News & Insights
Photo courtesy of: Greg Land
Too many capital projects are beautifully designed—but strategically misaligned. That’s because they lack a clearly defined “BIG Why”—the deeper reason the project exists and how it supports the institution’s long-term goals. Without that anchor, even the most well-intentioned teams risk building the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
In higher education, capital projects are often years in the making. A need is identified, prioritized, added to the capital plan, and eventually funded. But by the time the project moves forward, the underlying rationale has often been reduced to a basic description—disconnected from the strategy it was meant to serve. Design teams are brought in with limited context, handed a building program that amounts to a list of spaces, and asked to deliver a transformative solution. And too often, the result is a missed opportunity.
At Brailsford & Dunlavey, we see this pattern often—and we help our clients avoid it. We believe two critical steps are routinely skipped, leading to two fundamental gaps in project success:
Let’s look at both.
Every institution starts a project with a goal in mind. But by the time that goal travels through planning cycles, approvals, and documentation, its essence can be lost. The “BIG Why” is that essence: the clear, strategic reason why this effort is being pursued. It answers the question, How does this project help move the organization from where it is to where it wants to be?
We call that desired destination the Targeted New Reality (TNR). Uncovering the BIG Why and aligning it with the TNR often requires deliberate exploration—especially in environments where stakeholder interests may conflict or evolve over time. But doing this work upfront is far less expensive than discovering misalignment deep into the design process.
Establishing the BIG Why also helps identify guiding principles—key ideas that can be used to navigate tough tradeoffs and evaluate design alternatives. These principles keep teams focused on value, not just aesthetics or square footage.
Design teams can’t aim at a target they can’t see
Once the BIG Why is defined, it must be embedded into the building program. But most programs focus almost entirely on spatial needs—square footage, user groups, and adjacency diagrams—without ever specifying what success looks like.
A strong building program does more. In addition to listing technical and functional requirements, it should spell out:
Clear direction allows design professionals to evaluate options more efficiently, align decisions with institutional priorities, and proceed with confidence. It sets the entire project team up for faster, more focused collaboration—and often helps avoid costly rounds of redesign or value engineering later on.
When institutions take the time to articulate the BIG Why, align on what success looks like, and define a building program that communicates more than just space needs, they position their projects—and their organizations—for lasting impact.
This approach doesn’t slow down progress. It accelerates it. It leads to smarter decisions, better alignment, and greater returns on capital investments.
It’s how Brailsford & Dunlavey helps clients turn strategy into outcomes—and ideas into transformational spaces.
Steve Lafferty is a director at Brailsford & Dunlavey and a national practice leader in the firm’s higher education sector. With more than 30 years of experience in campus planning, design, and development, he helps colleges and universities align capital investments with strategic goals. Steve is known for his expertise in guiding institutions through complex planning efforts that drive long-term impact. Steve can be reached at slafferty@bdconnect.com.
