The Million-Dollar Question: Why Early Requirements Define Project Success
A Foundational Guide for Smarter Project Delivery
By David Gray | DavidGrayProjects.com
Introduction: The Most Expensive Decisions Are Made Early
If there’s one pattern I’ve seen over and over again in capital projects—especially in healthcare, higher education, and infrastructure—it’s this: The further downstream a bad assumption goes unchallenged, the more expensive it is to fix.
I’ve been in rooms where owners are negotiating tens of millions in contracts, and yet no one has nailed down what success actually looks like. They’re sprinting toward permits, picking equipment vendors, and locking in construction schedules before fully defining what the project needs to achieve—functionally, financially, and operationally.
That’s not ambition. That’s risk.
Let me be blunt: Requirements definition is where major projects are won or lost. And yet, it’s the most rushed, underappreciated, and misunderstood phase in project delivery. That’s why I call it the million-dollar question.
What Are “Requirements” Really?
When we talk about early requirements, we’re not just listing square footage or asking stakeholders for a wish list. We’re aligning the entire project team around four critical questions:
What problem are we solving?
Who are we solving it for?
What constraints truly matter?
How will we measure success?
Everything else—your drawings, your budget, your phasing plan—flows from that.
I once worked on a project for a manufacturing facility where the executive team said the priority was “capacity.” Six months later, the same team insisted the most important driver was “resilience.” It turned out they needed both—but the layout we were already pricing couldn’t support both without major redesign.
Early requirements should’ve clarified this upfront. Instead, we spent nine weeks in redesign. That delay alone cost more than $700,000.
Why “Early” Matters More Than “Perfect”
You won’t have every answer on day one. But if you don’t pressure-test the assumptions early, you’re setting up a project that reacts instead of leads.
The idea isn’t to eliminate uncertainty. It’s to define the right questions, challenge initial assumptions, and make intentional tradeoffs while they’re still cheap.
I advise teams to run what I call “Strategic Alignment Loops” in the first 2–4 weeks of a project:
Interview key stakeholders, not just decision-makers
Run multiple scenarios for cost, time, and lifecycle tradeoffs
Establish thresholds for value—not just wish lists
Convert soft goals into measurable outcomes
The clarity gained through this process saves more money than any VE workshop I’ve ever seen.
Real-World Example: The Cost of Vague Requirements
On one university project, a client initially stated they needed a “flexible academic facility for future programs.” That sounds nice. But what does “flexible” mean?
By the time we were in DD (Design Development), we realized the HVAC zoning plan made it nearly impossible to isolate wings of the building for different program types. The technology backbone also assumed short-term upgrades, not long-term transformation.
We went back, rewrote the operational scenarios, and clarified exactly what "flexible" meant—right-sizing mechanicals and infrastructure to support multi-decade use cases.
Had we done that earlier, we could’ve saved six figures in redesign and procurement delays.
The Owner’s Role in Defining Requirements
One of the biggest traps owners fall into is delegating requirements definition to consultants who don’t have full operational context.
This isn’t about mistrust—it’s about perspective. No one understands your institution’s pressures, politics, and potential like you do. The best consultants will help facilitate, not dictate, your requirements.
This is why I often advise bringing in an Owner’s Rep or internal delivery strategist before design even begins. When I’m in that seat, I spend the early weeks surfacing all the unspoken assumptions and making them explicit. I’ve found it’s not the things people say that derail projects—it’s the things they don’t know they’re assuming.
Why Consultants Get It Wrong (And How to Help Them Get It Right)
Most consultants are smart, well-meaning, and incredibly capable. But they’re also working off a scope document and a fee proposal. If your requirements definition is vague, their work product will be technically correct—and strategically useless.
To avoid this:
Don’t just issue an RFP. Share your business case and constraints.
Invite them to challenge your assumptions.
Ask: “What would you design differently if our top priority changed halfway through?”
The firms that lean into that kind of thinking are the ones you want at the table.
Requirements Definition Isn’t a Workshop—It’s a Discipline
I’ve seen teams treat early requirements like a task on the checklist: “We did our kickoff meeting. We collected the space program. Move on.”
That’s not discipline. That’s compliance.
True requirements definition is iterative. It adapts as leadership priorities evolve. It uncovers internal misalignment before it becomes public conflict. And most importantly, it reduces downstream change orders, delays, and confusion.
Every extra hour spent refining requirements early is worth ten in construction. I’ve never regretted spending too much time on upfront clarity. But I’ve seen a dozen projects tank because people thought they “did enough.”
Closing: Define Before You Design
The pressure to move fast is real. But let me offer you this: Velocity without alignment is just acceleration toward rework.
If you want to save money, reduce risk, and deliver smarter—you don’t need heroics later. You need discipline now.
Define your requirements. Pressure-test your assumptions. Make your project earn the right to move forward. That’s how the best teams win—before the first schematic is even drawn.
📌 Want to Go Deeper?
In upcoming blogs, we’ll dive into:
Cost Control – Planning for Predictability
Schedule Control – Avoiding Timeline Drift
Change Management – Managing the Inevitable
Risk – The Overlooked Strategy Tool
…and more.
If you’re responsible for delivering capital projects, follow along.
Read the consulting version of this article:
Why Early Requirements Definition Saves Millions – Albers Management
About the Author
David Gray is a capital delivery strategist, owner’s representative, and founder of DavidGrayProjects.com. With over two decades of experience helping organizations bring complex projects to life—from data centers and healthcare facilities to higher-ed campuses—David blends practical delivery with forward-thinking strategy.
He writes about project controls, capital planning, and real estate development to help leaders deliver smarter, faster, and more sustainably.
📩 Connect on LinkedIn | 🌐 Explore More at DavidGrayProjects.com | 🌐 Explore More at AlbersMgmt.com