Latest Reports

Decreases in energy and commodity prices have driven growth and pricing increases in the non-residential construction market and other sectors of the economy. Year-over-year non-residential construction growth is currently at 25 percent. Combined with a total volume growth of 17 percent in 2014, the sector is approaching a 52 percent rebound in spending from its most recent bottom. Price increases for 2015 are trending toward 8 percent, depending on location.

Motivating organizational leadership to address the growing limitations of aging science facilities can be a challenge for facility managers. Strategic assessment models like facility condition, revitalization rate, and asset age are powerful tools for stewarding facilities, but in advocating for renewal, which models are most likely to drive action? Officials at NASA considered four of the most common models before settling on the use of a simple “readiness” metric for measuring operational risk and developing a reasonable business case for new facility investment.

The phrase “lab of the future” typically refers to a flexible, open floorplan designed to promote collaboration and cross-pollination between researchers. But these buzzwords have been used for decades, with open labs dating back to the mid-’60s and flexible casework to the mid-’80s. So how successful have these features been, and what defines the lab of the future in 2015 and beyond?

Money is becoming available for new construction and major renovations of college and university science buildings, but experts and observers in the industry see a major planning flaw in many of these projects: They are moving forward with no assessment as to whether or not owners have the skilled staff to operate and maintain what is being planned, or the financial resources to hire the staff that will be needed. That is a recipe for institutional embarrassment.

Universities, independent research institutes, and medical centers looking to improve the quality of their research, recruit and retain staff, and compete for funding increasingly focus their attention on establishing core facilities, despite some concerns in the scientific community about where these core facilities are located and possible conflicts between the research groups vying to use them. Almost regardless of discipline, researchers chafe under budgetary constraints—no small problem in the “publish or perish” environment of biomedicine. The tools necessary for even the most basic of protocols are expensive, with cutting-edge equipment running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is hardly surprising that new or remodeled facilities benefit from centralizing certain shared resources, such as imaging instruments, microscopy, cold storage, and animal facilities. But those resistant to the concept cite reservations about establishing accountability, prioritizing purchases, and ensuring equitable access. Do the benefits of core facilities outweigh these potential pitfalls?