On leadership and structure

Design leadership is often associated with vision, quality, and creativity. These qualities are essential. But in complex projects, leadership also involves shaping the conditions  in which good design decisions can be made.

This includes clarifying what is decided, what remains open, and what is intentionally paused; establishing approval paths that align authority with accountability; sequencing decisions so exploration and commitment are not confused; and protecting teams from advancing prematurely without alignment.

This is not about control for its own sake. It is about creating conditions where meaningful design work can progress without constant reversal. Well-structured projects move forward with fewer surprises – not because nothing changes, but because changes are managed deliberately. Teams that work within this clarity experience less fatigue, more ownership, and deeper satisfaction in their contribution.

The most rewarding projects I've been part of are not those where everything went smoothly, but where friction was addressed early, transparently, and systemically.

On systems over shortcuts

Highly efficient projects are rarely the result of individual heroics. They are the outcome of systems that align people, collaboration, information, and timing.

Across successful projects, certain characteristics tend to recur: decision milestones tied to readiness, not calendar pressure; transparent information flow across disciplines; alignment between design intent, commercial goals, and operational realities; and teams empowered to escalate concerns without fear of being seen as obstacles.

When these systems are in place, teams spend less time reacting and more time thinking. Creativity is not constrained—it is focused. A design team working with clear parameters and confirmed priorities can explore more deeply than one constantly recalibrating direction. Without these systems, even the most talented teams spend energy navigating ambiguity rather than solving problems.

On why this matters beyond design

For developers, operators, and investors, inefficiency translates directly into increased risk, budget volatility, delayed revenue, and strained stakeholder relationships.

As a result, efficiency has become a critical dimension of value protection. Projects that are well-structured can absorb complexity without losing direction. They create confidence across teams and allow design intent to survive the pressures of delivery – the inevitable requests for scope reductions, accelerated timelines, or late-stage pivots in strategy.

In this environment, design leaders are increasingly expected to look beyond execution and help shape how decisions are made and how teams stay aligned throughout a project. We are not simply delivering design, but stewarding the conditions under which good design remains possible.

On the next era of practice

As projects continue to grow in scale and interdisciplinary complexity, efficiency will be vital in shaping how teams collaborate, how ideas mature, and how value is ultimately delivered.

The studios and practitioners who thrive in this landscape will be those who understand that efficiency is not about doing more with less. It is about deciding better, earlier and designing within that clarity. AI can support this shift, by processing information and recommending options, but it cannot yet read the unspoken tension in a room – when alignment is breaking down or navigate the human dynamics of disagreement.

Treating efficiency as an intentional part of the practice – designed with the same care we bring to space, materiality, and experience – creates stronger collaboration, clearer outcomes, and more resilient design. It allows teams to focus more on shaping spaces where people will ultimately live, work, gather, and feel genuinely connected to place and less on surviving the process.

Most inefficiencies surface long before the project begins. They appear during envisioning, early and mid-design phases, often disguised as progress. Design advances, options multiply, and output increases – yet direction remains unresolved. Efficiency erodes when output becomes a substitute for decision-making, and teams continue to move without clarity on what has been decided, what remains open, and who ultimately owns each call. Under these conditions, ambiguity compounds, rework accelerates, and momentum loses its value.