In large capital projects, decisions are rarely made in isolation. Universities, cities, and public agencies often gather dozens of stakeholders, finance officers, facilities teams, legal advisors, architects, and even student or community representatives, to make sure everyone is heard. This inclusive approach may seem like a strength. But it often becomes one of the biggest risks a project faces.
Too many cooks in the kitchen can lead to more than just confusion. It can delay projects, increase costs, and weaken accountability. And the larger the institution, the more likely this problem becomes.
The Real Cost of Crowded Decision Tables
Take a recent example from a kickoff meeting between two institutions in Southern California. One was a large public research university, the other a local community college. Both were starting projects related to campus development. The community college had five people at the table. The university had nearly 50.
This isn’t just a difference in scale. It’s a difference in process. Fewer people meant the college could make decisions quickly, adjust plans without weeks of back-and-forth, and move forward without confusion over roles. At the university, conversations had to be repeated in different rooms, and approvals were slow. The risk of duplication and missed communication grew with every added name on the invite list.
What the Data Says
This isn’t just anecdotal. A 2024 report from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) looked at 78 major capital projects across public agencies. Originally expected to cost £5.71 billion, these projects were projected to finish at £8.74 billion, an overrun of more than £3 billion.
While cost overruns can come from many sources, the NIAO highlighted one repeated issue: poor governance and slow decision-making. Many projects had no clear lead authority. Roles and responsibilities were spread across too many stakeholders, and the result was a lack of ownership, delayed approvals, and inefficient delivery.
“... there is a need for fundamental transformation and reform. Collectively, we can deliver; in silos, we cannot."
The Trust Paradox
More stakeholders are often added in the name of transparency. The logic is that if everyone has a say, decisions will be fairer and better informed. But in practice, this can create distrust, not clarity.
When no one is sure who owns a decision, team members start acting defensively. Project managers hedge their bets. Emails get copied to a dozen inboxes. Instead of alignment, teams spiral into cycles of second-guessing and cautious delay.
Compare that to leaner teams. With fewer voices and clearer roles, trust becomes a byproduct of accountability. People know who’s responsible for what. They’re empowered to make decisions and adjust in real time. The project moves forward, not in spite of the smaller group, but because of it.
When Bigger Means Slower
Stakeholder overload doesn’t just impact timelines. It often forces teams into design-by-committee, where no one gets what they want, and everyone feels compromised. This slows innovation and adds complexity that might not be necessary.
For example, if a student housing project has input from 20 different groups, each with a different set of priorities, the final building may try to please everyone. But this often leads to overbuilt features, conflicting systems, and rising costs. It may also result in a building that fails to fully satisfy any one group.
Fixing the Problem
Reducing stakeholder involvement isn’t about excluding important voices. It’s about structuring decision-making in a way that supports speed and clarity. That starts with:
-
Naming a clear project lead. One person or group must have final say.
-
Creating defined roles. Stakeholders should know their scope of influence.
-
Using working groups, not massive meetings. Smaller, topic-specific groups can move faster and report back.
-
Documenting decisions quickly. A central source of truth keeps everyone aligned.
-
Digitizing collaboration. The right tools can show progress, approvals, and comments in one place, reducing miscommunication.
The Path Forward
There’s always risk in construction. Budgets shift, site conditions change, and materials get delayed. But too often, the biggest delays happen before the project even begins, during the long, confusing process of trying to satisfy every stakeholder.
The takeaway from both lived experience and formal audits is clear: more people doesn’t always mean better outcomes. Sometimes, fewer voices lead to faster decisions, stronger accountability, and better results.
For institutions starting their next capital project, especially those outside the development world like universities or transit agencies, it’s worth asking early: Who really needs to be in the room?
When you reduce noise, clarity emerges. And clarity is what turns a good plan into a completed project.
References:
Northern Ireland Audit Office 2024 Report on Major Capital Projects
This report examines the performance of major capital projects in Northern Ireland, highlighting issues such as cost overruns and delays.
Read the full report here
Public Accounts Committee's Follow-Up Report on Major Capital Projects
This follow-up report discusses the findings of the NIAO's 2024 report and provides recommendations for improving the delivery of major capital projects.
Access the report here
