Benchmarking: The Benefits and Limitations in Research Space Planning
Benchmarking is a useful tool for comparing metrics between research projects and institutions, but has some limitations. It can help set sustainability goals and estimate space needs in early planning. However, each research problem is unique, so benchmark data must be considered carefully and often doesn't fully solve complex issues alone. A real-world example showed how benchmarking highlighted outliers and inefficiencies but more analysis was still needed to understand unique space requirements. Gathering reliable benchmark data requires consistent definitions and visual presentation to identify outliers and refine comparisons over time.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
95 views
Benchmarking: The Benefits and Limitations in Research Space Planning
Benchmarking is a useful tool for comparing metrics between research projects and institutions, but has some limitations. It can help set sustainability goals and estimate space needs in early planning. However, each research problem is unique, so benchmark data must be considered carefully and often doesn't fully solve complex issues alone. A real-world example showed how benchmarking highlighted outliers and inefficiencies but more analysis was still needed to understand unique space requirements. Gathering reliable benchmark data requires consistent definitions and visual presentation to identify outliers and refine comparisons over time.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
Benchmarking: The Benefits and Limitations in Research
Space Planning Wed, 01/27/2016 - 2:59pm1 Comment
by Sarah Holton, AIA, LEED AP, CLSS, Payette
Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare performance metrics from one project
to another. When planning new research space, using benchmark data assists the decision-making process as it enables the client to understand what peer institutions are doing in similar situations. Benchmark data can also compare metrics between different researchers within an organization. However, when relying on benchmark data, it’s important to keep in mind some of its limitations. Data gathered by multiple institutions or companies can be difficult to compare as metrics aren’t always calculated in the same way. While comparable data can provide insight into possible solutions, benchmark data alone does not solve unique, complex problems. With over 40 years of laboratory experience at Payette, we have a robust benchmarking database built upon our experience, which helps us frame those unique, complex problems. Often, we use benchmarking as the first step in the planning process as it applies to a project’s sustainability goals as well as department or floor planning.
Benchmarking and sustainability goals
Benchmarking is particularly useful in setting sustainability goals at the
beginning of a building project. As part of the 2030 Commitment, which challenges all new buildings, developments and major renovations to be carbon- neutral by 2030, we have been tasked with carefully benchmarking our sustainable strategies. An important benchmark is Energy Use Intensity (EUI) (kBtu/SF/year) which expresses a building’s potential energy use. A low EUI signifies good energy performance so this is a key metric to compare against similar projects. All new projects are continually striving to better their energy performance and lower their projected building EUI as compared to competitors.
New science buildings benchmarks showing predicted EUIAs our projects
strive to reduce their overall energy usage, other sustainable strategies are carefully benchmarked and are also useful on a detailed planning level. For instance, we track air changes per hour in research labs and the face velocity required at the fume hoods as a useful sustainable benchmark when planning research buildings. The fume hood is arguably the single most important safety feature in laboratories. They are also one of the major energy users and can be known to use three and a half times more energy annually than the average American house. At a recent project meeting, upon understanding that current practice has lowered the fume hood face velocity to between 60 to 80 fpm by using high performance fume hoods and that most of their current hoods were at 100 fpm, the client decided to aim to lower their standard to 60 fpm. Benchmark data quickly helped the client frame the problem and make a decision. Benchmarking and space planning
Benchmarking is also important at a department or floor level planning level. As
we begin to understand how many faculty members will occupy a building, how big their labs are and what kind of research they are involved in, we use benchmarks to estimate the initial program. These early benchmarks are more of a range per person and become more detailed as programming evolves and the constraints of the project are known.
To illustrate how benchmarking works in a real-world scenario, let’s take a look
at a case study. We had a client with a challenging problem. They wanted to continue growing their school by hiring new faculty but were constrained by their current building footprint. Using benchmark data, the administration hoped to convince the faculty that they each individually had more space than their contemporaries at peer institutions and, therefore, should reduce their individual research footprints, which would allow for new hire growth. In this instance, the benchmark data was under critical scrutiny because the administration was using it to take space away from the researchers. The researchers examined the data and felt the existing conditions were not exactly like the conditions of the benchmarked institutions. This faculty was solving unique problems in an area of geographic density that were not exactly comparable to other schools. This instance reinforces the notion that benchmarking data must be considered with a grain of salt. Often such data gets you in the ballpark but doesn’t fully solve or answer the problem.
Research space types examplesIn the example of this client, this
benchmarking research density exercise did highlight some very clear outliers. In this institution some faculty occupied their space very densely while others occupied their space very loosely and, ultimately, most of the research space was within an average range. From this point, we then dug in to work with the outliers to understand what they were doing and if we could create higher quality, but less quantity of space. We observed inefficiencies within many of their labs and our proposed redesign proved how we create more linear feet of bench with less overall square footage. In the end, benchmarking was a useful tool, but it was not the standalone tool in reaching a solution as we planned the research space that was incomparable to other institutions. That is the limitation of benchmarking. However, a benchmarking tool becomes more powerful as more data is collected from varying institutions and clients.
At Payette we have established some strategies to gathering and building
reliable benchmark data:
• Establishing definitions at the outset is very important for reliable,
comparable data.
• Graphing data and making it visual helps team members (client
leadership and stakeholders as well as the design team) understand the story behind the data. Gathering and presenting good comparable benchmarking data can be an iterative process because, often, when the data is graphed or visually interpreted, outliers jump out. When outliers are identified they sometimes need to be revisited. • Create an easy process for collecting data when it is calculated in the drawing phase. Recalculating data afterwards often takes twice as long.
Benchmark ranges by research space types illustrating NASF per
pesearcherBenchmarking can be very powerful in helping clients make decisions. As a tool, benchmarking allows designers to frame the problem and provide a comparison to peer institutions decisions and standards. However, no two institutions are exactly the same. Thus, each problem must be examined in detail to truly understand what researchers are doing and what their space requirements are. Careful consideration of relevant benchmarking data leads to smarter decisions for clients, whether it is a thoughtful response to space utilization or a new goal towards a sustainable future.