Across the Table: Evolutionary Lab Development

What’s the problem with large laboratory projects? Since at least the 1960s, small projects—often done by dealers or manufacturers working directly with lab owners—have been completed quickly and satisfactorily. If there is a shortage/breakage issue, it is taken care of quickly. If a change is necessary, it too is taken care of quickly. So why can’t this be done with large projects?

It’s not that people haven’t tried. In the 1990s, one lab planner only worked with three manufacturers. On low-bid projects, their specifications and drawings were a mess to ensure any other companies would bid high. The three favorites knew what was actually required so they always bid properly. If one of the three didn’t have the capacity for a project, they still bid—high—to ensure there were three valid responses. In return, the planner made certain each of the three won their share of the projects. Customers were happy as their labs were built as required, delivered on time, and were on budget.

The lab planner trusted these three to do what was needed to get a wonderful project, quickly working out issues with other trades. The three manufacturers benefited from knowing there would be no arguments over change orders or job-site issues. More importantly, these projects were easier to bid and process. Wasted time was eliminated for everyone. These projects were profitable for everyone and they knew if they met expectations they were guaranteed additional work in the future. Trust existed.

Then the lab planning firm was acquired by a larger firm, their business model changed, and trust was no longer a part of the process. Submittal drawings were again required despite providing no value to the process. Specifications and drawings were “cleaned up” so more companies could bid lower, even though they could not perform as well. Trust was no longer a part of the process.

Ironically, about the same time (1998) a revolutionary report, Rethinking Construction, came out of the UK. Their government wanted to know why projects were inevitably late, over budget, and didn’t meet design expectations. To simplify, they recommended companies create trusting relationships, working together as a team from design through construction on numerous projects, to eliminate waste in the process. For example, submittal drawings, whose only purpose is to ensure the manufacturer will build what is required, aren’t needed.

In other words, do on large projects what has been done on small projects for many decades. Almost 30 years since that report, though, change in the lab design and construction industry is still slow. Too many companies at all levels just want to keep doing what they have always done, customer be damned.

It’s no secret customer demands have tightened. It’s no secret some lab planners are already experimenting with AI. And someone, somewhere, is experimenting with trust so projects will cost less, get delivered on time, and exceed customer expectations. Life—and business—is so much better with trust.

Dave can be reached at dwithee@alum.mit.edu or 920-737-8477. All opinions expressed in Across the Table with Dave Withee are exclusive to the author and are not reflective of Lab Design News.