2. How did Petra’s approach differ, and why was it more successful? ‘There is no doubt that it was a disaster for the laboratory.

It was the first time that a client had withdrawn from a contract so soon, and it was our fault entirely. It was also a disaster for Vincent. I feel sorry for him. I had known him for years. He was a good guy with seemingly unlimited energy and a host of good ideas. But in the end, he had to go.’ (Petra Reemer, Chief Scientist, Rapposcience Labs)

Petra Reemer was talking about her predecessor, Vincent De Smet, who was in charge of the laboratories (simply known internally as ‘the lab’) when one of their larger clients, MGQ Services, an extraction services firm, had exercised its right to withdraw from a commercial contract with Rapposcience for ‘persistent and significant failure to comply with testing and analytical performance’. This came as a shock to the lab because, although they were aware that their performance had not been entirely satisfactory, MGQ had not formally complained about the lab’s performance. MGQ’s withdrawal not only a created a hole in the lab’s revenue projections, it also attracted enough negative publicity in the industry for the lab’s private equity owners, Brighthorpe Holdings, to replace Vincent De Smet with Petra Reemer. With a background in analytical and industrial forensic testing, Petra started the job of rescuing the lab’s reputation.