On most workplace projects, everybody worries about change.
A new meeting room is added. The specification is upgraded. A department changes its requirements. Someone decides they now want a staircase between floors.
Those are obvious changes because you can see them.
But there is another type of change that I think causes just as many problems, and it is much less visible.
It is the decision that wasn’t made when it needed to be.
A project team asks a question. Nobody is quite ready to answer it. The design programme cannot stop, so an assumption is made and the team carries on.
Three weeks later the decision arrives.
By then the architect has developed the design, the MEP consultant has coordinated around it, the cost plan has been updated and perhaps the contractor has already priced it.
The client has not technically “changed” anything.
But the effect can be exactly the same.
The cost of a late decision
There is nothing unusual about decisions changing during a project. Workplace projects evolve as more information becomes available and the business itself changes.
The important distinction is between good change and avoidable change.
If new information becomes available that improves the outcome, changing the design may be entirely sensible. The job of good project governance is not to prevent change at all costs.
The problem arises when decisions are delayed simply because ownership is unclear, stakeholders are not aligned or nobody has established when the decision actually needs to be made.
The Association for Project Management defines change control as the process through which changes to an approved project baseline are captured, evaluated and approved, rejected or deferred. Its guidance also recognises a simple principle: the further a project progresses, the more existing work may need to be revisited when a change is introduced.
Research into construction cost overruns consistently identifies design changes, client changes, lack of coordination and delayed decision-making as contributors to additional cost and programme delay.
That should not really surprise us.
Design becomes progressively more interconnected as a project develops. A decision that might have required an hour of design work at concept stage can affect several disciplines once coordination is advanced.
And once construction begins, the consequences can become considerably more expensive.
Workplace projects are particularly vulnerable
Office projects create an interesting challenge because the building is often easier to define than the organisation that will occupy it.
A landlord can tell you where the core is.
It is much harder for the client to tell you exactly how its business will operate in three years’ time.
Hybrid working has made that even more difficult.
Projects therefore start with questions such as:
How many people are going to use the office?
How many days will they attend?
How many enclosed meeting rooms are required?
How much space should be allocated to collaboration?
What level of AV should be provided?
What catering offer does the business want?
Which teams need specialist requirements?
What should be standardised globally and what should be local?
Those questions affect substantial areas of the design.
If they remain unresolved while the design continues, the project team has little choice but to work on assumptions.
The risk is not simply that the assumption proves wrong.
It is that a considerable amount of work is completed before anybody discovers it.
The cost plan only reflects the decisions behind it
This is an important point when clients talk about cost certainty.
A cost plan can be very detailed and still contain a considerable amount of uncertainty.
If the client has not decided whether it wants a full commercial kitchen or a pantry, the cost consultant can provide allowances for both.
If headcount is unresolved, we can model different scenarios.
If the AV strategy has not been developed, we can make an allowance based on comparable projects.
But those are still assumptions.
Adding more detail to the spreadsheet does not remove the underlying uncertainty.
A good cost report should therefore make unresolved decisions visible, rather than disguising them within the numbers.
I want a client to understand not just:
What is the current forecast?
but also:
Which decisions could materially change it?
That second question is usually far more useful.
Design freeze does not mean “no more changes”
I sometimes think the term design freeze causes confusion.
It can sound as though the project team is asking the client to stop thinking.
That isn’t the intention.
A design freeze should simply establish the point at which certain decisions need to have been made if the project is to progress efficiently.
After that date, change is still possible. But everybody should understand that it may have a cost or programme consequence. That allows the client to make an informed decision.
For example, changing the mix of meeting rooms during early concept design may have almost no cost consequence.
Making the same decision after partitions, MEP distribution, lighting, AV, sprinklers and ceilings have been coordinated could require significant redesign.
Make it during construction and you may also have abortive work, contractor preliminaries and programme impacts.
It is the same decision. The timing is different.
Start with decision governance, not change control
Formal change control remains important.
RICS guidance recognises that changes are almost inevitable on construction projects and highlights the need to understand their commercial and contractual consequences.
But by the time something reaches the change control process, the project may already be dealing with the consequence rather than the cause.
For workplace projects, I think there should be an equally strong focus on decision governance.
At the start of the project, identify the decisions that are likely to materially affect cost, programme or design.
Then establish:
- what needs to be decided
- who owns the decision
- who needs to be consulted
- what information is required to make it
- the latest date the decision can be made without affecting the programme
- what assumption will be adopted if the decision is not made.
That last point is particularly important. If the team has to proceed on an assumption, make the assumption explicit.
That changes the conversation from:
“We didn’t realise you had assumed that.”
to:
“We agreed that if a decision wasn’t made by Friday, the design would proceed on this basis.”
It creates accountability without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
Not every stakeholder needs a veto
Another source of delay is stakeholder engagement.
Workplace projects naturally involve a lot of people: real estate, workplace, facilities, IT, HR, finance, procurement, sustainability, leadership teams and individual business units.
They all have legitimate perspectives. But consultation and decision-making are not the same thing.
If every stakeholder effectively has a veto, decisions become extremely difficult to close.
Good governance should be clear about who is being consulted and who actually has authority to decide.
One of the most valuable things a project sponsor can therefore provide is not another layer of approval.
It is clarity.
Who makes the call when stakeholders disagree?
That question should be answered before the disagreement happens.
Put a cost against indecision
There is another useful technique.
Where a decision is becoming overdue, quantify the consequence of waiting.
Not every delayed decision matters. Some can move by several weeks without affecting anything. Others sit directly on the critical path.
Instead of repeatedly writing “decision required urgently” in a meeting minute, explain what happens if it isn’t made.
For example:
“Decision required by 28 August.”
If agreed by that date: no cost or programme impact.
If delayed two weeks: design coordination will need to proceed on an assumption.
If subsequently changed: estimated redesign cost of £X and potential two-week impact to procurement.
Suddenly the business has something meaningful to respond to. The decision has been translated into commercial terms.
That is much easier for senior stakeholders to prioritise.
A good change process should still allow good ideas
None of this means creating a project where nobody is allowed to change their mind.
That can be just as damaging.
Sometimes a late idea genuinely creates enough value to justify the additional cost.
If spending another £100,000 creates significantly greater operational value over a ten-year lease, rejecting it simply because “the design is frozen” may be the wrong decision.
The role of cost management should be to make the trade-off visible.
What does the change cost?
What does it do to the programme?
What existing work becomes abortive?
What risk does it create?
And what value does the client receive in return?
Then someone with the appropriate authority can decide.
That is proper change control.
Final thought
When projects run over budget, it is tempting to look for the big variation that caused the problem.
Often there isn’t one.
Instead there are dozens of smaller decisions made late, assumptions revisited, designs reworked and packages changed after they had already progressed.
Individually they can look manageable. Collectively they become expensive.
The answer is not to remove flexibility from the project. Workplace projects need to respond to changing business requirements and new information.
The answer is to understand when decisions become expensive.
That requires good briefing, clear ownership, realistic decision dates and governance that allows the right people to make decisions at the right time.
And it requires the project team to be willing to tell the client when indecision itself is becoming a risk.
One of the most useful questions on any project is therefore not:
“Have we had any changes?”
It is:
“What decisions haven’t we made yet, and what happens if we don’t make them now?”
Because sometimes the most expensive project change is the decision everybody thought they still had time to make.
How we help
At EthosEQ, our role goes beyond recording changes after they happen.
We work with clients and project teams to identify the decisions and risks that could materially affect the project budget, establish appropriate cost and risk allowances and make the commercial consequences of different options clear.
That includes early cost planning, option appraisal, risk management, procurement advice and robust change control throughout design and construction.
Where decisions remain unresolved, we can model the alternatives and show the cost consequences of each option so that senior stakeholders can make informed decisions before delay starts creating unnecessary cost.
Good cost management should not simply tell you what a change has cost.
It should help you avoid unnecessary change in the first place.
Links
Cost Certainty Report – Expert Cost Consultancy
Copyright: © 2026 EthosEQ Construction Advisors Ltd. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute cost, project management, contractual, legal or investment advice. The cost and programme consequences of project changes depend on the specific project, stage of design, contract, procurement route, market conditions and circumstances. Appropriate professional advice should be obtained for individual projects.
