BPAS Architects principal Landseer Collen - simplifying processes and early decision‑making key to delivering complex projects

Landseer Collen, principal at BPAS Architects, argues that adding systems, reporting structures and design complexity can make delivery harder rather than easier. Instead, successful projects depend on clarity: aligning stakeholders, defining responsibilities and making decisions early.

As major developments become increasingly complex, Collen believes the firms that perform best will be those able to simplify processes, maintain focus and create space for innovation without losing control.

“Complexity rarely comes from one factor alone,” he explains. “Technical design can be challenging, but projects become truly complex when multiple stakeholder interests, commercial pressures and layered decision-making structures interact.”

In major built environment projects, that interaction can quickly become difficult to manage. Architects, engineers, contractors, consultants, developers, municipalities and end users all bring different priorities to the table. Added to that, commercial deadlines, budget pressures and evolving client expectations mean that even relatively straightforward projects can become difficult to co-ordinate.

“In most major projects, managing decisions and relationships is ultimately harder than managing the engineering itself,” says Collen.

Complexity requires collaboration

Complexity itself is not necessarily a problem. Large-scale developments naturally require sophisticated thinking and multidisciplinary co-ordination. The problem begins when complexity affects accountability and decision-making.

“Large projects naturally require sophisticated solutions,” Collen says, “But when processes, reporting structures or design pathways become overly complicated, teams lose clarity on what matters most.”

That is often where cost overruns, programme delays and co-ordination failures begin to emerge.

Collen says one of the biggest contributors to this problem is the tendency to move too quickly into solution mode before fully understanding the underlying challenge. “Part of this tendency comes from commercial pressure to demonstrate progress early, and part comes from the belief that more technical detail equals better thinking.”

In reality, he says, the strongest projects often spend more time upfront defining objectives clearly, aligning stakeholders and establishing decision-making structures before detailed design work accelerates. While that process may initially appear slower, it often simplifies downstream decisions and reduces rework later in the project lifecycle.

This becomes especially important when projects involve multiple stakeholders and overlapping layers of responsibility. According to Collen, breakdowns most commonly occur not within individual teams, but at the interface between them.

“Breakdowns tend to happen when objectives are not aligned, responsibilities are blurred or information is filtered through too many layers,” he explains.

Lack of clarity is sometimes more of a problem than technical challenges: Collen points out that unclear briefs, evolving scope and delayed approvals create uncertainty across the entire delivery chain, affecting procurement, co-ordination and construction sequencing. In many cases, these issues become more disruptive than the technical challenges themselves.

“Most technical problems can be solved with enough expertise and co-ordination,” he says. “Clarity and consistency early on are often the biggest determinants of project efficiency.”

He believes the most effective project teams understand this. “High-performing teams maintain clarity under pressure,” Landseer says. “They simplify communication, make decisions early, escalate issues quickly and stay focused on outcomes rather than process for its own sake.”

Importantly, this does not mean reducing creativity or limiting innovation. Collen is clear that simpler thinking is not about simplistic design, but about creating a disciplined framework within which innovation can be applied effectively.

“Innovation works best within a clear framework,” Landseer explains. “Discipline should not limit creativity. It should create the conditions for it to be applied effectively.”

More options not always better

Collen says that many project teams still operate on the assumption that more options automatically lead to better outcomes. But endless iteration and delayed commitment often create uncertainty rather than value.

“The industry needs to shift toward disciplined optionality,” says Landseer. “Explore enough possibilities to make informed choices but then commit decisively to the right direction.”

As projects continue to grow in scale and complexity, he says the firms that perform best may not be those adding the most complexity to the process, but those most capable of simplifying it.