Creating a Lab Design Budget

By: Mike Barrett

Labs serve as the backdrop of scientific breakthroughs in pharma manufacturing. They’re also safety checkpoints through quality assurance and are closely scrutinized by regulators. So when it's time to overhaul an existing lab or build a new one from scratch, lab managers want to find the perfect formula—at the right budget. There are a lot of elements to unpack. Here’s what to consider. 

Lock down the requirements 

Lab users and lab planners need to work closely to create an efficient and cost-effective space. The first things to consider when creating a lab budget are the business requirements and user requirements. 

• Will it be a wet lab or a dry lab? 

• Will it serve as a testing lab, research lab, or teaching lab? 

• What types of tests need to be performed within the space? 

• What biosafety level is required?

• Will it only be used during the day shift? Or will it be used 24/7?

• Are there any existing lab assets that will be reused?

Another requirement that will help define the budget is the lab capacity. Each company must determine how it will define capacity for its laboratories. Throughput-oriented companies may choose an operations-based approach. Other labs may rely on just one or two major types of equipment and therefore choose an equipment-based approach. Meanwhile, personnel-oriented labs may choose a headcount-based approach. Regardless of which way capacity is calculated, this is an important metric for lab planners to take into account when defining budget needs. 

Once those basics are covered, it’s important to consider what equipment will be needed to control exposure and keep lab technicians safe. While the specs may come later, an initial conversation with lab planners should include the lab’s expected needs for BSCs, fume hoods, isolators, and ventilated enclosures. A list of essential equipment is an important piece of the budget puzzle. 

It may be tempting to offer lab planners a set amount of overall square footage or linear measurements of bench space as a starting point. But a better approach is to build up the square footage together by considering what’s optimal based on benchmarks. This leaves room for innovation and cost-savings. 

Step into your lab’s future through simulations and VR

Process simulation can be an invaluable tool in getting a grip on a workspace’s true needs. It can help sort out wishes versus needs. By simulating different scenarios—ranging from a lean scenario, an average scenario, to a worst-case scenario—everyone can see where the business case fits within the continuum. 

For example, perhaps lab staff want extra equipment for redundancy purposes. A simulation can show whether this additional cost actually serves the business case or not. Or perhaps the team wants additional benchtop space. A simulation can help show the value attached to the extra capital cost. By running a lab model through various simulations, all stakeholders can see the effect on test duration or quantity of tests. 

But you can take this one step further. By combining simulations with virtual reality, lab users can immerse themselves in the space before they even see it. Importantly, spending time in the future state can help get their buy-in to cost savings approaches. It can also identify any issues that may have been overlooked—another long-term budgeting win. 

Take an iterative approach 

When designing a lab, it’s easy enough to throw everything at it, including the kitchen (er, lab) sink. But usually, that isn’t a budget-friendly approach. And while it’s understandable that lab managers and technicians want to max out the possibilities while the money tap is (temporarily) turned on, this all-at-once approach isn’t always the best way to plan out a lab. Why not?

Companies can do more with less by right-sizing their initial lab investment. When designed with care, labs can be scalable. Lab modules can be added over time to accommodate manufacturing as it scales up. Taking a phased approach can help companies stretch their capital as far as it will go, without sacrificing future manufacturing capacity due to lab bottlenecks. While it may be challenging to convince a lab team to sign on to a phased approach, it may be helpful to explain the lab’s investment life cycle and reassure team members that future lab needs will be met. 

Budget crunch? Consider outsourcing 

Companies face different lab design challenges at various stages of growth. For startups, it’s often a matter of capital. While they may have significant capital, it’s often being used for many things at once. Typically, the lion’s share of it needs to be allocated toward manufacturing capacity. The leftovers are used for office and lab space. But if there’s budget creep on the manufacturing side, the contingency sometimes gets scooped from the lab. What’s a startup to do? 

A hybrid approach to lab testing might be the answer. Startups can build the bare minimum lab they need today for critical testing. Non-essential tests can be outsourced to a third-party lab. While this increases ongoing operational expenses, it decreases the initial capital layout—a common pinch-point for startups. 

By relying on outsourcing, companies take advantage of a phased approach to lab expansion, as laid out above. With a proven product and increased funding, many startups are able to expand their lab capacity. Of course, this approach requires careful planning at the outset. Skilled lab planners can stretch today’s lab budget while keeping an eye on tomorrow’s testing needs. 

Set sustainability and 4.0 goals 

The future is green. And it’s digitized. In recent years, great strides have been made to reduce the environmental impact of pharmaceutical manufacturing. For example, companies are adding windows to labs to minimize energy usage while maximizing employee wellness. By setting goals for natural resources and waste management, lab owners can see benefits like improved facility resiliency and a decrease in operating expenses.

Meanwhile, labs are looking to incorporate Pharma 4.0™ technologies, such as artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, Big Data analytics, the Internet of Things, system integration, biometrics, cybersecurity, and cloud computing. By breaking down lab processes step-by-step, lab planners can identify which 4.0 data streams will prepare today’s lab for tomorrow’s needs.

Lean into innovation

Established companies may face an inverse problem to their startup counterparts. Usually, established pharma manufacturers have the capital available to pull off a new lab. They often even have extensive data points available from previous labs. Armed with metrics and years of manufacturing experience, it can be tempting to “rinse and repeat” previous lab successes. But by doing so, they may miss out on innovative—and possibly even cost-saving— approaches. 

Even experienced manufacturers can benefit from fresh conversations around potential innovation. Pharma manufacturers can tap into lab planners’ industry knowledge by asking about recent regulatory changes or emerging technologies. Sometimes, tech breakthroughs aren’t publicized widely yet—but in-the-know planners can share the latest and greatest that’s coming to market. They may also learn of possible layout and operations improvements. 

Another way seasoned manufacturers can benefit from working with experienced lab planners is by embracing new delivery methods. For example, an integrated project delivery (IPD) method can create greater certainty around both the schedule and budget. This lean approach to lab design can help legacy companies break out of siloed thinking. Rather than artificially putting cost and scheduling constraints around a project, IPD re-imagines how quality, cost, and schedule can be optimized on a project-by-project basis. 

Laboratory owners in all fields are challenged to create research and testing spaces with limited budgets and resources. The good news? With careful lab planning and budgeting, a company can meet the needs of both its people and its profit.

Mike Barrett is the vice president of project delivery services at CRB and a champion for Lean execution methods. He has vast project experience including over 200 life science projects totaling nearly $1 billion. Mike is passionate about building collaborative, focused teams that have deep levels of trust, all working toward a common project purpose.