The Cost of Not Deciding: Why Indecision May Be Construction's Most Overlooked Risk

4 hours ago

8 min read

Every construction project has a budget, a schedule, and a list of risks. But what about the cost of a decision that never gets made?

I've spent a good part of my career bringing people together, asking questions, moderating industry discussions, and, perhaps most importantly, listening.

One thing I've learned is that some of the most valuable conversations happen when we bring different perspectives to the same table. Contractors see one set of challenges. Architects and engineers see another. Property managers, owners, and their representatives each operate with their own responsibilities, priorities, and pressures.

But every so often, a discussion reveals a problem that everyone recognizes, regardless of which side of the table they sit on.

That was exactly what happened during our recent panel discussion, The Cost of Not Deciding.

What began as a conversation about construction challenges in New York City's co-op and condominium market quickly evolved into something much broader: an examination of how delayed decisions affect project costs, schedules, relationships, and ultimately, trust.

And perhaps the most important takeaway was this:

Not making a decision is, in itself, a decision. And it often comes with a price tag.

Bringing Different Perspectives to the Table

I had the pleasure of moderating an outstanding group of industry professionals, each bringing years of experience and a unique perspective:

Spiro Markatos, Skyline Restoration Inc. — Contractor and Building Envelope
Howard L. Zimmerman, FAIA, HZIMMERMAN — Architecture and Engineering
Eric S. McPhee, Orsid New York — Property and Risk Management
Danielle Axelrod, DAxCO — Owner's Representation

As moderator, my objective wasn't simply to move from one question to the next. It was to connect the dots between the different perspectives, challenge assumptions, and identify lessons that everyone in the room could take back to their organizations.

What became apparent was that while the challenges vary by discipline, the consequences of indecision are remarkably consistent.

The Hidden Cost Nobody Budgets For

In construction, we're very good at identifying tangible costs.

We track labor, materials, equipment, insurance, general conditions, and professional fees. We build contingencies for unforeseen conditions and develop schedules to manage complex sequences of work.

Yet one of the most expensive risks rarely appears as a separate line item: decision drag.

Think about how often this happens.

A project is designed, bids are received, and everyone agrees the work needs to move forward. But an approval gets pushed to the next board meeting. Another stakeholder requests additional information. Someone wants to revisit a previously approved option.

Three months later, the same project is still sitting on the table.

Meanwhile, material pricing may have changed. Contractor availability may have shifted. Procurement windows may have closed. Professional teams may need to revisit their work.

The project hasn't moved, but the cost of delivering it has.

One point I found particularly interesting was the distinction between delays during construction and those during preconstruction.

When a crew is standing around waiting for direction, the cost is obvious. During preconstruction, the financial consequences are much less visible.

Yet that is often when the greatest opportunities exist to prevent problems.

The cheapest problem to solve is frequently the one we identify before construction begins.

Better Information Leads to Better Decisions

Howard Zimmerman emphasized the importance of complete, accurate information.

His perspective reinforced something I've seen throughout my career: when project documents leave too much open to interpretation, uncertainty doesn't disappear. It simply gets transferred to the next person in the process.

Incomplete drawings, ambiguous specifications, and poorly defined scopes lead to RFIs, inconsistent bidding assumptions, and ultimately, difficult decisions.

An owner might receive five competitive proposals, but are those contractors actually pricing the same project?

If not, the apparent savings could disappear through change orders and scope clarification.

This is where investing more time and resources upfront can create tremendous value.

Better documentation isn't just about improving the design. It's about creating the conditions for better decisions throughout the project.

Too Many Choices Can Be Just as Dangerous as Too Few

One of the most interesting parts of our discussion centered on something that sounds counterintuitive.

We often assume that giving clients more options is providing better service.

But is it?

Spiro Markatos raised an important point about narrowing choices to those that actually make sense.

Imagine presenting a condominium board with twelve material samples, eight design alternatives, and several different construction approaches.

We've given them plenty of information. But have we helped them make a decision?

Not necessarily.

In fact, we may have made their job harder.

As professionals, our responsibility should go beyond presenting every possible solution.

We need to evaluate the alternatives, understand the constraints, and make recommendations.

That doesn't mean taking decision-making authority away from owners. It means giving them the confidence to exercise that authority.

I believe there's a meaningful difference between being an information provider and being a trusted advisor.

A trusted advisor doesn't simply explain the options. A trusted advisor helps identify the right path forward.

Who Actually Has the Authority to Decide?

Perhaps one of the most important themes of the discussion was accountability.

Who is actually empowered to make the decision?

In the co-op and condominium world, this can become particularly complicated.

Boards change. Committees have competing priorities. Property managers are asked to coordinate major capital projects. Consultants provide recommendations, but may not have approval authority.

Danielle Axelrod's perspective as an owner's representative helped reinforce the importance of establishing a clear decision-making structure early in the process.

A project can have an excellent architect, an experienced contractor, a knowledgeable property manager, and a capable owner's representative.

But if nobody knows who has the final authority, the project can still stall.

This isn't necessarily a people problem. Often, it's a process problem.

Who owns the decision? What information is required? When must approval be provided? What happens if the deadline passes?

These questions need to be answered before they become emergencies.

And they need to be revisited as projects evolve.

Risk Management Starts Before the Contract Is Signed

Eric McPhee brought an important property management and risk perspective to the conversation.

One example was insurance prequalification.

Imagine spending months reviewing proposals, negotiating pricing, and selecting a contractor, only to discover that the selected firm cannot meet the project's insurance requirements.

Suddenly, the process starts over.

The lesson is straightforward: identify critical requirements before they become obstacles.

The same principle applies to access agreements, financing, regulatory approvals, and procurement.

In New York City, a project may be fully designed and funded but unable to proceed because access to an adjacent property hasn't been secured.

Those negotiations can take months, sometimes longer.

Access isn't something to address a few weeks before mobilization. It needs to be treated as a critical-path activity from the beginning.

These examples reinforce a larger point: effective risk management isn't simply about responding to problems.

It's about anticipating the decisions that will determine whether a project can move forward.

Transparency Builds Trust, Especially When the News Isn't Good

Another recurring theme was communication and transparency.

Construction is inherently unpredictable, particularly when working on existing buildings.

We can't eliminate every concealed condition, unexpected repair, or regulatory challenge.

As Danielle noted during the discussion, there is no way to mitigate every risk on a construction project.

But we can do a much better job of preparing owners for uncertainty.

That means establishing realistic contingencies, explaining assumptions, identifying potential cost exposure, and maintaining a clear record of decisions.

It also means having difficult conversations early.

Owners may not enjoy hearing that a project could cost more than originally anticipated. But that conversation is far more productive during planning than after construction is underway.

In my experience, relationships rarely deteriorate because a challenge exists.

They deteriorate when someone feels surprised, uninformed, or excluded from the process.

Transparency doesn't eliminate difficult news. It builds the trust necessary to work through it.

AI Is Changing the Conversation, but Not the Responsibility

We also touched on a relatively new dynamic: artificial intelligence.

Today, owners and board members have access to an extraordinary amount of information.

They can research materials, explore construction methods, compare alternatives, and ask AI tools questions that previously required professional consultation.

I see tremendous potential in that.

But more information doesn't automatically produce better decisions.

AI can help generate questions and identify possibilities. It doesn't necessarily understand the specific building conditions, contractual obligations, local regulatory requirements, or real-world constructability challenges.

And it doesn't assume professional responsibility for the outcome.

For our industry, I believe this creates an opportunity.

Instead of resisting new technology or dismissing AI-generated questions, we should use those conversations to demonstrate the value of experience, judgment, and professional accountability.

Technology can support the process.

But people still need to own the decisions.

From Conversation to Action

As someone who frequently moderates industry panels, I always ask myself one question afterward:

What can people actually do differently tomorrow because of this conversation?

For this discussion, I believe the answer comes down to a few practical changes.

First, start the difficult conversations earlier. Identify insurance, access, financing, procurement, and technical constraints before they become schedule emergencies.

Second, simplify the decision. Present owners with a manageable number of viable options and a clear professional recommendation.

Third, establish accountability. Every major decision should have an identified owner, a required-by date, and a documented outcome.

Fourth, explain the cost of waiting. Don't simply tell someone when a decision is needed. Explain what happens if it isn't made.

Finally, invest in relationships and transparency. Projects move more effectively when people trust the information, the process, and one another.

These aren't revolutionary concepts.

But consistent execution can make a remarkable difference.

Why Conversations Like This Matter

One of the things I appreciate most about IIBEC is its ability to bring together professionals who might otherwise spend their days working from different sides of the same project.

We have architects, engineers, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, property managers, and owners who all contribute to the performance and longevity of our buildings.

When we create opportunities for these groups to exchange ideas openly, we do more than share technical knowledge.

We develop a better understanding of the challenges each discipline faces and how our individual decisions affect everyone else.

That's where meaningful industry progress begins.

For me, moderating panels has never been about having all the answers.

It's about asking the right questions, bringing forward different perspectives, and creating an environment where people feel comfortable sharing what they've learned, including what hasn't worked.

Our discussion on The Cost of Not Deciding reinforced why these conversations are so important.

The Decision We Need to Make as an Industry

Construction will always involve uncertainty.

We will always encounter changing conditions, competing priorities, difficult stakeholders, and decisions without perfect answers.

The objective shouldn't be to eliminate uncertainty. That's unrealistic.

The objective should be to manage it better.

To recognize that waiting has consequences. That clarity creates confidence. And that good leadership often means making informed decisions before every unknown has been resolved.

If there is one message I hope stays with everyone who attended our panel, it's this:

The cost of making the wrong decision is something we all understand. The cost of not making a decision deserves just as much attention.

Thank you to Spiro, Howard, Eric, and Danielle for sharing their perspectives and helping move this conversation forward.

The panel may have ended, but the conversation shouldn't.

Because sometimes, the most important decision we can make is simply to move forward.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Hugo Ramirez is a construction industry executive and past President of the IIBEC Metro New York Chapter. He regularly moderates industry discussions focused on design, construction, leadership, collaboration, and the challenges facing the built environment.