Interview with Thomas Möller

Why did you, as the client, decide to adopt the General Planning approach for this project?
One of the main reasons is the comprehensive support provided over the project’s entire duration and the associated continuity in terms of personnel. All aspects of the project are coordinated by the General Planner – for example, definition of tasks and responsibilities; management of the interface between architecture and engineering design; supporting the tender and contract award processes; provision of local site supervision services; and the subsequent pursuit of possible warranty claims. This start-to-finish project management, provided by a single partner that can itself supply many of the planning and design services required, is a clear advantage. Clashes are avoided, and solutions to potential problems can be agreed at an early stage. We therefore decided to conduct an EU-wide tender process for the General Planner services.

What special features are characteristic of the project?
Together with the architects, we succeeded in planning and designing the building to serve its purpose well. We were able to optimise the ratio of total space to lettable space, minimising the amount of ancillary space. It is also possible to alter floor plans quite easily, enabling us to meet the needs of our tenants. We rent to start-ups, and often it is initially not clear where the journey will lead. The first step is usually to rent relatively small spaces in order to limit the economic risk. Our smallest production unit has an area of 55 m2 and is technically equipped in a way that facilitates prototype development and low-volume production. The use of dry partition walls to create offices enhances flexibility – for example, office sizes can be changed at any time, or new doors can be added. This ensures long-term use of the building by diverse companies and industries. 3D models were used to coordinate the work required to develop this very distinct utilisation concept. These enabled us to visualise what it would be like to move through the new building, helping our questions about specific areas to be answered more efficiently. The overall outcome of the project thus became more understandable and more tangible for us. That was impressive.

What is your current conclusion?
We are in the fortunate position that we are relieved of the substantial effort associated with communication during the various project phases – including between diverse specialisations such as structural engineering and building technology. If problems arise or decisions have to be made, the project manager steps forward and takes responsibility. That's why we opted for the General Planning approach, and it works. Even if serious challenges arise due to external influences, the project manager advises us competently and is always available to us. We can also talk to department heads or the company management if the need ever arises. It is very positive that this availability persists, even though Inros Lackner is now a large company.