The UK commercial property market is facing a period of muted activity, with tenant demand remaining subdued across most sectors. As Savills notes in its latest Market in Minutes report, leasing activity has slowed markedly as occupiers delay decisions amid economic uncertainty and rising cost pressures. This cautious sentiment is reshaping development strategies – with a sharper focus on viability, adaptability, and long-term value.

Against this backdrop, effective execution of workspace projects is critical. When it comes to delivery of high-performance lab spaces, the science and tech industry still defaults to the procurement routes that have always been used. But these conventional approaches often fall short, leading to inefficiencies, cost overruns, and underwhelming outcomes.

The industry is ripe for change.

At Inuti, we believe there’s a smarter, more interactive way to deliver technically demanding projects. One that starts with early involvement from all relevant disciplines and puts feasibility, cost, and coordination at the heart of the process.

So what’s wrong with conventional approaches?

An early mistake in many projects is that the procurement route is chosen before the full scope is understood. This can result in a project being shaped to fit the preferred working style of those engaged on the project, rather than being tailored to the actual needs of the space and the best way to achieve those outcomes. A great example of this in action is the UncommonBio project, where early collaboration between technical specialists and designers helped align complex laboratory and pilot plant requirements before major design work began – ensuring a smooth build and delivery within tight time constraints.

Turning to the conventional procurement routes, these are essentially ‘traditional’ and ‘Design & Build’.

The traditional route typically sees architects leading the early stages of the project, designing up to RIBA Stage 3 or 3+, followed by a tender process. By necessity, these early designs are to some extent ‘designs in principle’, without full assessment of the practical and technical realities of both the building and the performance requirements of the client. But this often results in specialist contractors quoting based on incomplete or technically vague designs and simply pricing to win, which becomes a race to the bottom.

The D&B route, meanwhile, involves contractors quoting a broad-brush price early on to secure the project, then clarifying detail as the work progresses. Throughout the project the D&B contractor will expect to manage costs in order to protect margins, on the basis that they will gain in some areas and lose on others, but still achieve overall profitability. On general workspace projects, this can be viable, but on technical space creation, small oversights can have huge cost implications. This can lead the contractor to seriously cut corners which in turn compromises performance and leads to disappointing results.

Both routes suffer from a lack of early technical assessment, which means cost and timescale estimates are unreliable from the outset.

Bruce Pleckinger, Inuti:

“It makes no logical sense to tender before technical requirements have been properly identified. People say, ‘I do it because it protects my competitive advantage’. But it doesn’t, because contractor quotes are based on inaccurate information, so variations later in the project are inevitable!”

The power of early technical involvement

Early involvement of all specialist disciplines removes the fear of the unknown and provides certainty around budget, timescales and project outcomes. It allows risks and challenges to be identified from the outset and solutions to be hard-wired into the project.

It also enables early assessment of sizeable elements within the project scope that may jeopardise project viability. By identifying such things early on, they can be discussed with the client and an early decision made whether to proceed with such elements or find alternative approaches that have less implications on the project overall.

Forming a team of subject matter experts (SMEs) early ensures that recommendations and costings are grounded in technical reality, rather than assumptions.

Key benefits include:

• Accurate cost estimations and budgeting

• Early identification and mitigation of risks

• Avoidance of design conflicts between disciplines

• Optimised designs through informed value engineering

• Fewer surprises during construction

Dominic Weston, Inuti:

“In our early appraisal on one project recently, we identified that the larger goods lift the client was considering would be extremely expensive to implement given the fabric and structural limitations of the building. When we raised it, the client agreed and decided to drop the requirement for the larger goods lift, and implemented a more cost-effective solution within the existing lift shaft which prevented delays, uncertainty and provided alternative solutions later in the project.”

A multi-disciplinary approach to design

Once a project moves into the design phase, Inuti maintains equal footing among all disciplines. This ensures that no single SME dominates the process. Instead, collaboration is continuous and dynamic, ensuring optimum integration of services and the ultimate performance of the space.

This incremental and interactive approach also means that designs are stress-tested in real time against practical realities and budget constraints, allowing clashes to be resolved quickly and constructively.

Enabling a seamless construction phase

When a project reaches site, the benefits of early involvement are really felt. With thorough planning and coordinated design already in place, unexpected issues are rare. And if anything arises, there is already a culture of collaboration in place, and it becomes much easier to arrive at a solution across all disciplines.

The whole focus on early clarity and intelligent design means that timelines are more predictable and costs more stable throughout the construction phase. And it also means that instead of firefighting issues, focus can be on delivering a well-defined project through construction to handover.

The Inuti approach

Inuti’s methodology is built on a foundation of early insight and coordinated expertise:

• Rapid appraisal tools to quickly assess viability and key challenges

• Thorough feasibility studies involving all relevant disciplines

• Early formation of SME teams to inform design and costing

• Balanced collaboration to ensure no discipline dominates

• Continuous reality-checking throughout the project lifecycle

The overall approach is a hybrid of conventional RIBA and BSRIA BG6 pathways, with a focus on bringing the best expertise to each area of the project as early as possible.

In conclusion…

Early involvement of all specialist disciplines enables a ground-up approach to tendering, design, and execution. It brings clarity, reduces friction, and ensures that every stage of the project is rooted in technical and practical reality.

For clients seeking certainty, quality, and cost-effectiveness in lab space construction, Inuti’s approach offers a compelling alternative to business as usual.

Join our newsletter for the latest insights – and if you’re ready to dive deeper, book a call with us to get started.