Five planning mistakes that owners can avoid to improve project outcomes, reduce surprises, and make better use of capital budgets.
Organizations often assume that project success is determined during design or construction. In reality, many of the decisions that lead to cost increases and schedule delays are made long before the first drawing is created.
Industry research highlights the challenges associated with large capital projects. A McKinsey survey of senior project executives found that projects exceed their original budgets and schedules by an average of 30% to 45%. While many factors contribute to these overruns, decisions made during early project planning can significantly influence costs and schedules later in the project.
Whether a project involves a laboratory renovation, new manufacturing equipment, a utility upgrade, or a cleanroom expansion, understanding existing infrastructure and operational constraints before design begins can help owners avoid costly surprises.
The following five planning mistakes frequently arise in laboratory, pharmaceutical, and advanced technology facilities. Addressing them early can lead to more realistic budgets, fewer unexpected changes, and more predictable project outcomes.
Most projects begin with a business need. A new process requires additional capacity. A laboratory requires new instrumentation. Manufacturing operations need new equipment to support growth.
The natural tendency is to focus immediately on the equipment itself. Unfortunately, the equipment is often the easiest part of the project.
The more important question is whether the facility infrastructure can support it.
Before selecting equipment, owners should evaluate:
Many organizations discover late in the project that infrastructure improvements represent a larger investment than the equipment itself. The result is an unexpected scope increase that could have been identified months earlier through appropriate facility assessments.
Many facilities have undergone decades of modifications. Equipment is relocated, valves are added, ductwork is rerouted, control systems are replaced and utilities are abandoned in place.
Yet project teams often rely on drawings that were created years or decades ago.
One of the most common causes of construction-related change orders is the discovery that field conditions differ significantly from available documentation.
Successful projects typically begin by verifying existing conditions through activities such as:
The cost of properly documenting existing conditions is often insignificant compared to the cost of redesign, change orders or construction delays.
Utility capacity limitations are among the most common project risks in existing facilities.
Most infrastructure systems were designed to support a specific operational profile. Over time, incremental changes and expansions consume available capacity, leaving little room for additional equipment or processes.
Projects frequently encounter challenges such as:
Owners are often surprised to learn that the desired project scope is technically achievable, but only after substantial infrastructure upgrades are completed. These unanticipated improvements can significantly affect project budgets and schedules.
Identifying utility capacity limitations early gives owners more flexibility to evaluate alternatives, plan necessary upgrades, and establish realistic budgets.
Many projects are funded to address an immediate operational need. As a result, project teams focus exclusively on today's problem.
Forward-looking organizations recognize that construction provides an opportunity to incorporate flexibility for future growth.
Questions worth asking include:
The incremental cost of incorporating expansion capability during a current project is often significantly lower than constructing those improvements later.
Considering future growth during initial planning can help organizations avoid costly modifications, minimize operational disruptions, and achieve greater long-term value from their investments.
Many organizations wait until after budgets, schedules, equipment selections, and business commitments have already been established before engaging engineering support. By that point, opportunities to influence outcomes are limited.
Early engineering decisions can provide significant value during project definition.
Early engineering involvement allows project teams to:
Research also highlights the importance of early project planning. A McKinsey analysis of major mining and metals projects found that 83% experienced cost or schedule challenges, with approximately two-thirds of overruns and delays attributed to poor initial assessments. While the research focused on mining and metals, it reinforces the importance of thoroughly evaluating project requirements before major commitments are made.
Engaging engineering during early planning gives owners more opportunities to evaluate alternatives and make informed decisions before budgets and project scopes are finalized.
High-performing projects rarely begin with a predetermined solution. Instead, they begin with a clear understanding of the problem.
The most successful owner organizations consistently invest time upfront to understand:
This approach does not eliminate project challenges. It simply identifies them when solutions are still inexpensive.
In many cases, the difference between a smooth project and a difficult project is not the quality of design. It is the quality of planning that occurs beforehand.
Owners often view engineering as a design function. The most successful organizations recognize its value as a planning tool.
Many project outcomes are influenced long before design begins. Identifying risks early allows owners to make informed decisions while options are still available and changes are less costly.
The goal is not simply to avoid change orders. It's to make capital investments with greater confidence, fewer surprises, and a clearer understanding of how today's project supports tomorrow's operational needs.
Because the most expensive project problems are rarely created during construction.
They're usually created during planning.
Cost overruns can result from infrastructure limitations, outdated facility drawings, insufficient utility capacity, and project requirements that aren't fully understood before design begins. Identifying these issues early can help owners establish more realistic budgets and avoid unexpected scope changes.
Engineering teams should ideally be involved during initial project planning, before equipment selections, budgets, and schedules are finalized. Early involvement helps identify technical constraints, evaluate alternatives, and develop realistic project scopes.
Facility owners can reduce the risk of unexpected costs by verifying existing conditions, assessing infrastructure and utility capacity, considering future expansion needs, and identifying potential construction or phasing challenges before making major commitments.
Wayne Catucci is a Lead Mechanical Engineer and Project Manager at Hallam-ICS with more than 13 years of experience in HVAC and mechanical engineering. He specializes in the planning, design, and delivery of laboratory, biopharmaceutical, and other highly regulated facilities, helping owners balance safety, reliability, energy efficiency, and lifecycle cost.
Read My Hallam Story
About Hallam-ICS
Hallam-ICS is an engineering and automation company that designs MEP systems for facilities and plants, engineers control and automation solutions, and ensures safety and regulatory compliance through arc flash studies, commissioning, and validation. Our offices are located in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, North Carolina,Texas and California and our projects take us world-wide.