Analyzing design and planning trends in medical research laboratories and workplace environments: A benchmarking study


  • Zahra Zamani BSA LifeStructures

    Zahra is the director of research at BSA LifeStructures and leads various projects such as simulation modeling, Post-Occupancy Evaluations (POE), and benchmarking reports. She is passionate about studying the impact of design and planning decisions on human experience, satisfaction, health, and well-being. Zahra's expertise in data management, analysis, integration, environmental psychology, public engagement, team collaboration, problem-solving, creativity, and publication makes her a valuable team member. She is interested in exploring human dimensions and social needs in connection with design. Zahra has published and presented her research in multiple journals and international conferences. Her contributions to the industry include market research, customer needs analysis, and providing innovative solutions to complex problems.



Space syntax, benchmarking, lab modules, laboratory design, workplace


Architects and planners typically rely on past experiences and exclusive methods to determine the allocation of space and planning costs. However, the actual space allocations and physical attributes of laboratory and workplace environments require further exploration, highlighting the need for more research. To address this knowledge gap, this study compared three medical research facilities' architectural, casework, and module properties to identify essential space allocations, physical attributes, and future research directions. The study utilized REVIT models to collect floor plans of three medical research facilities within the last twelve years, with variables of interest including room classification size, Building Gross Footage (BGSF), Departmental Gross Footage (DGSF), laboratory module size, and module quantity per laboratory. Space Syntax analysis was used to compare connectivity measures across the three buildings. The findings demonstrated a trend towards laboratory spaces that maximize collaboration, flexibility, and efficiency while balancing open and private workspaces. Laboratory support spaces per laboratory room increased, potentially due to a demand for greater flexibility and spatial needs. Lab workstations were relocated outside laboratory areas to enhance safety and reduce costs. The analysis also revealed a shift towards smaller lab modules with larger widths to reduce redundancy, support safer distances, reduce travel distances, and increase the number of modules per lab. Furthermore, contemporary lab workspaces had higher connectivity values, indicating a trend towards more connected, collaborative spaces that encourage meetings and spontaneous interactions. This study highlights the importance of continuously evaluating and optimizing laboratory space allocation and design to promote productivity, efficiency, and collaboration in medical research facilities. Future research should conduct longitudinal studies using empirical data to address the limitations of current research.


Metrics Loading ...


  • Ancona, D.G. (1990). Outward bound: strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365.
  • Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665.
  • Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. (2015). A longitudinal study of workspace design for knowledge exploration and exploitation in the research and development process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 55-71.
  • Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J. & Clegg, C. W. (2011 a). The physical environment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues. In: Hodgkinson, G. P. Ford, J. K, eds. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 193 – 235.
  • Elsbach, K. D. & Bechky, B. A. (2007). It's more than a desk: Working smarter through leveraged office design. California Management Review, 49(2), 80-101.
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, H. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
  • Heinzen, M., Cacciatori, E., Zoller, F. A., & Boutellier, R. (2018). Who talks to whom about what? How interdisciplinary communication and knowledge of expertise distribution improve in integrated RandD labs. Ergonomics, 61(8), 1139-1153.
  • Hillier, B. & Penn, A. (1991). Visible Colleges: Structure and Randomness in the Place of Discovery. Science in Context, 4(1), 23 – 49.
  • Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Kahn, B. K., Strong, D. M., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 184–192.
  • Kelly, D., & Pingel, M. J. (2022). Space use and the physical attributes of acute care units: A quantitative study. HERD: Health Environments Research and Design Journal, 15(1), 222–238.
  • Kim, J., & De Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18-26.
  • Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., ... & Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American psychologist, 76(1), 63.
  • Lee, Y. S. (2010). Office layout affecting privacy, interaction, and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings. Building and Environment, 45(7), 1594–1600.
  • Mahmoud, A. S., Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Hassanain, M. A., & Ahmed, W. (2018). Key performance indicators for the evaluation of academic and research laboratory facilities. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 37(2), pp. 208-230.
  • Penn, A., Desyllas, J., & Vaughan, L. (1999). The space of innovation: interaction and communication in the work environment. Environment and planning B: Planning and design, 26(2), 193-218.
  • Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717-725.
  • Skolozdra, R. (2012). How Smart Lab Design and Layout Ensure Optimal Procedures, Workflow, Cooperation, and Productivity. Lab Manager. Access April 2022 from: .
  • Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., & Kamp, D. (1986). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 404-417.
  • Toker, U., & Gray, D. O. (2008). Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in US university research centers. Research Policy, 37(2), 309–329.
  • Watch, D., 2001. Building Type Basics for Research Laboratories. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  • Wajcman, J. & Rose, E. (2011). Constant connectivity: Rethinking interruptions at work. Organization Studies, 32(7), 941-961.
  • Wohlers, C., & Hertel, G. (2016). Choosing where to work at work–towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60(4), 467-486.
  • Zamani, Z., & Gum, D. (2019). Activity-based flexible office: Exploring the fit between physical environment qualities and user needs impacting satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and productivity. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 21(3), 234-253.




How to Cite

Zamani, Z. (2023). Analyzing design and planning trends in medical research laboratories and workplace environments: A benchmarking study. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 4(1), 105–121.



Research Articles