13 August 2020
Linesight recently hosted a life sciences webinar, in which Jeff Peragallo (Head of Life Sciences – US) and Nigel Barnes (Head of Life Sciences – EMEA) were joined by Steve White, Leader of Global Estimating and Control at Merck, to discuss how benchmarking provides insights into peer and market alignment, can identify gaps and opportunities for improvement in project scope, cost, schedule and quality, and provide a clear baseline from which to improve project performance.
Below are the questions and answers from the session, including a number of questions that we didn’t get to during the webinar, and the recording from the session is available to download using the button above.
A: Yes – we are collecting data on area types, usage, and classifications.
A: We will make use of an internationally-used index, as well as our own global experience and looking at data on an elemental level.
A: No, there is no particular focus. Though the pharma industry tends to be colocated in the same geographies and tends to be focused on similar projects right now.
A: Preferably at project completion, but information is interesting from key stage gate reviews, to allow growth comparisons.
A: We are currently collecting the data and are looking to have a first report out to participants in Q4. It will then be an ongoing activity, including participant roundtables.
A: Yes, the more project data we have, the chance of identifying similar projects increases. Furthermore, if we look at projects on an elemental basis, you can compare elements that are the same/similar rather than the whole project, building up a full picture.
A: Though we are interested in all types, there is a focus on bio/manufacturing, labs (quality and research), and warehousing/cold rooms.
A: To maintain confidentiality, the data will be presented without any client data. We see that a minimum of five projects is needed to be relevant, but obviously, more than this is always beneficial and offers better insight.
A: Yes, we are collecting this information.
A: Right now, we are dependent on the clients providing the information. However, the data should quickly show outliers, and inquiries will then be made to better understand the data point.
A: We use data for projects five years old or younger, and the data is escalated using industry norms.
A: Yes, we have provided some definitions, and going forward would like to align participants on standard measures that we can all agree on.
A: Yes. As noted in response to another question, if we look at costs from the stage gate reviews against final outturn costs, we can measure the use of contingency.
A: This is planned to be an ongoing, continuous exercise.
A: Right now, we are dependent on the clients providing the information and working with us in roundtable discussions. As noted in response to another question, the data should quickly show outliers, and inquiries will then be made to better understand the data point.
A: Regarding execution strategies, right now we are collecting information on project delivery (specifically design-bid-build, design-build, EPCM/CM (at risk)/GC), so we also get into the contracting and payment strategies.
A: By looking at both cost and schedule benchmark data in the correct granularity, we will be able to see the impacts of the points noted.
A: The majority of life sciences projects allow the clients to request the correct level of detail required from their delivery partners, leading to us receiving the correct level of detail.
A: By looking at the costs at the stage gate reviews versus final outturn cost, we can track market tender factors.
A: Yes. We are currently looking at greenfield, brownfield, and retrofit.
A: Yes, we are requesting both hours and costs accordingly.
A: We will have projects by region within country; no specific cities will be mentioned.
A: Not in this initial round. There are items in the questionnaire in which we would expect the participant to identify sustainability, if it had an impact on the scope/delivery of the project.