Chemical Engineering May 2018 - 56

Engineering Practice
The Unrecognized Problems
of Relocating Laboratories
Follow the guidance provided here to avoid many of the problems that
can arise during the relocation of laboratory facilities
Richard Palluzi
Richard P Palluzi LLC
T
he decision to move a laboratory
from an existing space
to a new research facility is
often warranted. A merger or
acquisition may require the transfer
of some laboratory work, an aging
facility may no longer be economically
viable, downsizing or reorganization
may call for consolidations
or relocations, and numerous other
business drivers may suggest or
force a relocation. This can create an
exciting time, as personnel see an
opportunity to start over in a brand
new setting, free of the persistent
problems and issues they know so
well in their old laboratory settings.
However, very few organizations
realize how difficult a task it is to relocate
an entire laboratory facility. Most
research groups will never experience
a major relocation so they rarely go
through the process, and thus, their
base of experience is little to none.
Groups that have experienced a major
laboratory relocation are normally so
traumatized that they rarely analyze
the overall relocation process closely
- concentrating instead on fixing the
problems, moving past them quickly,
and hopefully forgetting them as soon
as possible. Unfortunately, the problems
resulting from a poorly planned
relocation are often glossed over (and
in some cases hidden) as company
managers try to avoid the inevitable
fallout (Figure 1). Certainly, the mistakes
or deficiencies related to poor
planning or execution are rarely shared
with colleagues or competitors.
Myths that hinder the process
This author has participated in more
than 15 laboratory relocations, new
facility set ups, and studies over
56
FIGURE 1. One example of a last-minute contractor change that had significant adverse impacts was
the replacement of a small strut support (1-5/8 in.) by a 4-in. tubular support frame. This prevented easy
modifications to allow deeper laboratory equipment to fit on many benches
his career. Discussed below are a
variety of observations and recommendations
related to some of the
major problems that are frequently
encountered, and some
of
the
prevailing myths that stand in
the way of a successful laboratoryrelocation
project.
Having an unrealistic schedule.
When they fail to fully understand the
complexity of the relocation process,
stakeholders often develop a schedule
that is geared toward meeting
management's desires, or that is
based on an overly optimistic view
of the work required. This almost always
ensures major project problems
later, as too little funding is appropriated
for the study, and insufficient
time is allowed to evaluate realistic
options or address problems. Too
often, the study results represent
little more than inspired guesswork
that reflects wishful thinking related
to desired outcomes, rather than a
sound basis using hard information
to reach a truly informed decision.
Organizations tend to produce
studies that support their biases
when there has not been adequate
analysis. For instance, when they
think a new laboratory site can be
developed at a low cost, their natural
inclination is to look most closely
at what seem to be low-cost options
- often without taking the time and
effort needed to recognize that the
options being considered may not
address their needs completely, or
may not be based on realistic estimates.
And the more these unrealistic
options are presented, the
more difficult it is to shed the
so-called rose-colored glasses to
bring the harsher reality to the attention
of company management.
Such bias, as well as the resultant
less extensive analysis, can lead to
bad decisionmaking and a failure to
really understand the full impact of
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM MAY 2018

http://WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM

Chemical Engineering May 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Chemical Engineering May 2018