Optimising construction performance in life sciences

Getting the right strategy in place, including early identification of project priorities, is critical to developing a common set of values and operating philosophies among all project stakeholders from the C-suite to the trade contractors.

The repercussions of poor prioritisation are most noticeable when the conditions change. For example, if a schedule-driven project starts to come up against budget challenges, then, in the absence of a priority driver, project stakeholders commonly declare very broadly that it is now both schedule and budget driven, which, in essence, says that it is neither.

To overcome this hurdle, clients should follow these steps: 

Step 1: Analyse reliable benchmark data. Use this to prove the project can be delivered to the desired objectives.  

Step 2: Engage and communicate effectively. Stakeholders with the power to change or redirect the success drivers must be involved in 'day-one' workshops to define the project guiderails and governance structure. These exercises would include defining tolerances, decision rights, confirmation strategies, corrective measures, scope prioritisation and controls methodologies among many others.  

Step 3: Establish overall clarity of vision with senior sponsorship. Getting them aligned and fully bought-into project objectives will drive stronger performance and avoid knee-jerk reactions when issues arise.  

If robust governance and sponsorship are in place, necessary changes in delivery methodologies can be swift, decisive and well-communicated. Anything less can create confusion, doubt and mistrust by those executing the project.

2. Avoid stressors by course correcting before construction

Construction is not often the genesis of the problem, but almost always becomes the phase where solutions are required to get back on track. When leading indicators on a project start to point to schedule stress, early recognition and course correction are key.

Most project teams are adept at early recognition but can struggle with timely interventions, especially during the engineering, procurement, commissioning and qualification phases. These are the phases where the solutions often require adjustments in process and prioritisation, rather than simply more resources being added. As solutions go, 'more' feels much easier than 'different', but it is not nearly as effective. 

Construction is an attractive place to focus on schedule improvements because it manifests itself in a very tangible, physical way. As a result, the construction phase frequently becomes the main target for schedule remediation. Contractors are asked to bring in more people, add more shifts and get more materials when course correction should have happened in the earlier phases of the project.

Calling on construction to make up for lost time is often not an effective response as, for the most part, on projects of scale, the construction phase is the one that is already inherently built for and self-incentivised by speed and efficiency. The construction phase is in fact the least efficient and highest-risk way of relieving a schedule, and that is why it often does not net its advertised outcomes.

So, if it is more expensive, higher risk and less effective than other schedule correction methods, why is it so attractive? Because it feels quick and easy. The speed and ease of construction acceleration as a cornerstone solution is, however, mostly an illusion. Experience and data indicate that it simply converts schedule stress into budget, resource and safety stress.

The earliest intervention is almost always the cheapest and most effective, but it is sometimes the hardest to see. Favouring an approach that focuses on optimising interfaces between phases, intellectual processes and administrative burdens before addressing physical field work will offer the best schedule outcomes.   

3. Evaluate and change processes for speed 

There are key opportunities to be seized that will improve the project approach at the execution level. Projects are often chartered for scale and speed. However, existing processes that need to be followed were built with other, sometimes conflicting, motivations in mind.  

While we do not recommend that all companies reinvent every process each time they embark on a new project, we think that those companies with ambitious capital investment plans spanning several years should challenge some of the most critical and repetitive tasks that will occur in the execution of the work.

At a minimum, an evaluation of the following areas would be beneficial:  

• gated funding requests
• engineering reviews
• safety reviews
• procurement requests
• change notifications
• project closeout reviews.

Processes tend to bloat over the years and their initial purpose gets lost. In worst case scenarios, the efforts of other un-integrated processes are duplicated. The best place to start is an evaluation of the processes relative to the organisation’s appetite for risk, speed and value. When the project team and the organisation as a whole evaluate processes with this mindset, the resulting increase in productivity and quality will be meaningful and measurable.

4. Incentivise and partner with the supply chain

Given that schedule is the primary execution driver, then how do we assure the supply chain is fully aligned and set up to achieve this requirement? 

Our survey respondents indicate that projects risk not completing according to schedule due to three linked factors: poorly defined execution strategies, lack of supply chain capacity and ineffective procurement decisions.  

Improving the setup of the execution strategy, creating optimal supply chain relationships and taking the right procurement routes to market can help mitigate this risk from the outset of a project.  

Recognising the impact that project setup has on major project success, life sciences project owners are becoming more open to exploring options that can drive the right behaviours in the supply chain to meet their project objectives. This may include considering new execution strategies, but, often, the change is in the way contractual mechanisms are being set up to compensate the supply chain. 

A current and favourable option is to set up gain-share arrangements – for example, pain/gain contracts or target costs – where the supply chain and client win or lose, mutually, driving better collaboration. The sector is already seeing success with this option, but the mechanism can become intertwined with other project drivers, and therefore must be carefully targeted and managed to deliver the right results. 

Our view is that the most effective manner to mitigate schedule risk is to secure capacity and develop capability by establishing long-term partnerships with core members in the supply chain, including trade contractors.  

By moving to more integrated supply models, instead of hierarchical ones, clients will be able to better leverage capabilities across all tiers of the supply chain. Integrated Project Delivery approaches, different packaging strategies and alternative procurement models should be openly explored, tailored to each project’s needs. 

Transforming programme delivery requires systemic change

To see real and lasting results in terms of schedule efficiency, life sciences clients need to unlock a broad range of new processes and ways of working in all project phases, with a laser focus on early interventions.  

At their core, life sciences companies must build a culture of issue prevention rather than rectification. Quick fixes may unblock issues on individual projects but will ultimately leave deep-rooted issues unresolved and destined to recur on the next project or programme.  

By tackling the four areas outlined, clients will put themselves on a stronger path to achieve the outcomes they envisage when commencing upon a major programme.