Michael David Leiboff

[Note:  Contributing Editor, Michael Leiboff, a Partner at Shen Milsom & Wilke, a world renown AV Technology Consulting Design Consulting Firm, shares the details of one of his most interesting projects.  He can be contacted at michael@leiboffonline.com]

I have worked a number of times over the years with Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, an architectural firm with offices in Albany, New York, Boston and Washington DC. Charles Kirby, a principal at EYP asked if I would collaborate with them on a new classroom building at the Harvard Business School in Boston. The Project was the new building construction project Hawes Hall.

Rod Hawes, had arranged to make a rather sizable donation to the Business School, from which he had previously graduated. His vision in funding the project was to provide a technology rich learning environment in which the students at the business school could gain a more encompassing, global perspective. He hoped that by helping to foster this perspective, the young men and women would who attend HBS could then go on and help build organizations that would help level the economic playing field between rich and poor nations, and thus, Hawes hoped, raise the standard of living for those most in need.

My first introduction to the project, then, was very different from most project kick off meetings. It was charged with a sense of mission well beyond most other assignments.

Another unique aspect of the project was the senior faculty representative, Jay Light . Professor Light was one of the most engaging, supportive and open minded university faculty I've ever had the pleasure of working with. He was enthusiastic about the project, had strong ideas about how the classrooms should work, and was eager to consider any opportunities to utilize technology to make the learning process more effective.

Surprisingly, the faculty had already created a committee to consider what I believe is one of the most important aspects of classroom design; the juxtaposition of writing and projection surfaces, and other furniture elements in the area where the professor would lead the classroom activities. The "Front of the Room Committee" as they had named themselves had already spent time considering how to optimize this area of the classroom.

The Graduate School at HBS is well known for their case study methodology. In practice, this method utilizes in depth review of complex case studies, actual business situations which have been written up in detail to describe a particular business problem. What is not included in the brief is what was actually done by the managers to resolve the problem. The students study the material and work in teams to develop their responses to the business problem.

Classroom activities revolve around these discussions. Often times, after a case has be thoroughly discussed, the actual manager involved at the company visits with the students to discuss what he actually did, and to answer questions. These visits are often held on campus, but increasingly, held via video teleconference.

Having an understanding of the case method, previously designed hundreds of classrooms, and earned an MBA at New York University, I set to work with EYP and other design team members to develop classroom designs for a 65 and 96 person classroom.

Until Hawes Hall was built, no classroom at HBS had ever had more than two projection screens. And one of the concerns of the faculty was how to expand the use of video teleconferencing and computer display, as well as maintain extensive writing surfaces. Over time, the design team and the front of the room committee began to explore the possibility of adding a third projection screen.

Both the architect and faculty were enthusiastic in developing this idea further. Since this scheme would alter the geometry of the classroom, it was decided to build a mock up of the room. The mock up would also allow for the review of furniture placement, table widths, lighting, etc, before a final commitment was made.

My team at SM&W, chiefly Guy LaFontant, worked with Leila Kamal and others at EYP to develop screen sizes and good viewing angles to make the room work from a presentation perspective. Other aspects of architecture and furniture planning were developed as well. The mock up was to simulate the proposed classrooms as well as unfinished sheet rock walls and plywood desks could afford.

We were all quite excited when the construction was nearly completed and the design team and faculty finally got the chance to meet in the mockup. It was the most comprehensive, full scale classroom mockup I've had ever seen. The perimeter of the room was unpainted sheetrock. The blackboards were marked off on the sheetrock. The stepped floor was constructed at the exact dimensions of the proposed floor. Every student desk was placed and sized, fabricated from plywood. Several different chair types which were being considered, were located around the room. The ceiling was unfinished but already a few different lighting fixtures which were being considered were in place.

Each of us in the room evaluated elements of the space from the perspective of our own discipline. For my part, the room looked great. In particular, the projection screens (which were not installed) were sized and located perfectly. Three equal sized screens which would furnish good viewing for virtually every student were properly integrated into the room.

It was interesting to watch Professor Light and the other faculty members wander around the room, sitting in different student locations, trying to imagine a finished room filled with students. As they walked around, it slowly became obvious that they were not entirely satisfied.

As they described their reactions to the room, it became clear that something about the feel of the room was off. It was not achieving the kind of intimacy that they felt was necessary to successfully facilitate the case study discussions that were the basis of their teaching method. Indeed, they suggested that the room geometry need to change, and in particular, the front of the room needed to be shortened in width.

As the audiovisual consultant I was a bit horrified, because that would imply that the projection screens needed to be reduced in width. I was afraid that either the three screens would be reduced to two, or that the three screens might become too small.

I left the meeting a bit deflated about how well we could resolve the projection display issues going forward. I was also a bit confused about the faculty's notion of "intimacy". I did not quite get it. So I spoke with Professor Light, and he arranged for me to sit in a few classes. Subsequently, I met with Light and other faculty members to discuss specifically how they imagined the class dynamics should be controlled.

During my class sit-ins, (Mom, I finally made it to Harvard) I watched while the professor serve as discussion facilitator, and students discussed with the professor and amongst themselves, the details of the case. It was only in my subsequent meetings with faculty that I discovered that what seems like fairly spontaneous comments were carefully choreographed lesson plans. The professors know exactly how they wanted the discussion to progress, and their oral comments and blackboard notations were scripted to a certain extent in advance.

I was a bit stunned to realize that the classroom activities were in many ways actually live theater.

Once you understand the theatrical aspects of classroom dynamics, the notion of intimacy makes perfect sense. The physical relationships between teacher and student and among the students themselves was critical to the success of the discussion, and to the learning that was expected as a result.

Nothing then was more important than achieving intimacy in the classroom. As a result, the width of the front of the room had to be reduced to achieve the proper room geometry. The faculty continued to support the idea of using three blackboards and three projection screens. Unfortunately, three properly sized screens could not physically fit in within the new width parameters of the room. Ultimately, we decided that a full sized single center image should be provided. The screens left and right of center would be reduced in size, and the faculty accepted the limitation that either the graphics used on these screens would need to be oversized, or that they would be used to display images from remote participants via video teleconferencing.

It was also clear that the professors would move around the room. The purpose of the instructor's desk was two fold: to serve as a place to store handouts and other materials, and occasionally, as a place for the instructor to sit.

Another interesting issue was to determine if and where an instructor's control panel and computer should be placed. The faculty determined that a podium should be located off to the side, stage right, and the control panel would be fixed within it.

A Crestron touch panel control system was chosen, with the panel also serving as the PC display. Virtually all of the AV equipment was located in an instructor accessible niche a few steps from the podium.

Once these elements were validated and approved, the remainder to of the AV equipment details were developed together with HBS's AV support group. When the building first opened in 2003, Hawes Hall contained the most advanced AV presentation technology a HBS. It is interesting to note that the classroom technology program developed for Hawes has continued to change, and as each classroom renovation takes place around the school, and the AV setup is updated, the model continues to evolve.

Hawes Hall has been and remains a career highlight for me. The collaboration with EYP and HBS faculty served as a unique learning experience, an inspiration, and an example of how a clear vision for teaching and learning can be realized, and enhanced using presentation technology.   I invite you to take a virtual tour if you wish.