Real estate agents are quick to remind us that when looking for a home, the decision is all about location, location, location. There are obvious reasons for this: there is nothing like an ocean view, a great school district, or a place within a great neighborhood.

Determining the right location for you and your family is a difficult decision. There are so many factors that lead you to the best location. There are also consequences to that decision that may not be anticipated. What if the perfect home and location comes with noisy neighbors and a basement prone to flooding? It isn’t until after your decision has been made that some of these unanticipated consequences of the perfect location come to light.

The same challenge comes true when planning for your organization’s innovation center. Location is one of the most important decisions in the planning process. Determining to build on-site or off-site is critical to a center’s success. What type of community connection are you looking to achieve? A center’s location ties directly to branding and story, yet the location is always decided upon prior to getting an architect involved.

Keeping your innovation center “in-house” (within your current facility) or “out of house” (a satellite location) has a serious impact of the center’s success. Below are some challenges and opportunities to consider:

IN-HOUSE INNOVATION CENTER

Pros:

• The location is convenient. Being downstairs or down the hall makes creating an innovation center appear easier.
• The real estate cost is low. You already own the square footage; you only need to take advantage of it. A new attitude and some small renovations spurs the creation of an innovation center.
• Show off space: a shiny, new innovation center in house creates a show off space for all visitors to your organization.  With the new buzz of the company’s new venture all kinds of people (media, competitors, clients, potential employees, etc.) will want to come check out what you are up to.  There is no better way to show how forward thinking your organization is than with a brand new space that promotes new ideas.
• Statement of Commitment: there is no better way to show your employees, clients, and competitors your level of commitment toward innovation than to spend hard earned capital towards a new space that challenges the status quo.

Cons:

• Isolated by security: one of the first mistakes that many organizations make is to put their new and shiny toy behind locked glass walls.  Security of new innovative ideas becomes paramount and suddenly is only accessible to a few.  Not everyone in the organization is allowed to be innovative – only those with security access.
• Separation from tradition: being an on-site innovation center is easy to create but faces challenges of identity. Being downstairs or down the hall makes it difficult to separate from the mothership and break away from the view point that lead to the need for innovation in the first place.
• “Cool kids only”: a flexible, hip space with the latest technology that is locked away can create a “cool kid mentality.” A space that is designed to bring people together for collaboration suddenly makes only a certain few feel comfortable.  Certain teams that are assigned to the space become territorial.
• Animosity amongst the ranks: a new show piece filled with the cool kids may create animosity among different groups in your organization. Innovation spaces tend to focus on technology development which segregates those not involved. Your sales team, accounting group, or older staff may sense a lack of support. All the buzz and capital is focused towards a single group and space can send the wrong message to others not directly involved.

OFF-SITE INNOVATION CENTER

Pros: 

• Creates a destination.
• Organized independence: with an off-site location, the independence from the home office allows freedom and the chance to change culture. With this independence, planning must be in place on the reporting structure to keep this new venture organized and focused on its mission.
• Sense of importance: an off-site location provides the opportunity for groups to be invited and explore challenges outside of their daily routine. Being invited to participate reinforces an employee’s sense of importance to the organization.
• Work is valued: if your innovation space is expected to push the organization forward, choosing certain work to explore shows that work, and the employee doing that work, respect and value. All employees hope their work is valued by their organization and nothing says that more than being invited to share it at the new innovation center, the space that is relied upon for some of the most important work being created.
• Extending the brand: an off-site location extends your organizations brand to the public in a new way. An alternative interface is an opportunity to become more community based and attract diverse talent from what your original culture provides.

Cons: 

• Less monitoring: We all know that saying, “when the cat is away, the mice will play.” In other words, who will hold employees accountable for the work? Communication with the home office must be seamless.
• Real estate costs: an off-site location is an additional cost from the real estate side. Now you are a tenant in someone else’s building with less control on what happens around you. There are additional risks with additional leases and vendors to handle all that comes with an off-site location.
• Advanced integration planning: How do you create independence yet maintain culture and connectivity? Planning out the first six months of a transition is critical. How will folks travel back and forth? Are there liaisons? Will off-site employees attend all office events at the home office? There are all kinds of logistics that must be supported and planned. Don’t wait until it happens to figure it out.
• Transition period: the first six months are critical because people are figuring how this new space works and how to work within it. Give them time and plan for limited results in the first six months. Things go wrong; they always do. An innovation center, if built for the right reasons, is a long-term investment so have some patience and provide support.

These pros and cons should be considered, but ultimately, the decision you make about the location of your center should be the one that is the most effective for your organization. Put some weight on this conversation and use this list as a guide. An innovation center is a place for forward thinking, so the choice to make one is always a good one.

Collaboration is a buzzword that is widely overused when we discuss innovation. Teachers want their students to be more collaborative, employers pay bonuses based upon collaborative initiatives, and corporate leaders believe that collaboration can spur effective work process. But, hasn’t there always been some form of collaborative process? As our society has matured, have we not had collaboration to support basic initiatives and propel innovation? Of course we have had collaboration in the past, or great ideas would not have been propagated. I might argue that collaboration has always been at the core of organizational success. Look to Ford Motor Company, where team processes helped to drive production capacity on the initial assembly line. These workers were clearly collaborating to assemble vehicles. However, the collaborative process is much different than the type of collaboration that we reward today.

Twenty-first century collaboration is rooted in the belief that we are better off in the long run when we put our great minds together to solve big, audacious problems. In design, architects are working to engage a diverse array of partners to consider the future of our built environment. We know that we are best when we hold a broader conversation and recognize that our buildings will be better when these larger considerations are folded into the program. Architects design benefits from collaboration, and knowing this, we seek to demonstrate the benefits of collaboration when we design environments to spur innovation.

Through our research and practice, our team has discovered that we need to support collaboration to drive innovation. Without collaborative process, the speed at which new ideas are tested is slower and what might have been an innovative concept becomes yesterday’s news. In the design of our innovation centers, we have been able to experiment with new collaboration concepts. Interestingly, we have found that the key to collaboration is to provide a variety of spatial options. Yes, you need to provide open office environments which increase visual access to process, but interestingly, private, individual space is vital to collaboration. When we are solving challenges, we need areas to come together, and then places where we can focus. These differing environments help to support an iterative process, where concepts are analyzed and then tested and fit. Collectively, we get closer to the answers we seek, and the speed is fueled by the various environments, and especially the private enclaves which foster focused, individual work.

Historically, facility managers have resisted the multiplicity of space types, in large part due to the fear that space needs may increase real estate costs. Naturally, corporations have little interest in shifting their investments towards greater rental rates, so architects and designers have had to do more within the same footprint. Our recent work innovation centers have shifted space historically dedicated to individuals towards spaces supporting collaboration. If we would have assigned 64 assignable square feet to each worker yesterday, today we limit that allocation to 36. This allows 28 assignable square feet to be added to conference rooms, casual collaborative areas, amenity space, private enclaves, and the broader public realm. Recent projects have featured phone booths, small private meeting areas, and work areas with adjacent group-work tables. Mobile users are encouraged to use each space as they see fit to collaborate, retreat to privacy, and then reconvene. Our client attest that this strategy is driving results. Quality is on the rise, and innovative results are being modelled throughout their organizations.

So, what will be next? What will drive innovation in the future and how can collaboration be encouraged? Certainly, technology will play a role in shaping our future, and advances will increase the need for new design solutions. But, we also recognize that human interaction is key and will always fuel collaborative process.

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” – Albert Einstein

Technological advances generally create an emotional response from people. Some view technology as a source of evil which separates us from one another, while others view it as a method to bring people together and to help solve some of our greatest challenges. Regardless of what you believe, there is no denying that technology is not going away. It is here to stay and demands that we address its implications.

As a young boomer, I feel like I have been able to watch the progress of technology and its impact on our culture. Largely, technology has impacted the ways in which we build community, either within organizations or across vast geographies. Technology tools, beginning with the invention of the telephone, have transformed the concept of connecting and accelerated the pace of society. Information is quickly disseminated by voice or video, and we are now able to connect across distances in real time. We gain access to information, and we can see and hear colleagues in ways considered futuristic just twenty years ago.

But, technology alone does not build understanding or enrich our knowledge. We need settings to support this exchange and drive the impact of technological tools to be effective. Recently, our designers have been experimenting with embedded and fully integrated technologies, mobile equipment solutions, and technology as the message. We have found that no one solution works best. The most successful solutions typically harness a hybrid approach utilizing a wide variety of technological strategies.

FULLY EMBEDDED, DEDICATED TECHNOLOGIES

When a space demands a high level of reliability to support focused activities, we will specify embedded, hard-wired systems with fiber support and user-friendly interfaces. This scenario is the most robust and often comes with a hefty price tag, but also offers the highest level of impact. The advantages of a highly sophisticated, integrated technology program are its reliability, dependability, and simplicity. Users don’t have to worry about the system, since it is set up for success. The interface is consistent and dependable. On the other hand, these systems often become embedded dinosaurs as technology advances. Due to the significant financial outlay to embed the “latest” technology, organizations often resist updates in favor of leveraging their investment.

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY TOOLS

Once again, the old standby audio/visual cart is popular. Consumers who recognize the speed with which technology advances often prioritize mobility to minimize their initial financial outlay. Savings are invested in emerging technologies as they daylight, keeping organizations on the cutting edge of technology tools. In these scenarios, we find that the space needs to be designed to accommodate technology furniture. Lighting controls are often important, since adjustments may need to be made to address the changing needs of the mobile technology tools as they come and go from spaces. Wireless connectivity is vital, and access to power and network connections are also strong considerations. These criteria may increase visual clutter in the designed environment, and be at odds with the aesthetic sensibilities of the consumer. Most often, we specify mobile technology tools in spaces where technology is supplemental to collaborative settings and serves a supporting role.

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY AS THE MESSAGE

Our environment is filled with visual messages. Billboards rotate digital displays which draw our attention, storefronts pulse and glow to peek our interest, and we are bombarded with messaging on our personal devices. It is a non-stop barrage and we begin to expect these messages and miss them when we encounter spaces without visual support. Classrooms, auditoriums, lobbies, stores, sanctuaries, and hospitals are almost always augmented with screens. But, until recently, these screens have been active background noise, offering a one-way distribution of third-party information and broadcast media.

Tomorrow’s environment expands visual display beyond the box and offers opportunities for scalar interaction. Visual display will come and go to augment our interactions in a fully integrated yet virtual format, and it will seem odd that we once were bound to the confines of a fixed screen for interactive support. We see it coming, and have begun to consider the design of spaces to support these eventualities. We know the power of these technology tools, and recognize that they need to co-exist with the balance of the designed environment. If we deny the possibility, we are assured that spaces will be overpowered by the formidable power of advanced technologies.

We are called to lead the integration of these future technologies and the time is now to step forward and consider the possibilities.