lab 5 programming - amazon web services

Lab 5 Programming

2018

1

1

1. Objective 03

2. Assumptions & exclusions 06

3. Studies 12

4. Draft programme – introduction 28

5. Draft programme – narrative 37

6. Way Forward 50

7. Appendices 52

CONTENTS

OBJECTIVE

2

3

3

Lab 3

Center Bldg.

Lab 1ESB

Lab 2 Lab 5 site

Lab 4 site

→ define a space programme that is suitable and desirable in light of OIST’s mission, values and overall growth strategy.

→ assess existing labs 1~3 to draw conclusions and generate data to underpin decisions for Lab 5

→ make Lab 5 as robust and justifiable as possible, within and outside of the organization of OIST

OBJECTIVE

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

4

ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS

5

These programme drivers are considered axiomatic and are not challenged or questioned.

Lab 5 is assumed to contain:

25 PI

Mixed disciplines

25 PIISS above

Labs

Interact & collaborate

Vivarium&

Cleanroom

World class

facilities

Opportunities to Interact & collaborate

OIST ApproachOIST

Vision

Growth trajectory

Scientific need

Proven merit

OIST Ambition

EXCLUSIONS

6

Lab 5 does NOT contain…

A) Central admin extension: Central admin sections’ projected growth

(144 pax to 160 pax by 2020, some of which will be located in lab4) can be

accommodated in the Center Building at acceptable density


7

A203b

A237

A160

A159

A157

A158 A153

A155

A156

A154

A232A236

A235

A238

A231

A233

OA

EPS

A244

A240

A202

A241A245

A204c

A153

A152aA151

A150

A111

A110

PSEPS

A109A108A107A106

A246

A247

A116 A117PS

PS

PSEPS

A204a

PS

PS

PS PS

PS

A243

A242

EA

A118

A201a

A201b

A201c

A200a

A200b A200c

A203a

A152b

A105

568.7㎡

47.9㎡

735.5㎡

Executive736 sqm

ADMIN617 sqm, 105 seat

5.9 sqm/seat

ADMIN1,353 sqm

↓146 seats

9 sqm /seat

2017 2020

Loading Dock

B381

B380

B380e

B380d

B380c

B380b

B380a

B379

B378a

B378

B377

B376

B042a

B039 B038

B040

B086

B375

B037

B029

B028b

B028a

B035B034

B031

B033

B032B026

B027

B025

B024

B023

B047

B049B048

B050

B383B384

B385

B472

B471

B460

B470

B458

B468

B469

B467

B465

B464

B457

B456

B466

B463

B052B055

B054

B053

B051

B044

B045

B043

B089

B088

B215B214

B116

B117

B118

B120

B107

B287

B102

B201a

B201b B201c

B201 B201d

B118a

B384a

B103

B105B105

B107a

B119

B473

B459


B) Central shared facilities extension: Hearings with the Dean of Research and Research Support Division suggest that, with the notable

exception of the vivarium, the current set of centrally provided equipment and facilities is competitive and comprehensive.

Growth is not driven by the increase of users but by the nature of research – unless new avenues of science were pursued at OIST that

require to add new equipment, current facilities are considered to be adequate for at least the timeframe until Lab5 completi on. The

Center Building and Lab1 contain, on Level B, significant room for enlarging such facilities provided that unit spaces are mo ved out when

the opportunity arises.


8

B516

B524

バックヤード

厨房内通路

サービスコーナー

個室1 個室2

倉庫1Storage

食器ﾄﾚｰ返却ｺｰﾅｰ

洗浄ｺｰﾅｰ

B238a

B129

B130

B501

B052

B055

B054

B053

B051

倉庫2Storage

B503a

B508

B506

B507

B525

B504

B526

B523

B517a

B520B522

B251

B510

B515

B514B513

B512B234

B127

B128

B150

B250

B235

B253

B238

B236

B237

B241

B242

B244

B254

B503b

EPS

EPS

PS

EA

B503

食品庫

食品庫

前室

事務室

更衣室

WC

New

Feng Lab176 sqm

Fukunaga Lab149 sqm

Procurement Store

Library

Health Center


C) Study Rooms: There are currently a number of “study rooms” disbursed throughout Labs 1~3 used by Graduate School students and

interns as a temporary “home base” where no desk can be allocated inside the lab they are assigned to. The total number of d esks

provided is approximately 50, which seems large in comparison to the number of first -year students of around 20 (expected to grow to

around 40 / year by 2020), given that only the first-year students “rotate” and are therefore not always accommodated in labs.

The study rooms are popular and appreciated by students but run counter to OIST Graduate School policy of accommodating stude nts,

including 1st-year rotational students, in the assigned labs.

The current practice of converting small spaces to studies all around the buildings seems a stopgap at best.

While it could be considered to accommodate a central study room (say 50pax @ 2.5 sqm/p = 100sqm) in Lab5, it is recommended that, if

the need for such was agreed, it should be accommodated in Lab3 close to the Graduate School. The Graduate School is also ex pecting to

require more space for their staff and this is best kept together , hence a certain amount of lab space could be moving into Lab4 or 5

instead to make room for this growth.


9


D) Any of these facilities that have been suggested by interviewees during the programming study but would need to be defined mu ch

clearer – both in terms of their need as well as key parameters – to be included in Lab5:

i. Multipurpose Conference Facility

Suggested as conferences are deemed to increase together with OISTs reputation and growth.

Existing facilities allow a lecture format but a multipurpose hall (with state-of-the-art AV, auxiliary preparation and translation

capabilities) would greatly enhance possibilities?

ii. NMR facility

The current NMR facility seems not yet at the limit of its capacity but offers little room to place larger NMR equipment if that was

ever considered necessary.

iii. Restaurant / café

Although the F&B offer is considered very limited, no additional outlet was included as Lab4 includes a café.

iv. Library / Community Center

Moving the library from its current position, together with an “upgrade” of its capabilities would offer the opportunity to create a

focal point for all the OIST community in Lab5.

v. Data Center

A mission critical facility for large-capacity computing and data storage is considered, however for a variety of reasons it is

strongly recommended to make this a standalone building not integrated with a laboratory.


10

STUDIES

11

STUDIES - SUMMARY

12

This is to present an overview over the activities / studies carried out as part of the programing effort. While detailed data is provide in the appendices, each study is briefly explained on the following pages.

1. Hearings with OIST executives

2. Hearings with PIs representing all disciplines, lab1~3 users, large and small units

3. Hearings with representatives of other user groups, such as Research Support Division, Research

Unit Administrators, Post-docs and Students, FM & FOU Section

4. On-site survey of storage cabinets

5. On-site survey of lounge usage (1week, 2-hour intervals)

6. Review of unit space allocation drawings, Full net area takeoff by category

7. Correlation of unit makeup with space usage data

8. Meeting room usage survey (booking data)

9. Analysis of dry lab and RUA area densities

10. Review of OIST admin growth projection against current admin areas

11. Review of contingency areas available for Central facilities’ growth

Hearings with OIST Executives were conducted to assess strategic outlook, visions for the future and known issues to be addressed or improved on in next Lab buildings arising from the strategic plan for OIST. Minutes are included in Appendix D.

Interviewees include the CEO, Dean of Technology Development & Innovation, Dean of Research, Dean of the Graduate School, Dean of Faculty Affairs, Dean of Buildings & Facility Management and Chief Information Officer.

STUDIES – Hearings with OIST Executives

13

Notable items highlighted for consideration were:

➢ Improvement of safety and access control in new labs (affecting partitioning of labs)

➢ Inclusion of “incubator” space for company / product spin-off

➢ Desired elimination / minimization of “study rooms” while growing the Graduate School

➢ Improvement of lounge spaces’ utilization while maintaining the overall openness and generosity of the public space

➢ Planned research advisory council in October 2017 may suggest new avenues of research

➢ ISS to be taken as the default in future labs

Hearings with Principle Investigators were conducted to learn first hand of their concerns, frustrations and possible ideas for improvement so that future labs may better anticipate the needs and requirements of their occupants.

Interviewees include 16 out of 51 active PIs (31%), selected to represent all disciplines (life sciences, physics, chemistry), experimental as well as theoretical units, large and small units, recent arrivals and “old hands”.Minutes are in included in Appendix D.

STUDIES – PI Hearings

14

Notable repeated comments included:

➢ A general appreciation for the generous allocation of space

➢ Near-universal agreement with the PI office as such

➢ Majority view that clustering PI offices may not directly affect the work but benefits the RUAs and offers opportunities for interaction

➢ Appreciation of the generous, open, bright, friendly public spaces, combined with the observation that it could be better utilized

➢ Desire to be able to adapt the wet lab bench, particularly the elements provided under the bench, more easily

➢ Universal request for BLACK worktops in the wet lab

➢ Meeting rooms are generally considered sufficient

➢ F&B offer of the central cafeteria considered poor and limited

Hearings with other user groups were conducted to gain additional perspective and verify the comments received from PIs. User groups include RUAs, Post-Docs, Students, Research Support Division, FM & FOU Sections. Minutes are included in Appendix D.

STUDIES – Hearing with other users

15

Notable repeated comments included:

➢ Central facilities are largely considered adequate and successful(exception: vivarium is at the limit of operations and cannot grow)

➢ RUA assignment to a unit and their area location in a “pool” in front of the PI offices but detached from them is universally accepted but the seating and storage can be improved on. External visitors are too few to be a concern.

➢ Post-Docs largely mirrored the PI comments, however the interviewed sample is too small to ensure this is not coincidence

➢ Students genuinely appreciate and see a need for the “study rooms” that the Grad School seeks to eliminate

➢ Meeting rooms are generally sufficient, though Lab1 lacks small rooms so that people have to walk

➢ Appreciation and frequent usage of the lounge spaces

➢ Facility management concerns over costs and effort of adaptation works, notably wet lab fit out, which puts a strain on the team

Visual survey of the corridor-based storage cabinets, throughout all levels and areas of Labs 1 through 3. Photo log is included in Appendix E.

STUDIES – Storage cabinet survey

16

Findings:

➢ In front of wet labs, many (but not all) units make use of the cabinets for storing daily consumables.

➢ In spite of the cabinets provided, alternative shelves appear in some locations

➢ In front of dry labs, the cabinets are >90% empty. Keys still taped to the bottom of drawers indicate that they have never been used. Visual survey of dry lab seating suggests there is ample room to store personal items within reach.

➢ In front of RUA areas, most cabinets are empty although the cabinets directly attached to the RUA booths are well used. Hearings with RUAs confirmed that there is a need for filing space within hand’s reach, ideally within the RUA cubicle and the cabinets provided around the RUA space are considered cumbersome as some do not conform to standard filing solutions

Wet labs: consumables

Dry labs; RUA areas: empty

STUDIES – storage cabinet survey

17

(Storage cabinet survey, Findings, cont’d)

➢ Hearings with PIs confirm that there is a need for unit-controlled day-to-day wet lab storage close to or inside the unit space.The current use however is a stopgap and considered cumbersome, as cabinets are not deep enough and items are spread over many cabinets, outside the actual lab.

➢ Cabinets in front of Physics labs are used for haphazard items without system. PI hearings confirm that physics small parts are stored inside the unit, there is a need for “warehouse” type storage for larger parts that is currently not being met anywhere

➢ There seems to be zero need for individual-controlled storage

Physics labs: storage used variably

Additional storage appearing…

“wild” storage for larger parts

Actual utilization of the “lounge” spaces was measured by providing OIST security guards with a mark sheet in which to note the number of people they encounter in each lounge in the course of their 2-hourly patrol. This was carried out over one week across labs 1 through 3 and was supplemented with hearings and on-site visual observation at each OIST visit.Location markup, photo log and utilization data are included as Appendix F.

STUDIES – Lounge survey

18

Findings:

➢ Lounge usage varies greatly over time of day, with lunchtime being the obvious peak all around

➢ While no lounge is entirely unused, many lounges remain unoccupied over extended periods of time

➢ There is distinct preferred locations, notably Lab 2, which merit study and emulation

➢ User hearings confirm lounges are used for both recreation and social gatherings but hardly for actual meetings (unless with outside vendors or meetings of the very casual sort)

➢ Lounges that are effectively part of circulation space seem less popular than those that are enclosed or otherwise offer a degree of privacy

41 locations, total 1713 sqm

Lab3

Lab2

Lab1

Lev.A Lev.B Lev.C Lev.D

CB

19

(Findings, cont’d):

➢ At least one lounge has for all practical intends and purposes been absorbed into unit territory (Lab2, Level C, in front of C603)

➢ Lounges compete for purpose with study rooms and lunch rooms

➢ Lab1 lounges have to a large extent been converted into study rooms, despite the need for collaborative space being the largest here due to the density of occupation in an open-office format

➢ Outside lunchtime, number visitors at any given time are low

➢ Overprovision of seating reinforces the impression of emptiness

Popular: lounges with a “café” feeling (Lab2-B662,663)

Popular: lounges with a degree of privacy (Lab2-C601)


20

Example: Lab 2 Level B

dateLocation RoomBehavior 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45 8：00 10：45 12:15 13:30 14：45

LAB-2B MTG. Work 1 2 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 30Lunch Refresh 2 0 11 0 4 3 2 6 1 0 1 0 8 0 2 0 1 10 0 1 0 2 5 3 2 3 0 0 6 0 73 MTG. Work 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Lunch Refresh 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 MTG. Work 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 16Lunch Refresh 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 MTG. Work 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 18Lunch Refresh 0 0 17 0 1 2 1 14 2 3 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 1 0 13 2 0 2 0 10 2 1 88

①

②

③

④

6/7 7/5 7/77/3 7/4 7/6

106

103

12

33

フロア別 6.7.08 6.7.11 6.7.12 6.7.14 6.7.15 7.3.08 7.3.11 7.3.12 7.3.14 7.3.15 7.4.08 7.4.11 7.4.12 7.4.14 7.4.15 7.5.08 7.5.11 7.5.12 7.5.14 7.5.15 7.5.08 7.5.11 7.5.12 7.5.14 7.5.15 7.7.08 7.7.11 7.7.12 7.7.14 7.7.15Center A 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 9 2 3 0 0 13 2 0 0 4 5 2 4 0 0 9 2 0 83LAB-1B 0 1 5 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 6 3 0 39LAB-1C 0 3 18 3 4 0 3 10 3 5 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 12 2 5 0 0 17 4 2 0 0 13 2 3 117LAB-1D 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 8 2 2 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 2 1 10 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 12 1 0 69LAB-2A 2 0 15 0 2 0 2 5 1 1 1 1 13 3 2 1 2 9 2 3 0 3 10 4 1 3 0 16 4 1 107LAB-2B 4 4 29 8 20 7 4 20 7 6 6 0 16 0 5 4 3 25 4 10 1 2 19 6 3 6 3 10 13 9 254LAB-2C 0 5 26 3 6 0 8 13 5 8 1 3 9 5 3 5 3 13 3 2 0 3 17 11 2 6 3 12 10 2 187LAB-3A 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 9 4 0 0 0 7 0 6 1 0 3 3 1 0 0 6 0 0 56LAB-3B 3 1 15 3 7 0 5 19 3 0 1 0 18 6 4 0 1 21 0 1 2 0 14 0 6 1 1 23 6 1 162LAB-3Ｃ 1 4 18 9 4 0 6 13 5 1 0 1 10 2 6 1 0 15 5 3 1 2 13 8 5 0 0 13 1 13 160

Lounge 1

Lounge 4

Lounge 2 (terrace)Lounge 3 (internal)

Location

Date & timeWork or

relax?TallyNo. of users

Bottom of the sheet: totals for each lounges by time of day


STUDIES – Correlation of staffing and space use

21

Seri

al

No

. Unit Lead

(alphabetical) Pro

fess

or/

Ass

ista

nt P

rofe

sso

r/

Dis

ting

uish

ed P

rofe

sso

r

Res

earc

h U

nit

Adm

inis

trat

or

Post

doct

ora

l Sch

ola

r

Staf

f Sc

ien

tist

/Gro

up L

eade

r/

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hno

logy

Ass

oci

ate/

Spec

ialis

t

Res

earc

her/

Res

earc

h A

ssis

tant

Res

earc

h In

tern

/Res

earc

h Fe

llow

Vis

itin

g R

esea

rche

r/

JSPS

Res

earc

h Fe

llow

/

Vis

itin

g Pr

ofe

sso

r

Tech

nici

an

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Ass

ista

nt

Part

-Tim

e St

aff/

Age

ncy

Tem

p St

aff

Stud

ent

Spec

ial R

esea

rch

Stud

ent

Total CEN

TER

BLD

G

LAB

1 -

A

LAB

1 -

B

LAB

1 -

C

LAB

1 -

D

LAB

2 -

A

LAB

2 -

B

LAB

2 -

C

LAB

3 -

A

LAB

3 -

B

LAB

3 -

C

Office

(PI) Dry Lab

Wet (or

Chem,

Physics)

lab Other Total REMARKS

1 Brenner 1 1 0.0 notional presence only

2 Laurino 1 1 0.0 New unit

3 Marquez-Lago 1 1 0.0

3 Fabian Pauly 1 1 0.0 New unit

4 Jun Tani 1 1 0.0 New unit

5 Tsvietlova 1 1 0.0

6 Neiman 1 1 2 0.0 sharing space with DeSchutter

7 Sinclair 1 1 2 0.0

1 Tripp 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 14 0.0 located at the Seaside house

1 Arbuthnott 1 1 2 1 3 8 8 16.6 32.2 52.3 57.7 158.8

2 Bourguinon 1 2 3 3 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0

3 Doya 1 2 3 2 6 2 1 11 28 28 17.0 89.6 0.0 61.0 167.6

4 Economo 1 1 3 2 8 2 1 4 1 3 26 26 2 7 1 16.7 111.4 34.9 61.0 224.0

5 Fukunaga 1 1 1 3 3 3 16.8 20.1 149.0 0.0 185.9

6 Goryanin 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 13 2 9 2 0.0 14.6 83.9 9.8 108.2

7 Ishikawa 1 1 4 3 2 11 11 16.7 0.0 68.9 0.0 85.6

8 Kitano 1 1 2 1 4 2 11 11 0.0 88.1 0.0 0.0 88.1

9 Kuhn 1 1 3 1 3 9 ● 9 16.8 12.1 0.0 69.7 98.6 Other = procedure rooms for vivarium animal use

10 Kusumi 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 3 15 15 15 16.7 0.0 276.0 41.3 334.0

11 Luscombe 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 4 9 16.7 58.0 72.8 0.0 147.5

12 Maruyama 1 1 5 1 1 6 15 15 17.0 0.0 126.9 46.2 190.1

13 Masai 1 2 3 3 5 6 1 21 ● 21 16.8 0.0 118.9 35.0 170.7 NOT COUNTED: Lab1 LabA FISH facilities (sole user?) 412.2sqm

14 Mikheyev 1 1 4 2 4 6 3 21 ● 19 1 16.7 0.0 69.2 44.0 129.9

15 Mitarai 1 1 1 1 3 5 12 ● 12 16.7 137.6 58.1 6.3 218.7

16 Rokhsar 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 8 0.0 14.6 46.7 0.0 61.2

17 Satoh 1 2 5 5 1 3 3 8 28 28 16.8 52.1 189.9 16.1 274.8

18 Saze 1 1 3 3 2 10 10 16.7 17.6 111.4 23.9 169.6

19 Shen 1 1 5 1 1 2 7 18 3 15 16.7 76.3 134.2 48.3 275.5

20 Skoglund 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 10 16.8 156.8 98.7 22.4 294.7

21 Takahashi 1 1 4 1 4 4 15 15 16.9 40.3 138.5 34.7 230.3

22 Uusisaari 1 1 1 3 3 17.0 12.1 0.0 57.8 86.9 Other = procedure rooms for vivarium animal use

23 Van Vactor 1 1 1 2 2 3 10 7 3 0.0 19.3 47.5 11.4 78.2

24 Watanabe 1 1 3 4 9 9 16.9 0.0 93.3 26.3 136.5

25 Wickens 1 1 1 2 1 4 7 17 17 17.1 53.7 204.1 18.2 293.1 Faculty affairs office NOT included

26 Wolf 1 1 1 4 1 2 10 10 17.0 0.0 64.3 15.8 97.1

27 yamamoto 1 1 4 3 5 10 24 24 16.5 0.0 186.3 51.1 253.9

28 Yanagida 1 1 3 4 7 1 1 18 18 16.8 0.0 186.8 8.9 212.5

29 Yazaki-Sugiyama 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 6 16.4 49.0 49.0 142.0 256.3 Bird facility in Lab3 Level A

30 Zhang 1 1 4 4 10 10 17.0 0.0 94.8 60.5 172.3

Total 30 31 70 42 14 7 20 73 4 17 93 0 401 0 0 3 120 92 15 37 87 13 33 38 436.8 1,055.3 2,756.1 969.3 5,217.6

13 Av 14.6 35.2 91.9 32.3 Av

3 min min

28 max max

21 No.<=15

1 Khusnutdiova 1 1 4 1 1 3 11 11 16.4 0.0 97.3 86.4 200.1

2 Tanaka 1 1 9 1 1 2 3 18 18 16.5 0.0 212.3 33.6 262.4 incl. a "shared equipment" room converted to dry lab and a "lab corridor" converted to wet lab use

3 Yokobayashi 1 1 5 1 2 10 10 17.0 0.0 109.3 53.7 180.0 incl. a "shared equipment" room converted to dry lab and a "lab corridor" converted to wet lab use

Total 3 3 18 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 8 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 21 49.9 0.0 418.9 173.7 642.5

13 Av 16.6 0.0 139.6 57.9 214.2 Av

10 min 180.0 min

18 max 262.4 max

1 Bandi 1 1 4 6 6 16.7 100.0 110.6 0.0 227.3

2 Chakraborty 1 1 2 1 1 5 11 11 1 16.7 56.5 214.5 0.0 287.7 Lab2A669a, 669b are shared with Goia, counted here in total as both PIS use all the room

3 Dani 1 1 4 6 12 10 1 16.7 53.9 206.5 0.0 277.1

4 Feng 1 1 1 3 3 3 16.7 65.2 176.0 0.0 257.9

5 Gioia 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 16.7 56.5 176.3 0.0 249.5 Lab2A669a, 669b are shared with Chacraborty, counted here in total as both PIS use all the room

6 Hikami 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 11 11 11 16.7 103.4 69.8 0.0 189.9

7 Konstantinov 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 14 14 16.5 70.8 109.3 0.0 196.6

8 Nic Chormaic 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 13 2 30 10 20 16.7 179.0 117.1 0.0 312.8

9 Qi 1 1 12 4 18 18 ● 16.7 78.1 199.5 35.8 330.1 Other = incubator @ Lab3

10 Shintake 1 1 3 3 3 2 13 13 13 16.7 40.8 46.1 87.8 191.4

11 Sowwan 1 1 9 2 1 1 2 1 18 18 ● 16.7 182.0 23.2 36.8 258.7 Other = incubator @ Lab3

12 Sugawara 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 11 4 7 ● 16.5 4.6 11.0 100.7 132.8 Other = incubator @ Lab3

Total 12 12 51 9 3 4 5 11 0 3 40 2 152 0 0 3 4 0 88 44 32 13 0 0 200.0 990.8 1,459.9 261.1 2,911.7

13 Av 16.7 82.6 121.7 21.8 242.6 Av

3 min 132.8 min

30 max 330.1 max

1 Busch 1 1 4 1 1 2 8 1 19 19 16.7 123.2 0.0 0.0 139.9

2 Fried 1 1 8 1 2 1 2 16 16 16.7 142.0 0.0 0.0 158.7

3 Shannon 1 1 4 1 1 4 12 12 16.7 127.5 0.0 0.0 144.2

4 Stephens 1 1 1 1 4 4 16.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 35.2

Total 4 4 16 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 14 1 51 0 0 0 0 0 4 31 0 0 16 0 66.8 411.1 0.0 0.0 477.9

13 Av 16.7 102.8 0.0 0.0 119.5 Av

4 min 35.2 min

19 max 158.7 max

1 De Schutter 1 1 6 3 3 1 1 16 16 16.5 170.7 0.0 0.0 187.2

2 Miller 1 1 3 1 2 4 12 12 8 16.7 78.8 45.6 0.0 141.1

Total 2 2 9 4 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 8 0 0 0 33.2 249.5 45.6 0.0 328.3

14 Av 16.6 124.8 22.8 0.0 164.1 Av

12 min 141.1 min

16 max Polulation grand totals 187.2 max

CB

A B C D A B C A B C

0 0 6 124 92 107 112 137 26 49 59

D) CHEMISTRY UNITS

LOCATIONSTAFFING SPACE OCCUPIED

C) LIFE SCIENCES UNITS

B) UNUSUAL UNITS (NOT COUNTED

A) NOTIONAL UNITS (NOT COUNTED

Lab1 Lab2 Lab3

E) PHYSICS (experimental) UNITS

F) PHYSICS (theoretical) UNITS

G) MATH UNITS

Correlation of unit makeup (staffing) with space usage ( refer to Appendix B).Derived from combining a new, verifiable take-off of net areas of each and every room based on current layouts with actual OIST space allocation plans and unit makeup date, this sheet enables to analyze connections between discipline, unit size and space usage in unprecedented clarity.

Seri

al

No

. Unit Lead

(alphabetical) Pro

fess

or/

Ass

ista

nt P

rofe

sso

r/

Dis

ting

uish

ed P

rofe

sso

r

Res

earc

h U

nit

Adm

inis

trat

or

Post

doct

ora

l Sch

ola

r

Staf

f Sc

ien

tist

/Gro

up L

eade

r/

Scie

nce

and

Tec

hno

logy

Ass

oci

ate/

Spec

ialis

t

Res

earc

her/

Res

earc

h A

ssis

tant

Res

earc

h In

tern

/Res

earc

h Fe

llow

Vis

itin

g R

esea

rche

r/

JSPS

Res

earc

h Fe

llow

/

Vis

itin

g Pr

ofe

sso

r

Tech

nici

an

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Ass

ista

nt

Part

-Tim

e St

aff/

Age

ncy

Tem

p St

aff

Stud

ent

Spec

ial R

esea

rch

Stud

ent

Total CEN

TER

BLD

G

LAB

1 -

A

LAB

1 -

B

LAB

1 -

C

LAB

1 -

D

LAB

2 -

A

LAB

2 -

B

LAB

2 -

C

LAB

3 -

A

LAB

3 -

B

LAB

3 -

C

Office

(PI) Dry Lab

Wet (or

Chem,

Physics)

lab Other Total REMARKS

1 Brenner 1 1 0.0 notional presence only

2 Laurino 1 1 0.0 New unit

3 Marquez-Lago 1 1 0.0

3 Fabian Pauly 1 1 0.0 New unit

4 Jun Tani 1 1 0.0 New unit

5 Tsvietlova 1 1 0.0

6 Neiman 1 1 2 0.0 sharing space with DeSchutter

7 Sinclair 1 1 2 0.0

1 Tripp 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 14 0.0 located at the Seaside house

1 Arbuthnott 1 1 2 1 3 8 8 16.6 32.2 52.3 57.7 158.8

2 Bourguinon 1 2 3 3 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0

3 Doya 1 2 3 2 6 2 1 11 28 28 17.0 89.6 0.0 61.0 167.6

4 Economo 1 1 3 2 8 2 1 4 1 3 26 26 2 7 1 16.7 111.4 34.9 61.0 224.0

5 Fukunaga 1 1 1 3 3 3 16.8 20.1 149.0 0.0 185.9

6 Goryanin 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 13 2 9 2 0.0 14.6 83.9 9.8 108.2

7 Ishikawa 1 1 4 3 2 11 11 16.7 0.0 68.9 0.0 85.6

8 Kitano 1 1 2 1 4 2 11 11 0.0 88.1 0.0 0.0 88.1

9 Kuhn 1 1 3 1 3 9 ● 9 16.8 12.1 0.0 69.7 98.6 Other = procedure rooms for vivarium animal use

10 Kusumi 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 3 15 15 15 16.7 0.0 276.0 41.3 334.0

11 Luscombe 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 4 9 16.7 58.0 72.8 0.0 147.5

12 Maruyama 1 1 5 1 1 6 15 15 17.0 0.0 126.9 46.2 190.1

13 Masai 1 2 3 3 5 6 1 21 ● 21 16.8 0.0 118.9 35.0 170.7 NOT COUNTED: Lab1 LabA FISH facilities (sole user?) 412.2sqm

14 Mikheyev 1 1 4 2 4 6 3 21 ● 19 1 16.7 0.0 69.2 44.0 129.9

15 Mitarai 1 1 1 1 3 5 12 ● 12 16.7 137.6 58.1 6.3 218.7

16 Rokhsar 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 8 0.0 14.6 46.7 0.0 61.2

17 Satoh 1 2 5 5 1 3 3 8 28 28 16.8 52.1 189.9 16.1 274.8

18 Saze 1 1 3 3 2 10 10 16.7 17.6 111.4 23.9 169.6

19 Shen 1 1 5 1 1 2 7 18 3 15 16.7 76.3 134.2 48.3 275.5

20 Skoglund 1 1 3 3 1 1 10 10 16.8 156.8 98.7 22.4 294.7

21 Takahashi 1 1 4 1 4 4 15 15 16.9 40.3 138.5 34.7 230.3

22 Uusisaari 1 1 1 3 3 17.0 12.1 0.0 57.8 86.9 Other = procedure rooms for vivarium animal use

23 Van Vactor 1 1 1 2 2 3 10 7 3 0.0 19.3 47.5 11.4 78.2

24 Watanabe 1 1 3 4 9 9 16.9 0.0 93.3 26.3 136.5

25 Wickens 1 1 1 2 1 4 7 17 17 17.1 53.7 204.1 18.2 293.1 Faculty affairs office NOT included

26 Wolf 1 1 1 4 1 2 10 10 17.0 0.0 64.3 15.8 97.1

27 yamamoto 1 1 4 3 5 10 24 24 16.5 0.0 186.3 51.1 253.9

28 Yanagida 1 1 3 4 7 1 1 18 18 16.8 0.0 186.8 8.9 212.5

29 Yazaki-Sugiyama 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 6 16.4 49.0 49.0 142.0 256.3 Bird facility in Lab3 Level A

30 Zhang 1 1 4 4 10 10 17.0 0.0 94.8 60.5 172.3

Total 30 31 70 42 14 7 20 73 4 17 93 0 401 0 0 3 120 92 15 37 87 13 33 38 436.8 1,055.3 2,756.1 969.3 5,217.6

13 Av 14.6 35.2 91.9 32.3 Av

3 min min

28 max max

21 No.<=15

1 Khusnutdiova 1 1 4 1 1 3 11 11 16.4 0.0 97.3 86.4 200.1

2 Tanaka 1 1 9 1 1 2 3 18 18 16.5 0.0 212.3 33.6 262.4 incl. a "shared equipment" room converted to dry lab and a "lab corridor" converted to wet lab use

3 Yokobayashi 1 1 5 1 2 10 10 17.0 0.0 109.3 53.7 180.0 incl. a "shared equipment" room converted to dry lab and a "lab corridor" converted to wet lab use

Total 3 3 18 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 8 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 21 49.9 0.0 418.9 173.7 642.5

13 Av 16.6 0.0 139.6 57.9 214.2 Av

10 min 180.0 min

18 max 262.4 max

1 Bandi 1 1 4 6 6 16.7 100.0 110.6 0.0 227.3

2 Chakraborty 1 1 2 1 1 5 11 11 1 16.7 56.5 214.5 0.0 287.7 Lab2A669a, 669b are shared with Goia, counted here in total as both PIS use all the room

3 Dani 1 1 4 6 12 10 1 16.7 53.9 206.5 0.0 277.1

4 Feng 1 1 1 3 3 3 16.7 65.2 176.0 0.0 257.9

5 Gioia 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 16.7 56.5 176.3 0.0 249.5 Lab2A669a, 669b are shared with Chacraborty, counted here in total as both PIS use all the room

6 Hikami 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 11 11 11 16.7 103.4 69.8 0.0 189.9

7 Konstantinov 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 14 14 16.5 70.8 109.3 0.0 196.6

8 Nic Chormaic 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 13 2 30 10 20 16.7 179.0 117.1 0.0 312.8

9 Qi 1 1 12 4 18 18 ● 16.7 78.1 199.5 35.8 330.1 Other = incubator @ Lab3

10 Shintake 1 1 3 3 3 2 13 13 13 16.7 40.8 46.1 87.8 191.4

11 Sowwan 1 1 9 2 1 1 2 1 18 18 ● 16.7 182.0 23.2 36.8 258.7 Other = incubator @ Lab3

12 Sugawara 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 11 4 7 ● 16.5 4.6 11.0 100.7 132.8 Other = incubator @ Lab3

Total 12 12 51 9 3 4 5 11 0 3 40 2 152 0 0 3 4 0 88 44 32 13 0 0 200.0 990.8 1,459.9 261.1 2,911.7

13 Av 16.7 82.6 121.7 21.8 242.6 Av

3 min 132.8 min

30 max 330.1 max

1 Busch 1 1 4 1 1 2 8 1 19 19 16.7 123.2 0.0 0.0 139.9

2 Fried 1 1 8 1 2 1 2 16 16 16.7 142.0 0.0 0.0 158.7

3 Shannon 1 1 4 1 1 4 12 12 16.7 127.5 0.0 0.0 144.2

4 Stephens 1 1 1 1 4 4 16.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 35.2

Total 4 4 16 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 14 1 51 0 0 0 0 0 4 31 0 0 16 0 66.8 411.1 0.0 0.0 477.9

13 Av 16.7 102.8 0.0 0.0 119.5 Av

4 min 35.2 min

19 max 158.7 max

1 De Schutter 1 1 6 3 3 1 1 16 16 16.5 170.7 0.0 0.0 187.2

2 Miller 1 1 3 1 2 4 12 12 8 16.7 78.8 45.6 0.0 141.1

Total 2 2 9 4 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 8 0 0 0 33.2 249.5 45.6 0.0 328.3

14 Av 16.6 124.8 22.8 0.0 164.1 Av

12 min 141.1 min

16 max Polulation grand totals 187.2 max

CB

A B C D A B C A B C

0 0 6 124 92 107 112 137 26 49 59

D) CHEMISTRY UNITS

LOCATIONSTAFFING SPACE OCCUPIED

C) LIFE SCIENCES UNITS

B) UNUSUAL UNITS (NOT COUNTED

A) NOTIONAL UNITS (NOT COUNTED

Lab1 Lab2 Lab3

E) PHYSICS (experimental) UNITS

F) PHYSICS (theoretical) UNITS

G) MATH UNITS

Units

grouped by

discipline

Units staff makeup

(no. of staff by category)

Unit location

(Lab & Level overview) Space used

Distinction between

dry lab, wet lab, office

and other spaces

Actual rooms listed in the

excel “comment”

function

Totals, averages,

min and max values

at a glance

22

Findings:

➢ OIST breakdown by discipline reveals that regardless

of the area, number of people or no. of units is used

as a base, the breakdown remains virtually identical:

➢ Key data for purposes of future space planning:

.

Discipline units % people % area %

Bio 30 59% 401 60% 5116 55%

Chem 3 6% 39 6% 627 7%

Physics (exp) 12 24% 152 23% 2723 29%

Physics (the) 4 8% 51 8% 534 6%

Math 2 4% 28 4% 327 4%

Total 51 100% 671 100% 9327 100%

Life

Sciences

Chemistry Physics

(experiment)

Physics

(theoretical)

Math

Average unit size (incl. students) 13 13 13 13 14

Average unit size (excl. students) 10 10 9 12 14

Smallest unit (by members) 3 10 3 4 12

Largest unit (by members) 28 18 30 19 16

Average Space used (allocated) 175 sqm 215 sqm 240 sqm 120 sqm 165 sqm

Dry – to – Wet lab ratio 1:2.7 (no dry lab

used)1:1.5 (no wet lab

used)5:1

%age of units using NO DRY lab 30% 100%(“dry” located in

wet lab)

0% 0% 0%

Density: area / person

(excl. students)20.2 sqm 21.7 sqm 34.4 sqm 13.0 sqm 12.1 sqm

STUDIES – Correlation of staffing and space use

Meeting room usage has been analyzed by review of the online booking history of the past 3 months, correlated with the size (no. of seats) and location of the rooms. Refer to Appendix G.

STUDIES – Meeting room usage

23

Findings:

➢ Feedback from PI and other users indicates that overall meeting room provision is sufficient, there are no problems booking a room when needed

➢ Lab1 is notable for lacking any meeting room, as those that were initially provided have been converted. Lab1 seminar rooms are often booked for workshops and external events, Lab1 users therefore have to use open lounges or walk longer distances.

➢ Feedback and personal use indicates that AV provisions could be improved on – as virtual meetings increase in number the meeting room lighting should be adapted to this use

データの個数 / Hours列ラベル

Seats 4 6 8 10 14 16 60 65 150 Total

Center Bldg 2 1 3

L2 2 7 3 1 13

L3 1 4 2 1 2 1 11

(空白) 1 1

Total 2 8 7 2 2 2 3 1 1 28

Total Hours x

Seats / room 4 6 8 10 14 16 60 65 150 total

Center Bldg 620 160 780

L2 136.25 489.66 342.25 36.5 1004.66

L3 44.75 468 195.65 114.25 266.5 138 1227.15

(空白) 504 504

total 136.25 534.41 810.25 195.65 150.75 266.5 758 504 160 3515.81

booking / room 68 67 116 98 75 133 253 504 160 126

Table 1: room distribution (by no. of seats)

Table 2: booked hours per room

Density of the RUA space has been analyzed based on net area take-offs, refer to Appendix I.

STUDIES – RUA area density

24

Findings:

➢ The general position of the RUAs in a “pool” of semi-private cubicles in proximity to (but no attached to) the PI offices is

universally considered adequate and successful.

➢ However whilst each RUA actually occupies a cubicle of approx. 4 sqm (dimensions vary slightly between labs), which seems

small given the wide responsibilities and requirements that this position entails, the administrative area the RUAs collectiv ely

occupy is large and underutilized in contrast.

➢ Survey reveals and hearings confirmed that the collective filing, stationary store and “skype booth” are almost unused, as ar e

the small seating areas placed around the perimeter of this space.

➢ There is a desire on the part of the RUAs though for an increase in filing space within hand’s reach.

Lab1-C Lab2-C Lab3-C Lab4-F

(x2 per floor!)

165 sqm / 6 seats = 27.5 167 sqm / 9 seats = 18.5 193 sqm / 10 seats = 19.3 195 sqm / 8 seats = 24.4

Average RUA area density across Lab1-4 all levels: 20 sqm

Dry lab seating density has been analyzed based on actual area take-off and seat allocation (Refer to Appendix J).

STUDIES – Dry lab density

25

Findings:

➢ Density varies widely and is greatest in Lab 1 Level D

➢ The vast majority of dry labs uses a density consistent with grade-A office space and users seem to have sufficient document storage at hand

➢ Comments regarding dry lab allocation that revolve around not being able to increase are based on increases in staff, not due to insufficient modules

➢ Comments regarding the module confirm it is considered generous, the only expressed desire was for more adaptable furniture (segmental, bookshelves detachable, height adjustable worktop etc.).

➢ OIST dry lab density is very close and in fact slightly denser than that encountered at Crick Institute (8.5 sqm vs. 9.2 sqm at Crick)

Average: Lab-3 B B754,756

8.2 sqm /seat

Least density:Lab-1 C c100

11.6 sqm /seat

Highest density:Lab-1 D D08abc

4.8sqm /seat

LAB 5 DRAFT PROGRAMME

26

Bar any radical change of or addition to scientific direction,

Lab 5 constituent elements will consist of:

DRAFT PROGRAMME - INTRODUCTION

27

Labs

• Wet Labs (Bio & Chem)

• Physics Labs

• Dry Labs

Admin

• PI Offices

• RUA area

• Meeting rooms

Technical

• Loading area

• Storage

• MEP plant

Welfare

• Lounges

• Pantries

• Sanitary (WC)

Traffic

• Central & aux. stairs

• Lifts (passenger & cargo)

• Corridors

Special

• Vivarium

• Cleanroom

28

Lab2: 24 PI 530 sqm per PI

DRAFT PROGRAMME – ADJUSTED DENSITY

Lab1: 14PI

924 sqm per PI

Lab3: 16 PI

535 sqm per PI

Lab4: 24 PI

672 sqm per PI

Lab5 : 25 PI

480 sqm per PI

→ Density figures adjusted to exclude centrally provided functions (central shared equipment, GS, clinic, Ganjuu etc).

Lab1 -4 average = 640 sqm / PI

lab 5 programming - amazon web services

Documents