In large-scale lab automation projects, there is often a temptation to delegate the entire responsibility to a single general contractor (GC), thinking that this will simplify management and ensure cohesive project delivery. However, this approach introduces what I call "The General Contractor Dilemma"—the false assumption that one contractor can expertly handle all aspects of a complex system that consists of various specialized subsystems. While general contractors might offer an appealing one-stop-shop solution, this comes with significant risks, including lack of expertise in critical areas and the loss of flexibility for the project owner. In this post, we’ll explore why relying too much on a general contractor can lead to suboptimal results and why breaking down complex projects into specialized subprojects often leads to better outcomes.
The Appeal of a General Contractor
At first glance, handing off a complex automation project to a single general contractor seems efficient. The idea is that the GC will oversee all elements of the project, ensuring that every subcomponent fits together seamlessly, and taking full responsibility for delivery. It reduces the need for the client to manage multiple vendors and coordinate between them, and creates a single point of accountability for the project’s success. However, this convenience comes with hidden risks.
The Risk of Limited Expertise
The most significant danger in this approach is the lack of specialized expertise. A general contractor may have deep knowledge in one or two areas but struggle with tasks outside of their core competencies. For example, while they might excel in integrating off-the-shelf automation systems, they could lack the necessary expertise in handling custom laboratory processes or working with complex biological systems that require bespoke equipment.
This lack of experience can lead to delays, suboptimal design choices, and performance issues. The GC may attempt to apply standard approaches to specialized needs, resulting in poorly integrated systems or even failures. Critical decisions about instrumentation, data management, or automation workflows might be made without sufficient input from specialists, leading to a mismatch between the actual lab requirements and the delivered system.
The Risk of Dependency
Another pitfall of entrusting the entire project to a single general contractor is the dependency it creates. The GC may steer the project in a direction that suits their own experience or product portfolio, limiting the client’s ability to select the best components or systems for their specific needs. This can also apply to future modifications: when changes are required or if the client needs to scale the system, they may be locked into a specific vendor’s solutions.
This reduces flexibility in key areas such as:
Component Selection: The general contractor may push for certain products or technologies they are familiar with, even if they are not the best fit for the project.
Adaptations and Customizations: When the lab's needs evolve, making changes can become cumbersome, as the GC may not be as agile in incorporating modifications compared to a specialized contractor.
Cost Efficiency: Since the GC controls most of the purchasing decisions, clients may find that they have less control over the costs associated with the project, particularly if the contractor has agreements with preferred suppliers that do not align with the client’s budget or performance requirements.
Specialization: The Key to Success in Complex Projects
A more effective approach in complex automation projects is to split the project into manageable subprojects, each led by a specialized contractor. These subprojects can then be coordinated to ensure that their interfaces and integration points are well defined, but the work is done by contractors who are true experts in their respective fields.
For example:
A contractor specializing in liquid handling could take care of automation involving precise pipetting and dispensing tasks, while another vendor with expertise in high-resolution imaging systems could handle data collection tasks.
For custom processes involving unique chemical reactions or biological systems, it’s often better to bring in a specialized firm that has a deep understanding of the complexities involved in handling hazardous materials, temperature control, or bioreactors.
By ensuring that the best experts are in charge of each area, you minimize risks related to inadequate know-how. Furthermore, breaking the project into subcomponents allows the client to remain flexible in terms of choosing vendors, components, and technologies. It also ensures that there is room for innovation—as specialized contractors are often more current with new technologies and more agile in implementing novel solutions.
The Role of the Client in Defining Interfaces
Taking this route means the project owner needs to assume more responsibility in terms of project coordination. One key role is ensuring that the interfaces between subprojects are clearly defined and that there is an interoperability framework in place. While this adds a layer of complexity, the payoff is a system that is more robust, more suited to the lab’s specific needs, and less dependent on a single contractor’s capabilities.
The client can also act as the integrator or assign a dedicated project manager to ensure smooth communication between the specialized contractors. By focusing on clearly defined expectations for each subproject and maintaining control over the integration process, the project owner can prevent the typical pitfalls of general contractor dependency while still reaping the benefits of a coordinated effort.
Conclusion: Avoiding the General Contractor Dilemma
While it’s tempting to hand over a complex lab automation project to a single general contractor, this approach can lead to significant risks. The general contractor may lack the necessary expertise for certain parts of the system, leading to poor performance, and they may limit the client’s flexibility when it comes to selecting the best components or making future modifications. A more successful strategy is to divide the project into smaller, specialized subprojects and maintain responsibility for coordinating these efforts and defining the interfaces between them.
By doing so, you gain access to the best expertise available for each aspect of your system, reduce your dependency on any single contractor, and ensure that your lab’s unique requirements are met with precision and flexibility. In the fast-evolving world of lab automation, this approach fosters both innovation and adaptability—ensuring long-term success.
Comments