EBG Studios · Development Atlas · DRAFT — For review & feedback
Chapter II · Plan & Commit
How does the concept become buildable?
Stage 6 · Questions, problems & people
Each lead brings the answer together with the people named below. Maya represents the developer and enterprise owner; specialists and public reviewers retain their own responsibilities.
Resolve building, structural, civil and systems interfaces, specifications and review comments before they become field conflicts.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer); Noor (power & cooling engineer); Sam (construction manager).
Structural and other specialist designers remain responsible for their disciplines.
Align switchgear, cooling and other long-lead purchases with approved requirements, utility dates, submittals, installation and testing.
With: Noor (power & cooling engineer); Maya (development lead); Alex (commissioning lead).
Suppliers and procurement staff confirm scope and delivery terms.
Control design releases and substitutions, check interfaces and communicate approved changes to every affected package.
With: Noor (power & cooling engineer); Sam (construction manager); Jo (operations lead).
Tie procurement and utility milestones to the construction and commissioning sequence, with explicit contingencies and owners.
With: Noor (power & cooling engineer); Alex (commissioning lead); Maya (development lead).
Pat and suppliers provide updates on their delivery commitments.
What this milestone needs to produce
Coordinated construction information, released work packages and an equipment procurement plan tied to the delivery sequence.
Why this stage matters
Detailed design defines systems, dimensions, interfaces and performance. Procurement turns that information into comparable offers and enforceable responsibilities. The lowest headline price is useful only when scope, exclusions, schedule and quality are aligned. Coordinated drawings, a clear scope matrix and a decision log prevent gaps from turning into expensive field changes.
The decision map
People & information
Resolve system interfaces and performance requirements.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Plans delivery and identifies constructability issues.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Levels scope, qualifications, cost and timing.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Parallel work, shared decisions
Illustrative relative activity, not a duration schedule. A stage can loop back as evidence changes. Select another discipline to see where it contributes.
| Workstream | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market & Tenancy | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Land & Approvals | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Design & Engineering | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Finance & Investment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Construction & Procurement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Delivery & Operations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Stakeholder | 1 · Opportunity & vision | 2 · Market & site | 3 · Diligence & control | 4 · Planning & feasibility | 5 · Approvals & commitment | 6 · Design & procurement | 7 · Construction & delivery | 8 · Commissioning & handover | 9 · Tenancy & stabilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer | Set the thesis | Choose the search criteria | Own the acquisition decision | Integrate design and economics | Align approval and capital | Approve scope and contracts | Authorize verified changes | Accept documented handover | Review performance and strategy |
| Investor & lender | Set risk and capital limits | Challenge demand assumptions | Review acquisition risks | Test equity need and returns | Define conditions precedent | Review the committed budget | Review eligible draw evidence | Confirm completion conditions | Monitor coverage and evaluate exit |
| Design & engineering | Explore user requirements | Screen site constraints | Investigate physical conditions | Develop and compare concepts | Address authority conditions | Coordinate detailed packages | Resolve technical field questions | Verify systems and as-built records | Review feedback from operation |
| Contractor & suppliers | Offer early feasibility insight | Advise on site access | Identify construction uncertainty | Estimate scope and sequencing | Test schedule feasibility | Price packages and lead times | Execute work and record quality | Complete tests and defects | Respond to warranty obligations |
| Users & community | Explain unmet needs | Test location and access | Identify local impacts | Review functional usefulness | Participate in applicable review | Confirm use requirements | Coordinate tenant interfaces | Receive usable and safe space | Report performance and changing needs |
| Operator & asset manager | Define operating objectives | Assess serviceability | Identify inherited liabilities | Estimate operating burden | Plan the operating transition | Review maintainability | Prepare asset and service records | Receive manuals and training | Manage leasing, costs and capital plans |
Roles may overlap within one organization. The project’s contracts and local requirements determine actual authority and responsibility.
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Priority score | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope gaps | 4 | 4 | 16 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Long-lead materials | 4 | 4 | 16 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Uncoordinated design | 3 | 5 | 15 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
Choose a concept. Choose your depth.
How does the concept become buildable?
Overview · Understand · ApplyDoes a design saving improve the investment?
Overview · Understand · ApplyHave all uses of capital been identified?
Overview · Understand · ApplyWhat does the renovation cost while income is interrupted?
Optional practice
Try the enterprise data-center decision, then compare it with the logistics exercise below.
Juniper Ridge · make the call
Corporate capital authorization, a lifecycle cost plan, procurement commitments, accountable service owners and schedule contingency.
Apply the same development principles to Riverton Logistics Center. This supporting case uses its own warehouse assumptions and preserves your recorded logistics decisions.
Decision studio · Stage 06
You are the project’s development lead. Level three bids by adding excluded scope and schedule costs. Use the fictional evidence below, make a choice and explain what you would verify.
Price $7.0M. Dock equipment included. 18-month delivery.
Price $6.65M. Excludes $300K dock package. Adds two months.
Price $7.1M. Complete scope. One month faster; verify the promised schedule.
| Bid | Quoted | Excluded scope | Time effect | Adjusted comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · complete scope | $7,000,000 | $0 | 0 months | $7,000,000 |
| B · dock exclusion | $6,650,000 | $300,000 | +2 months | $7,050,000 |
| C · accelerated | $7,100,000 | $0 | -1 months | $7,050,000 |
A · complete scope has the lowest adjusted cost under your carry assumption. Bid B’s $300K scope exclusion must be restored for an equal comparison; delivery time changes the carrying cost. A negative time adjustment for C is a comparison with the baseline, not a refund from the contractor. Check quality, scope entitlement and whether schedule promises are credible before award.
