Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
FE ATURE A RTI CL E
The Challenge of Making Buildings Flexible
How to Create Campuses That Adapt to Changing Needs
by Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
How can buildings be both flexible and concrete? The answer is critical as institutions try to keep up with
rapid changes in technology, curriculum, teaching techniques, and demographics.
INTRODUCTI ON
M A N Y O F T HE TO P CO L L EGES A ND UNI V ER SI T IES in the
country have invested hundreds of hours in developing
master plans for their campuses that include both a
philosophy and an action plan for buildings, landscapes,
roads, student housing, safety, walkways, and integration
with surrounding communities. These master plans convey
a vision that spans decades and serve as blueprints for the
desired student life and learning environments. However, all
master plans grapple with an inherent tension: while their
goal is to offer clear, detailed guidance, they are subject to
revision based on changing needs.
This idea—the requirement for flexibility in response to
changing needs—is becoming a norm in the planning process
and is now being acknowledged in most college and university
master plans. Here are a few examples:
»» Middlebury College (n.d., p. 1): “The Middlebury College
Campus Master Plan is intended as a flexible instrument
to guide the physical development of the campus over
the next half-century.”
»» Harvard University (2013, p. 53): “This Vision provides
generalized and flexible parameters to guide the build
out of other Harvard landholdings in the longer-term.”
96 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
»» Wellesley College (VSBA 2013, p. I-1): “Meet current and
anticipated program needs, with enough flexibility to
accommodate evolution of programs and pedagogies.”
»» Holy Cross (Porter 2006, ¶ 2): “No institution, academic
or otherwise, can survive without paying careful
attention to its own shifting needs in the face of evolving
social and intellectual realities in the world at large.”
Taking flexibility into consideration when developing a master
plan has become best practice on a national and international
scale as practitioners aim to address our constantly evolving
world. A white paper published by the International Facility
Management Association (2009, p. 16) includes this
description of a strategic facility plan (SFP):
Regardless of the tools used in the development
of an SFP, the SFP should be viewed as a living
document that reports findings and makes considered
recommendations for implementing the plan within a
realistic time frame, yet maintains flexibility to adapt as
business requires.
Taking flexibility into consideration when
developing a master plan has become best practice.
However, the concept of flexibility is in direct conflict with the
nature of most buildings. Historically, college buildings have
been considered permanent structures—landmarks designed
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
to stand forever. This is apparent when exploring the quads
and commons of many universities. From the Gothic dining
halls at Princeton to Jefferson’s Rotunda at the University
of Virginia, the long-standing nature of campus buildings
conveys a sense of being “steeped in history” and adds to the
stature of the school. But, increasingly, schools are under
pressure to evolve and modify facilities to meet the demands
of new programs. This is most apparent in the technology and
engineering fields, STEM curriculum, and even some liberal
arts programs.
The students of this generation are among the most skilled
users of new technology; they grew up with a smartphone
in hand and Google at their fingertips. An article titled
“Students of Today and Tomorrow” by leading architectural
firm Perkins+Will (Poelker 2010) points out that the
Millennial generation has grown up in an environment
where technology is ubiquitous and, therefore, information
is limitless. By combining the tenets of student-centered
education with the familiar aspects of technology-driven
environments, school facility design can begin to connect
with students in an entirely new way.
For this reason, many forward-thinking academic institutions
are revisiting their classroom design and facilities plans to
maximize learning outcomes. A pilot study by the University
of Salford and architects Nightingale Associates found that
the classroom environment can affect a student’s academic
progress over the course of a year by as much as 25 percent
(Barrett et al. 2013). As a result, institutions are striving to
provide the most attractive and competitive facilities, driven
by a desire to entice students and integrate the academic with
the social, a holistic approach that has been gaining favor
with academicians in recent years (Bady 2013).
One trend is the movement away from traditional lecture-
based instruction approaches, such as row seating with
blackboards, toward more interactive, participatory teaching
techniques. This is often referred to as the “flipped classroom”
approach in which students study related materials outside
97 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
the classroom and then come to class prepared to participate
in discussions and projects. To support this teaching style,
classrooms are rearranged to group students in circles rather
than rows and feature tools such as interactive whiteboards
and more advanced forms of collaboration technology.
As technology evolves more rapidly, colleges and universities
are faced with the challenge of not only keeping up with
new types of teaching tools and methods, but also staying
ahead of the curve to equip students with the next-generation
skills needed for today’s advanced industries. Students’
expectations and, perhaps more importantly, attention
spans have created a demand for more agile approaches to
classroom design that adjust the in-classroom experience to
support changing needs.
There are a growing number of examples illustrating how
this philosophy is reflected in newly constructed facilities.
For example, the University of Massachusetts Amherst
broke ground last year on eight major buildings on campus,
adding a total of 317,500 square feet of classroom, lab, and
common space. The university’s Design Building, South
College, Physical Sciences Building, and Isenberg Business
Innovation Hub all differ from past structures on campus as
they use sustainable and innovative solutions that introduce
new approaches to classrooms, research labs, and career
development programs. The buildings incorporate technology
tools and provide flexible facilities, offering collaboration,
open spaces, and the ability to cross disciplines under one
roof (Shamgochian 2016).
The Learning Innovation Center (LINC) at Oregon State
University is also an excellent example of a building created
by a school to accommodate new modes of learning. Designed
by Bora Architects in Portland, the 134,000-square-foot
facility was created to address the new needs of classrooms.
Based on principles of ideal physical proximity and visibility
between student and instructor, the unique design includes
two “in-the-round” arena-style classrooms of 600 and 300
seats. The larger classroom collapses the distance separating
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
student and instructor to just eight rows or 30 feet. Four
aisles extend from the center of the room, enabling faculty
to come within 15 feet of every student in the space (Hogue
2015).
In “Students of Today and Tomorrow,” Perkins+Will (Poelker
2010, p. 66) echoes this theme, stating, “From the standpoint
of school planning and design, current technology in
education has created a need for additional spaces that are
dedicated to technology and its distribution.” A university
must provide the resources needed to empower students and
prepare them for success in their careers. These resources
include research centers, state-of-the-art computer labs, and
interactive classrooms featuring touchscreens, projectors, and
video conferencing. Until recently, colleges and universities
have never had to adapt to the rapidly changing context of
technology. It’s remarkable to think that in the course of
a decade, technology and the learning environment have
shifted from stationary to mobile and from in place to on
demand. While the mind-set of many campus features
continues to be “steeped in tradition,” the new reality of an
evolving technical landscape requires the ability to imagine
an ever-changing campus where space can be reconfigured
and repurposed relatively quickly and inexpensively.
Developing new approaches to education that emphasize the
instruction of technical skills is only one side of the coin. The
flip side is the significant impact that technology is having on
the options for how education is delivered to students. The
need for flexible building solutions in the education sector to
accommodate the new generation of learners is also relevant
as students are drawn to new sources of instruction such
as massive open online courses and other types of online
learning. This dynamic places a higher premium on ensuring
that the value of in-person instruction and interaction is
maximized and reflected in curricula, teaching techniques,
peer-to-peer discussions, and facilities uniquely tailored to
specific educational programs. As more students face rising
student loan debt, they question why they should pay more
than $50,000 per year for instruction when they can get the
98 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
same information online for free (or at much lower cost).
The answer needs to be reflected in learning environments,
pedagogies, and facilities that blend both online and in-
person learning. Surprisingly, a study by Babson Survey
Research Group (Allen and Seaman 2016) finds that over
35 percent of academic leaders believe that outcomes from
a blended approach—combining both online and in-person
instruction—are “superior” or “somewhat superior” to those
from face-to-face instruction. The same survey notes that
over five million students take at least one course online,
which represents over 28 percent of the total student
population (including public schools, not-for-profit private
schools, and for-profit schools).
With so much change happening each academic year—or
even each semester—architects, campus planners, and
developers need to shift their perspective to consider the
need for flexibility and reconfiguration. Facilities planners
must walk an incredibly strategic line when allotting budgets
and establishing plans for new facilities that not only can
stand the test of time but also can evolve to accommodate the
changing demands of technology and campus environments.
Transforming facilities planning and design from permanent
to flexible is a difficult challenge.
As more colleges and universities choose to embrace this
type of building, lessons learned from years of modular
construction in permanent buildings can help provide a
valuable historical context and define a model for a path
forward. According to the Modular Building Institute (2015b),
there are more than 300,000 modular classrooms classified
as permanent, serving over eight million students. It’s the
emergence of mid-term facilities, those that combine the
aesthetic quality of permanent construction with the option
to reconfigure several years later, that delivers the greatest
benefit by balancing permanence with flexibility.
It’s important to note that reconfigurable buildings often
supplement traditional large-scale structures, creating a
“primary and auxiliary” collection of facilities that evolves
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017 99 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams

over time. In the same way that many homes are embracing or even years, often creating a landscape eyesore. Since
the idea of “shed quarters”—offices set up in tiny-house- about 60–90 percent of modular building takes place offsite,
like auxiliary buildings in the backyard—schools will likely disruption to campus activities is minimized.
have large-scale buildings of traditional construction
supplemented by more agile, adjustable structures that adapt
A LO OK BACK : THE HISTORY OF M ODUL AR
to the needs of new programs and specialized space. And,
in the same way that software developers rapidly release
A modular building is defined as one that is fabricated in a
and refine new programs based on user feedback, schools
factory and then erected onsite. It is composed of standardized
can embrace an agile approach in piloting dance studios,
units—the “modules”—with pre-tested connections to ensure
rehearsal spaces, makerspaces, research labs, hydroponic
easy assembly and repair as well as flexible arrangement and
gardens, and other unique programs to test interest and
use (Modular Building Institute 2015b).
effectiveness.

While the industry did not experience a significant surge

LONG -TER M C A M PUS PL ANNING THROUGH until recently, the first modular buildings date back to the
TE M P OR ARY, PER M ANENT, AND M ID -TER M 1600s when disassembled houses were shipped by boat from
FACIL ITIES
England to the United States to house fishermen. In the 1800s,
as the United States expanded westward, modular design
Conventional wisdom states that there are two kinds of
was in high demand. During the Gold Rush of 1849, more
buildings: permanent and temporary. Most construction is
than 500 preassembled homes were shipped from factories
considered permanent—designed to last 100 years or more.
in New York to California. In 1897, E. F. Hodgson, located in
Temporary structures have typically served a more tactical
Massachusetts, opened one of the first manufacturing plants
purpose such as “swing space” used during construction or
focused on the construction and sale of affordable modular
in the event of flood, fire, or other unforeseen circumstance.
houses (Modular Building Institute 2015a).
But, increasingly, schools are seeking facilities that combine
the aesthetic characteristics of permanent buildings with the
It wasn’t until the 1940s, however, that the modular industry
option to expand, contract, or remove them entirely within a
saw an expansion into the commercial sector, converting
relatively short timeframe of about 10 years.
mobile homes into classrooms in Indiana (Modular Building
Institute 2015a).
At first this may seem impossible to justify from a cost
perspective. How can buildings be expanded, moved, or
During the 1960s, developers and consumers wanted more
removed without extraordinary expense? It’s not cost effective
out of modular buildings, looking for more advanced and
to tear down or “gut” buildings after a relatively short period
complex structures with additional amenities. On the West
when they’re built using traditional techniques. However,
Coast, developers started building and leasing doublewide
modular construction—and the up-front planning required
classrooms for use in California schools (Modular Building
to enable the LEGO-like assembly of multiple modules
Institute 2015b).
manufactured offsite—creates the flexibility to more easily
expand or remove those buildings after several years. Modular Today, modular building continues to provide innovation in
is also a less disruptive construction process, reducing the construction for both the commercial and residential sectors.
need for bulldozers, cranes, dump trucks, and other heavy According to the North American Industry Classification
pieces of equipment that are usually onsite for many months

Read online at www.scup.org/phe

Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
System (NAICS), commercial and institutional industries
use modular building practices the most (Modular Building
Institute 2015b). The evolution of modular has led to a higher-
quality and more design-focused process, allowing modular
building to be incorporated into more advanced industries—
such as higher education, research, and technology—by
enabling the inclusion of wet labs, interactive research spaces,
high-performing classrooms, and high-tech facilities into
modules.
The education sector is beginning to recognize the added
benefits that come from incorporating modular buildings on
campus, from more efficient building practices to innovation
in the classroom to greater sustainability. As a result, more
and more leading campuses are choosing to build with
modules. In fact, in 2014 about 33.2 percent of modular
industry production was in the education sector (Modular
Building Institute 2015b).
There are multiple advantages to campus planners,
developers, designers, and contractors when building
modular, including a 50 percent faster time to occupancy
due to offsite and indoor construction practices. Modular
buildings are developed in a controlled environment, which
directly results in lower construction waste and greater cost
efficiencies, making the overall process greener.
It will be helpful to take a look at how campus facilities
are evolving and some of the key reasons that the modular
building process is being used to meet the need for flexibility.
M EETING THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS OF THE
FUTURE
Planning for reconfiguration or relocation after a relatively
short period may become the norm for new buildings and
campuses in the future. Facilities need to support new
technology, curricula, and teaching techniques, so it’s
almost certain that modifications will be necessary within
100 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
a decade. For instance, consider the evolution of libraries
over recent years: previously they were large repositories
of information housing an immense assortment of books,
periodicals, and research materials. With so many
technological advancements, students have less need for
these expansive facilities and greater need for high-tech
computer labs and research centers. In an article titled
“This Changes Everything: Transforming the Academic
Library,” author Sarah Michalak (2012, p. 412) notes that the
transformed library is “outward facing, de-siloed, technology
diffused, collaborative, and operated by an engaged staff who
demonstrate leadership in small and large ways in all sections
of the organization.” This same philosophy, as articulated well
in Michalak’s article, will apply to all types of facilities.
Facilities need to support new technology,
curricula, and teaching techniques, so it’s almost
certain that modifications will be necessary within
a decade.
Accommodating the changing needs of facilities on campus
is simpler with modular building. State-of-the-art labs,
interactive classrooms, and other evolving forms can be
designed in a non-disruptive, less invasive way. The modular
building approach provides schools with a customizable,
flexible footprint that can contract, expand, and even relocate
more quickly than traditional construction. This process also
allows institutions to fast track the creation of new buildings
to meet aggressive timelines in order to keep up with rapid
changes in curriculum and teaching methods.
AGIL E BUIL DING E X A M PL ES: COL L ABOR ATI ON
BET WEEN AC ADE M I A AND M ODUL AR
EN V ISI O N I N G A L I V I N G CL A SSRO O M
According to the National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities (Stevenson 2007), the critical message for facility
planners and educators is that the “one-size-fits-all”
classroom model is disappearing and the quest for more
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
flexible and adaptable classroom configurations should be
part of the institutional planning process.
A great example of how modular building is being
implemented in classrooms is Sprout Space (figure 1). The
cornerstone of the National Building Museum’s Green School
Exhibit in Washington, DC, Sprout Space showcases the first
high-performance modular classroom.
Figure 1 Sprout Space
Sprout Space allows teachers to engage students in a healthy,
light-filled space of 1,000 square feet. The design creates
an adaptable interior and exterior to accommodate modern
methods of teaching and learning while also expanding the
learning space outdoors. The space itself is designed to be a
real-life teaching tool, featuring a butterfly-shaped roof that
enables the classroom to catch rainwater. The marker and
tack boards located inside and outside encourage teachers
and students alike to bring learning outdoors. The Sprout
Space classroom design reduces costs and construction time
and results in less construction waste while also generating
its own energy.
This award-winning space was created for the Open
Architecture Challenge: Design the Classroom of the Future
established by Architecture for Humanity and the Open
Architecture Network. Triumph Modular partnered with
Perkins+Will to create Sprout Space as a sustainable modular
101 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
classroom solution that addresses issues of resiliency, self-
sufficiency, mobility, and indoor air quality in learning
environments.
I NN OVATI N G F O R RESE A RCH A ND DE V EL O P M ENT
Given notable improvements in the quality and design of
modular buildings, world-class educational institutions
are leveraging modular in new ways to deliver leading-edge
facilities that meet the immediate needs of students, staff,
and faculty; create minimal disruption on campus; and
present the ability to grow and adapt as needs change.
The new Pagliuca Harvard Life Lab at Harvard University
(figure 2) is an excellent example of a high-performance
modular building. It was designed to incorporate complex
plumbing, ventilation, gases, freezers, and other equipment
required for advanced life sciences research within a modular
wet lab facility. Harvard’s need for an efficient, sustainable,
and innovative wet lab facility within a strict timeframe
presented the perfect opportunity for a modular building
approach.
Figure 2 Pagliuca Harvard Life Lab
Harvard engaged Triumph, along with Shepley Bulfinch,
Shawmut Design, and NRB, to assist with the design and
scope of work for this 15,000-square-foot facility. The first
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017 102 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams

floor is designed in an open format with worktables, seating,

Figure 3 MIT David H. Koch Childcare Center
shared conference rooms, and a kitchen to encourage cross-
team collaboration. The second floor includes 30 lab benches
equipped with compressed air and vacuum lines, a chemical
waste system, a self-contained walk-in environmental room,
tissue culture rooms, and fume hoods.

By choosing modular construction, completion of this state-

of-the-art lab—assembled from 33 modules fabricated by
NRB and transported from Pennsylvania—was accelerated
by approximately 12 months, enabling 20 life sciences and
biotech startups to begin using the facility within a year of the
project’s approval.

Harvard also tapped Triumph to build and install a

TH I NK I N G BE YO ND THE CL A SSRO O M
5,700-square-foot innovative but temporary childcare center
on its Cambridge campus to serve as a temporary space while
Effective learning environments are built on the success of
renovations were being done at the permanent location (figure
staff and faculty, which sometimes requires space to support
4). The building offered a variety of sustainable features to
these individuals’ needs, whether it be meeting areas,
create the highest-quality and healthiest environment for
cafeterias, daycare centers, or research facilities.
children. The design and construction aimed to achieve
maximum energy efficiency through solar tube skylights
In 2012, MIT turned to Triumph when it was presented
that maximized natural light, sustainable “Green Guard”
with the need for a campus childcare center for students
insulation, high-grade sealants, and a white rubber roof
and faculty (figure 3). Triumph worked to create a
that reflected solar heat. In addition, the building featured
14,000-square-foot steel and concrete building featuring
coordinated sensors and electronic control of the lighting
an advanced design with integrated video monitors, custom
system, exterior sun shades that shielded the interior from
casework, aesthetically appealing floor covering, exposed
the sun and reduced the need for air conditioning, recycled
mechanicals to maximize ceiling height, and storefront glass
materials for the interior walls and carpet tiles, and a state-
in the stairwell. The building was prefabricated by NRB in
of-the-art HVAC system that regulated and brought in air
Pennsylvania and shipped to Vassar Street in Cambridge.
from the outside as needed.
The entire process from design to occupancy took only six
months, meeting the immediate need for a modern childcare
Figure 4 Harvard Yard Modular Child Care Center
facility.

Read online at www.scup.org/phe

Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
This modular childcare space, which won the Innovation
in Green Design Award from the U.S. Green Building
Council Massachusetts Chapter, was then repurposed
and transformed with the addition of two new modules
into a 7,200-square-foot Student Information Systems
Center for Tufts University’s Cambridge campus through
a custom design that accommodated Tufts’ computer and
office space needs (figure 5). When Tufts no longer needed
the space for its Student Information Systems Center,
Triumph reconfigured and transformed the building again to
operate as 7,200 square feet of first-class office space on the
university’s Somerville campus, meeting that campus’s need
for temporary space (figure 6).
Figure 5 Tufts Student Information Systems Center
Figure 6 Tufts Professional Office Space
103 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
CONCLUSI ON
College and university facilities are ripe for innovation, and
an adaptable, configurable campus is a natural response
to the rapidly changing world we live in. Modular building
provides a strong solution to accommodate the growing need
for agile facilities on campus driven by the transformation of
the learning and teaching environment into one that is more
active and engaging. As colleges and universities continue
to advance in design, agile facilities that foster cutting-edge
learning environments will be implemented with a focus on
integrating flexibility to help ensure campuses can easily be
reimagined to meet current and future needs.
An adaptable, configurable campus is a natural
response to the rapidly changing world we live in.
REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., and J. Seaman. 2016. Online Report Card: Tracking
Online Education in the United States. Accessed September 7, 2017:
http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf.
Data distilled into an infographic accessed September 7, 2017: www.
onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/2015SurveyInfo.pdf.
Bady, S. 2013. Trends Report: New Facilities Enhance the Quality of
Campus Life. Building Design and Construction, January 2. Accessed
September 7, 2017: www.bdcnetwork.com/trends-report-new-facilities-
enhance-quality-campus-life.
Barrett, P., Y. Zhang, J. Moffat, and K. Kobbacy. 2013. A Holistic, Multi-
Level Analysis Identifying the Impact of Classroom Design on Pupils’
Learning. Building and Environment 59 (January): 678–89.
Harvard University. 2013. Harvard University’s Campus in Allston:
Institutional Master Plan. Accessed September 7, 2017: http://home.
planningoffice.harvard.edu/files/hppm/files/harvard_imp_2013_0.
pdf.
Hogue, T. 2015. New Classroom Building at Oregon State Features
Cutting Edge Technology, Design. Oregon State University News and
Research Communications, September 17. Accessed September 7, 2017:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2015/sep/new-classroom-
building-oregon-state-features-cutting-edge-technology-design.
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Planning for Higher Education Journal | V45N4 July–September 2017
International Facility Management Association. 2009. Strategic Facility
Planning: A White Paper. Accessed September 7, 2017: www.ifma.org/
docs/default-source/knowledge-base/sfp_whitepaper.pdf.
Michalak, S. C. 2012. This Changes Everything: Transforming the
Academic Library. Journal of Library Administration 52 (5): 411–23.
Accessed September 7, 2017: www.lib.umd.edu/binaries/content/assets/
public/architecturelibrary/transforming-the-academic-library.pdf.
Middlebury College. n.d. Campus Master Plan Executive Summary.
Accessed September 7, 2017: www.middlebury.edu/media/view/187691/
original/MP2_summary.pdf.
Modular Building Institute. 2015a. Introduction to Commercial
Modular Construction. N.p.: Modular Building Institute.
——–. 2015b. Permanent Modular Construction 2015 Annual Report.
Accessed September 7, 2017: www.modular.org/documents/document_
publication/2015-PMC-Annual-Report.pdf.
Poelker, J. 2010. Students of Today and Tomorrow: Discovering How
and Where They Learn Best. Perkins+Will Research Journal 2 (2): 56–
71. Accessed September 7, 2017: https://perkinswill.com/files/PWRJ_
Vol0202_03_Students%20of%20Today%20and%20Tomorrow_0.pdf.
Porter, L. 2006. Prior Proper Planning: Cooking Up a Plan for the Next
Five Years on Mount St. James. Holy Cross Magazine 40 (4). Accessed
September 7, 2017: www.holycross.edu/departments/publicaffairs/
hcm/fall06/features/feature2.html.
Shamgochian, J. 2016. New Buildings on Campus Reflect Changing
Academic Styles. Amherst Wire, November 1. Accessed September
7, 2017: https://amherstwire.com/17322/campus/new-buildings-on-
campus-reflect-changing-academic-styles/.
Stevenson, K. R. 2007. Educational Trends Shaping School Planning
and Design: 2007. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Accessed September 7, 2017: www.ncef.org/pubs/trends2007.pdf.
VSBA. 2013. Wellesley 2025 A Plan for Campus Renewal: Consolidated
Program Plan Final Report. Accessed September 7, 2017: http://web.
wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/finalreport102213.pdf.
104 Cliff Cort, Glenn Cort, and Rusty Williams
AUTHOR BI O GR APHIES
CL IFF CO RT, president of Triumph Modular, has actively
worked to redefine the modular industry in both temporary
and permanent modular buildings. He has been at the
forefront of many advancements in modular design and
engineering as a result of his team-building approach. He has
collaborated with the best factories, architects, engineers, and
contractors to produce some of the industry’s highest-quality
projects. He is a graduate of the Executive Education program
in management at Harvard Business School and currently sits
on the Board of Trustees of the Modular Building Institute
Education Foundation. He has also served as a past board
member of the Modular Building Institute.
GL ENN CO RT is executive vice president of Triumph Modular.
A 1990 graduate of Boston University School of Law, he left
a legal career for Triumph in 2003. He works with clients
primarily in preconstruction to form healthy foundations for
successful projects. He advocates for the value proposition in
prefabricated forms of construction, believing in the many
benefits of “activation space” or “swing space” as well as the
“modularization” of permanent building construction. He is
a LEED AP (USGBC) and also enjoys an active curriculum in
architecture and building science.
RUST Y W IL L I A M S has an extensive background in technology
and innovation as the founder of multiple companies. He’s
managed projects for dozens of leading companies including
ESPN, Disney, Amazon, NASCAR, Wharton School of
Business, and Tesco (UK). He focuses on the intersection
of technology and physical space with the goal of creating
inspiring learning and work environments. He holds a degree
in economics from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.
Read online at www.scup.org/phe
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.