.8

2010 and 2014.3 Other places, such as Singapore and Spain, report
similar rates of growth for both accelerators and incubators.4

4 Innovation Spaces
 Growth of accelerator and incubator programs across Europe, 2001–2013

Financial
Crisis

300

250

200
2008–13
Programs

150
2001–07
29%
Compound Annual

12%
Growth Rate
100
Compound Annual
Growth Rate
50

0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

Surveys conducted across 10 European countries found the growth of incubator and accelerator programs to increase after the financial crisis. Source: Telefonica Global Affairs and
New Ventures, 2013. Further modified for the Innovation Spaces paper.

At the same time, observed Alexandra Lange for the New York Times, Co-working space
An office or working
universities are shifting their development priorities. “Where once environment shared by
people who are self-
the campus amenities arms race was waged over luxury dorms and employed or work for
different employers. Most
recreation facilities, now colleges and universities are building deluxe spaces charge monthly
rental fees for desks
structures for the generation of wonderful ideas… pouring millions and/or other types of office
space and equipment.
into new buildings for business, engineering and applied learning that Many share a goal of
creating environments that
closely resemble the high-tech workplace.” 5 Research institutions, foster connections and
creativity.9
where advanced multi-disciplinary research is conducted, also Start-up space
continue to expand globally, such as the Crick Institute in London and An environment providing
startups with the space and
CREATE in Singapore. resources needed to test
and nurture ideas. Many
offer different workspaces
including labs. Increasingly
Increasingly, architects and designers are tasked to redesign spaces combined with incubator,
accelerator or co-working
to do more than simply house innovation-oriented activities. Their space.

goals are also to “create communities,” “facilitate collaboration” and Innovation Center
Private (corporate) or
“create serendipitous encounters.” Through design, architects and public spaces with state-
of-the-art technologies
business leaders are essentially being asked to re-wire the social, if not designed to advance ideas
and product development.
organizational culture, as much as to adhere to strict building codes. Variations exist given:
economic focus (e.g.,
pharma vs. robotics); target
audience (e.g., companies,
And while people believe that architects generally keep to themselves start-ups, students);
and integration of other
to build shining icons of their utopia, this paper reveals that architects activities (corporate offices,
incubators, co-working
designing innovative spaces—the ones responsible for bridging spaces, shared laboratory
facilities).
processes, places and people—are “catch-all generalists.” They are

5 Innovation Spaces
The creative infusion of large and small spaces, often mixed with programming, is facilitating collaboration. CIC Miami. Photo credit: Alexia Fodere.

intellectually curious, delving into complex innovation processes to Maker Space

A space where people and
better understand their physical implications. They combine both startups can develop/test
ideas often using shareable
intuitive and analytical insight to solve problems while, at the same manual or automated
tools.10 Resources include a
time, promoting ideas from workers and researchers that use the space wide range of equipment,
infrastructure, materials
day-to-day. This specific niche of architects is part of a growing group and expert advisors. Some
are industry specific and
of silo-busters, working across disciplines and hierarchies. Their work can be located in libraries,
community center, private
has been strengthened, if not guided, by the vision of their clients—the organization, or on a
university campus.11
vice presidents, managers or a cadre of board members—who see Research Institute
the big picture. A space that facilitates col-
laborative multi-disciplinary
research (sometimes
between academia, the
Interestingly, innovation spaces Importantly, more than just the occupants are private sector, and public
sector) to speed up the
are blurring in distinction— embracing these designs—the market also is translation of lab discov-
eries into practical uses.
offering a range of support or adopting, and expanding, these innovative spaces. Often located near universi-
ty buildings to enable
activities that at one time were Office management companies, small developers researcher-interaction from
neighboring faculties.12
found in separate spaces. and large development and investment companies Innovation Civic Hall
that have both the financing and the might are A new type of dedicat-
ed civic space for the
extending these attributes from just one building to a cluster of innovation community to
gather and exchange ideas.
buildings, if not blocks and broader districts. While responding to what Includes open-work and
teaching spaces, event
the market demands, developers are nonetheless elevating the role of space as well as flexible-use
spaces.13
people; acknowledging them as the critical nexus between innovation
and place.

6 Innovation Spaces
Key findings and insights

Innovation spaces are the physical manifestations of and organizational challenges. Communication within
economic, demographic and cultural forces. The changing an innovation setting is even further complicated by the
nature of innovation is transforming spaces into open, imperative to communicate both tacit and highly complex
flexible locales where separate professions and disciplines information. This places a growing currency on face-to-
more easily converge. The changing demographic of face communication, where architects are reconfiguring
workers is altering designs to be more comfortable, social the “bones of the building,” creating interactive, sharable
and collaborative with technology. For these and other spaces and, in a small but growing number of cases,
reasons, spaces of innovation help elevate what matters in re-imagining the ground floor of buildings. Even with
today’s economy, making them the places to watch, and advancements in technology, interviews suggest that
sending helpful signals to cities and suburbs aiming the intimacy achieved through in person face-to-face
to become more competitive.   communication remains highly valued.

Innovation spaces provide important insights: The growing pervasiveness of technology is driving
firms to experiment in balancing organizational desires,
The “open” and collaborative nature of innovation technological power and human needs. The last 10
is changing the nature of design. Research reveals years marked a tremendous infusion of technologies into
that innovation is increasingly collaborative, involving innovation spaces, literally re-wiring how, where and when
two or more people during the process of innovation. people connect and communicate. The next decade will
Collaboration also importantly underpins “open innovation” offer lessons on how, through trial and error, firms have
and convergence—a trend where disparate sectors retained the value of “human-ness” in the midst of such
and/or disciplines come together as a means to innovate. change.
For the physical design of space, this translates into
creating flexible and highly responsive spaces that allow Finally—given the unevenness across innovation spaces
people, in a range of group configurations, to decide what in applying post-evaluations on design—leaders and
works. managers of spaces, in interviews, offered an almost
unwavering view that design has indeed elevated the
Face-to-face communication has growing currency. While level of collaboration and interaction as compared with
collaboration is increasingly central to driving innovation classic office building design. Their insights are reflected
forward, it is a process often mired in linguistic, technical throughout this paper.

Ecol Sci
Agri Sci Geosciences

Infectious
Diseases

Envr Sci & Tech

Clinical Med Biomed Sci

Chemistry

Cognitive Sci
Engineering

Matls Sci

Health & Social Issues

Psychology
Physic

Business & MGT Computer Sci

Social Studies
Econ Polit. & Geography
Pajek
Pajek

The changing nature of innovation, including the acceleration of convergence, is leading to the transformation of spaces where separate professions and disciplines more easily mix.
Source: Rafols, Porter and Leydesdorff (2009).

7 Innovation Spaces
 Why the design of space matters
Everyone engaged in the working world has been influenced in some
way by design—whether it has indirectly contributed to the develop-
ment of new insights or, at another extreme, exacerbated isolation or
fear. For this reason, this paper offers interesting insights for a broad
cross-section of readers.

The conventional wisdom is While there is considerable literature on interior

that workplaces with design of workspaces, this paper arrives at design
collaborative, informal spaces through a different path: first by understanding
are now common place ... the changing nature of innovation and other broad
forces, their influence on human behavior and then,
ultimately, how this implicates design. Readers actively working in
design will find this paper elevates what still matters. For readers new
to this area of study and practice, this paper offers a framework for
understanding the broader implications of innovation through design.

This paper also aims to inform business, university, philanthropic

and government leaders working to strengthen local ecosystems of
innovation, including cities but also innovation districts, science parks,
medical districts, and university campuses. Those
working to strengthen connections and synergies ... a more accurate picture is
at these larger scales will find value in learning how that most people work in
broader trends are influencing design at the traditional, heirarchical offices
building scale. that emphasize individual work.

Our approach

To gain insight into the changing role of design and architecture,

nearly 50 in-depth interviews were conducted with both top architects
and users of innovation spaces (such as managers of researchers,
executives managing all operations and program managers). Their
names and affiliations are listed in Appendix A.

On deciding which innovation spaces to study, this process

intentionally selected strong spaces identified by critics, reporters and
global experts as advancing innovation.

8 Innovation Spaces
Researchers engaged in conversation at LabCentral in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo credit: Paul Avis / Avis Studio, courtesy LabCentral.

In the first set of interviews, globally oriented architects with extensive

experience designing innovation spaces (from research institutes to
innovation centers to offices) and top corporate leaders (including
AT&T, Haworth, Philips, and Bank of New York) were asked to provide
insights on this changing field. Part of the inquiry focused on how
innovation spaces have changed over the last 10 years and what they
believed to be prompting these changes. To gain insights into future
directions, they were also asked: the costs to design and construct the
next iterations of innovation spaces as opposed to more traditional
layouts; their opinions on building transparency and its affect on the
broader area; and the role of the ground floor.

In the second set of interviews, over 35 architects and managers of

spaces were interviewed across a range of innovation building types,
such as research institutions, incubators, start-up spaces, co-working
spaces and innovation centers. These spaces were designed to
advance innovation across multiple sectors including bioscience
(with an emphasis on applied science), advanced manufacturing,
robotics, technology including the burgeoning app cluster and more.
The expansiveness in interviewing architects and users across a range
of spaces and sectors was intentional, in the quest to distill measurable
differences in design. In as many cases as possible, the architect and

9 Innovation Spaces
end user (CEOs, vice presidents, and managers) of the same space
were interviewed separately. This again was intentional. As innovation
spaces have unevenly applied post-design evaluations, this research
turned to managers to reflect on how these spaces are supporting
collaboration and innovation.

Lastly, an in-depth literature review, with a particular focus on new

research, was completed on a parallel track to surface additional
evidence.

10 Innovation Spaces
Section 2: Understanding the
Rise of Innovation Spaces

What are “innovation spaces”?

Incubators, co-working spaces, start-up spaces, innovation centers,

maker spaces, research institutes—these represent just some of
what is now a growing portfolio of workspaces cradling the process
of innovation. As their geographic footprint across cities and towns
grows, questions arise on what distinguishes the various workspaces.
And, while this research identifies some useful distinctions, it
is increasingly the case that innovation spaces are blurring in
distinction—offering a range of support or activities that at one time
were found in separate spaces.

Even with overlapping activities, it is still helpful to clarify specific

innovation spaces that seem to be the most confusing to people: start-
up spaces versus co-working spaces. Start-up spaces primarily support
fledgling firms in “start-up mode,” though some house firms expanding
into new areas. These spaces can cater to startups across different
clusters, while others are tailored to cultivate just one type of business.
Importantly, these spaces provide the workstations and equipment
essential to support business growth. A recent trend is for start-up
spaces to also include other types of innovation spaces, such as an
accelerator or an incubator, creating a highly contextualized layering
of support. To many observers, it is this layering that contributes to the
confusion over definitions of innovation spaces.

Co-working spaces are broadly considered office spaces for a low-

risk, month-to-month fee, complete with wrap-around services.

11 Innovation Spaces
 Benjamin’s Desk (Co-working)

Convene Cira Centre (Co-working)

City CoHo (Co-working)

The Hacktory (Maker Space) DreamIt Ventures (Accelerator) & ic@3401 (Incubator)

University City Science Center (Incubator)

Health Technology Innovation Incubator

Penn Medicine Center for Healthcare Innovation (Accelerator)

Pennovation Works (Innovation Center)

This area of Philadelphia is home to a range of innovation spaces. Map credit: Google Earth.

Start-ups can occupy co-working spaces, as can a wide range of more

established firms and organizations. While there is also growing trend
for some co-working spaces to become hyper specific, WeWork, a
co-working space, is aiming to be more diverse, offering space for law
firms, non-profits, service firms, design firms and publishing—again
highlighting that variations often prevail even within one type of
innovation space.14

Innovation centers are also vague, partly because they are so diverse:
public or private (corporate) space with state-of-the-art technologies
aimed to advance ideas and product development. They are built for
specific clusters (such as pharmaceuticals or robotics) and are used
by wildly diverse groups (companies, startups, students). Like start-up
spaces, innovation centers often include other types of innovation
spaces such as incubators or accelerators. The purple column in the
introduction highlights some of these distinctions.

With such variation in spaces, this research set out to unearth the
design distinctions. The research took a surprising turn, as the greater,
more-compelling story became their similarities. The interview
questions aimed to separate what is working particularly well in
expansive research institutes as opposed to smaller start-up spaces.

12 Innovation Spaces
Some innovation spaces are starting to blend uses, such as makerspaces … … and co-working spaces. Fablab in Philadelphia. Photo credit by Dr. Evan Malone.

Instead, greater parallels emerged between the two. As the numbers

of interviews grew, the answers became increasingly rich and robust.
Despite vast differences between these innovation spaces—in whom
they serve, where they are in the innovation value chain, and which
sectors they represent—the most effective spaces have moved away
from style, revisiting core values and re-adapting earlier and imperfect
models of design to strengthen “human-ness.”

A cross-section of global-reaching architects on the cutting-edge

of practice was asked to define what is considered an innovation
space (refer to Attachment A for their names and affiliations).
An amalgamation of their definitions included these important
attributes: spaces that strengthen interactions, communication, and
collaboration; and spaces that are open, transparent and contextually
responsive. In other words, for as much as we have been mesmerized
by iconic designs, flashy technology, and the excitement of bold
colors on walls and furniture, successful spaces respond to what
workers need—as teams or as individuals. Aptly put by one architect:
“Innovative spaces do not dictate or restrict process and creativity, but
instead open new ways of communication and sharing. It is those new
ways that lead to new and exciting ideas.” 15

13 Innovation Spaces
Open communal space at Etsy in Brooklyn, New York. Photo credit: Garrett Rowland.

Purpose and function outweigh aesthetics, according to many

responses. Architects did not describe the “slick or cool” design traits
or characteristics commonly depicted in top architecture or hip
innovation-oriented magazines. Jeffrey Morgan, a principal architect at
NORR Architects, who designed @3401 in Philadelphia, highlighted a
common conception that collaborative spaces are wide-open spaces
with an industrial look that include bikes and dogs. “People start
thinking about design this way and it just doesn’t work. Successful
collaborative spaces thoughtfully consider the range of activities and
provide the right kind of spaces to support unique activities,” he said.16

When architects were asked how innovative spaces have changed

over the last 10 years, they made three broad observations. First,
that technology is more pervasive, connecting people to ideas and
to each other in ways not seen before and (the ever-changing role
of technology is discussed later in this report). Second, architects
emphasized that innovative spaces are increasingly more open,
transparent and inviting.

Particularly important given that it underscores all else, the third

observation is that design no longer evolves only from the client or
the leaders of an organization. Rather, the process now includes

14 Innovation Spaces
Photo Credits: (left) Bond Bryan Architects, (middle) Betamore, (right) Perkins + Will.

those who will use the space. This, in part, moves us closer to the
“democratization” of innovation, where workers are elevated
and empowered to articulate how a space should be molded to
support their needs and ambitions. Those spaces dubbed to be on
the cutting-edge, more often than not, achieved their greatness
by aligning organizational ambition, culture and people to produce
a supportive, enabling design. “The paradigm has shifted to include
all users, including students and guests,” said
The ambition of innovation Barbara J. Speziale, associate director for academic
spaces is to help people affairs, Watt Family Innovation Center, Clemson
flourish. University. 17

15 Innovation Spaces
Section 3: Trends Influencing
the Design of Innovative
Workspaces

As described earlier in this paper, innovation spaces, like broader

geographies of innovation, are the physical manifestations of broader
trends that invisibly steer their development. Depending on their role
in advancing innovation, there is a clear imperative for some types of
innovation spaces (such as research institutes) to belabor the intricate
details on how innovation is changing. For other spaces (such as certain
types of co-working spaces), it is useful to understand those insights in
ever-broader strokes.

For all types of innovation spaces, it is simply fundamental to be

responsive to the changing needs of workers in this highly volatile and
dynamic environment.

For the first time, four generations are sharing the same workplace:
Traditionalists (pre 1945); Baby Boomers (pre 1965); Generation Xers
(pre 1980); and Millennials or Generation Y (post 1980). With a changing
workforce comes a change in workplace preferences, attitudes and
expectations.18 A nine-month study on Millennials in the United States
set out to understand the shifting demographics in the workplace and
how offices might be configured over the next 20 years as a result. The
ideal work environment for Millennials, the research found, is spaces
that are social, flexible, comfortable, open, spacious, collaborative with
technology and environmentally conscious. Of equal interest, it appears
that the behavior and work style of Millennials is already creating a
tectonic shift in the design of many companies and firms—something
that has been embraced by workers across multiple generations.19

16 Innovation Spaces
Many architects interviewed for this research also remarked on how
changes in demographics have influenced office design. Several spoke
of the power of Millennials in driving design changes, though some
offered an important caveat: that older generations view design as a
means to connect to this new generation of workers. On reflection,
these spaces are valued as being “age agnostic,” creating just the right
kind of environment to bring multi-generational groups together. 20

Given the power of workplace preferences, more companies are

realizing that high-quality space design is one way to attract and retain
talent. Dougan Sherwood, co-founder of Cambridge Innovation Center
in St. Louis, offered his perspective:

… We go through great lengths to be thoughtful of our

design. It attracts talent. The tech startup is competing
with Google to hire the same talent. What startups have
is the ability to argue the ‘unknown upside’ of their work
but they can’t have an [expletive] office in the wrong
location.21

The design of innovation spaces are, in different ways, influenced by

at least three other meta-trends, which are described on the following
pages.

17 Innovation Spaces
Trend 1

The increasingly “open” and collaborative

nature of innovation is changing the nature
of design.

We as a society continue to be mesmerized by the visionary “lone wolf”

devising breakthrough ideas. Yet innovation is increasingly a collective
process, where firms rely on a web of actors to achieve both incremen-
tal and disruptive innovation. Case in point is the laboratory, the iconic
landscape where scientific studies are designed to solve some the
world’s most plaguing biological challenges. After examining 10 years
of data, one study found that patents generated by teams or an orga-
nization were “more likely to represent breakthroughs than those from
lone inventors,” citing they were 28 percent more likely to be in the 95th
percentile of cited patents than those working alone.22 Another study
evaluated 19.9 million papers over 50 years, and 2 million patents,
finding that teams dominate individual authors in the development of
innovative ideas, contributing to the wise old adage that two heads are
better than one.23

What happens when three, four, even 25 heads from varying firms
contribute to one innovation life cycle? This illustrates the changing
nature of our economy, which is embracing a new process called
“open innovation.” Coined by Henry Chesbrough, open innovation
is a process where companies and firms generate new ideas and
bring them to market by drawing on both internal and external
sources. One of the latest and more-splashy examples of this is the
new collaboration between Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft
and IBM to publish research under an open license to explore the
complexities of Artificial Intelligence.24 The expanding knowledge
needed to innovate, along with the proliferation of small companies
and research and development laboratories, are contributing to a
new ethos where collaboration is king.25 Today, external sources, such
as R&D laboratories and small firms, can generate the ideas that are
then commercialized internally by a firm, while internal ideas can be
commercialized by external start-up companies and entrepreneurs.26

18 Innovation Spaces
 Ecol Sci
Agri Sci Geosciences
Infectious
Diseases

Envr Sci & Tech

Clinical Med Biomed Sci

Chemistry

Engineering
Cognitive Sci

Matls Sci

Health & Social Issues

Psychology
Physic

Computer Sci
Business & MGT

Social Studies

Econ Polit. & Geography

Pajek

A global architect uses a similar graphic to emphasize a top design objective: to facilitate the convergence of different disciplines. Source: Rafols, Porter and Leydesdorff (2009).

Equally interesting is how collaboration has been manifesting into

something beyond singular projects or engagement in open
innovation. Firms and actors across disparate sectors and disciplines
are converging.27 A team of 12 leading Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) researchers, for instance, argues that “convergence
is a broad rethinking of how all scientific research can be conducted, so
that we capitalize on a range of knowledge bases, from microbiology to
computer science to engineering design.”28

While not a new phenomenon, what is changing is the extent to which

convergence is accelerating and increasingly pervasive. It has extended
into sectors such as advanced manufacturing, energy production and
distribution, and ICT (information and communications technology).
And it is now a philosophy of practice that is helping global companies,
such as Ericsson in Stockholm, remain cutting-edge. “If you look at
transport or electricity, we are now entering all areas and drastically
transforming the way services and products are made,” shared
Ulf Wahlberg, Ericsson’s vice president for industry and research
relations.29 Ericsson and other companies are leveraging relationships
with government and universities to strengthen convergence. This
comports with a recent finding from Michael Crow, president of
Arizona State University and William Dabars in their book, Designing

19 Innovation Spaces
the New American University, suggesting that university-industry-gov-
ernment partnerships are the strongest avenue to driving innovation.30

Collaboration—albeit within singular organizations, through open

innovation processes or, increasingly, through the convergence
of disparate sectors—is more valued as a means to compete. For a
growing share of firms, institutions and organizations, it’s an embedded
philosophy, if not ethos, altering the design of companies and
workplaces across the landscape.

Design implications
It would appear—largely based on the media, the movies, if not from
the above insights—that workplaces with collaborative, informal
spaces are now conventional practice. A more-accurate picture,
however, is that most people work in traditional, hierarchal offices that
emphasize individual work.31

To foster a collaborative work setting requires going back to the

basics: taking a hard look at the value that an organization places
on collaboration. Organizational culture, commonly described as
a company’s set of values, assumptions, attitudes and behaviors, is
the invisible code that makes one company soar and another sink.
The authors of the book, Change Your Space, Change Your Culture,
offered particularly sharp observations that, though companies may
have departments or teams devoted to innovation, they often lack
an innovation culture: “Like rings of a ladder, innovation is tied to
collaboration and collaboration is tied to engagement, and the first
ring of an innovative culture is an engaging workplace.”32 So even if
companies go to great lengths to express a culture of collaboration,
diversity and empowerment, their designed spaces may express
hierarchy, control or even fear.

While not everyone interviewed offered such linearity on culture and its
relationship to design, an important share spoke of how changing social
behaviors and organizational intentions are contributing to how space
is designed. Some spoke of how architecture is largely about following
social patterns: hierarchy reigned in the 1970s; today, it’s about mixing.

20 Innovation Spaces
Innovation is an increasingly collaborative process. Photo credits: (left) Ann Coulter, (right) Andrew Curtis.

Others described the changes as a new willingness on the part of

organizations and companies to talk about the intention of space rather
than just design as a pure aesthetic goal. Others, still, offered how it’s
not about creating a type of innovation space but, as Kelly Ennis,
founding and managing principal of the Verve Partnership, wisely
observed, “It’s about creating an environment that allows people to
thrive.”33

While creating a collaboration-rich environment is a complex, lengthy

and iterative process, architects and managers of spaces described
their strategies for facilitating collaboration through design as follows:

A work setting centered on collaborative

work
Team mixing through design: From research institutes to start-up
spaces, architects are applying creative spatial strategies to stimulate
both mixing (of people and disciplines) and collaboration (between
people and across disciplines) as if it were a seamless act. While it
clearly is not, some architects emphasized how physically mixing
people in space gives new reasons for people to communicate and

21 Innovation Spaces
connect—important precursors to any future collaboration. Tully
Shelly, the architect for Stanford’s Clark Center, emphasized this point,
arguing how successfully designed spaces “accelerate the formation
of partnerships between biologists, clinicians, engineers, chemists,
physicists, and computer scientists ...” 34 As it turns out, different
spaces are applying varying techniques to facilitate both evolution
mixing and collaboration.

• Some managers choreograph mixing through the seating chart:

grouping together researchers from diverse specializations, if not
sectors.

• In some workspaces, researchers are organized into

neighborhoods or pods, required to share equipment and supplies
as a means to facilitate conversation and side chatter.

A university and a company

are sharing a floor but still
unable to collaborate given
physical barriers (the wall).

The same university and

company can begin to
connect and collaborate
by meeting in joint public
spaces, such as kitchens
and lounges.

The potential for

communication and
collaboration is now
maximized as they sit
together within the space.
They have addressed how
to protect IP concerns and
are now focused on joint
work.

22 Innovation Spaces
 • In other spaces, open work-floor settings are creating what has
been described as a “new legibility of landscape,” prompting
people to engage in conversations. From advanced manufacturing
incubator spaces to maker spaces to the open office setting,
managers of spaces offer how tearing down physical barriers are
stimulating mixing and collaboration.

• In other cases still, such as at the Clark Center, areas are regularly
reconfigured to support new group formations from 22 different
departments.35

An underlying system of flexibility: The example of regularly

reconfiguring space at Stanford illustrates another important trend
in design—flexibility. While far from new, innovation spaces are
re-embracing the notion of flexibility to respond to the changing needs
of people and innovation processes in real time. Flexibility requires
thinking through all aspects of space, including the application of
moveable walls, furniture, machinery and other components at a
moment’s notice. Demands for greater flexibility has, for example,
given new currency to the wheel in the 21st century. From incubators to
co-working spaces, to laboratories, wheels are now commonly affixed
to furniture and equipment. And in some spaces, electrical cords are
attached to pulleys to create giant extension cords.36

“The space that you design The Advanced Manufacturing Research Center
on moving day will change (AMRC) in Sheffield, United Kingdom translated
in 12 months so you better be the concept of flexibility into a core directive by
designing for that fact.” focusing on the floor. The AMRC is a flexible research
Peter Marsh, space designed to allow manufacturing research
Vice President and Principal Project Manager, Workplace
Strategies40 and development to be conducted on industry-size
machines rather than require manufacturers to scale-
up later. While traditional manufacturers use fairly lightweight floor slabs
because their equipment remains in position for many years, the AMRC
installed thick floor slabs to allow machines to be changed regularly.
“We wanted a space that was reconfigurable, where equipment could
be moved easily with minimum setup time, creating an entirely flexible,
digitally monitored and controlled environment.” said John Baragwa-
nath, executive director of the AMRC Group.37

23 Innovation Spaces
As flexibility is paramount in this lab space, electrical cords on retractable coils hang from Thick floor slabs make this innovation space highly flexible as heavy machinery can be
the ceiling. Workers can move around and still be “plugged in.” Cofactor Genomics in St. moved without tearing up the floor. The AMRC in Sheffield. Photo credit: AMRC
Louis. Photo credit: Matt McFarland.

While flexibility allows seemingly rigid spaces to bend and move at

a moment’s notice, it also engenders worker empowerment. Some
research- and learning-oriented spaces are dedicating zones for users
to co-opt as their own. North Carolina State University, for example,
has a mix of collaborative private rooms, living-room style spaces,
classic-style reading rooms and furniture that can be used to devise
a personal landscape.38  It “helps build ownership and engagement,”
said Gregory Raschke, an associate director at North Carolina’s Hunt
Library. “Variety is essential if you have the resources to offer it.” 39  

Changing up spaces is one way firms are responding to the imperative

to collaborate. The rate of change within organizations due to global
pressures and the need to revise strategies is yet another reason
driving flexibility in design. Several architects spoke of this highly
curtailed life span of design spaces.

24 Innovation Spaces
Striking the balance: Designing for both collaborative and
individual work

Just about everyone has a surprisingly strong opinion But putting savings aside, both architects and users have
on the layout of workspace—be it an open office design, found tremendous impact through open space design. Let’s
a closed one or something in between. Some expressed take the case of Inmar, a company on the cutting-edge of
deep, if not raw, emotion about how the right design supply chain and systems management in Winston-Sa-
can magically lead to inspirational teamwork while poor lem, North Carolina. Previously dispersed in a campus-like
design can reduce teams into ineffectual groups. The fol- setting, with buildings filled with cubicles, Inmar leader-
lowing sections offer a few broad observations on office ship found “the physical adjacencies were becoming less
design. and less ideal.” When the CEO expressed the desire that
the leaders of each network have a line of sight across
Open office design their entire organization, this translated into creating what
The ‘open office’ is where desks are divided by low parti- one designer described as the “legibility of landscape ... If
tions (generally 30-36 inches high) or where no partitions you can’t see what’s going on, the opportunity to innovate
exist at all to allow clear views across the space. Devised within teams nosedives.”44
by a team of organizational designers near Hamburg,
Germany in 1958, the open design model broke up the Yet the open office design is far from being universally ac-
physical barriers that stymied communication and the or- cepted. Many workers complain of increased noise, loss of
ganic formation of teams—an important ambition again needed privacy, and being painfully sandwiched between
today.41 In fact, a large share of those interviewed argued others.
its merits. “The interactions that occur as a result of the
open floor plan simply would not take place with a clas- Architects and others have responded, analyzing how to
sic, closed design,” argued Jen Meyer, CEO of the Balti- mitigate these impacts through technologically superior,
more-based Betamore, a technology and entrepreneurship noise-absorbing fabrics, private spaces to enable quiet work
campus.42 Comparable with some and a greater emphasis on separat-
of the ambitions of 1958, factors fa- “The fact is that we’re watching ing uses. One government publica-
voring an open office in an innovation more and more pilgrimages tion, Sound Matters. How to Achieve
setting include a reduction of silos where our people pick up their Acoustic Comfort in the Contemporary
and hierarchies, an increased level of Office, is such an example.46
laptops and wander—wasting
interaction and face-to-face com-
precious time—in search for a
munication, increased flexibility, and Hybrid (open/closed) office design
increased spatial efficiencies. An- respite from the roar and a place Given these and other challenges,
other reason is cost savings in overall where they can hunker down and some architects are opting toward
construction costs. By one estimate get something done.” 45 a hybrid approach where both open
developed by Perkins + Will, an inter- Howard Tullman, CEO of 1871
and closed spaces are integrated
national architectural firm, compa- across the floor. Openness and in-
nies will achieve over a 50-percent cost savings (furniture, teraction is not for everyone. There is a need for a balance
power, lighting, materials) using an open office design between interactive (social) and private (reflective) space.
compared with designing private offices. There are also Even in advanced manufacturing, where an important
greater space efficiencies, saving as much as 100-square share of innovation occurs on the open floor, workers at
feet when converting one private office space to a work- one innovation space found they still needed to carve out
station. 43
quiet spaces to advance them further.47

25 Innovation Spaces
The configuration of public and private spaces varies dis- ies between single disciplines are disappearing, designing
tinctively and grandly, punctuating in many ways a work- laboratories for conventional scientific disciplines is be-
space brand. Some spaces are intentional in creating coming obsolete. Research laboratories should now be de-
thick, soundproof walls in key areas to signal the value of signed to accommodate a range of research activities and
privacy and quiet, others liberally apply glass walls to give be able to easily adapt to changing needs,” explained TH
visual cues of openness, though activities and spaces are Chang, the architect that helped design the Crick Institute
segmented. Nearly half of the architects and managers of in London.48 These ambitions—in a space with intensive,
spaces underscored how powerfully interior glass walls focused research—require striking a balance between in-
keep everyone visually connected. herent flexible, collaborative spaces and not making the
environment too disruptive.
The re-imagined laboratory
At the beginning of the 20th century, laboratories were The new design components of laboratories include only a
constructed using very basic design elements—the lab few solid walls, glass walls, open labs, plug-and-play work-
bench, the fume hood—organized simply in rows for the benches and casework on wheels, smart ceilings (which
individual researcher. Even today, the general concept of allow users to easily make changes to lights and other
the laboratory is one of high structure if not rigidity. Like electrical components) and an inviting coffee bar nearby
other workspaces, the laboratory has changed. to encourage conversation. Managers of a start-up space
for life sciences, which includes wet labs, spoke warmly of
Architects and managers spoke of how changing design how open design of laboratories are increasing interaction
preferences impact laboratories, namely the growing and collaboration. In this space, researchers comfortably
desire to encourage teamwork and collaboration through sit next to each other, learning from each other and not in-
shared open laboratories. As the composition of research terfering with any intellectual property issues.49
groups are now constantly in flux, many described the
need for flexibility and the ability to reconfigure space
with minimal disruption and cost. “Because the boundar-

4
3
2

A hybrid office space for the company Manifest in St. Louis. (1) A highly flexible and informal open office space. (2) Some people decide to wear headphones to block out any noise. (3)
There are also closed spaces where workers can go when they need a quiet space to concentrate. (4) Glass walls keep the space open and visible. Photo credit: Triggs Photography.

26 Innovation Spaces
Trend 2

The complexity of innovation is re-valuing

face-to-face communication.

The first trend describes the increasingly collaborative nature of

innovation and how collaboration is manifesting within individual firms,
between firms, and now across disparate sectors and disciplines. What
did not surface in this first trend, however, are the obstacles that come
with it.

Some of the more pressing challenges present themselves when

people attempt to collaborate across sector or discipline. Research
reveals that the pressure points include differences in language and
terminology, potentially conflicting sets of experiences, different
norms and even expectations.50 Given these challenges, other
researchers examined how converging teams are achieving results.
They found that their success relies on a deep “knowledge-meshing
capability,” where R&D project teams employ deliberate techniques
to integrate knowledge from varying disciplines.51 In other words,
collaborating across disciplines demands greater focus on team
building and active problem solving. If not achieved, this alone can lead
groups of brilliant scientists to stumble and ultimately fail.

Another challenge is the ability for individuals within innovation sectors

to effectively communicate tacit information; that is, more experiential,
unstructured and undocumented information. The transfer of tacit
information generally requires “rich interactive communication
mechanisms, such as face-to-face communication,” 52 such as highly
interactive, two-way communication between people to ensure
important nuances are grasped. The sharing of tacit information is both
easier and less costly to achieve within a firm as opposed to across
firms.53 The geographic clustering of firms, where access to reach
other firms is easily achieved, helps reduce this barrier.

Over the last century, a string of economists and social scientists, all
giants in their field,54 have come to conclude that firms, if not larger
idea-based economies, have a tendency to geographically cluster

27 Innovation Spaces
or agglomerate because “ideas move imperfectly over space”—an
observation aptly phrased by Harvard Economics Professor Ed
Glaeser. 55 These imperfections include, in part, the challenges
described above: limitations in sharing complex or tacit information
and effectively bridging the different language and experiences across
sectors and disciplines. While there are many reasons driving firms to
locate in close proximity, the ability to share and exchange knowledge
is one of them. The clustering of innovation-oriented sectors achieves
important benefits given the complexity of information being shared.
For example, research reveals that R&D labs in over one-third of
manufacturing industries are clustering less than a quarter mile from
similar firms that quickly dissipate with distance, further emphasizing
their tendency to agglomerate.56

Mirroring the reshuffling of space at the regional, city and local scale,
the rearrangement of space is even more prolific inside innovation
spaces. One of the drives behind new spatial designs is to increase
face-to-face communication. “Getting people to talk to each other
is the only truly effective way to transfer technical knowledge and
advancing the process of information,”57 observed an organizational
management and architect team that instruct firms on how to
strengthen their innovation through design. New research continues
to affirm the value of face-to-face communication within firms. One
study evaluating thousands of sociometric badges (the electronic
tags applied to plastic badges or clothing hangers to track and store
movement) in workspaces across sectors and in different types of
office layouts found that “face-to-face interactions are by far the most
important activity in an office.” 58

Fine-grained analysis indicates that achieving face-to-face

communication within buildings is riddled with obstacles. Thomas
Allen and Gunter Henn, authors of The Organization and Architecture
of Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology, found that the
probability for people within one organization to communicate
effectively dissipates beyond 10 meters, reaching, what they described
as “an asymptotic level” at 50 meters or 164 feet.59

Delving deeper, Allen and Henn identified, as illustrated in the graph

on the following page, that people have a far greater tendency to

28 Innovation Spaces
 Mode of communication: Low complexity versus high complexity of information

High Complexity of Information Low Complexity of Information

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

Within a floor Within a building Within a floor Within a building

Telephone Face to face

When the information communicated is highly complex, face-to-face communication becomes a priority. Source: The Organization and Architecture of Innovation.

communicate face-to-face when information is of a complex nature.

When information is less complex in nature, as the second graph
illustrates, communication via the telephone occurs at a higher rate. 60

While these findings emphasize acute sensitivities with distance,

those working within social sciences, such as sociology, psychology
or organizational development, help explain why that is the case.
Generally speaking, the need to communicate complex information
requires both verbal and nonverbal communication. Hands and other
body language are needed to enunciate important points and eye
contact is virtually the only way to ensure nuances have been grasped.
This is particularly true in an innovative setting where workers need
to rely on a range of communication tools to convey arguments with
some degree of authority and, in the same setting, to accurately
receive information through all the cues. Quantitative studies on
nonverbal communication demonstrate that nonverbal cues are
fundamental in communication transactions. 61

Technology can visually connect people across great distances, with

advancements in both software and hardware enabling new forms
of face-to-face communication to proliferate across the innovation
landscape. Yet, even with these advancements, interviews suggest that

29 Innovation Spaces
Organizational boundaries the intimacy achieved through in person face-to-face
are the biggest barrier to … communication remains highly valued. This is best
[getting people to talk to each exemplified by how research institutions, for example,
other] … because organization are intentionally mixing disciplines and creating the
boundaries separate cultures spaces to encourage face-to-face communication.
and the ways people think and
do things.”62 Design clearly has a role to play in maximizing face-to-
Thomas Allen and Gunter Henn face communication. Architects, whether referenc-
ing co-working spaces, start-up spaces, or research
institutes, convincingly described the imperative to maximize such
opportunities for more personal interaction. Understanding the merits
of physical proximity has compelled architects to return to the basics,
embracing prior concepts such as the central staircase, where passing
colleagues can stop, talk and exchange information.

Workers on both ends of

the building—particularly
rectangular and “S” shaped
buildings—will find it harder
to connect and collaborate,
requiring a range of
design and programming
interventions to get them
to meet.

30 Innovation Spaces
 Design implications
Using the “bones of the building” to shape how to communicate,
collaborate and inspire

Before even stepping inside, the overall building configuration—its

shape, size and height—will define the extent to which a company can
successfully facilitate face-to-face encounters. Thinking through a
building’s physical constraints and how to mediate, if not eliminate,
those constraints is fundamental to successful innovation spaces. For
instance, a long rectangular or more snake-shape building creates
additional barriers for people to meet, given overall distance.

Within the building, other considerations must be weighed. Single

story or same floor locations are preferred over multiple stories as
research shows that vertical separation has a more severe effect on
separation than horizontal.63 Architects and users spoke favorably
of specific strategies of manipulating the physical to strengthen
connections between people, including the following:

Workers on different floors

will simply not bump into
each other as compared to
workers on the same floor,
requiring a range of design
interventions.

31 Innovation Spaces
 4
2 1

This atrium creates new connections between two floors @4240 in St. Louis. (1) Natural light can reach lower floors; (2&3) Workers and visitors on different floors are much more
connected to each other; (4) Open spaces allocated for quiet work should not be located near an atrium. Photo credit: Romondo Davis.

The Atrium: An often effective but expensive approach to reducing

barriers across floors, where part of the floor section, often the core,
is removed. When designed well, an atrium can be an important
leveler. “The atrium not only provided important daylight, it created
important visual connectivity between spaces,” recounted Lance
Cage, managing principal at HOK.64 Others agree. Jessica Tsymbal,
head of facilities at the Media Lab, for example, described how they
placed greater emphasis on the atrium as opposed to the office spaces
given its strength as a connector.65 The design details associated with
an atrium are crucial for it to be a welcomed connector. In some cases,
uses placed on the atrium’s perimeter led to noise conflicts that hurt
the buildings overall ecosystem. In the design of an atrium, like all
interventions to strengthen the bones of the building, details matter.

Internal staircases: Another design strategy from the past, the

grand internal staircase, has become a smaller, neglected version
of its prior self—physically moved to the edge of floor plates and far
away from any real activity. In its revived constitution, staircases are
located centrally in buildings offering both the depth and decoration
to facilitate encounters and interaction as people traverse floors. “It’s
another way for people to bump into each other,” shared one manager
of an innovative space.66 To create this kind of magnetism, stairs

32 Innovation Spaces