Across the Table: The Correct Bottom Line
“Say what they want, I believe C-Frame is the most flexible lab furniture.” This whisper came from the fellow next to me at the Laboratory of the Year judging. He was that year’s Scientist of the Year, earning him an invitation to be a judge.
His whisper was in response to other panelists berating the current laboratory entry because it had C-Frame furniture instead of the styles in vogue. I suggested he repeat his comment louder, but he was reluctant to speak against the current. So I spoke up: “As the only person here who works in a laboratory, perhaps we should ask the opinion of our Scientist of the Year.” They all turned, expecting his agreement. They were surprised when he explained his different position.
For him, the bottom line was the bottom line. For the processes and equipment used in this lab, the features of the new furniture styles weren’t needed. C-Frame was easier to move and met the needs of the personnel and their work. For this building, the capital budget was better served with C-Frame. He explained that this lab’s equipment was more important than the furniture on which it sat. The lower cost and acceptable functionality freed up money for other, important tools on which lab personnel rely.
Years later, some Laboratory of the Year judges were berating the appearance of a college lab building. One could easily see the offending appearance was from a sunscreen. Because of this appearance, the first net-zero energy building in New England was deemed unworthy of a top award, despite this building having little funding. It was part of a bond referendum for three buildings and the others had gone over budget. In addition, at the last moment, the new president had decided this would be the first net-zero building on campus. Despite these steep challenges, some judges were adamant the inexpensive sunscreen, outside of the laboratory, made the entry ineligible for top awards.
Another time I was part of a discussion group at a school planners conference. The topic was why new schools never met the designed operations efficiencies. I suggested they don’t spend enough time early with facilities staff to ensure they could work with the planned designs. Quickly the fellow next to me, the president of a large, regional school construction company, added, “I agree with David. My people constantly get complaints from facilities staff about where systems are placed.”
I once suggested a laboratory-grade flexible hose to plumb a lab building. It was out for rebid due to the original bids all being way over budget. The hose would provide tremendous labor savings over hard pipe. He responded that wouldn’t work; his engineers said the hose wasn’t as attractive as the hard pipe. Mind you, only facilities staff would see the plumbing.
It’s easy to forget the bottom line is the customer’s needs, including financial. Perhaps we should more frequently ask, “What’s best for the customer?”