Five minutes with…Andreas Kammann.

My route into this field hasn’t exactly been traditional. I’ve spent more than 20 years designing laboratories across mainland Europe, but I’m not actually an engineer by background – I’m a biologist. In many ways, that’s been an advantage. Having worked in and around labs, I understand how they function day-to-day and can relate closely to the people who use them. Talented architects can deliver visually impressive buildings – but often, they don’t have the day-to-day experience of real lab users, and that gap in understanding can make a real difference.

When you share that practical experience with clients, conversations become more meaningful from the outset. You’re speaking the same language, which helps build trust and ultimately leads to better outcomes.

In addition to quality assurance, today, my focus is typically on the early phases of projects – feasibility studies, concept design, and setting the overall direction. It’s where the most important decisions are made and getting them right shapes everything that comes next.

If I had to narrow it down, I’d say there are two fundamentals: flexibility and forward thinking. A successful project doesn’t begin with layouts or technical solutions – it starts with asking the right questions. What do people actually need to do in this space? What are their processes, their workflows, their ambitions? Once you properly understand that, meaningful requirements begin to emerge.

That’s where flexibility becomes critical. In sectors like Life Sciences, research priorities can shift incredibly quickly. I’ve worked on laboratories where the intended occupant never even moved in. If a facility’s been designed too specifically, it can quickly become obsolete.

Instead, the aim should be to create a laboratory that can adapt over time – not just for the first user, but for future users too. It’s about designing something that remains useful, even as needs evolve.

Flexibility often means building in capability before you know you’ll need it, integrating sensible interfaces within the design, for example. Laboratories need to be adaptable in terms of services – whether that’s additional gases, different media, or changes in air handling requirements. If those systems can be adjusted or expanded, the space can evolve without major disruption.

I’m a strong advocate for designing from the inside out. Start with how the lab will function, then build around that. Modular layouts can be particularly effective and with consistent grid-based units, spaces can be reconfigured more easily over time.

Ultimately, it’s about striking a balance: delivering what’s needed today, while allowing for something entirely different tomorrow.

Interestingly, the fundamentals of lab design haven’t changed dramatically. What has changed is the context around it. We’re seeing more automation, increased use of robotics, and highly specialised research environments with new technical demands. The challenge isn’t necessarily the innovation itself – it’s integrating it into a system that works as a whole.

That’s where experience plays an important role. Over time, you develop a feel for how decisions made early on will play out later in the project.

There’s also been a shift in how we approach risk. Today, robust risk assessment is a given, particularly because of the materials and processes involved. Having a strong understanding of substances, safety requirements and operational impacts is essential to delivering a design that performs reliably from preliminary design through to handover.

One of the most common challenges is the desire to replicate what already exists. We often hear: “We want the same lab – just bigger.” The difficulty is that many laboratories have evolved over time, rather than being intentionally designed. That means they often carry inefficiencies or limitations that aren’t immediately obvious.

If you simply recreate that environment, you also recreate those issues. You might end up with a technically sound lab that doesn’t actually solve the underlying problems. Part of our role is to challenge those assumptions – to broaden the conversation and explore alternative ways of working. A laboratory isn’t just a physical space; it’s an integrated system where architecture, engineering and operations all need to align.

Even with a strong team, coordination is critical. Without it, decisions made early on can be diluted or lost, and that’s where quality starts to slip.

This might be a little provocative but my goal isn’t to deliver what the client asks for, but what they actually need. And those two things aren’t always the same.

To get there, you have to invest time at the beginning – understanding processes, asking questions, and really getting to grips with how the space will be used. A successful laboratory isn’t just technically correct – it works in practice, day in, day out, and can adapt as needs change.

For those starting out, I’d say it’s important to experience the full lifecycle of a project at least once. When you only work in early-stage design, you don’t always see the consequences of your decisions. Equally, without that understanding, it’s hard to see the bigger picture.

One of the most rewarding parts of the job is returning to completed laboratories and seeing them in use. Speaking to the people working there, understanding what’s worked well – and what could be improved next time. There’s just something truly satisfying about stepping into a completed lab and seeing it perform exactly as it was designed to.