Interview with Project Manager for the faculty-based project regarding the Science Village establishment, Stage 2, Charlotta “Lotta” Turner and Site Coordinator from LU Building and Project Manager for the Campus Development Office, Charlotte von Brömssen, about the design-driven dialogues held spring 2023.
Please feel free to read the blog post “Design-Driven Dialogues – An Important Puzzle Piece for the Development of the Upcoming Premises Programme” before below interview for background information on the workshop series.
Why did you decide to use design-driven dialogues as the method for the organizational development work and the creation of a facility program?
Charlotte: The reason behind choosing this method was that the Department of Physics had already outlined a premises programme, while the Department of Chemistry, which joined the process later, wasn’t as far along in their work. Therefore, the design-driven dialogues became a way to bring people from both institutions together to discuss the conditions for a future collaborative operation, with the hope of establishing a shared foundation for the upcoming premises programme.
We also wanted a method and process that focused on the organization and their needs, rather than starting from a building and list of different facilities, which had been done before. That’s why this method, which had the potential to fulfill our requirements, became relevant. After studying design-driven dialogues, we chose to proceed with it in collaboration with Sweco Architects, who also developed the method.
What was the biggest “aha-moment” for you, meaning what emerged during the series that you hadn’t thought of before?
Lotta: It was when participants began moving around pre-made cardboard squares (cutouts), prepared with different functions, such as labs, classrooms, teaching environments, library, café, in a pretend house that we discovered several positive aspects with “vertical thinking”. This thinking means that we can connect for example administrative support vertically within the building along the staircase, for example, for easy and nearby access.
Another “aha-moment” was when participants across different groups almost unanimously concluded that it’s advantageous to have two buildings, housing different parts of the organization, and that we need ample ground on the basement and first floor where we can “spread out.” This became very clear in the exercise where we examined the pros and cons of one building versus two and what they should contain.
Charlotte: I agree. That is one substantial output from the dialogues. The organization believes that having everything within one building allows for movement, but they find that two buildings are essential to have the space to expand. The vertical connection enables proximity and support while providing room for expansion on the floors.
The dialogues have propelled us toward an approach to tackle this complex challenge and have initiated a process on how to organize the space within the building. And the participants have had it confirmed that clustering, i.e. how we could organize and connect different groups, isn’t quite straightforward nor easy!
Lotta: We presented a proposal for organizational clusters where we mixed research groups from both chemistry and physics, as developed by the Steering Group during an extra workshop held for them. And the reaction wasn’t bad at all! So, we see that as a positive sign, that there seems to be an openness to sit near new research groups from other departments, both from physics and chemistry, who could benefit from each other.
I would say that the dialogues have provided us with several embryos of what can be done together, and what it can lead to, for instance, within educational programs and more.
Looking back now, what’s your view on the dialogues?
Lotta: The establishment involves a large and complex organization, so it’s challenging to develop a premises programme and make changes without listening to many voices and opinions. Therefore, the significant benefit has been the fact that we gathered – quite a large group, over 50 people – on multiple occasions and began conversing with each other. People got to know each other across boundaries, which wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t participated in the workshop series. We’ve also heard that those who participated began to understand each other’s different operations better after meeting.
Charlotte: There was a certain seriousness in the exercise of starting this complex process, both for us in the project group and for the participants. And we understand the challenge better. The work this spring also allows the operations to more easily recognize themselves in the work when presenting proposals for space programs and buildings, for instance. They can relate differently because they’ve been part of these discussions.
Lotta: Another outcome is that chemistry and physics are more in sync. That’s also a great achievement from the work this spring. It feels really good. Now we have better conditions for achieving consensus. It would have been challenging to engage in developing a shared space program and directory, where we need to consolidate and work more closely together, WITHOUT the design dialogues and this work.
Charlotte: That’s one of the reasons why we used this method. Now we’ve collectively familiarized ourselves with various issues and understood the situation, sparking discussions. Everyone has become involved in the process, rather than receiving a space program or building presented to them without understanding the framework and conditions. We’re on our way to understanding how to prioritize different matters.
Lotta: We already have a space directory, but we needed something more than that. We needed to know what we can share, what we can do together, where we want to invest anew, what we want to close or remove. A space directory can’t convey all of that.
What’s next? How will the information from the dialogues be used?
Lotta: Now it’s time to get more specific. A focus group has been formed covering teaching, study environments, and teaching support, from which the project group will gather information. We have also identified various focus areas, including research and infrastructure, student environments, office spaces, and meeting areas, among others. The methodology for gathering information for these different focus areas will vary, such as workshops and interviews.
A technology network has been initiated with participants from across the organization. This network meets on a monthly basis to discuss topics related to laboratory equipment, safety, updates, and more, as well as to get to know each other across departmental boundaries.
Charlotte: We received quite a bit of information – both big and small – and we have that as material, along with the space directory, raw data, and more. For example, teachers need meeting rooms adjacent to classrooms to talk to students after lectures – and more details about the working environment, how students and staff want to sit, which we’ll take into the next step.
Lotta: The next step is to develop scope proposals, how many square meters we need for teaching, how much teaching activity we should have, how much space the office environment should take up, and so on, and weigh it against costs. We already have a lot of teaching facilities in Lund, but on the other hand, we need teaching environments in Science Village, otherwise students won’t want to be there. We need to develop a shared operational description and space directory, and have a space program ready by December. A lot is happening this autumn – we won’t be sitting idle!
Learn more about planned activities for the faculty-based project group in this blog entry:
Interview by Cecilia Schubert, Communications Officer, Lund University’s Science Village Establishment