Optimizing construction performance in life sciences

Getting the right strategy in place—including early identification of project priorities—is critical to developing a shared set of values and operating principles among all project stakeholders, from the executive team to trade contractors.

The repercussions of poor prioritization are most noticeable when conditions change. For example, if a schedule-driven project runs into budget challenges, then—without a clear priority driver—stakeholders often declare broadly that it is now both schedule- and budget-driven, which, in practice, means it is neither.

To overcome this hurdle, clients should follow these steps:

Step 1: Analyze reliable benchmark data. Use it to validate that the project can be delivered to the desired objectives.

Step 2: Engage and communicate effectively. Stakeholders with the authority to change or redirect success drivers must be involved in “day one” workshops to define project guardrails and the governance structure. These exercises should include defining tolerances, decision rights, confirmation strategies, corrective measures, scope prioritization and controls methodologies, among many others.

Step 3: Establish overall clarity of vision with senior sponsorship. Aligning leaders and securing full buy-in to project objectives will drive stronger performance and help 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 clearly communicated. Anything less can create confusion, doubt and mistrust among those responsible for executing the project.

2. Avoid stressors by course correcting before construction

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

Most project teams are strong at early recognition but can struggle with timely interventions—especially during engineering, procurement, commissioning and qualification. These phases often require adjustments in process and prioritization rather than simply adding more resources. As solutions go, “more” can feel easier than “different,” but it is not nearly as effective.

Construction is an attractive place to focus on schedule improvements because it is tangible and visible. As a result, the construction phase frequently becomes the main target for schedule recovery. Contractors are asked to bring in more people, add more shifts and source more materials—when course correction should have happened earlier.

Calling on construction to make up for lost time is often not an effective response. On large-scale programs, construction is already inherently geared toward speed and efficiency. Construction acceleration is typically the least efficient and highest-risk way to relieve a schedule, which is why it often fails to deliver the promised outcomes.

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

The earliest intervention is almost always the most cost-effective and the most impactful, but it can be the hardest to spot. Prioritizing an approach that optimizes interfaces between phases, intellectual processes and administrative burdens before addressing field work will offer the best schedule outcomes.

3. Evaluate and change processes for speed 

There are key opportunities to improve project execution. Programs are often chartered for scale and speed. However, existing processes may have been built with other—sometimes conflicting—motivations in mind.

While we do not recommend reinventing every process each time a company starts a new project, organizations with ambitious multiyear capital investment plans should challenge some of the most critical and repetitive tasks that occur throughout execution.

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 time and their original purpose can get lost. In worst-case scenarios, unintegrated processes create duplicated effort. The best place to start is evaluating processes relative to the organization’s appetite for risk, speed and value. When project teams—and the organization as a whole—evaluate processes with this mindset, the resulting increase in productivity and quality can be meaningful and measurable.

4. Incentivize and partner with the supply chain

Given that schedule is the primary execution driver, how do we ensure the supply chain is fully aligned and positioned to achieve this requirement?

Our survey respondents indicate that projects risk missing schedule due to three linked factors: poorly defined execution strategies, lack of supply chain capacity, and ineffective procurement decisions.

Improving execution strategy, establishing stronger supply chain relationships and selecting the right procurement routes to market can help mitigate risk from the outset.

Recognizing the impact that project setup has on major program success, life sciences owners are increasingly open to options that drive the right supply chain behaviors. This may include new execution strategies, but often the shift is in how contractual mechanisms are structured to compensate the supply chain.

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

Our view is that the most effective way to mitigate schedule risk is to secure capacity and build capability through long-term partnerships with core supply chain members, including trade contractors.

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

Transforming program delivery requires systemic change

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

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

By tackling the four areas outlined, clients will be on a stronger path to achieve the outcomes they envisioned at the start of a major program.