Balancing the different perspectives from the multiple partners that take part in a project is often one of the most underestimated challenges in our field. While each partner contributes valuable insights, they also introduce complexity. We all know that each adds value but also introduces complexity. These are the most common problems we encounter, along with some potential solutions to consider.

#1 Different priorities, same project

When what one stakeholder values most is not aligned with another's top concern, whether it's budget, design integrity, sustainability, or speed, the competing priorities can create tension and lead to delays. The typical scenario is when the architect is focused on the speed of the delivery, while the contractor is concerned about cost. Without a common framework, both sides felt they were compromising too much.

In a project we worked on, the structural engineer's solution to a problem that arose during design was technically correct, but it would have significantly increased costs. The outcome was a compromise: adjusting certain design elements while maintaining full compliance with engineering requirements.

We know this constant push and pull needs a balance between safety, budget, and design intent. Sometimes, it really comes down to designing smart, reconciling what at first seems irreconcilable.

#2 Communication gaps

Too many meetings, endless email chains, or information that arrives late are the typical symptoms of poor communication, which often leads to confusion, duplicated work, and frustration.

One of the biggest challenges our industry faces is the lack of consistency in how information is shared. When MEP sends PDFs with red marks, plumbing sends only an email listing their needs, while structural shares a full Revit model with updates: How do we consolidate all of that and apply it successfully to your project?

A few months ago, on a small project we collaborated on in Utah, our team noticed that the three different teams involved thought they were working with the latest drawings, only to realize they were all looking at different versions. This is where a clear approach focused on proven strategies to collaborate in a harmonized way becomes crucial.

While PDFs, emails, and Revit models are essential for sharing information, they cannot replace the clarity that comes from being on-site. Direct presence remains key to aligning teams, resolving doubts in real time, and reinforcing communication. The architect's evolving role, particularly in on-site coordination, is crucial for identifying gaps, integrating effective digital systems with on-site collaboration, and establishing processes that enable all disciplines to work together efficiently, avoiding the repeated encounter of common issues.

#3 Decision-making bottlenecks

The more voices in the room, the harder it is to reach alignment quickly. When every party wants to have a say, decision-making slows down.

We have seen situations where consultants spend hours debating details, while critical design decisions remain pending. Moments like these underscore the importance of having a clear decision-making framework, including who has the final say, how conflicts are escalated, and how priorities are established. Without that clarity, minor disagreements can stall progress and create frustration across the team.

The key is not to eliminate discussion — which is essential — but to structure it in a way that keeps the project moving forward. Even in complex projects, having predefined roles and decision pathways can transform a potential bottleneck into a productive dialogue. Having a strong figure who orchestrates all parties as a neutral mediator, representing the project rather than any single stakeholder, is crucial.

#4 Cultural and organizational differences

Working from different time zones, a common occurrence on international projects or alongside multidisciplinary teams, introduces diverse work cultures, management styles, and expectations. What feels like a small detail for one team may be a critical issue for another.

For example, in a project in Puerto Rico, we observed that the local team used to exchange excessive emails between its members and consultants, which was slowing down progress. On behalf of the design architect, our team requested a short coordination meeting. In just 30 minutes, with a prepared document outlining all the issues to discuss, we could clarify matters that mattered, which was far more efficient than exchanging over 10 emails daily.

The key is flexibility: understanding each consultant's preferred way of working, adapting to their processes, and finding methods that keep everyone aligned and productive. This is another area where the architect's integrator role is essential — bridging different styles and expectations to maintain project momentum.

After reviewing these four crucial aspects of collaboration, we conclude that initial excitement on large-scale projects can quickly give way to a struggle to align expectations. This complexity is evident everywhere: in decision-making, in budgets, in development — and especially in the tools and processes we use for collaboration. The architect's role is increasingly connecting these pieces, ensuring that the design vision is realized while keeping the project moving efficiently.