Building the Laboratory of the Future: A Construction Blueprint for Adaptive, Sustainable and High-Performance Research Environments
Building the Laboratory of the Future: Why Project Delivery Models Matter
In the life sciences sector, being first to market, or first to bench, often determines competitive advantage. Research organisations racing to develop breakthrough therapies, diagnostic tools, or innovative products understand that every month of delay represents lost opportunity. Yet despite this urgency, many find themselves trapped in project delivery approaches that slow progress, inflate costs, and deliver inflexible facilities that struggle to adapt to evolving research needs.
The challenge isn't a lack of ambition or expertise. Most life sciences organisations have capable internal project management teams who understand their scientific requirements intimately. The problem lies in the delivery model itself. Traditional procurement and project management frameworks, while familiar and seemingly de-risked, weren't designed for the dynamic projects. The laboratories of the future need a different approach from day one: one that brings construction expertise to the table when it matters most.
Understanding Project Delivery Models
Traditional design-bid-build has long been the default approach in construction. This linear framework follows a structured sequence: initiation, planning, design, procurement, and finally construction. The model offers apparent advantages, including budget certainty and step-wise risk mitigation. By finalising most design decisions before the builder and contractors enter the picture, organisations feel they maintain control and can adhere to predefined specifications, particularly important in regulated environments.
However, this perceived safety comes at a cost. Builders and specialist contractors are brought in only after critical decisions have been made, limiting their ability to influence constructability, optimise systems, or identify cost-saving opportunities. The focus remains heavily on the client and designers during early phases, with contractor input reserved for later stages, if at all. For life sciences projects with complex Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) requirements, cascading environmental controls, and specialised equipment requirements, this late involvement often means discovering buildability issues when it's expensive or impossible to address them.
Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) offers a fundamentally different approach. This collaborative, two-stage delivery model brings contractors into the conversation during concept and preliminary design phases. Rather than treating construction as the final execution of predetermined plans, ECI emphasises joint problem-solving between clients, designers, and builders from the outset. The focus shifts from rigid adherence to initial specifications toward optimising outcomes through integrated expertise.
Despite being an ideal fit for the unique demands of laboratory and complex facility construction, ECI remains surprisingly underutilised in life sciences. Organisations accustomed to traditional frameworks often overlook how this model addresses their most pressing challenges.
Why ECI Matters for Life Sciences
Life sciences facilities present unique challenges that strain conventional delivery models. Research organisations must balance complex technical requirements with evolving operational needs, deliver within tight timelines, and maintain the precision and adaptability that scientific work demands. Traditional approaches struggle to accommodate this complexity.
ECI delivers measurable benefits that directly address these challenges. By involving construction expertise early, organisations achieve greater cost certainty. Builders can provide accurate pricing based on real constructability analysis rather than theoretical designs. This early collaboration enhances buildability, ensuring that sophisticated laboratory systems can actually be constructed as envisioned, not just drawn.
The ECI model reduces program risk through shared accountability and proactive problem-solving. When issues arise, and in complex laboratory projects they inevitably do, an integrated team can address them collaboratively. This approach builds trust between clients and builders during early stages, dramatically reducing conflicts over variations later in the project.
Perhaps most importantly, ECI enables greater flexibility and faster delivery. Because the team works together from concept stage, they can optimise sequencing, identify long-lead equipment early, and make design adjustments without derailing timelines. The collaborative, transparent approach encourages open communication about constraints and opportunities, leading to better decisions throughout the project lifecycle.
Proven Results
The benefits of ECI aren't theoretical. When ALS engaged Connected using this approach for their new facility, early contractor involvement optimised complex laboratory systems and ensured automation-ready infrastructure, all delivered on time and within budget. The construction team's input during design prevented costly rework and enabled seamless integration of specialised analytical equipment. This collaborative approach meant potential issues were identified and resolved when changes were simple and cost-effective, not after construction had begun.
The Connected Approach
Some organisations question whether ECI is necessary when they already have internal project management expertise. This misses a crucial distinction: internal PM teams excel at managing stakeholder requirements, research workflows, and organisational needs. What is typically lacking is a deep construction knowledge during the design phase when that expertise delivers maximum value.
Connected's approach integrates both capabilities. As head contractor with an overarching project management function, Connected provides unified accountability and transparent cost management while ensuring construction expertise informs every design decision. This doesn't replace internal PM teams; it complements them with specialised knowledge at precisely the right time.
The model features proactive risk management, with builders identifying potential issues before they become problems. Clients maintain clear visibility into costs and progress through transparent reporting, while the integrated team structure ensures everyone works toward shared goals rather than protecting their own interests.