Across the Table: Customer Feedback

While exhibiting at a regional conference for designers of K-12 schools, I attended a workshop dealing with after-construction issues.  To initiate discussion, the moderator posed the question: “Why do our buildings seem to rarely operate at the efficiencies our designs call for?”

Not being shy, I immediately suggested, “It may be because, during the design phase, you never ask facilities staff if they can actually operate and maintain the systems as you have designed them.  As a result, they often can’t, or not easily.”

The president of a large, regional construction firm spoke up.  “I agree with David.  Our staff get a lot of negative feedback during construction but there’s not much we can do at that stage.  The designs are what they are and it’s too late to alter anything.”  This discussion quickly went in another direction.

That short conversation stuck with me.  During my twenty years on the Laboratory of the Year judging panel, there were frequent comments amongst the judges about the suitability of designs. I’ve often wondered if the laboratory planning community ever actually revisits its projects to get feedback from the people who operate and use the buildings.  Do they ever actually use feedback to improve their future designs? 

Here's an example, which has been around at least since I joined the industry almost 30 years ago.  Why do specifications call for faucets with Atmospheric Vacuum Breakers (ASSE 1001)?  When they work, they leak water all over the work surface, which no one likes.  Since the vacuum breaker is permanently attached to the faucet, if it has to be replaced their only recourse is to order an entire new faucet, resulting in downtime.  Why isn’t a standard faucet specified, with a Laboratory Backflow Preventor (ASSE 1035)?  Note the name; it is specifically designed for laboratories and conforms to ASME A112.18.1.M and CSA B125.1.  If necessary, it is easy to replace. Just screw it in or out of the faucet end. That’s it. An aspirator or the serrated end to which a hose connects should easily connect to it.  In addition, it hangs over the sink and doesn’t require that six-inch height requirement over the sink. If there is any leakage, the water goes directly into the sink, not onto a work surface.  Finally, it is less expensive and is readily available through numerous cost-effective sources, not just from a faucet manufacturer.  

I’ve often wondered why so few laboratory planners specify it.  I’m confident facility staff would appreciate and prefer it, based on my discussions.  The Laboratory Backflow Preventor is a much more customer-friendly vacuum breaker to use on a faucet.  This is just one example of how customer feedback long after a project is completed could make future designs better.  It’s just a little thing, but it’s the little things that can irritate the most.

I’m curious; how does your firm get actionable customer feedback?  Do you have examples to share?

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.