Modernizing a Teaching Lab: Lessons from a Facility Upgrade

Pictured from left: Carol Rego ’82, Chancellor Mark A. Fuller, PhD, Mitch Winkler ’80, and Rob Griffin, dean of the College of Engineering. Image: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

When institutions consider laboratory renovations, the discussion often centers on equipment purchases. Yet successful upgrades require a much broader process—one that includes stakeholder engagement, curriculum alignment, funding strategies, and long-term planning.

At the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, the College of Engineering’s Fluids Lab Modernization Project offers a useful example of how academic institutions can approach laboratory renewal. Scheduled for completion in time for the Fall 2026 semester, the project will replace aging instructional equipment with modern systems that better reflect current engineering practice while expanding opportunities for student learning.

The fluids laboratory serves both civil and mechanical engineering students and supports courses that are foundational to the engineering curriculum. According to Dr. Robert Griffin, dean of the College of Engineering, the need for modernization became increasingly clear as the existing equipment aged and diverged from technologies students would encounter in industry.

“The modernization project was driven by outdated equipment that no longer reflected current engineering practices and required significant time and effort to maintain,” Griffin says. “Upgrading the lab will improve reliability, reduce maintenance demands, and provide students with hands-on experience using modern technologies.”

For many institutions, making the case for laboratory investment begins with demonstrating how equipment limitations affect both teaching and operational efficiency. In this case, reliability, maintenance requirements, and industry relevance all contributed to the justification for the upgrade.

Aligning equipment investments with educational goals

One of the most important decisions during any laboratory renovation is determining which equipment should be prioritized. Rather than focusing solely on replacing aging systems, UMass Dartmouth evaluated potential investments through the lens of curriculum requirements and future educational opportunities.

The upgraded facility will feature six hydraulic benches, each equipped with a pipe friction apparatus, jet impact apparatus, Venturi apparatus, center-of-pressure evaluation system, and equipment for experiments involving discharge through a notch and flow through an orifice. The laboratory will also receive a tabletop water flume with an integrated force sensor and a particle tracking velocimetry system.

These additions will allow students to conduct a broader range of experiments while working with instrumentation and data analysis tools that more closely resemble those used in professional engineering environments.

The modernization also extends beyond physical equipment. New software platforms will support advanced data collection, analysis, and visualization, enabling students to gain experience with contemporary engineering workflows and strengthen skills in experimental design, interpretation of results, teamwork, and technical communication.

While equipment selections were still being finalized during the planning process, Griffin says decisions were guided by several key considerations: “Decisions are being guided by factors such as alignment with curriculum needs, industry relevance, reliability, and opportunities for future expansion.”

For architects, planners, and laboratory managers, this highlights the importance of connecting capital investments directly to educational outcomes rather than viewing equipment replacement as an isolated facilities project.

Engaging stakeholders early

A recurring challenge in laboratory projects is ensuring that those who use and maintain the space have meaningful input into planning decisions. At UMass Dartmouth, faculty members and technical staff played a central role in identifying priorities and evaluating options. This collaborative approach helped ensure that decisions reflected both instructional requirements and day-to-day operational realities.

“Faculty teaching the relevant courses and technicians responsible for setting up the lab and maintaining equipment were involved in all discussions regarding what was in most dire need of replacement, what aligned with current curriculum and industry best practices, and what would allow expansion of current offerings,” Griffin says.

For design teams, the lesson is straightforward: laboratory users often possess critical knowledge about workflow challenges, maintenance issues, and future instructional needs that may not be apparent during a traditional programming process. Bringing those voices into discussions early can improve both project outcomes and stakeholder buy-in.

Planning for future flexibility

Many institutions face the challenge of balancing immediate instructional demands with uncertainty about future curriculum changes. Rather than purchasing highly specialized systems with limited adaptability, UMass Dartmouth prioritized modularity.

“We ensured that the equipment to be purchased would be modular, so that a new experiment could be performed with an ‘add-on’ to the base,” Griffin says. “That way, we won’t need to replace the base if things change or we want to add a new capability.”

This strategy reflects a broader trend in laboratory planning toward flexible infrastructure and adaptable teaching environments. Even relatively modest instructional laboratories can benefit from equipment platforms that accommodate future upgrades without requiring complete replacement. While many renovation projects involve extensive changes to building systems, UMass Dartmouth demonstrates that meaningful improvements can sometimes be achieved through carefully targeted equipment investments that leverage existing space and infrastructure.

Building support and securing funding

Funding is often one of the greatest barriers to laboratory modernization. In this case, alumni engagement proved instrumental. A $75,000 matching gift from Teresa and Mitch Winkler ’80 encouraged additional contributions from engineering alumni and helped the university reach fundraising goals in time to equip the laboratory for the upcoming academic year.

According to Griffin, support was strengthened through a dedicated campaign structure: “A Fluids Lab Modernization Campaign task force met bi-weekly and included staff who work on prospect research, individual gift solicitations, foundation relations, corporate engagement, and donor stewardship,” he says.

The project illustrates how successful laboratory upgrades frequently require collaboration beyond academic departments, involving advancement professionals, alumni, industry partners, and institutional leadership.

For institutions pursuing similar initiatives, Griffin offers simple advice: “Engage your constituents on and off campus as soon as possible to identify natural synergies to upgrade equipment and spaces.”

As colleges and universities seek to prepare students for increasingly technology-driven careers, the UMass Dartmouth project demonstrates that effective laboratory modernization is about more than purchasing new equipment. It requires aligning investments with educational objectives, engaging users throughout the planning process, designing for future flexibility, and building broad stakeholder support. Those lessons can help institutions of all sizes create laboratory environments that remain relevant, adaptable, and valuable for years to come.