Effectiveness is not the same as efficiency

A flexible lab design is the key to an effective laboratory environment

In laboratory design, it is widely recognised that while science itself is evolving rapidly and unpredictably, the working environments in which it is undertaken have not always kept pace. Contrast this with other workplaces such as offices. Over the last 20 years they have changed considerably in response to the needs of the market, new technologies and new ways of working.

The ELE programme is a rare piece of design and social research investigating the fundamental issue of effectiveness (as distinct from efficiency) in research laboratory environments. It is a project prompted by the urgent need to bring fresh thinking to the question of whether, and how, the drug discovery process could be more effective.

To examine this question, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and international design and project management company, AMEC, commissioned the ELE (Effective Laboratory Environments) research programme, which was carried out by AMEC and Adept Management, a consultancy specialising in the management of complex processes. It was based on the understanding that effectiveness is not the same as efficiency and that a rigorous approach would be necessary using quantitative data to support or refute qualitative data.

Undertaken in 2002 and 2003, the programme comprised four elements: i) a detailed and wide-ranging literature review; ii) a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of the scientific community; iii) real-time data capture using a specially developed pro-forma which provided information on movement profiles, space usage, population density and the location and nature of user interactions; and iv) a comparative analysis of the findings of the three previous stages to assess if there was some fundamental understanding that was missing and if so, any directions in which the pharmaceutical business might go to improve effectiveness.

What proved particularly interesting was a comparison between the way in which the scientists described how they worked and the knowledge gained from the literature on effective working. This revealed key insights into the relationship between space and productivity and, critically, the key role played by interaction in any effective working culture.

Equally interesting was the conclusion that effectiveness can only be measured in major outcomes, such as drugs to market, patients cured and so on. Day-to-day effectiveness cannot be measured; it is a value-judgement and is often confused with efficiency, but doing more with less is of little value if it does not produce a marketable product. However, while day-to-day effectiveness cannot be measured, certain patterns of work, behaviour and attitude have been identified as being likely to improve the chances of success and these can be profiled and mapped.

Through analysis of the data from the literature, interviews and observation days, a number of core themes emerged quite clearly.

Innovation
The pharmaceutical business is in the business of innovation. It is like many knowledge-based industries, which bring together different experts to work in multi-disciplinary teams. However, its underlying culture is more akin to that of most big production or manufacturing industries which organise themselves into a process-based structure that relies on linear processes, mass production and automation. A culture like this reduces individual initiative in the interests of consistency and seeks to increase the odds of success by increased throughput. The combination of science’s logical basis and the need for validated data results in a culture driven by explicit information.

In contrast, knowledge-based industries utilise tacit knowledge to a much greater degree and seek to increase effectiveness by connecting the knowledge holders through interaction and communication. They look for economies of scope rather than economies of scale.

Big pharma’s strategy is to focus on disease areas, create multi-disciplinary groups, increase data throughput and employ armies of scientists using new and expensive techniques. Within the laboratories themselves, most innovation is aimed primarily at improving efficiency. Whilst this is understandable in such large businesses which need to manage huge capital outlays and risk, the literature clearly indicates that innovation is linked to high interaction and interaction increases in more fluid workplaces.

Interaction
Also evident in the literature was the observation that it is the weak interactions that can prove most important in facilitating innovation. This owes much to the fact that people who you know least well are most likely to possess knowledge that you do not. The ability to make that link with people who you do not know well depends on an open culture which enables easy, natural, interpersonal engagement and a workplace which facilitates this.

It is already well understood that high interaction is linked to density of occupation. However, there is a corresponding downside; when the buzz of an open plan environment becomes disruptive and hinders effectiveness. It is also worth noting that proximity is not the same as accessibility. A manager prominently positioned by the front door of a department can be seen as a policeman rather than an open door. This tells us that it is the culture of a workplace that best facilitates interaction. However, spatial arrangements such as open plan or cellular offices and their disposition can either assist or hinder the development of an open culture.

Whilst most interviewees supported this view, it was commonly observed that many scientists avoided interaction and were territorial. This territoriality was usually explained as being a function of ensuring quality of output by control of resources, but where resources were generous and available this same trait was still clearly observed. Subsequent studies comparing open plan laboratories with more traditional arrangements clearly demonstrated higher interaction levels in the open plan environment.

Separation by floor also reduces interaction. This could lead to a requirement for ever larger floor-plates or even single storey laboratories. However, a more likely scenario may be for laboratories to have improved visual connection between floors by the use of streets, atria or other variable volume arrangements.

Perhaps the most surprising finding was that scientists generally preferred reduced interaction in their write-up spaces and would welcome more interaction in the laboratories. This potentially could turn current practice on its head by developing open plan, mixed-use laboratories incorporating interaction spaces and more enclosed workstations to facilitate the concentrated type of work that occurs there.

Change and flexibility
The ability for laboratories to accommodate change was often cited as a key issue. Managers needed to deal with expansion, and scientists in the laboratories needed space for new equipment. However, the laboratories were generally constrained by having been designed for specific group numbers with permanently fixed benches and fume cupboards. Few scientists stated they wanted flexibility so that they could work in a different manner. However, all were hindered by the fixity of the space and by the limitations of the services engineering systems which were often as bespoke as the space itself.

One solution to this problem was a shift from fixed furniture to moveable furniture, including fume cupboards, which was enabled by an overhead servicing system with detachable umbilical connections to the LEV’s and equipment. This strategy mimics the provision of flexible office space that has been the norm for many years in the commercial market, it could potentially move the whole laboratory procurement process from bespoke buildings to generic archetypes capable of meeting the needs of users who would fit-out their space using moveable, modular furniture and fittings.

Conclusions
What has emerged from the ELE Programme is an understanding of why laboratory design has stood still for so long and the key to enabling change lies in cultural change.

Historically, the key to finding increased productivity has been to address the processes, but what ELE has shown is that there typically two organisational archetypes that exist within big-pharma:

i) A production-centred environment with an emphasis on process, management and automation (economies of scale). Although this has its origins in the industrial revolution and as such, still measures effectiveness using efficiency metrics, it is now looking to be smarter and nimbler by new means of organising and deploying resources.

ii) A knowledge-centred environment which places an emphasis on interaction, communication and fluid team working to deliver innovation. The effectiveness within this type of business relies on indirect influences such as the scale of social networks.

The ELE project recognises that both approaches are valid but sees the discovery stage as lending itself more towards an innovative business than a production business. However, as ideas need validation perhaps, or (as trends suggest) should automation become increasingly prevalent in the early stages of the drug discovery process, the environment may become more production-like. Notwithstanding the two approaches, the key insight provided by the ELE Research Programme is that the heart of any organisation is its culture and, in the case of the research environment, has just four enablers: Organisation, Finance, Space and Technology.

For a culture to be effective all four must be aligned to focus the business on creating the culture it needs. What this means is that it is not enough to get the space and engineering right if the organisation or finance have different agendas: the equilibrium position must be reached for true effectiveness to be delivered.

AMEC and Adept Management have undertaken six cultural surveys of parts of AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline that are contemplating change. This, we believe, is a missing element in the brief-making phase of a project which can identify the need for change and the directions in which this may go.

However, what has become all too apparent is that it would be a mistake to then design a bespoke facility around the new directions because in time, this too will need to change. In consequence AMEC is beginning to develop flexible laboratory prototypes which will ensure that research work is not constrained by either its buildings or its culture, but is instead enhanced by both.

By Mike Powell, Head of Concept Design, AMEC and John Steele, Director Specialist Consultancy, Adept Management