NEW HOSPITAL PROGRAMME
concepts. By this point, they have already undergone significant technical development and been informed by input from design consultants, clinicians, EFM teams, contractors, specialist manufacturers, and the wider supply chain. The Horizontal MEP Distribution Product was no
Figure 2. Inpatient bedroom and corridor section prototype.
of a wider approach. At its heart, industrialisation is concerned with understanding where variation adds value and where it creates unnecessary complexity, risk, or inefficiency. This distinction is particularly important in healthcare. Hospitals must respond to local clinical needs, site constraints, workforce models, and service requirements, and there will always be areas where flexibility is necessary. However, not every difference improves outcomes. When similar problems are solved in different ways across multiple projects, opportunities for learning can be lost and operational complexity can become embedded within the estate. For EFM teams, the consequences of this are often felt
long after construction has finished. Different Products, interfaces, maintenance assumptions, and operational approaches all add complexity throughout the life of each space. Industrialisation provides a more systematic way of addressing this challenge by creating consistency where consistency adds value while retaining flexibility where local variation is genuinely required. The objective is not maximum standardisation, but the right level of standardisation; enough to support learning, repeatability, and continuous improvement across the wider healthcare estate.
Product development embedding operational readiness One of the most significant shifts within NHP has been the recognition that operational expertise must influence Products while they are still being developed. The Product Development Process (PDP) enables a programme wide stakeholder consortium of designers, manufacturers, contractors, clinicians, and operational stakeholders to shape Products as they evolve. This standardised seven-stage process focuses effort on the Products with the greatest potential impact across NHP, while ensuring each Product is informed by multidisciplinary input throughout its development (see Figure 1). The full benefits of this approach will be realised through the continuous improvement of Products over the life of NHP, using feedback from both Trusts and the supply chain to refine, enhance, and strengthen future iterations. For EFM colleagues, many of the decisions that determine long-term operational performance are made long before a hospital opens its doors. Within Stage 5 of the PDP, Products undergo validation and verification through activities such as market engagement, scheme deployment, and prototyping. But Hospital 2.0 Industrialisation Products do not enter this stage as early
34 Health Estate Journal October 2026
exception. A full-scale prototype, incorporating an inpatient bedroom, en suite, and section of corridor, was developed to assess the Product beyond drawings and digital models (see Figure 2). The objective was not to verify technical performance, but to understand how the solution would be installed, operated, and maintained in practice. Service interfaces, maintenance access, installation sequencing, and replacement activities could all be tested, allowing assumptions to be challenged and refined before deployment into live projects. For the supply chain, the prototype provided an opportunity to validate requirements developed collaboratively through our MEP Working Group. Manufacturers, installers, and specialist contractors were able to come together as a company-agnostic voice to feedback, refine requirements, and confirm that the Product could be manufactured, installed, and coordinated consistently across different projects. Feedback was captured and translated into improvements to both the Product and its supporting specification. For EFM professionals, the focus was operational performance. Working alongside designers and the supply chain, EFM representatives were able to physically assess ceiling voids and interfaces, trialling maintenance access, replacement activities, service interfaces, and operational workflows at full scale. This helped validate operational requirements and ensure that design decisions supported long-term maintainability, service continuity, and asset performance. Collectively, these findings reinforced the value of complementing digital design with physical validation. Whilst digital models remain essential for development and coordination, prototyping enables Products to be assessed as complete systems, bringing together construction, operation, and maintenance considerations in a single environment. In doing so, it helps bridge the gap between design intent and real-world performance, strengthening confidence that Products can be delivered, operated, and maintained as intended.
Co-creation rather than late validation The prototyping process has demonstrated that industrialisation is not only about testing products, but also about creating a meaningful role for operational stakeholders in their development. Traditionally, EFM teams have often been invited into discussions once a solution is already well developed, with their role focused on validating proposals rather than shaping them. By that point, many of the key decisions have already been made and opportunities to influence outcomes can be limited. The approach within H2.0 and a Product-led model creates a different dynamic. Through structured Product development, prototyping, market engagement, and testing, operational expertise can be brought into the conversation while Products are still evolving. This creates space for maintainability, operational workflows, access requirements, and long-term performance considerations to be considered alongside technical, commercial, and construction objectives, rather than after them. Rather than engaging EFM teams at the end of a Product’s linear journey through design and delivery, operational expertise is brought into the development process at the outset, working alongside other disciplines as Products are defined and refined.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188
