innovation center case study

Building innovation ecosystems: Accelerating tech hub growth

Across the United States, from urban to rural areas, public- and private-sector leaders are coming together to build innovation hubs. Relative upstarts such as the Indianapolis 16 Tech Innovation District and Tulsa Innovation Labs are positioning themselves as new centers of innovation, drawing inspiration from established ones such as Silicon Valley and Boston. Currently, the opportunity to launch new hubs is especially ripe given there is nearly $2 trillion in new federal funding  designed to boost US innovation, competitiveness, and national security over the next decade.

Ecosystems, hubs, and districts: A short primer

When discussing how to build communities for innovation, it is useful to establish what we mean by these terms.

Innovation districts, the oldest of the three, were highlighted as a growing trend for much of the 2000s. The Brookings Institution, in 2014, defined them as “geographic areas where leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators and accelerators. They are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and technically wired [with] mixed-use housing, office, and retail.” 1 Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner, “The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of innovation in America,” Brookings. The Global Institute on Innovation Districts, which leads the analysis of innovation districts globally, was founded in 2018. It defines them as “new geographies of innovation emerging primarily in cities and urbanizing areas” and estimates that there are more than 100 of them around the world. 2 “The ambition,” Global Institute on Innovation Districts, 2022.

Innovation hubs are somewhere between districts and ecosystems. Nature magazine, in its “Global Innovation Hubs Index” (2020), opened with this definition: “cities or metropolitan areas that can lead the flow of global innovation elements and influence the efficiency of resource allocation, drawing on their unique advantages in science and technology innovation.” 3 “Global innovation hubs index,” Nature , 2020.

Innovation ecosystems are the newest of the three tech hub archetypes. The MIT Sloan Management Review defined innovation ecosystems in 2022 as “places that engage five stakeholder types—research institutions, entrepreneurs, corporations, investors, and governments—linked by a strong social fabric of mutual interest, complementary needs and resources, and trust.” 4 Philip Budden and Fiona Murray, “Strategically engaging with innovation ecosystems,” MIT Sloan Management Review , July 20, 2022.

Innovation hubs are geographic areas that bring together R&D institutions (such as tech-enabled corporations, universities, and medical facilities), as well as venture capital, incubators, and start-ups. They fall into three categories: smaller districts, midsize tech hubs, and larger cross-regional ecosystems, with the latter being by far the most complex but potentially impactful (see sidebar “Ecosystems, hubs, and districts: A short primer”).

Think tanks and businesses have published papers defining the value proposition of innovation hubs and offering ways for companies to participate in the hubs that already exist. While these papers generally address the what and the why , this article builds on those perspectives to explore how public- and private-sector leaders could launch and scale an innovation ecosystem anchored in existing regional assets or accelerate efforts that are already underway.

Below, we outline the potential benefits of innovation hubs and offer six essential steps that leaders can consider for building and nurturing an ecosystem that promotes vibrancy, attracts top talent, and creates new and significant opportunities for economic and social development. The playbook we’ve created is based on our experience designing and developing best-in-class ecosystems and on our data analysis of more than 100 innovation districts and tech hubs. It addresses key elements of building an innovation hub including prioritizing sectors, attracting talent and investment capital, mapping strengths and opportunities, and identifying ways to support the effort.

Creating an innovation ecosystem is a significant undertaking, and success often pivots on how well those who lead it build relationships with new and established companies and institutions, fill gaps in the business landscape through investment, and address the specific needs of workers and residents.

Why innovation hubs matter

Spanning high-value, research-oriented sectors from aerospace to life sciences to software, innovation hubs generate attention and investment for a reason. Annual productivity growth for US innovation industries has averaged 2.7 percent since 1980—nearly double the rate of all other sectors. These industries also claim 60 percent of US exports, boast 80 percent of US engineers and patents, and attract workers with above-average earnings—generating even more jobs for the communities where they are located. 1 David M. Hart, Siddharth Kulkarni, and Mark Muro, “America’s advanced industries: New trends,” Brookings, August 4, 2016. Innovation hubs have higher commercial-rent growth rates than adjacent business districts: 5.3 percent from 2010 to 2020, compared with 4.8 percent, respectively. 2 McKinsey analysis. They outperform other regions and business districts economically, financially, and socially. In the most successful examples, the unifying, mission-driven spaces they create open new avenues for healthier, more diverse, and more connected communities.

Innovation hubs open new avenues for healthier, more diverse, and more connected communities.

There are compelling reasons to focus on innovation hubs now. In 2021 and 2022, the federal government passed a suite of legislation that aims to bolster the resilience of the US supply chain, promote the development of high-tech innovation clusters, and extend services and infrastructure to rural communities. Leaders can help finance and jump-start the development of an innovation ecosystem by taking advantage of competitive grants to regional innovation ecosystems and of legislation such as the CHIPS & Science Act , which creates incentives for domestic semiconductor manufacturing and authorizes funding for programs such as the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines.

Six essentials: The innovation ecosystem playbook

Categorizing innovation districts, tech hubs, and ecosystems.

Innovation districts occupy a specific neighborhood or business districts within urban areas. Hubs are often similar in size but sometimes extend to multiple neighborhoods or the larger part of a city. Ecosystems are far more flexible but tend to be larger, enveloping whole cities or even crossing county and state lines. Given their size and conducive environment, ecosystems often give rise to (and ultimately house) hubs or districts with more defined mandates.

There’s similar split in collaboration for scaling. To grow, districts and hubs must generally garner excitement and buy-in from employees, faculty, or neighborhood residents. Ecosystems usually also need governments to play a strong role—for example, through tax incentives or capital investment. Often, they require cross-institutional collaboration to support new technologies across the innovation funnel and to share facilities that catalyze innovation.

The leadership structure also differs. A single actor (for example, a real-estate developer, a university, or a large philanthropic foundation built for purpose) can often lead districts and hubs successfully because they tend to focus on just one or two industries or functions. An ecosystem’s complexity calls for more diverse stakeholders (developers, education institutions, private companies, and governments) that take the reins together to generate ideas, solve problems, and enable something special.

Innovation hubs typically fall into one of three categories—districts, tech hubs, and ecosystems—that vary according to scale, levels of collaboration, and reach. Ecosystems are the newest of these, and definitions are evolving (see sidebar “Categorizing innovation districts, tech hubs, and ecosystems”). Broadly speaking, in addition to prioritizing technology-centered R&D, investment, and growth, these ecosystems usually feature assets such as robust mobility options (including public transit), as well as a strong technological infrastructure and accessible spaces to play, connect, and live. All this promotes inclusive and equitable economic growth, innovation, and productivity (see sidebar “Research Triangle Park”).

Research Triangle Park

The ecosystem that quickly became the largest research park in the United States, Research Triangle Park (RTP), in North Carolina, started to develop in the 20th century. RTP harnessed its three academic anchor institutions—Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University—to build a thriving innovation ecosystem in collaboration with local and state governments, business interests, and venture capital.

Although RTP began with a focus on biotechnology, life sciences, and microelectronics, it now has 300 companies across all sectors and more than 50,000 employees, who have collectively contributed to more than 3,000 patents. RTP also boasts apartment buildings that prioritize holistic living, efficient transit options, and even entire self-contained sports leagues. The ecosystem is supported by close collaboration among private-, social-, and public-sector leaders. RTP companies and universities collectively spend $6 billion a year on research expenditures within the ecosystem. North Carolina’s state government and the counties in the ecosystem support companies with competitive tax rates and incentive programs.

Public- and private-sector leaders could consider following a six-step approach to create and expand a thriving innovation ecosystem (Exhibit 1). A community-building program in a district will look quite different from one at an ecosystem, for example—but the playbook’s essentials remain the same across the spectrum of innovation hubs.

1. Set the aspiration and a bold vision

Innovation ecosystems that struggle to succeed often underdeliver on the first playbook element: a strong identity rooted in a clear aspiration and forward-looking goals that build broad stakeholder excitement and buy-in. Defining a unique, differentiated identity and brand crystallizes an ecosystem’s intangibles, such as livability or regulatory stability. It establishes a value proposition for people and businesses alike. It also sets the stage for defining short- and long-term success metrics, helping to maintain the focus on why the ecosystem exists. It is the vision—backed by core competencies, specific strengths, and culturally consistent themes—that distinguishes one ecosystem from the others.

Aspirations can vary. Cortex, in St. Louis, aspires to be an “inclusive economic engine” for the region, linking success to outcomes beyond just financial returns, 3 “Accelerating inclusive economic growth in St. Louis,” Cortex Innovation Community, July 13, 2022. while Virginia’s Commonwealth Cyber Initiative is anchored in growing a specific sector. But when leaders establish an aspirational identity that resonates with employees and organizations, people become excited about pioneering new models for working, collaborating, and living.

Boston is a prime example of an ecosystem based on an ambitious goal: to define its “place, people, and purpose as the capital of scientific revolution.” 4 “The capital of scientific revolution,” Massachusetts Life Sciences Center. Taking advantage of its wealth of universities (including Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), as well as leading institutions such as Mass General and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the city government set out to work closely with entrepreneurs, developers, and leaders across sectors to define its ambitions. In turn, the city as an ecosystem has been able to support smaller, more defined innovation districts within its sphere, including Seaport, South Station, Kendall Square, and Back Bay/South End (Exhibit 2).

2. Focus on specific sectors, partners, and anchor tenants

We’ve found that innovation ecosystems are more likely to thrive when local leaders and developers play to a region’s existing skill base and institutional strengths. Ecosystems can focus on specific sectors and subsectors—for example, electric vehicles, advanced air mobility, or medical devices. Or they can focus on functions, such as artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things (IoT), across multiple sectors. Or they can live at the intersection of sectors and functions, as life science R&D and agricultural technology do.

Innovation ecosystems are more likely to thrive when local leaders and developers play to a region’s existing skill base and institutional strengths.

Two questions can help leaders identify a region’s value proposition and ideal anchor institutions: What unique areas of competitive advantage can the region pursue? And which universities, research institutions, incubators and investors, and businesses could be anchor institutions?

Some regions may be primed for a “right to win” approach, which builds off existing sector-based assets to anchor an ecosystem in an area of advantage. These existing assets could include areas of specialization, talent pipelines fed by higher-education and research institutions, emerging venture capital (VC) capabilities, or infrastructure (such as proximity to farmland, specific transit options, or urban density).

Alternatively, leaders could pursue a “want to win” approach, which creates an area of advantage by leveraging current conditions and trends to drive investment. These conditions and trends can be identified by analyzing projected growth for a particular sector, function, or intersection; major disrupters; and other factors that could influence growth trajectories (such as technology trends , supply chain disruptions, or federal funding). It can be tempting to zero in on hot industries, regardless of an area’s assets and strengths, but leaders could benefit from thinking like creators of coherent economic clusters—interconnected and intentional groups of employees, tenants, firms, and institutions. 5 Smaller-scale initiatives, such as neighborhood innovation districts, often require greater refinement—for example, an on-campus research center rather than a broader life sciences regional ecosystem.

The approach used to identify a unique value proposition can also be applied to anchor institutions. One of them may already exist in the region. But such an institution could also be attracted to it—for example, a large company that’s looking to tap into local start-ups for new capabilities and paid pilots, or a university that wants to expand its teaching and research facilities. The range of options may seem overwhelming, but large-scale developers can home in on an ideal candidate by considering factors such as revenues, growth, the total number of employees, and private versus nonprofit status. The process can be both iterative and opportunistic—testing multiple value propositions in the market to see where interest sparks and then refining the results.

Such intentionality in cluster and subsector design is evident in some of the largest innovation ecosystems currently being developed. National Landing, for example, is a 17-million-square-foot development spanning multiple Arlington County neighborhoods (including Pentagon City, Crystal City, and Potomac Yard) just outside Washington, DC. The ecosystem has secured the location for Amazon’s HQ2 campus. National Landing clearly focuses on technology and the region’s related expertise—including IoT, cybersecurity, and cloud computing. By building on two newly attracted anchor tenants (Amazon and Virginia Tech), National Landing has expanded its technology-focused footprint considerably. It has created enough space to accommodate 25,000 new employees and the follow-on economic growth. 6 “National Landing bid releases study, new data defining the region as one of the nation’s leading innovation districts,” National Landing, April 11, 2022.

3. Catalyze a critical mass of VC capital and start-ups through a strong innovation backbone

Start-ups and early-stage companies often develop cutting-edge ideas with the potential for real financial and economic returns. Innovation ecosystems can boost their chances of success if they catalyze a critical mass of start-ups and VC funding by developing a “backbone” across the four key areas of the integrated innovation funnel—the generation of ideas and R&D, commercialization, start-up and early-stage development, and growth (Exhibit 3).

Scaling up R&D, both academic and private, can help ensure that innovation remains robust. Those ideas can then be translated into start-ups by attracting entrepreneurs, fostering tech transfers, and building out IP assets. Seed, angel, and broader venture capital funding nurtures start-ups so that they survive and scale up past infancy. Early-stage companies—part of the integrated innovation funnel and value that the ecosystem promises—also need access to capital and structured support.

Assessing strengths and opportunities across the innovation funnel and making tailored plans to bolster strengths and fill gaps are key ingredients of a successful ecosystem. Understanding the root cause of gaps can help target effective solutions for bridging them. If a location has low VC funding, for example, either a lack of investment vehicles or of funding opportunities in the region could be responsible. These distinct challenges would require distinct solutions.

A robust mix of companies is also essential for building a healthy innovation funnel because it allows start-ups to improve their ideas—from applied research through the commercialization of a finalized product or service—by working together with large R&D anchor institutions and established talent. Boosting private investment in some higher-risk early-stage companies can help achieve better balance between start-ups, more mature companies, and established but slower-growing anchor institutions.

Cortex (St. Louis)

In 2002, St. Louis approved a master plan to develop a 200-acre area of industrial legacy land adjacent to anchor institutions, including Washington University’s medical campus, St. Louis University, and Barnes–Jewish Hospital, in an area that became known as Cortex. Leaders made sure that supporting start-ups in all stages of growth was part of the mission. The steps they took to promote that goal included building spaces for coworking, incubators, accelerators, and labs, as well as providing specialized prototyping, pilot, and scale-up equipment.

By considering needs beyond traditional corporate office spaces and by establishing the right balance to create a vibrant space ripe for early-stage investment, Cortex fostered innovation and investment side by side. To attract venture capital, it developed infrastructure, including a new MetroLink station to provide connectivity to the region. Tax abatements and incremental financing were regulatory mechanisms to attract venture investment. Altogether, Cortex has been credited with generating $500 million of investment across nearly 400 companies—85 percent of them small businesses—that have together created 3,800 technology jobs and made the broader St. Louis community a successful innovation ecosystem. 1 McKinsey analysis.

Ecosystems can support activities across the integrated innovation funnel in several ways. University anchors can empower tech transfer offices to scout and support developing technologies more proactively. Incubators and accelerators can help entrepreneurs on their journeys. Ecosystem leaders can coordinate start-up showcases by building out physical hubs that allow VC firms to interact with the ecosystem organically. The right mix of activities will probably depend on the scale of the hub and its strengths and challenges across the pipeline: the ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center, 7 Arizona State University. for instance, has fostered $1.3 billion a year in economic activity by incubating and funding student start-ups. 8 Darren Higgs, “SkySong expected to generate $58.2 billion In economic impact over next 30 years,” ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center, January 19, 2021. The St. Louis Cortex, meanwhile, has prioritized regulatory and infrastructural policies to generate $2.1 billion 9 “The regional impact of the Cortex Innovation Community,” Cortex Innovation Community. in single-year economic impacts (see sidebar “Cortex (St. Louis)”).

4. Develop an ecosystem talent and workforce strategy

Another critical component of successful ecosystems is a coordinated talent strategy. A scarcity of talent can severely constrain an ecosystem’s growth. For knowledge-based industries, location decisions often hinge on the available talent pool and the ability to develop and attract qualified candidates.

Economic development organizations and local leaders have historically relied on businesses and schools to attract talent. But large-scale ecosystems can have their own strategies to convince employers that they are environments where people want to work, play, and live—and would willingly relocate to.

To that end, the talent pipeline can be expansive and can focus on development across a spectrum of occupations and skill levels aligned to priority sectors. Public- and private-sector leaders can create partnerships and collaborations with a range of institutions, including four- and two-year universities, training providers, and community-based organizations that support greater access. Standing up an ecosystem can be an opportunity for leaders to work together to tear down the “paper ceiling” by incentivizing and helping employers to rethink degree requirements and consider candidates with two-year degrees or other certifications of skills—an approach that emphasizes reskilling existing talent pools, uplifting the entire community.

Helping ecosystems tailor specific programs to the needs of a sector or even an individual company can also create direct pathways into family sustaining jobs. Leaders can look at K–12 education to maintain a high-quality talent pipeline over the longer term. Such novel strategies helped the economic development organization JobsOhio attract companies and capital investment to the state, creating tens of thousands of new jobs.

Attracting talented workers to an ecosystem and then retaining and developing them often hinge on creating a relatable aspiration and appealing anchor institutions. To ensure that the ecosystem’s universities, research institutions, and companies have a robust talent pipeline, leaders could consider developing a coordinated and cross-sector regional workforce strategy that translates the ecosystem’s brand, goal, and aspiration into a tangible pitch. They can also work with all participating organizations to ensure that employers have access to qualified applicants and that employees have access to exciting and competitive opportunities. Other ways to increase the retention rates of local graduates include launching new or expanded degree programs, loan forgiveness for graduates staying within the region, coding bootcamps, university satellite campuses, and working with ecosystem companies to offer internships and apprenticeships.

5. Design high-quality real estate, infrastructure, and livability

Say that sufficient talent has been attracted to an area and that large anchor tenants are coexisting with accelerators, incubators, start-ups, and academic entities. But to be sustainable, an ecosystem needs to remain attractive to businesses, institutions, and workers. That enduring appeal is anchored in two types of infrastructure: first, the physical and virtual infrastructure aligned to the specific needs of the prioritized sectors (for example, wet-lab space for life sciences), and second, the “placemaking” infrastructure that informs quality of life. Leaders typically focus on the physical and virtual, which are crucial, but placemaking is also key for facilitating an inclusive community, vibrant and successful start-ups, collaboration, ideas, and growth, as well as making people who live and work in the ecosystem happier and more productive (see sidebar “Boston and Kendall Square”).

Boston and Kendall Square

Boston is a prime example of an ecosystem based on the ambitious goal to define its “place, people, and purpose as the capital of scientific revolution.” 1 “The capital of scientific revolution,” Massachusetts Life Sciences Center. Over the years, the city as an ecosystem has been able to support smaller, more defined innovation districts within its sphere, including the Seaport, South Station, and Kendall Square. Kendall Square, called “the most innovative square mile on the planet,” provides an example of how to use innovative infrastructure to improve the experience of anchors and tenants. It has long prioritized the infrastructure needed to help its residents lead connected, efficient lives—for example, by taking the latest R&D thinking from its anchor tenant, MIT. 2 Lita Nelsen, “Help America’s universities keep transforming the world,” Boston Herald , August 17, 2022.

The area also takes advantage of innovations from the broader Boston community—for example, in public transit and open-access technology. Most recently, MIT unveiled its plans for the new Volpe redevelopment of a central parcel of land in the district. The plans prioritize research community space, transit improvements, inclusivity, and cutting-edge energy efficiency, all designed to take advantage of new technology to attract both tenants and residents. 3 “Volpe project prepares for design phase,” MIT News on Campus and Around the World, October 7, 2021.

Real-estate investments and spatial decisions involve more than glossy new buildings or flavor-of-the-month technologies. Economic development organizations should prioritize investments in physical and digital infrastructure aligned with an ecosystem’s sector needs, from research facilities and prototyping equipment to co-working spaces and incubators. Even in a postpandemic world, physical spaces such as offices  and storefronts  are important. Retail, residential, and commercial real estate that complements new ways of working  can provide the right alchemy for attracting and retaining the best talent and businesses. Quality-of-life investments—such as highway interchanges, light rail stations, and public parks and open spaces—can create an appealing atmosphere for ecosystem residents, commuters, and businesses alike. Finally, a sufficient supply of housing is critical to ensure community affordability and vibrancy.

Each of these components—infrastructure to live, work, and play—can be designed to avoid the negative externalities that come from growth. Transportation and transit systems can use demand forecasting and load planning to get people from place to place without adding to congestion; land use and housing plans can account for pricing and affordability to avoid pricing people out of existing homes.

6. Cultivate a vibrant, diverse community and a sense of place

Innovation industries have long been notable for their lack of diversity and inclusion. Less than 20 percent of the people employed in engineering jobs are women, for example, even though they earn a majority of undergraduate and advanced STEM degrees. 10 Richard Fry, Cary Funk, and Brian Kennedy, “STEM jobs see uneven progress in increasing gender, racial and ethnic diversity,” Pew Research Center, April 1, 2021. Black workers make up 11 percent of total US employment across all sectors but only 9 percent of STEM workers, and the gap is even more pronounced for Hispanic workers. 11 Richard Fry, Cary Funk, and Brian Kennedy, “STEM jobs see uneven progress in increasing gender, racial and ethnic diversity,” Pew Research Center, April 1, 2021. Closing that divide will depend largely on the enrollment of members of historically marginalized communities in STEM education, and progress is currently poised to move slowly. Our research found that at current rates of change, racial and ethnic parity in higher education is still 70 years away. 12 Diana Ellsworth, Erin Harding, Jonathan Law, and Duwain Pinder, “ Racial and ethnic equity in US higher education ,” McKinsey, July 18, 2022.

University City Science Center

University City Science Center (UCSC), an urban research park in Philadelphia’s University City innovation ecosystem, provides tech commercialization curricula and convenes innovation programs for the broader area. In 2020, it held more than 400 programs and events for 15,000 participants, 44 percent of them non-White. Moreover, the initiative supported 94 start-ups, and nearly half of its overall funding went to company founders from underrepresented groups. UCSC’s development and risk capital helps underserved members of the wider innovation community, too. Additional UCSC-led real-estate developments, started in 2020 in the innovation ecosystem, have created a new commercial lab, a public park, and a STEM-focused middle school on a campus currently being leased to Philadelphia public schools.

To redress the imbalance, successful ecosystems can catalyze diverse, inclusive community building and shared prosperity— “inclusive growth.” Leaders can begin with a firm understanding of their starting point to promote equity goals and then develop initiatives, together with community anchors and education institutions, to ensure that the voices of residents are included in the ecosystem’s development and that opportunities benefit everyone, not just transplants to the area. Partnerships with community-based organizations are also critical to ensure that existing residents are not displaced as rents rise and new public spaces are created. Ecosystem leaders can even steer investment to create opportunities for disadvantaged communities and company founders from underrepresented groups (see sidebar “University City Science Center”).

This last component of the playbook begins in the planning phase, when leaders are well-positioned to promote inclusion as they consider urban-design, health equity, or other initiatives that bring together a diversity of stakeholders. They can commit themselves publicly to the goal of inclusive growth by setting SMART 13 Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. goals for diversity, equity, and inclusion and by announcing them transparently. They can also create performance incentives linked to these goals and share updates through annual progress reports on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

To capitalize on the promise of innovation ecosystems, government and private-sector leaders can consider a few critical shifts in their community-building approach. Instead of doing business as usual, these leaders can not only cultivate a community of anchor institutions but also support tenants that enhance one another’s businesses within specialized segments. Instead of just helping to shape infrastructure with public authorities and creating common residential amenities, economic development leaders in the public, private, and social sectors can work together to assist anchor tenants and cluster businesses. And instead of looking at financial returns in isolation, leaders across sectors can capture the value for all shareholders and stakeholders. The potential returns—for communities, organization leaders, and residents alike—are worth the effort.

Cameron Davis is a consultant in McKinsey’s New York office. Ben Safran is a partner in the Washington, DC, office, where Lauren Yayboke is an associate partner. Rachel Schaff is a client capabilities manager in the Waltham, Massachusetts, office.

The authors wish to thank Kyoka Allen, Jennifer Bright, JP Julien, Mike Kerlin, Jonathan Law, John Means, Rob Palter, Steven Smith, and Lauren Voluck for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The CHIPS and Science Act: Here’s what’s in it

Unlocking the potential of public-sector IT projects

Are states ready to close the US digital divide?

Innovation Center UC – Anacleto Angelini by Alejandro Aravena

The UC Anacleto Angelini Innovation Center, located in the Chilean capital, is an architectural masterpiece designed by Alejandro Aravena that stands immortal in time amidst the contemporary glass curtain wall context of Santiago . The center is located at the San Joaquin Campus of the Universidad Católica de Chile (UC). 

With the idea of converging various enterprises and businesses, academics, researchers, and cutting-edge university knowledge, the Angelini Group 2011 donated the necessary funds to develop a center fostering this concurrence. The center aims to contribute to the process of transferring expertise, discovering economic possibilities, adding value to existing resources, and registering patents to increase the country’s competitiveness and, therefore, growth. 

Design Planning

In creating this striking structure, the designers of Elemental were involved in a meticulous analysis of the site and its surrounding context. Aravena’s design philosophy focused on creating a sturdy connection between the building and its environment with sustainable design solutions. The center is strategically positioned to enhance its relationship with adjacent buildings, the existing campus, and the natural landscape. 

This 14-storey building has a facade of massive stacked blocks of concrete, forming huge windows of three-story heights. The typical curtain wall building layout is restored by placing the structure and shafts around the perimeter of the building and concentrating openings in specific locations in the form of elevated squares. The form of the building has deep, lofty porches between the façades, as well as projecting and removing blocks that create a variety in the pattern. 

The outside is bulkier and opaque, whereas the inside is permeable, classified, and transparent. The explicit heart of the building, the atrium has elevators that provide vertical circulation. People can move vertically in an elevator-equipped atrium and observe what others are doing.  

Design solutions

The client demanded a glass curtain wall, like others for the center. However, considering the climate of Santiago and the severe greenhouse effect in the interiors, Alejandro Aravena took a critical standpoint of not having a glass facade, but rather a contemporary look bounded by timelessness. To have a form that does not face stylistic obsolescence, designers considered going for a strict geometry and robust monolithic material. In pursuit of building form, the concept categorized into three main aspects: Use, Environment, and Character. 

Aravena focused on creating open and collaborative spaces to foster collaboration and innovation. The design features huge open-floor plans, multifunctional rooms, and transparent walls to stimulate user engagement and information exchange.

The use of the building accommodates spaces with at least four types of work: a pattern of formal and informal work interspersed with individual and group interactions. Many meeting places formed throughout the building, from a bench in the elevator lobby to a transparent atrium that gives a sneak a peek at what others are doing while moving vertically.

Design philosophy

Innovation Center UC is designed with social and environmental responsibility at its core. Aravena believes that architecture should be a tool for solving societal challenges. The approach reflects the sustainable and inclusive design of the center, which prioritizes user requirements while minimising environmental effect of the center. 

Materials/Construction

Various materials have been used in the construction of this center to improve functionality and aesthetics. Reinforced concrete is predominantly employed in the construction and exterior of buildings to achieve a sustainable and contemporary-style building that will stand the test of time. Large glass panels in recessed fenestrations allows indirect natural light to enter interior spaces. Various other materials, such as steel, cross-laminated timber (CLT), and aluminum, cohesively form a contemporary look.

• Sustainability

The studio Elemental (Alejandro Aravena) uses common sense to provide environmentally sustainable design solutions. They placed the building mass on the exterior, creating opacity and providing an energetically efficient façade. It prevents intense, bright light from entering the interior workspaces, which typically have shades and curtains. 

Innovation Center UC incorporates passive design strategies, like natural ventilation and daylighting. The façade with recessed openings maximizes daylight penetration, provides cross-ventilation, and minimizes solar heat gain, eventually reducing the need for artificial lighting and cooling. By doing this, the air conditioning energy usage reduced from 120 kW/m2/year (the consumption of a typical glass tower in Santiago) to 45 kW/m2/year.

The Innovation Center UC Anacleto Angelini is an exemplary case study of contemporary innovative design and sustainability in architectural practice. The vision of Alejandro Aravena of creating socially and environmentally responsible buildings showcases a holistic approach to sustainable and inclusive architecture. This project serves as an illustration of future projects, illustrating how innovation, aesthetics, and sustainability can thrive together.

• Gendall, J. (2017) The distributed house , Architectural Record RSS . Available at: https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/12430-alejandro-aravena-innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini. 
• Innovation center UC – Anacleto Angelini: Alejandro Aravena: Elemental (no date) Arch2O.com . Available at: https://www.arch2o.com/innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini-alejandro-aravena-elemental/. 
• Sponsored by The Hyatt Foundation Alejandro Aravena Photo by Cristobal Palma. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.pritzkerprize.com/sites/default/files/file_fields/field_files_inline/2016-Pritzker-Prize-Image_Book_0.pdf .
• www.domusweb.it. (n.d.).  Scientific innovation centre . [online] Available at: https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2014/10/22/scientific_innovationcentre.html.
• Giuseppe, G.D. (2017). UC Innovation Centre Anacleto Angelini by Elemental_ Three aspects of an (un)sustainable case.  www.academia.edu . [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/40541343/UC_Innovation_Centre_Anacleto_Angelini_by_Elemental_Three_aspects_of_an_un_sustainable_case.
• Gallery of innovation center UC – anacleto angelini / Alejandro Aravena: Elemental – 20 (no date) ArchDaily . Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/549152/innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini-alejandro-aravena-elemental/54198df0c07a80bc32000011-innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini-alejandro-aravena-elemental-east-elevation. 
• designboom | architecture & design magazine. (2014).  elemental casts concrete innovation center in chile around open core . [online] Available at: https://www.designboom.com/architecture/elemental-innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini-santiago-chile-/ .
• Divisare. (n.d.).  ELEMENTAL – Alejandro Aravena, Nico Saieh · Innovation Center UC – Anacleto Angelini . [online] Available at: https://divisare.com/projects/276647-elemental-alejandro-aravena-nico-saieh-innovation-center-uc-anacleto-angelini.

A Postgraduate student of Architecture, developing an ability of Design led through Research. A perceptive observer who strives to get inspired and, in doing so, become one. Always intrigued by the harmonious relationships between people and space and the juxtaposition of the tangible and intangible in architecture.

Gothic Revival: From Medieval Inspiration to Victorian Grandeur

Gandhi Gyan Parab, Gandhiashram by Footprints E.A.R.T.H

Related posts.

Kopeshwar temple, Khidrapur

Shipping Container Skyscraper for Mumbai Slum by Ganti + Asociates (GA) Design

Gyan Museum, Jaipur

Community Architecture: Stoneleigh Terrace

Kariba Dam: Engineering Marvel and Environmental Impact

School for Blind and Visually Impaired Children by SEAlab

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.

The case for growth centers: How to spread tech innovation across America

• Full report
• Executive summary
• Press release

Subscribe to Transformative Placemaking

Robert d. atkinson , robert d. atkinson former brookings expert, president - information technology and innovation foundation @robatkinsonitif mark muro , and mark muro senior fellow - brookings metro @markmuro1 jacob whiton jacob whiton former research analyst - metropolitan policy program @jacob_whiton.

December 9, 2019

The future of America’s economy lies in its high-tech innovation sector, but it is now clear that same sector is widening the nation’s regional divides—a fact that became starkly apparent with the 2016 presidential election.

Based on “winner-take-most” network economies, the innovation sector has generated significant technology gains and wealth but has also helped spawn a growing gap between the nation’s dynamic “superstar” metropolitan areas and most everywhere else.

Neither market forces nor bottom-up economic development efforts have closed this gap, nor are they likely to. Instead, these deeply seated dynamics appear ready to exacerbate the current divides.

Which is why the nation requires a major push to counter these dynamics. Specifically, the nation needs—as one initiative among others—a massive federal effort to transform a short list of “heartland” metro areas into self-sustaining “growth centers” that will benefit entire regions.

To that end, the present paper proposes that Congress assemble and award to a select set of metropolitan areas a major package of federal innovation inputs and supports that would accelerate their innovation-sector scale-up. Along these lines, we envision Congress establishing a rigorous competitive process by which the most promising eight to 10 potential growth centers would receive substantial financial and regulatory support for 10 years to become self-sustaining new innovation centers. Such an initiative would not only bring significant economic opportunity to more parts of the nation, but also boost U.S. competitiveness on the global stage.

The problem

Rather than growing together, the nation’s regions, metropolitan areas, and towns have been growing apart. That has been a shock for mainstream economists and policymakers who have long trusted the self-regulating nature of the regional economics market. And indeed, for much of the 20 th century, market forces had tended toward “convergence” among communities—reducing wage, investment, and business formation disparities between more- and less-developed regions.

However, that trend began to break down in the 1980s, as digital technologies and innovation moved to the center of economic activity. Intense new demands for talent and insights increased the value of “agglomeration” economies, unleashing self-reinforcing dynamics that increasingly benefited big, coastal regions, often to the detriment of cities and metro areas in other parts of the nation.

Amid these conditions, convergence gave way to “divergence.” A top tier of tech- and innovation-heavy metro areas such as Boston, San Francisco-San Jose, and Seattle began to consistently outperform less-tech-based places on measures of innovation-driven prosperity.

The result is a crisis of regional imbalance.

Findings and recommendations

Assuming that nonchalance is no longer tenable, the present report posits that the time has come for the nation to offset the pull-away of the innovation superstars with a concerted intervention to support the emergence of new tech stars in new places. As such, the report draws a number of conclusions and recommendations in the process of laying out what a federal innovation-based growth centers program might look like, including the following:

• Regional divergence has reached extreme levels in the U.S. innovation sector. The innovation sector—composed of 13 of the nation’s highest-tech, highest R&D “advanced industries—contributes inordinately to regional and U.S. prosperity, and its diffusion into new places would greatly benefit the nation’s well-being. However, the sector has instead been concentrating in a short list of superstar metropolitan areas. Most notably, just five top innovation metro areas— Boston , San Francisco, San Jose , Seattle , and San Diego —accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s innovation-sector growth during the years 2005 to 2017. As such, they have increased their share of the nation’s total innovation employment from 17.6% to 22.8%. In contrast, the bottom 90% of metro areas (343 of them) lost share. As a result, fully one-third of the nation’s innovation jobs now reside in just 16 counties, and more than half are concentrated in 41 counties.

• Such high levels of territorial polarization are a grave national problem. At the economic end of the equation, the costs of excessive tech concentration are creating serious negative externalities. These range from spiraling home prices and traffic gridlock in the superstar hubs to a problematic “sorting” of workers, with college-educated workers clustering in the star cities, leaving other metro areas to make do with thinner talent reservoirs. As a result, whole portions of the nation may now be falling into “traps” of underdevelopment—and that is creating baleful social impacts. Many Americans now reside far from the opportunities associated with the nation’s innovation centers, undercutting economic inclusion and raising social justice issues. Regional divergence is also clearly driving “backlash” political dynamics that are exacerbating the nation’s policy stalemates.

• Markets alone won’t solve the problem—“place-based” interventions will be essential. When the economy was “converging,” it was easy to assume that any problems of regional unevenness would naturally resolve themselves. However, the rise of newer, innovation-oriented economic theories has given more attention to the power of local “agglomeration” effects, by which large benefits accrue to firms when they locate together in urban areas. In that context, “bottom-up” economic development efforts likely will not change these patterns by themselves, in part because the resources states and cities can bring to bear are limited. Accordingly, the U.S. needs not just nation-scaled solutions for its regional imbalances but place-based ones as well.  
• The nation should counter regional divergence by creating eight to 10 new regional “growth centers” across the heartland. The time is right for, among other initiatives, a 21 st century update of “growth pole” strategy—the 1960s and 1970s emphasis in regional economic planning that called for focusing transformative investment on a limited number of locations to catalyze the takeoff of those regions and the nation.

Along these lines, the federal government should:

• Assemble a major package of federal innovation inputs and supports for innovation-sector scale-up in metropolitan areas distant from existing tech hubs . Central to this package will be a direct R&D funding surge worth up to $700 million a year in each metro area for 10 years. Beyond that will be significant inputs such as workforce development funding, tax and regulatory benefits , business financing , economic inclusion , urban placemaking , and federal land and infrastructure supports .

A rough estimate of the price of such a program suggests that a growth centers surge focused on 10 metro areas would cost the federal government on the order of $100 billion over 10 years. That is substantially less than the 10-year cost of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies.

• Establish a competitive, fair, and rigorous process for selecting the most promising potential growth centers to receive the federal investment. A new growth center program would select for awards the eight to 10 metropolitan areas that had best demonstrated their readiness to become a new heartland growth center. The process would employ a rigorous competition characterized by an RFP-driven challenge , goal-driven criteria , and an independent selection process .
• Numerous metropolitan areas in most regions have the potential to become one of America’s next dynamic innovation centers. Based on a demonstration in this report, some 35 metro areas surface as possibilities for growth center designation. Candidates are situated in at least 19 states, lie in multiple regions (especially the Great Lakes, Upper South, and Intermountain West), and often exist at far remove from the coastal superstars. There are likely many more “up-and-coming” metro areas that have a solid capacity to bring tech-based development closer to the nation’s left-behind places.

To be sure, there will be objections. Some will say the present proposal goes way too far, while others will say it doesn’t go far enough.

Many conventional economists will argue that any push to promote regional equity will come at the expense of efficiency. However, the negative externalities of the current imbalances and the positive ones of catalyzing new growth in new places each suggest that intervention can benefit the nation’s total welfare and global competitiveness. Other critics will deny the ability of the federal government to effectively pick regional “winners” or reject that the emergence of existing clusters had anything to do with government efforts. But one has only to examine the history of U.S. technology hubs such as Boston, the Bay Area, and North Carolina’s Research Triangle to see that the federal government has often played important, if not decisive, roles in helping new tech centers attain critical mass.

To the other point, others may say that a growth centers push does not sufficiently “change capitalism” or address the full crisis of America’s smaller cities, towns, and rural areas. That is true—there is much more that needs doing, especially for the most deeply struggling communities. But the proposed innovation surge would absolutely begin to transform the nation’s spatial malaise. Most notably, it would bring new vitality closer to more communities, allowing for smaller towns and counties to benefit through supply chain relationships, commuting, and other interdependencies with the growth centers.

In that spirit, then, the present initiative is best viewed as but one component of the full federal agenda needed to ameliorate the nation’s unbalanced economic geography.

America should launch this experiment.

Related Content

Chad Shearer, Jennifer S. Vey, Joanne Kim

June 6, 2019

Mark Muro, Jacob Whiton, Robert Maxim

November 14, 2019

Clara Hendrickson, Mark Muro, William A. Galston

November 7, 2018

Manufacturing & Supply Chains Workforce Development

Economic Development

Brookings Metro

Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking

John C. Austin, Mark Muro

February 7, 2024

The Brookings Institution, Washington DC

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Francesca Ioffreda, Joseph Parilla, Glencora Haskins

December 20, 2023

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• September 2008
• HBS Case Collection

Pfizer Inc: Building an Innovation Center

• Format: Print
• | Pages: 17

About The Author

Stefan H. Thomke

More from the authors.

• Harvard Business Review Digital Articles

Capture New Value from Your Existing Tech Infrastructure

• Harvard Business Review

Act Like a Scientist: Great Leaders Challenge Assumptions, Run Experiments, and Follow the Evidence

• Research-Technology Management

High Velocity Business Experiments

• Capture New Value from Your Existing Tech Infrastructure  By: Stefan Thomke and Anthony Rodrigo
• Act Like a Scientist: Great Leaders Challenge Assumptions, Run Experiments, and Follow the Evidence  By: Stefan Thomke and Gary W. Loveman
• High Velocity Business Experiments  By: Stefan Thomke and Jim Euchner

• About   General Information Permissions Company Collaboration Case Competitions Best Case Award Press Releases Access Options Submission Guidelines

Berkeley Haas Case Series

The Berkeley Haas Case Series is a collection of business case studies created by UC Berkeley faculty

Entrepreneurship

Connect-in-Place: Startup Disrupts Socializing and Learning During COVID-19

Two UC Berkeley students forced into online classes during COVID-19 realized - due to their volunteer experiences championing educational equality - that younger students (K-12) could suffer social isolation and reduced learning opportunities. So, the undergrads brainstormed how to tackle new educational and emotional challenges pre-college students faced due to pandemic restrictions.

Medinas Health: Building a Medical Equipment Marketplace

This case centers on the startup Medinas Health, a technology company based in Berkeley, California that aimed to increase the efficiency of the medical equipment market in the U.S. Chloe Alpert, Medinas Health’s CEO, envisioned a more sustainable healthcare industry and aimed to reduce waste and improve the financial bottom-line of hospitals.

Niantic Labs and the Professional Entrepreneur in the Silicon Valley: Google, Pokémon Go, and Beyond

This case series focuses on the entrepreneurial career of John Hanke, a 1996 MBA graduate of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley and a professional entrepreneur.

International Data Spaces: A Collaborative Organizational Moonshot

Led by ThyssenKrupp CTO Reinhold Achatz, IDSA is an organization that seeks to set, diffuse, and implement a dominant global B2B data standard.

Maire Tecnimont: The Creation of NextChem

Maire Tecnimont is an international leader in the engineering and construction of industrial plants.

Goodbaby: How a Chinese Underdog Became a World Leader Through Open Innovation

Goodbaby is an industry-leading manufacturer of juvenile products. Under a variety of brand names, nearly a third of the strollers in the world are designed and manufactured by Goodbaby.

Barça Innovation Hub: Getting the Ball Rolling on Innovation

This case study follows the Spanish football club, FC Barcelona, as it starts to innovate and create an organizational structure for open innovation.

Enel X: Driving Digital Transformation in the Energy Sector

Enel is one of the world’s largest electric utilities, based in Italy but operating in dozens of countries around the world. This case discusses the process of establishing a new subsidiary company inside Enel to lead the company towards digital transformation in eMobility.

Bosch: Scaling Large Company Innovation for Strategic Advantage

This case focuses on the Innovation Performance Management (IPM) methodology as a new approach whereby established and global companies, like Bosch, can use innovation to support strategic goals.

Amyris, Inc: Make good. No compromise.

Amyris has grown from a Silicon Valley startup to a global publicly-traded company who genetically programs yeast into chemicals used by more than 250 million consumers in over 2,000 brands. The company's path has included entering markets with new production solutions, learning how to lower risk through business partnerships, and expanding from B2B to B2C.

Innovation, Co-Creation, and Design Thinking: How Salesforce's Ignite Team Accelerates Enterprise Digital Transformation

From its inception, Salesforce, the cloud computing Customer Relationship Management (CRM) company, took a radically different approach to selling enterprise software than competitors such as Oracle and SAP.

Sproutel: How Design Roadmapping Helped Improve Children's Health & Guide a Growing Company

This case aims to introduce students to the 'design roadmapping' process that connects customer and user experience design with product and technology roadmapping to create an integrated plan for future growth and development.

Innovating Innovation @tk

This case shows how ThyssenKrupp (tk) has altered its innovation process in recent years. CEO Heinrich Hiesinger has brought in a former colleague from Siemens, Reinhold Achatz, to lead a transformation of the R&D function at the company.

Disruption in Detroit: Ford, Silicon Valley, and Beyond

This case focuses on the Ford Motor Company in Spring 2016 and how its then-CEO, Mark Fields, and his senior management team should best respond to several emerging disruptive technologies that will ultimately force the automaker to modify its current business model.

The Berkeley-Haas Case Series is a collection of business case studies written by Haas faculty. Our culture and vision at the Haas School of Business naturally offer distinctive qualities to the Series, filling a gap in existing case offerings by drawing upon lessons from UC Berkeley's rich history and prime location in the San Francisco Bay Area. We seek to publish cases that challenge conventional assumptions about business, science, culture, and politics.

Siemens Healthineers: A Digital Journey

Maersk: Driving Culture Change at a Century-Old Company to Achieve Measurable Results

Flourish Fi: Empowering Positive Money Habits

Just Climate: A New Investment Model?

Roche Pakistan

A new collection of business case studies from Berkeley Haas

The aim of the Berkeley Haas Case Series is to incite business innovation by clarifying disruptive trends and questioning the status quo.

• DSpace@MIT Home
• MIT Libraries
• Graduate Theses

Developing future innovation hubs Through the case study of Silicon Valley

Other Contributors

Terms of use, description, date issued, collections.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Use of an innovation center to foster high‐value COVID‐19 care at an academic healthcare system

Melissa e. shumacher.

1 Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois, USA

Sharon Markman

2 Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois, USA

Kayla Scales

Laura fritsche, kimisha cassidy, jane l. holl.

3 Department of Neurology, Biological Sciences Division, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois, USA

Craig A. Umscheid

4 Department of Medicine, Biological Sciences Division, University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois, USA

Tweet 1: Empowering the front lines: how one hospital innovation center helped address the healthcare delivery challenges resulting from COVID‐19. #COVID19 #JHMChat #uchicago Tweet 2: How can hospital innovation centers support healthcare value in times of crisis? #COVID19 #JHMChat #uchicago

INTRODUCTION

As Medicare insolvency looms and healthcare financing moves toward value‐based payments, investment in healthcare delivery innovation has become critical to strengthening clinical outcomes while lowering costs (i.e., improving value). 1 , 2 In fact, healthcare innovation is often defined as “a new match between a need and a solution that creates better value than what currently exists.” 3 In the United States, one of the signature investments in healthcare innovation is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 4 But investments in healthcare delivery innovation are not limited to payors. Healthcare provider organizations have begun to support innovation centers as well. 5 , 6 , 7

Although the aims of healthcare system innovation centers can be diverse, including a focus on technology development, 6 , 7 many are focused on real‐time healthcare delivery problem solving, 5 , 7 and employ a variety of methods to address identified challenges, including contextual inquiry to better define problems; crowdsourcing to inform solutions; and rapid cycle mini‐pilots for evaluation. 8 Centers have also invested in new skillsets to support activities, including human‐centered design and computer programming. 5 , 9 Generalists (including hospitalists) head many of these centers, owing to their frequent leadership of quality, informatics, and value initiatives across healthcare systems nationally.

Given the aims, approaches, and skillsets of healthcare system innovation centers, they are well‐positioned to provide value in the context of rapidly emerging threats to healthcare delivery, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, where they can empower the healthcare workforce, including those on the front lines, to share and implement potential solutions they have identified. Here, we provide an example of how one innovation center used an innovation tournament to rapidly address the healthcare delivery uncertainties resulting from the COVID‐19 pandemic, resulting in higher value care.

The Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation was established at the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) in 2016 through a generous donor contribution with matching institutional support. The Center's mission is “to connect scholars and leaders across UCMC and beyond to catalyze innovation and discovery in healthcare delivery,” achieving this mission by providing grants, educational opportunities, logistical support for healthcare delivery research, and nourishing a community of scholars and leaders interested in healthcare delivery science and innovation. The Center supports three masters‐level full‐time staff, including an administrative director, project manager, and coordinator, as well as 0.25 full time equivalent (FTE) of a staff data scientist and 0.2 FTE of faculty in data and implementation science. The Center's physician director is UCMC's Chief Quality and Innovation Officer.

Innovation tournament

On March 31, 2020, the Innovation Center used broad and targeted email communications to notify UCMC's staff, faculty, and trainees of a COVID‐19 “Innovation Challenge”—an opportunity to “submit an idea that can be forwarded to administrative and clinical leaders, or request support to design, implement, and/or evaluate innovative solutions to address the unique COVID‐19 healthcare delivery challenges before us.” Multidisciplinary collaboration was encouraged. The Center committed to reviewing ideas and requests for support on a rolling basis and responding within 5–7 business days. Proposals were submitted electronically through the Center website (Appendix  A ). Support to review and respond to submissions included two administrative FTEs and 0.25 FTE of the Physician Director. For select proposals, the Center provided resources such as pilot funding (up to $10,000/proposal), design expertise, project management, biostatistical support, or facilitated connections to university or community resources.

Descriptive analysis

In the first 10 weeks (March 31 to June 10, 2020), the Center received 182 proposals, with most (58%) submitted in the first week. Proposals were categorized by theme, most commonly addressing: personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers and/or the community (27%, n  = 50); awareness by employees or the community of COVID‐19 information (18%, n  = 32); and the design of devices and supplies to prevent COVID‐19 (12%, n  = 21). Other themes addressed testing, mobile application development, and data analytics, among others. Staff (43%, n  = 79), faculty (27%, n  = 50), and housestaff (13%, n  = 23) submitted proposals, particularly those in the Department of Medicine (16%, n  = 29) and Nursing (11%, n  = 20).

Overall, 74 (41%) proposals were considered for resource support other than grant funding, 14 (8%) were considered specifically for grants, and 50 (28%) were suggestions forwarded to clinical or administrative leaders. Thirty‐one (17%) proposed projects “already in progress” and 13 (7%) were out of scope. Approximately $35,000 in funding was provided to eight proposals. Four received biostatistical support, and project management and design services were provided to additional proposals. Proposal review and decisions occurred in a mean of 8.6 (±5.2) business days.

Examples of supported proposals

One faculty member submitted a proposal to address the community's social needs by making available at no cost for 6 months a proprietary electronic tool, originally developed by her research team, to match patients' needs to relevant community resources. 10 The Center provided project management, including identifying end‐users, establishing tool access and training, and evaluating use. In the first 4 months (May to September 2020), approximately 400 unique users (most commonly from Social Work, Population Health, and Community Health) made approximately 2500 social service referrals (most often for food, housing, utility assistance, counseling, transportation, and/or childcare). The pilot resulted in a 3‐year contract with the health system.

Another faculty requested support to create a graphic narrative to teach youth in under‐resourced communities about COVID‐19 prevention. This resulted in the Center funding the development of an animated video titled “One Day at a Time,” which was launched July 21, 2020, and marketed widely, with approximately 5000 views to date. 11

A cardiology fellow requested support to develop a mobile application to provide employees with quick access to hospital COVID‐19 policies, as well as all inpatient room phone numbers to facilitate remote patient rounding. As a result of the Center's funding and project management, over 1000 unique users downloaded the app within 4 months of release, with policy content views peaking at 801 weekly views, and patient room phone number dialing peaking at 277 weekly calls. 12

The Center received multiple related submissions from staff to support the appropriate use of PPE, resulting in collaboration with a design firm to develop new hospital PPE signage. The Center's project management and funding resulted in the creation of fifteen 8 foot banners and 2400 laminated signs distributed across the medical center. Designs shared on the internet beginning April 12, 2020, had over 2000 views in the first week. 13 As part of a multimodal approach, this work resulted in staff knowledge of appropriate PPE practices greater than similar staff globally. 14

Additional examples of supported proposals, including supported research studies, are described in Table  1 .

Five other examples of proposals supported through the COVID innovation challenge

Abbreviations: COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019; MeNTS, Medically‐Necessary Time‐Sensitive; PPE, personal protective equipment; REDCap, Research Electronic Data Capture; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2.

Results suggest that the tournament was an effective approach to engage the healthcare workforce during a crisis and generate innovation from within the healthcare system, in a relatively short period of time and for a relatively low budget. The Center received proposals from a broad range of applicants and was able to respond in a timely manner, including forwarding proposals to appropriate healthcare system leaders (Table  1 ).

Several healthcare systems including our own 22 have previously used innovation tournaments to crowdsource solutions and encourage front line engagement, 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 but this tournament was unique. Given the urgency of the challenges posed by the pandemic, the tournament was established rapidly, and the Center committed to responding to proposals quickly. This necessitated streamlining the proposal review process, precluding more extensive reviews by expert panels and judges, as described in prior tournaments. 25 Despite this, we were unable to meet our goal response time, even with over two dedicated FTE. Defining scope was also a unique challenge, given the uncertainties surrounding a rapidly evolving crisis involving an unknown pathogen. Because of this, we chose to conceptualize healthcare delivery innovation broadly, rather than simply focusing on any one area such as digital tools; despite this broad definition, we still struggled with whether a number of excellent proposals were in scope, ultimately choosing not to pursue many after categorizing them as clinical trials instead. For example, a faculty member requested funds for supplies to measure the cytokine storm experienced by critical care patients, to help target anti‐inflammatory therapy to those in need. In lieu of supporting such requests, we referred them to another funding opportunity from our university's clinical trials center.

Our analysis has limitations. First, we did not have the resources to track the results of all connections made for those proposing initiatives already in progress. However, many applicants suggested they leveraged these connections. Examples include (1) an idea from a trainee to decontaminate N95 masks for reuse using an established protocol, 26 which we referred to the Supply Chain team already beginning such an initiative and (2) many proposals related to 3D printing of face shields and sewing of fabric face masks, which we referred to local initiatives in progress.

We also did not have the resources to track the results of all suggestions forwarded to healthcare system leaders, although we know at least some were implemented. For example, a nurse submitted an idea for utilizing intravenous pumps outside of patient rooms to minimize room entry to conserve PPE and reduce infection exposure, which was implemented across select hospital units. Regardless of whether suggestions were ultimately implemented, sharing them gave leadership the opportunity to receive input from the front line, while giving the front line an opportunity to provide input to leadership. Past work suggests that facilitating such information flow can promote employee engagement, in turn enhancing patient safety and reducing employee turnover, ultimately leading to higher value care. 24 , 25 , 27

Despite our ability to describe the impact of our initiative on the development and use of innovative products, tools, and services, and the conduct and completion of impactful research studies, our description is limited in that it is unable to assess impact on clinical outcomes.

Our approach to crowdsourcing solutions from the front line to address healthcare crises is generalizable beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, ideas generated from this tournament have informed other innovation initiatives in our healthcare system, such as the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation's “Choosing Wisely” campaign, which we participate in annually. 22

In conclusion, our experience suggests that, as part of an institutional response to a crisis, a healthcare system innovation center can efficiently empower the front line, support potential solutions, and facilitate referral of solutions to relevant entities within the organization. Such a response can be provided with modest staffing and funding, but requires specialized services (such as design and statistical services) and relationships with senior operational leaders. Future work should more closely examine the impact of innovation centers and tournaments on employee engagement and the value of care provided.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This project was formally determined to be Quality Improvement, not human subjects research, and was therefore not reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, which is consistent with institutional policy.

Appendix A. COVID‐19 INNOVATION CHALLENGE SUBMISSION FORM

Shumacher ME, Markman S, Scales K, et al. Use of an innovation center to foster high‐value COVID‐19 care at an academic healthcare system . J Hosp Med . 2022; 17 :384‐388. 10.1002/jhm.12824 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

An earlier version of this work was presented at a Scottsdale Institute Webinar on October 29, 2020.

Case Study: Otterbein University’s STEAM Innovation Center

A State-of-the-Art Renovation in Central Ohio

Project: Otterbein University’s STEAM Innovation Center

Location: Westerville, OH

Architect: Moody Nolan

General Contractor: Corna Kokosing

System: LIGHTWALL 3000

In a world where factory jobs are being replaced with smart technology and globalization has made the manufacturing industry increasingly competitive, Otterbein University saw an opportunity. The plan was to partner with leading organizations from the private and public sectors in central Ohio to build a hands-on curriculum focused on teaching – and innovating – cutting-edge skills in engineering, technology, science, and math. To achieve this, a laboratory that fostered experimentation and possessed state-of-the-art tools was necessary. To further complement the innovative facility, a state-of-the-art architectural design was developed.

The decision was made to renovate an older campus building in time for the 2016 fall semester, and with groundbreaking delayed into early 2016, the project timeline would be tight.  Moody Nolan architects had a unique design in mind – a multi-paneled, geometric façade that would deliver daylighting with minimized solar heat gain and glare. Their plan was to use a curtain wall that could incorporate metal, polycarbonate, and glass that delivered diffused daylight with visual clarity in key locations.

EXTECH’s LIGHTWALL 3000 series curtain wall system was selected for the project because it is one of the few that properly accommodates both polycarbonate and glass glazing within the same system. This is accomplished by using deep glazing pockets and low friction gaskets that allow for the thermal movement of polycarbonate, while still providing superior water and air infiltration resistance.

To create Moody Nolan’s distinctive geometric design, EXTECH fabricated a new horizontal mullion that allowed for the inclusion of non-continuous vertical framing members. The new mullion “flushed out” the interior surface of the system and allowed it to span up to 8 feet between vertical mullions – typical span lengths are only 4-5 feet. It also allowed for the application of point loads from vertical framing members without additional structural reinforcing - horizontals typically deliver their loads to verticals.

The STEAM Innovation Center’s “wire-cutting” (a technology pun on “ribbon-cutting”) was just in time for Otterbein’s fall semester. All told, the center is a 61,000 square foot building that provides classes and training in areas such as 3D printing, advanced electronics, metal and machinery, and also provides office space for lease.

Images by Andy Spessard Photography

If you are interested in learning more about the LIGHTWALL 3000 or this project, please contact us .

Student Registration

Please fill out the form to gain student access to downloads.

Complete this form to request a quote.

Contact Information

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Facility Manager
• Glazing Subcontractor

Project Details

• Project Name *
• Project Address Street Address Address Line 2 City State / Province / Region ZIP / Postal Code Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Côte d'Ivoire Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Réunion Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Sweden Switzerland Syria Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, the United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Türkiye US Minor Outlying Islands Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Åland Islands Country
• Bid Date MM slash DD slash YYYY
• Project Notes What should we know about this project?
• Project Files Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 100 MB, Max. files: 10. empty to support CSS :empty selector. --> Upload drawings and/or specifications. (.pdf format is preferred)
• Hidden Project Files Drop files here or Select files Max. file size: 100 MB, Max. files: 10. empty to support CSS :empty selector. --> Upload drawings and/or specifications. (.pdf format is preferred)
• Hidden x2_key
• Hidden Source
• Hidden Form ID
• Hidden Quote Requested
• Hidden Content-Type
• Hidden visibility
• Hidden assignedTo
• Hidden request_type
• Hidden system
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• State * AK AL AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
• Message What questions can we help you with?

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Office Buildings

Innovation Center 2.0 / SCOPE Architekten

• Curated by ArchDaily
• Architects: SCOPE Architekten
• Area Area of this architecture project Area:  5400 m²
• Year Completion year of this architecture project Year:  2016
• Photographs Photographs: Zooey Braun
• Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Manufacturers:   GIRA , Duravit , Kvadrat , Multiwal

Text description provided by the architects. In an exposed location on Jungfernsee SCOPE built the Innovation Center 2.0 next to existing SAP building. The architects are also responsible for its interior design. 

The Innovation Center 2.0 is a special place for software development and a special place for SAP. 

Here software solutions are being developed with the agility of a start-up and the background of this global leader.

Attractive jobs were created on 5,400 square meters for 160 employees, young IT talents from all around the world. These focused on the promotion of fresh ideas and offer best conditions for team-based and playful thinking. In this way they stimulate innovative work practices such as design thinking. 

On the outside, the new, four-story glass cube adapts with rotating balconies to the inventory and is characterized by its exciting concrete pillars structure with industrial character, which breaks the glass facade in numerous diagonals. 

The building resembles an open workshop hall in which all floors are interconnected via a cross-story airspace. 

In the middle of the building is a closed concrete core that receives all serving and technical features of the building such as the emergency stairwell, the elevator, the technical infrastructure and the sanitary system. 

Entering the building through the main entrance the room opens up in the shape of a large airspace. A large light installation on the ceiling and a green wall catch the view. 

In this airspace also the huge main access can be found. Single-flight stairs of exposed concrete, steel and matt black levels oak floors combine the floors with each other. 

The single-flight stairways end on different deep galleries that receive communication and residence zones. 

The airspace with its diverse compounds illustrates the architectural ambition of making communication an essential part of a vibrant corporate culture.

On the ground floor the coffeebar, the workshop rooms, the large design thinking - area and the meeting rooms are arranged around the core. 

In these spaces, the idea of a flexible and agile working environment is most evident. 

Large whiteboard surfaces are hanging from the ceiling and can be moved. 

The great design thinking space is characterized by constant change and enables multiple workgroups in various sizes to work together or to give presentations for up to 200 people. 

The meeting and workshop rooms are also expandable by flexible partitions. All the furniture and the stands are on wheels and support agile working. 

On the upper floors the office spaces are U-shaped around the core and are separated by large glazing of the atrium. 

The workstations are designed to be as flexible as the spaces on the ground floor. 

Here flexible working groups can also be assembled by movable whiteboards and scrollable tables. 

The three working groups on each floor are surrounded by differently sized meeting rooms and think tanks at the corners of the building. 

Micro meeting cells - small, sound-proof areas for telephone calls, two -man conferences or personnel meetings - complete the space. 

The material mix including wood, planted sideboards and leather seats visually and haptically meets the industrial charm of raw concrete walls, screed floors, visible installations and cooling fins on the ceilings, which are also acoustically effective. 

The tidy atmosphere is plain, reduced and stimulating at the same time. 

Visual protection on glass walls separate functional spaces from communication areas and also create connections and transparency. 

The holistic approach of openness, cooperation and flexibility can be felt everywhere. 

On the third floor, the atrium opens to a larger communication zone, through which the roof terrace of the building can be acessed. 

In addition to far reaching views over the Jungfernsee and the adjacent development area, the rooftop also serves as advanced workstation area during the warm season. 

Individual furnishings such as swinging seats, benches and sofas encourage different working techniques in these special zones. 

Project gallery

Project location

Address: konrad-zuse-ring 10, 14469 potsdam, germany.

Materials and Tags

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

创新中心 Innovatin Center 2.0 / SCOPE Architekten

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Check the latest Counters

Check the latest Chairs

Photo by Tim Griffith, courtesy of ZGF Architects

• The RMI Innovation Center
• Carbon-Free Buildings
• Net-Zero Carbon Buildings, Districts, and Portfolios

The Innovation Center is RMI’s state-of-the-art beyond net-zero energy office and convening center in Basalt, CO.

Tour the Innovation Center

What makes the Innovation Center so innovative? Hear from our design team during a brief video tour.

Check out how the building performs through this dashboard .

The Innovation Center is the highest-performing building in the coldest climate zone in the U.S., producing more clean energy than it uses on an annual basis plus enough to power six electric vehicles. It is one of only 200 net-zero commercial buildings in the U.S. as of 2016, and provides a leading example of buildings that can solve the climate crisis.

About the Innovation Center

The Innovation Center, located in Basalt, Colorado, is a 15,610 square-foot office building and state-of-the-art convening center. To advance our mission and propel the industry, RMI designed the Innovation Center to demonstrate how net-zero carbon buildings should be designed, contracted, constructed, and occupied.

Photo by Pat Sudemeir

Why it Matters

The Innovation Center building is similar in size to 90% of U.S. commercial offices. Over half of all commercial buildings are owner occupied and office space is the largest use type. The Innovation Center is intended to serve as a groundbreaking model to push the boundaries of what’s possible with integrative, passive design and the business case for net-zero energy. It includes an advanced level of automation, metering, and controls that demonstrate where market gaps exist, and how the industry can move forward.

Who’s Involved

The Innovation Center’s level of design and performance was achieved thanks to a dedicated and multi-faceted team comprised of architects, engineers, contractors, consultants, and philanthropic partners.

Design Process and Team

Integrated project delivery helped align team goals and deliver results.

Passive Performance

The levels of efficiency achieved are due to integrated passive design and performance.

Innovative Thermal Comfort

Our groundbreaking approach to thermal comfort relies on six factors.

Renewable Energy

On-site generation, storage, and management allow beyond net-zero operation.

Other Sustainability Features

Biophilic design, water, and occupant engagement were other key performance enablers.

Take a Tour

Interested in touring the Innovation Center located at 22830 Two Rivers Road in Basalt, Colorado? Tours are scheduled upon request. Please contact [email protected] to schedule. Rocky Mountain Institute is closely monitoring the coronavirus situation, and is taking all appropriate actions to provide our employees and communities a safe and healthy working environment. All Innovation Center tours have been suspended until further notice.

Certifications

LEED Platinum

Certified (NC v2009)

International Living Futures Institute Zero Energy Certification

PHIUS+ Source Net Zero

Architecture 2030 Challenge

Target Exceeded

Energy Star

Targeting score of 100

International Living Futures Institute

Petal Certified

Fast Company Innovation by Design Award

Honorable Mention, 2016

AIA Portland 2030 Challenge Award

Winner, 2016

Engineering News Record Mountain States Award

Winner, Best Green Project and Safety Project of the Year, 2016

Architect Magazine Award

ZGF named Top Firm Overall in Sustainability, 2016

PHIUS Award

Winner, Best Overall Project and Best in Office/Institutional Category, 2016

Associated General Contractors of Colorado Award

Winner, Best Building Project ($10–40m), 2016

World Architectural News

Commended Project, Sustainable Building Award, 2017

Chicago Athenaeum

Green Good Design Award - Green Architecture, 2017

Structural Insulated Panel Association

Building Excellence Award, 2016

International Interior Design Association, Oregon Chapter

Design Excellence Award – Best in the Maker Category, 2016

CoreNet Global

Sustainable Leadership Award, 2017

Center for the Built Environment

Livable Buildings Award, 2018

Less Than Zero—Architect Magazine, 2017

Re-Defining and Delivering Thermal Comfort in Buildings , 2016

RMI Innovation Center: Year 1 Insights, Results, and Lessons Learned, 2017

Published by Passive House Institute U.S., 2017

Published by International Living Futures Institute's, 2017

View live data on Innovation Center performance on our energy dashboard

Excessive AC a Hot Topic in the U.S., 2015

How to Buy a Net Zero Office, 2015

Innovation Center Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Agreement and Exhibits, 2015

Innovation Center Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Multi-Party Agreement Value Cost Model, 2015

Our vision is a world thriving, verdant, and secure, for all, forever.

Connect with us online

DOUBLE your impact on our shift to clean energy!

A generous donor is doubling all gifts, up to a total of $250,000, through June 30, 2024. Your gift helps RMI increase access to safer, healthier, and cleaner energy in more communities.

The shift to clean energy starts locally. It starts with you.

When you sign up, we will keep you informed with the latest RMI news and insights through periodic email communication.

Brought to you by:

Pfizer Inc.: Building an Innovation Center

By: Stefan Thomke, Ashok Nimgade

The case describes Pfizer's efforts to build and run an innovation center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As the center goes through different periods of leadership and strategic models, its…

• Length: 17 page(s)
• Publication Date: Sep 1, 2008
• Discipline: Operations Management
• Product #: 609037-HCB-ENG

What's included:

• Educator Copy

This item is no longer available. Try our website search to find available products, or contact us for assistance.

• Included Materials

The case describes Pfizer's efforts to build and run an innovation center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As the center goes through different periods of leadership and strategic models, its relationship with the corporation and other research sites is explored. The case study describes in detail the challenges of building an innovation center within a large corporation, including organization, incentives, and scientific issues.

Subjects Covered: Innovation, R&D, Organizational Development, Experimentation, Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery

Learning Objectives

MBA, Executive Education: "How to build an innovative organization within a large corporation"

Sep 1, 2008

Discipline:

Operations Management

Geographies:

Massachusetts

Industries:

Pharmaceutical industry

Harvard Business School

609037-HCB-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

To use all available functions on this website, JavaScript must be enabled in your browser.

• Find Your Region

• PERFECTING THE AIR
• ABOUT DAIKIN
• PRODUCTS & SERVICES
• INVESTOR RELATIONS
• SUSTAINABILITY

Through Perfecting the Air, Daikin strives to make the world’s spaces happier and more comfortable.

• DAIKIN STRATEGY FOR PERFECTING THE AIR
• 100 YEARS OF PERFECTING THE AIR
• The POWER TO CREATE THE AIR OF THE FUTURE
• THE IDEAL AIR BY DAIKIN
• PERFECTING THE AIR STORIES
• Daikin at a Glance
• Japan Brand, Daikin
• Daikin for All Your Needs
• Daikin Discovery Hall
• Benefits of Daikin Technology
• Expert Ventilation Methods
• Energy Efficient AC Subscription Service
• History of Daikin Innovation
• Daikin Global Case Study
• VRV , Opening the New Era

• 100 Years of Perfecting the Air

• The Power to Create the Air of the Future

• The Ideal Air by Daikin
• ABOUT DAIKIN TOP
• Message from Management
• Our Group Philosophy
• Daikin's Vision
• Management Overview
• Initiatives For Intellectual Properties
• Business Guide
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Reports and Publications
• DAIKIN design
• Technology and Innovation Center
• PRODUCTS & SERVICES TOP

Daikin leverages its experience and technology to deliver air conditioning solutions that meet the demands of any setting.

• Split/Multi-Split
• Air to Water Heat Pump Systems
• Heating Systems
• Air Purifiers
• Ventilation
• Control Systems
• Air Cooled Chillers
• Water Cooled Chillers
• Air Side Equipment
• Refrigeration
• Marine HVAC
• Air Filters
• Troubleshooting (Chatbot)
• Troubleshooting (FAQ)
• Maintenance Tips
• Preventive Maintenance Service
• Training & Technical Support
• Parts & Consumables
• Error Codes

Pioneering Fluorine Technology Providing Solutions for Life

Utilizing IPM motor and inverter technology for greater energy savings

• INVESTOR RELATIONS TOP
• Financial Data
• Non-Financial Information
• Shareholder Information
• IR Calendar
• SUSTAINABILITY TOP
• INTRODUCTION
• ENVIRONMENT
• SUSTAINABILITY REPORT
• ENVIRONMENT-RELATED CONTENT
• CAREERS TOP
• PEOPLE-CENTERED MANAGEMENT
• DESIRED HUMAN RESOURCES
• GLOBAL ACTIVITIES OF DAIKIN EMPLOYEES
• CAREER PATHS
• INTERNSHIPS

• What is People-Centered Management?
• Perfecting the Air TOP
• Daikin Strategy for Perfecting the Air
• Perfecting the Air Stories
• Daikin Brand
• Daikin Tech-Knowledge
• Daikin Achievements
• About Daikin Top
• Corporate Information
• Products & Services Top
• Air Conditioning & Refrigeration
• Fluorochemicals
• Oil Hydraulics
• Investor Relations Top
• Management Policy
• Sustainability Top
• Daikin CSR at a Glance
• Daikin’s Sustainability
• CSR and Strategy
• Environment
• New Value Creation
• Customer Satisfaction
• Human Resources
• Respect for Human Rights
• Supply Chain Management
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Communities
• Key Activities
• Sustainability Report
• Environment-Related Content
• Search for CSR Contents
• Careers Top
• Perfecting the Air

Case Study 1： Technology and Innovation Center

Aiming for a Net Zero Energy Building with Daikin’s latest technology

The Technology and Innovation Center (TIC) is a new core base of Daikin group’s research and new technology development. Advanced environmental technologies, primarily in the field of air conditioning, are used in the buildings and equipment and serve as a model for solutions that achieve both unrivaled energy efficiency and comfortable indoor environments. The level of environmental quality and function, such as energy saving of the building, interior comfort, attention to the global environment has been highly evaluated and thus led to achieve LEED ® Platinum and CASBEE highest S rank.

• Realize “Net Zero Energy Building”(ZEB). Necessary to be a perfect energy saving building by using various Daikin technologies.
• Optimize air conditioning system for the 2 different types of application (Office and laboratory) within the same building
• Create comfortable office and laboratory for “Innovation”

Daikin Solution

• Realized overwhelming energy saving by optimum placement of energy efficient equipment such as DAIKIN’s high sensible heat VRV . Achieved 70% reduction of energy consumption compared to a general building in Japan.
• Adopted VRV for the office area and chiller for the laboratory area. Considered the optimum HVAC system depending on the building usage, and realized energy saving and thermal comfort at the same time.
• Provided a high level of energy saving and comfort by the total control of not only air conditioning but also ventilation, lighting and shades.

Daikin Products and Services

• 237 VRV outdoor units (Heat pump and Heat recovery)
• 9 modules x 2 of Air Cooled High Efficiency Modular Chiller
• 1 Water Cooled Centrifugal Inverter Chiller
• 118 DESICA (*)
• 6 Heat Reclaim Ventilators (*) Heat Pump Desiccant Humidity Control OA unit

DAIKIN Advantages

1. daikin’s efforts for a net zero energy building (zeb).

TIC aims for ZEB, and 70% energy saving was achieved in 2015 by using various Daikin technologies. 100% energy saving is to be achieved by 2020.

1) High efficiency VRV

Sensible heat and latent heat are controlled separately with the combination of High efficiency VRV and DESICA. This enhances interior thermal comfort by individually controlling temperature and humidity. Drastic energy saving is realized by reducing wasteful energy use such as excessive cooling or heating.

2) Natural energy

Water cooled VRV which is an under developing prototype is utilized for the entrance hall of TIC. This equipment achieves big energy saving thanks to the use of natural energy; - Utilization of geothermal heat for cooling / heating water - Collection / release of heat via solar heat collection / release panel

3) Solar power

Solar panel with solar tracking system is adopted to TIC. It can chase sunlight and generate 1.3 times electricity greater than a general fixed type solar panel. In TIC total 300kW of electricity is generated by fixed type and tracking type.

4) Water mist spray

Water mist spray system for outdoor units is installed to make the heat exchange efficiency higher. By spraying pulverized water droplets, moisturizing of heat exchanger is largely curtailed while the effect of water sprinkling is maintained.* This system is available in Japan only

5) Data analysis

Demonstration experiment system adopted for further energy saving activities to achieve ZEB. Comfort and energy saving performance are evaluated by many sensors attached to the building. The analysis data is used for optimum control of not only air conditioning but also lighting, blind, and shades.

2. Optimum air conditioning products for office and laboratory

At TIC, 2 types of applications (Office and laboratory) are integrated in one building. For this reason, optimum A/C products and control for each application are needed. In the office area, the number of people differs substantially in accordance with the situation. Additionally the heat load varies greatly due to many glass windows. That’s why VRV , which can cope with different heat load of the space, are adopted. There are large space and many rooms in the laboratory area. Module type heat pump chiller and centrifugal chiller are adopted for the laboratory area. They are utilized for the air conditioning system and also providing cool water for experiment use. VRV is also adopted for the laboratory area and supports air conditioning. Chiller and VRV are managed and controlled all together by a central monitoring system.

Building Information

• VRV (Multi-Split Type Air Conditioners)
• Ventilation Products
• NEXT : Eldorado Business Tower

PERFECTING THE AIR TOP

Find out more in your region.

Global Locations

• DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY
• After Sales Services
• People-Centered Management
• Desired Human Resources
• Global Activities of Daikin Employees
• Career Paths
• Internships
• Press Releases

GLOBAL LOCATIONS

©DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, Ltd., 2024

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• About Cookies

• Case Studies
• South-Asia List
• Star Garment Innovation Center Case

A Decrease font size. A Reset font size. A Increase font size.

Star Garment Innovation Center Katunayake, Sri Lanka

The Star Innovation Center is an existing garment manufacturing factory building retrofitted through careful design and engineering for sustainability, energy efficiency, and worker comfort. The factory building has been upgraded to meet the Passive House standard, thus making it the first certified Passive House (PH) building in Sri Lanka and one of only a handful of certified PH projects in tropical climates.

The building is a milestone as it sets new standards by applying cutting-edge sustainable technologies – providing year-round

comfort in the workspace, abundant natural light, low humidity, filtered fresh air, and maintaining temperatures near a constant 24°C. The benefit of these features is reflected in the reduced annual energy use by around 54%.

The Star Innovation Center generates approximately 11% of its energy through installed solar photovoltaic panels spread over an area of 2,549 m 2 with an approximate generation of 19 kWh/m 2 /yr.

Re-using the Existing Building

The existing steel skeleton and the concrete slab have been re-used to reduce carbon footprint of the building. This also lowers the use of fossil fuels typically required for demolition and a new build.

Retrofitting and Modifications

The most important strategy implemented is the installation of highly efficient airtight insulated envelope.

An Exterior Insulated Finish System (EIFS) continuously wraps both existing and new structural components in insulation with minimal thermal bridging. Low absorption or highly reflective exterior surfaces helps to reduce the cooling energy demand of the building.

A new metal prefabricated roof consists of 120 mm thick sandwich panels with a polyurethane rigid (PUR) foam insulating core and an outer heat-reflecting coating.

This roof assembly results in a thermal transmittance U-value of 0.182 W/(m 2 K),largely contributing towards keeping the tropical heat away from the interior.

Exterior Infill Walls

The exposed steel frame is partly filled with concrete masonry units (CMU) which are made efficient by the use of a thermal insulation composite system made from EPS. 

The exterior wall is a C MU wall assembly consisting of a masonry wall (203mm), a cement board (12mm), EPS (graphite enhanced, 80mm), and stucco (6mm), resulting in a U-value of 0.329 W/(m 2 K).

High-Performance Window & Glazing

The exposed steel frame is filled with extensive floor-to-ceiling insulating glass elements. 

A high-performing curtain wall with double glazing and a solar heat gain coefficient of 0.22 allows only 22% of solar radiation to enter the building thus significantly reducing the heat transfer into the interior, resulting in further reduction of cooling loads.

External Shading & Overhangs: 

Strategically designed overhangs and decorative external colored glass panels serve as sun protection screens to reduce the overall heat gain into the building.

Thermal Bridge: 

To minimize the thermal bridging, a fluid-applied thermal break is used at strategic connections to carefully seal the envelope.

Efficient Heat Recovery Mechanical Ventilation System:

The ventilation system design includes energy recovery ventilation (ERV) through heat recovery, wrap-around heat pipes for enhanced dehumidification capacity, and a highly efficient VRF system.

5 ventilation units with heat and humidity recovery have been installed. At an average electric efficiency 0.7Wh/m³, this results in 72% heat recovery and 70% humidity recovery.  

In the system’s heat exchanger, after ERV, cooling and dehumidification is carried out via fan coil units. These units first cool the supply air below the required interior temperature to dehumidify it. This results in deposition of the condensate in the ventilation system immediately, thus avoiding its deposition later in the workspace. 

After dehumidification, the supply air is slightly warmed up using the heat pipes which recover waste heat from the cooling system and rooms. This reheated supply air then flows into the building.

The heat pipes work in collaboration with the solar panels on the roof which saves costs in comparison with the classic electrical reheat systems.

Installed rooftop solar photovoltaics generate approximately 11% of the energy requirement of the building.

The estimated generation is approximately 4,8340 kWh/yr, which is 19 kWh /(m 2 yr) based on the projected area of 2,549 m 2 .

http://jpda.net/projects/star-garment-innovation-center#

https://www.swinter.com/wp-content/uploads/Star-Garments-Case-Study_rev1.pdf

https://passivehouse-database.org/index.php?lang=en#d_6030

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-0AZAaWC1U&feature=youtu.be

Disclaimer: This website is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this website are the sole responsibility of Environmental Design Solutions and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Case-Studies

• other regions
• nalanda university [PACE-D pilot]
• TSREDCO [SAREP]

Privacy Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

UC Innovation Centre Anacleto Angelini by Elemental_ Three aspects of an (un)sustainable case

The analysis of the UC Innovation Centre Anacleto Angelini in Santiago, Chile, by ELEMENTAL, will arise the chance to expose three different dimensions in which a project could relate with its context, addressing strategies from the social, environmental and time perspectives. Perspectives that will be exposed through an analysis that combine the explanation of the architect in diverse media and testimonies of three different people that has been using this centre for the past year and a half, and through the comparison of this building with other relevant cases of ELEMENTAL's portfolio. At the same time, this project will allow me to express an statement. One that relies in a case in which everything that is actually of a green colour was taken out: The importance to dwell upon a sustainability that goes far beyond the obvious technical features, and the fashionable green imaginary with all its marketing purposes.

Related Papers

Dominique Fretin

Studying the building known as the Banco Sul Americano by architect Rino Levi in Sao Paulo city, under a contemporary and sustainable approach, aim to verify the embryo of sustainable concepts in building design in the early 60. Although many aspects linked today to ecological architecture could not be labeled as sustainable in those days, most of them were present in architect Rino Levi designs and works. He always looked forward to emphasize innovative and technical improvements in his designs and constructions concerning natural ventilation and lighting, thermal and acoustic insulation. Thus, through this analysis, we try to establish a sustainable concept within design processes as well as a systematization of analysis parameters applied to commercial buildings, hoping to guide future building designs.

Nicola Scardigno

Antonella Guida

Each architectural project is arranged as an organised process according to a sequence of phases, which are in turn characterised by different procedures; from the initial cognitive analysis and the expressive synthesis, to determining the construction techniques and the most appropriate materials, all of which make it possible to define and manage the proposal. Within the course of the project, each phase is connected to the previous and following one according to different criteria but not necessarily according to a set temporal articulation. The course of the modern bioclimatic project is characterised by two specific factors, the first being the necessary attention to the reaction of each individual element and of the whole building in relation to physical phenomena; the second factor required is that of providing the occupants with a high level of satisfaction: each choice made during the planning stage is dependent on the physiological and psychological well-being of the possi...

Marion Roussel

architecture.ucd.ie

MIGUEL ALOYSIO SATTLER

Repishti Francesco

Urban Studies and Public Administration

Alberto De Capua

Environment, ecosystem, harmful emissions, citizens’ health, energy consumption, sustainable development. It is a non-exhaustive list of terms that are part of our daily life and that show how much responsibility the human imprint has today on the state of health of the planet. Despite the fact that they have been deadlines for some decades, at the head of all the programmatic statements on development, issued by international bodies and governments, the situation does not seem to improve. We are, indeed, called to change our lifestyle and our well-being patterns which are causing an exaggerated and ever-increasing waste of energy and resources, just as the overall impact of the human species on natural systems continues to grow (De Capua, 2008). In recent years everything that has to do with architectural design, from the choices of materials to the technologies used, has had to deal with the term sustainability, whose meaning, despite trying to place it in a unique defining appara...

Edgard Blücher Ltda

Chiara Del Gaudio

DESIGN ECOVISIONS – Volume 2: Research on design and sustainability in Brazil presents the results of the panel discussions of the 6º Simpósio Brasileiro de Design Sustentável + International Symposium on Sustainable Design (SBDS+ ISSD 2017), held in 2017 in Belo Horizonte. The event aimed at gathering researchers, students and design professionals, as well as representatives of the productive and governmental sectors, who seek to discuss the current and future framework of design in relation to various aspects of sustainable development. It was based on dynamics for exchange, sharing, and collaboration among design researchers engaged with sustainability, previously experienced in the 5th edition of the symposium, held in 2015 in Rio de Janeiro, and which results were recorded in the first volume of this series. The theme of Volume 2 is the tripod of sustainability, and it is addressed by reflecting on “design, territory and culture”; “social innovation and collaborative models”; “ecomaterials”; “environmental labelling”; “design and craftsmanship”; and “circular economy”. The chapters reflect the researchers’ contributions and their discussions, and are organized in three parts. The first encompasses design in the context of sustainable consumption and production, focusing on materials and environmental labelling. The second seeks to discuss design and emerging approaches through the concepts of local production, territory and collaborative models. The third part consists of reports of experiences from the event or from design practice. Thus, combining theory and practice, this book seeks to materialize the meeting as a relevant event for the area, and a fruitful space for debates on the theme of sustainability allied to design in Brazil.

Sustainable Design Unit , Evgenios Zozoulya

The main argument of this paper is that the sustainable architecture movement which is also referred to as green architecture in this thesis, is not delivering what it promised. It is argued that since sustainable architecture is only dealing with certain aspects of nature, deemed desirable by people, it cannot claim that it is a true ecological solution due to the fact that it leaves many of nature’s so called “undesirable” manifestations untreated and unprovided for. Thus in this paper I attempt to analyze the trends and shifts in the relationship of man and nature from Renaissance up to Modernity, evaluate the current definition of sustainability and its application in 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries, introduce the relatively new concept of subnatures and finally superimpose the ideas of subnature with the ideology of sustainability. In doing so it is hoped that this paper will provide the initial questions and ideas that will generate a basis upon which further research and development of the core ideas of sustainability and subnatures will be carried out, in order to culminate into the creation of architecture that takes into account the entirety of nature as well as the human needs and aspirations.

Landscape Journal

Gale Fulton

RELATED PAPERS

Jurnal Kacapuri : Jurnal Keilmuan Teknik Sipil

Springer eBooks

James Shackelford

Jurnal Informatika

Meredita Susanty

Revista de la Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad Central de Venezuela

Nuris Orihuela

Lecture notes in networks and systems

Claudio Estatico

Journal of Water and Soil Science

Mohammad Mehdi Moghimi

2009 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings

Dawna Schultz

+E: Revista de Extensión Universitaria

Oscar Enrique BOSETTI

International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education

Kennedy Sialoombe

Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation

Pallavi Kiran

Catherine Falade

anis charrada

ortega muko

fransiskus xaverius

Frédéric Hollande

Zoltan Balla

Journal of Bangladesh Society of Physiologist

Susmita Sinha

Meir Benayahu ז״ל

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Practice Management

• Community Home
• Discussion 2.8K
• Library 111
• Our Events 2
• Members 14.1K

Quick Links

• PMKC Leadership
• Best Practices
• PM Digest: Research in practice
• PM Digest: Business basics
• PM Digest: HR in practice

The Practice Management Knowledge Community (PMKC) identifies and develops information on the business of architecture for use by the profession to maintain and improve the quality of the professional and business environment.  The PMKC initiates programs, provides content and serves as a resource to other knowledge communities, and acts as experts on AIA Institute programs and policies that pertain to a wide variety of business practices and trends.

PM Discussion Board ->

Research to innovation & impact: What it takes and why it is worth the investment

By upali nanda assoc. aia posted 2 days ago.

By Upali Nanda, PhD, Assoc. AIA, EDAC, ACHE, Global Practice Director, Research & Partner, HKS

In 2006, HKS hired Dr. Debajyoti Pati, an experienced PHD, as “Director of Research.” This was a highly surprising move at the time—the title was uncommon in the architecture industry. Even in the years after, only a handful of architecture firms—and one art firm—have a research director role. Before Pati’s hiring, Big R “Research” was primarily the domain of academia. And firms did minimal—small r "research" to inform their projects. Healthcare as a typology was just starting to embrace the idea that design could be evidence-informed, which was first written about in 20001.  

Over the 25 years since, medium to large firms have increasingly employed design researchers, with many firms now boasting in-house research and consulting departments that include PhD researchers, clinicians, strategists, economists, engineers, and design thinkers.  

The trend has been driven by a growing demand for authentic and unbiased research. In 2008, HKS established CADRE, a 501c3 not-for-profit organization that promotes open-sourced research developed through industry and academic coalitions. How did the evolution of architecture into a research fueled industry come about?  

Research as an Investment 

In the design service industry, R&D is never as prominent as in manufacturing and technology. However, innovative design solutions are considered research by the IRS, and, with proper qualifications, architecture firms can receive R&D tax credits for such activities. With research now an accepted component of architectural practice, firms are turning their attention to the potential benefits of R&D investment.  

The industry is facing an explosion of innovation driven by billions of dollars in R&D spending. Most of this innovation is narrowly focused, related to technologies that improve process speed and quality of existing services offered by AEC providers. Meanwhile, broader challenges of climate change, systemic inequity, mental health, and evolving work culture are colliding with those of aging infrastructure and an uncertain policy and economic climate. Thus, beyond developing technology that optimizes existing architectural processes, research is now vital to provide strategic context to fuel innovation. 

A Research Roadmap 

Research can provide a roadmap for developing new technologies for existing services and understanding emerging market opportunities. It can also help develop new services and tools and improve the measurement of design performance in three primary ways. 

1. Foresight. Understanding “which way the winds are blowing” with foresight reports that look at market trends and are informed by the socio-economic and political climate.  

Example: HKS and CADRE’s Clinic 20XX study assessed the state of primary care in healthcare, drivers of change, trends responding to the drivers, and design implications. The post-COVID study produced design strategies for today’s ever-changing healthcare climate. 

Image: HKS and CADRE’s Clinic 20XX 7 key principles

More recently a partnership with the Center for Brainhealth and Brain Capital Alliance resulted in framing an entire design opportunity space of brain healthy workplaces , brain healthy housing and brain healthy cities .

Image: HKS, the Center for Brainhealth and Brain Capital Alliance defined factors of a Brain Healthy workplace

2. Insight. Informing projects on increasingly tight deadlines and budgets with timely insight and evidence that can help prioritize resources. 

Example: HKS developed a design diagnostic tool now used by all its healthcare design teams to methodically assess a current state to inform the planning process. Demographic assessment, market analyses, climate analyses, deep community engagement and methodical stakeholder interviews are now part of an intentional design process at HKS.

Image: One of HKS’s design diagnostic tools to aid healthcare design teams based on research

3. Impact. Measuring project outcomes is a task the architecture industry hasn’t traditionally embraced. Despite growing interest, clients rarely request post occupancy assessments. However, measuring outcomes is essential to break the cycle of design service commoditization. The resulting data allows us to better understand ways to achieve design excellence and to translate it to important outcomes such as health and well-being.  

Example: A recent HKS longitudinal study with university partner UC San Diego found that by integrating health and wellbeing principles in design, the university saw not just a decrease in energy use and an increase in environmental quality. The study also saw a reduction in self-reported student depression and an increase in health and wellbeing behaviors.  

Although findings of any study are rarely completely generalizable, the complexity of architectural design projects necessitates an investment in qualitative and quantitative data and competent analyses to advance innovative design.  

Realizing the importance of this approach, HKS has also made an ongoing investment in our living labs program that pairs researchers with design studios to advance experimentation and innovation testing and to develop new technologies, materials, and designs. The program includes measuring performance and well-being outcomes.  

Readying for Adaptation & Innovation 

Despite the frequent misuse and misunderstanding of the term “innovation,” its essence is rooted in the ability to adapt to a swiftly changing environment by providing insights about both gradual and transformative changes in technology, society, and the markets the AEC industry serves. Research is fundamentally necessary to foster this innovation, and organizations are implementing internal programs, R&D processes, and governance structures to nurture it.  

At HKS, research and innovation initiatives are championed by top executives, including the CEO, President, and key sector leaders, who recognize the value of these investments. Additionally, internal programs like the research incubator/accelerator offer all staff the chance to dedicate time and resources to industry-relevant, timely, research-driven topics. The objective is to deliver tangible benefits in various forms.  

Image: HKS design strategies  for workplace brain health

These endeavors have yielded diverse outcomes, such as new reports, prototype designs, and tools. Notably, the widely circulated AIA Resilience Design Toolkit originated from HKS’s incubator program, spurred by a client inquiry that challenged conventional perspectives.  

Architecture firms must ensure their work doesn’t just chase the latest technology, but that it resonates with broader market and societal needs and aspirations. This requires active participation from architects, interior designers, urban planners, and design strategists in a dialogue with clients and stakeholders that is grounded in research. By actively engaging in R&D activities, the profession can more effectively contribute to solving client problems, creating Intellectual Property (IP) that can be scaled to provide broad impact and economic value, building research experience to create a learning organization, and sparking insights that shape the future, within, throughout, and beyond the built environment. 

Acknowledgements

Dr. Michael O Neil, Julie Hiromoto, and the HKS research team  

_____________________________________

Dr. Upali Nanda oversees a range of innovation practices that work within, through and beyond the built environment for meaningful impact. Prior to her current role she served as the global research director for the firm and as the Executive Director for the non-profit Center for Advanced Design Research and Education. Dr. Nanda teaches as Associate Professor of Practice at the Taubman School of Architecture and Urban Planning at University of Michigan and serves on the board of the Academy for Neuroscience for Architecture. Her award-winning research around health and wellbeing, neuroscience and architecture, sensthetics, point of decision design, and outcome-driven design has been widely published. She has won various research and innovation awards including the 2018 Women in Architecture Innovator Award.

(Return to the cover of the May 2024 PM Digest)

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Code of Ethics Contact Us

AIA Network

AIA Conference on Architecture AIA Contract Docs AIAU AIA Foundation AIA Design Shop AIA Trust