The Convergence Pointe

Design Waste: The Difference Between Exploration and Rework
Not all design iteration is waste. But some of it absolutely is. In this solo episode, Sean breaks down the difference between exploratory iteration that generates value and rework driven by decisions that should have been made before design started.
Topics covered:
Glenn Ballard's positive versus negative iteration framework and why it matters for every capital project
The MacLeamy Curve and what it actually implies beyond BIM and IPD
Why organizational readiness is a leadership question, not a design question
What a structured chartering session actually does for a project team
Why mockups and simulation keep getting cut in value engineering, and what the research says about that decision
Sources
Ballard, G. (2000). Positive vs. Negative Iteration in Design. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-8). Brighton, UK.
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction. Technical Report No. 72. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University.
Cho, C.S. and Gibson, G.E. (2001). Building project scope definition using project definition rating index. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 7(4), 115-125. ASCE.
Weiner, B.J., Amick, H. and Lee, S.Y. (2008). Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379-436.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255.
MacLeamy, P. (2004). Collaboration, Integrated Information and the Project Lifecycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation. Construction Users Roundtable White Paper WP-1202.
Construction Industry Institute. Front End Planning Best Practice. University of Texas at Austin.

There is a gap between what design teams know about human behavior and what actually ends up in a building. Research exists. Tools exist. The problem is getting evidence into the process before it is too late to act on it. In this episode, design researcher Kati Peditto and architect Stacey Root dig into how that gap closes.
GUESTS
Kati Peditto is Principal Researcher at Built Experience Lab, where she studies and consults on the intersection of human behavior and the built environment. With a PhD in human behavior and design, Kati has worked across healthcare, K-12, and higher education projects at multiple firms, bringing research into the design process at every phase from pre-design through post-occupancy. Her work focuses on turning evidence into design decisions that produce measurable outcomes for patients, staff, students, and communities.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/katipeditto/
Stacey Root is Health Practice Leader for the Denver Office of Cannon Design, with deep experience in healthcare architecture, IPD, and design-build delivery. Stacey returns to the conversation to offer the practitioner's perspective on how research integrates with the realities of project teams, budgets, and client expectations.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/
IN THIS EPISODE
Why evidence-based design is not about finding articles that validate decisions already made, and what real evidence actually looks like on a project
How design researchers work across pre-design, schematic design, and design development, and why post-occupancy evaluation only works when research starts at the beginning
Why research fees get cut from project budgets even when the return on investment is documented, and what it would take to change that
How real-time research methods are beginning to replace the pause-and-study model, and what that means for how design teams make decisions under pressure
What happens to the cognitive health of designers when budgets are tight, schedules are compressed, and competing priorities never stop
Why healthcare led the adoption of evidence-based design, and where K-12 and higher education are catching up
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introductions and what brought Kati and Stacey into this conversation01:48 - Kati's background: why a PhD in human behavior landed her in architecture, not a lab04:36 - The difference between evidence-based design as a marketing term and as an actual practice06:02 - How architects and researchers work together without getting in each other's way09:12 - Why every evidence-based design conversation eventually comes back to ROI09:44 - What a research scope looks like across pre-design, schematic design, and design development12:03 - Owner timelines and the pressure to compress the front end before research can do its job13:40 - Researching in real time: why the linear model of study-then-design is giving way to something faster17:29 - What it would take to connect visioning session data directly to real-time design decisions18:01 - The owner's role in enabling research and why pulling clinical staff off the floor is the real obstacle21:28 - The long view: why operational costs over a 50-year building life dwarf pre-project planning and design costs, and why owners still struggle to get there22:43 - Why healthcare adopted evidence-based design first and where K-12 is now following the same path24:38 - A current project: a vulnerable California school district and what a post-occupancy study reveals about design decisions made years earlier27:49 - How to scope a research plan when the options range from cortisol studies to something a school board will actually approve33:00 - What architecture schools are not teaching designers about cognitive load and task switching under pressure45:13 - The cognitive health of design teams: what Stacey's office is actually doing about it, not just talking about it51:30 - Why leadership has to be the one to break the cycle when neither the client nor the firm will
RESOURCES MENTIONED
Evidence-based design: a framework for informing design decisions through research, lived experience, stakeholder engagement, and measurable outcomes. Grew from evidence-based medicine and is most developed in healthcare design. Learn more at the Center for Health Design: www.healthdesign.org
HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems): a national, standardized, publicly reported survey of patients' perspectives of hospital care, developed by CMS and AHRQ. Referenced in the episode as an example of owner-side outcome metrics that evidence-based design directly influences. Since 2012, HCAHPS scores have played a role in hospital payment through the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program. Learn more: www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/initiatives/hospital-quality-initiative/hcahps-patients-perspectives-care-survey
AIA Framework for Design Excellence: a ten-principle framework defining design excellence in the 21st century, including a dedicated principle for well-being that addresses physical, mental, and emotional effects of design on occupants and communities. Referenced in the episode in the context of health and wellbeing goals that appear in firm frameworks but are not always reflected in curriculum or fee structures. Learn more: www.aia.org/design-excellence/aia-framework-for-design-excellence/well-being
Kati Peditto's evidence-based design newsletter (free): https://newsletter.katipeditto.com/
WHERE TO FIND KATI
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/katipeditto/Newsletter: https://newsletter.katipeditto.com/
WHERE TO FIND STACEY
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/Cannon Design: https://www.cannondesign.com

There is a common assumption that an architect is handed a business plan and disappears for six months before reappearing with a finished set of drawings. The actual process is messier, slower, and far more human than that. In this episode, Stacey Root walks through what design really looks like from the inside: the rework nobody plans for, the gap between a sketch and a finished room, and why the best architects describe themselves as "orchestrators" rather than "designers".
GUEST
Stacey Root is Health Practice Leader with deep experience in healthcare architecture, IPD, and design-build delivery. Stacey brings a practitioner's candor to what the design process actually involves, the costs of rework, and what it takes to build trust on a project team.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/
IN THIS EPISODE
Why Stacey describes herself as an orchestrator rather than a designer, and what that distinction means for how she builds project teams
How some firms use data analysis to remove ambiguity from early decisions before the design team is ever handed the problem
Why rework is the most frustrating part of the design process, and the difference between productive iteration and waste
What actually happens during schematic design, design development, and construction documents, and why pricing usually arrives too late to prevent surprises
Why bringing the contractor in early changes the kind of input they can offer, and why bringing them in late costs the project more than people realize
A stucco building in Utah that turned a tight design-build budget into one of Stacey's favorite project stories, and a Colorado project that went a half-million dollars over budget because no one spoke up soon enough
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Stacey's path to architecture, and why her childhood aptitude test said firefighter01:38 - Why Stacey calls herself an orchestrator, not a designer04:37 - The harder parts of the job: assembling the right people in the right seats07:14 - Rework: the most frustrating and most common waste in the design process09:01 - How data analysis can help bridge the gap between strategy and design11:02 - Walking through the design process: schematic design, DDs, and construction documents17:08 - Why bringing a contractor in late limits the value of their input22:15 - Generalist or specialist: how Stacey balances competing priorities across a project team23:50 - The Utah hospital project: a stucco budget turned into a design challenge worth celebrating28:38 - A counterpoint: a Colorado project that ended up significantly over budget, and what Stacey wishes she had said sooner30:40 - Advice to her younger self and to project teams: ask more questions, and build a culture where people feel safe doing it33:06 - The lesson Stacey would give her younger self about not needing to fit a mold
RESOURCES MENTIONED
AIA Document B101, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect: defines the five phases of basic architectural services referenced in this episode (schematic design, design development, construction documents, procurement, and construction)
WHERE TO FIND STACEY
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/Canon Design: https://www.cannondesign.com/

The moment a project moves from conception into design, something shifts. The owner's questions change, the team changes, and the leadership required to hold it all together changes. Most projects never acknowledge that transition out loud. This episode is about what happens when you do.
GUESTS
Stacey Root is Health Practice Leader for the Denver Office of Canon Design, with deep experience in IPD, design-build, and complex healthcare projects. Stacey brings a practitioner's honesty to what onboarding actually looks like from the design side, and what owners rarely understand about the process they are putting teams through.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/
Chad Kruse is Executive Director and Project Advisor at Nebraska Medicine, where he provides business support for strategic and campus planning. Chad joins as co-host throughout the series, offering the owner's perspective as the conversation moves from concept to concrete.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-kruse-6714b47/
IN THIS EPISODE
Why owners often answer the question of what before they have answered the question of why, and what that costs once design begins
How some design firms are embedding strategy and data analysis upstream of architecture to help owners arrive at design ready, not just willing
Why bringing designers on too early can be just as damaging as bringing them on too late, and what the right timing actually looks like
What the RFP process does well, what it fails to do, and why both owners and designers are complicit in a process neither side thinks is working
How the best owners structure selection around team chemistry and problem-solving rather than page counts and project resumes
Why chartering works on paper and fails in practice, and what it actually takes to hold a team to what it agreed to in that room
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introduction: when leadership changes hands and no one says so
01:50 - Stacey's introduction and what her real job description actually is
03:35 - The most common misunderstanding between owners and designers at project launch
05:22 - Brought on too early, too late, or just right: what timing looks like from the design side
07:10 - How Canon's Blue Cottage team works upstream of architecture to ground projects in data
09:16 - Why owners answer what before they answer why, and what that costs in design
11:04 - When smaller owners rely on their designers to fill the strategy gap
13:43 - Is there value in bringing designers into ambiguity, or does it just slow things down
15:00 - The RFP process: what it is supposed to do and what it actually does
16:27 - Stacey's 80-page response, 50-minute interview, and what that signals about how owners decide
18:55 - How one owner ran a work session instead of a pony show and what the team learned
20:29 - Chad on running two procurement processes simultaneously and why he weights interviews at 70%
26:07 - Selecting teams instead of firms: why Chad asks designers and builders to come as a package
31:29 - Chartering: what it looks like when it works and why it almost never does
35:28 - Why owners think they are giving context when they are actually giving ambiguity
37:38 - What happens when the owner preaches collaboration and then does not behave it
39:32 - Why the owner's representative in the room is the difference between IPD and theater
41:00 - The owner's role is not to have all the answers; it is to hold the team accountable
RESOURCES MENTIONED
Canon Design Blue Cottage: strategic advisory and data analysis arm of Canon Design, referenced in the context of upstream owner strategy work
Owner Project Requirements (OPR): referenced by Chad as a foundational document that most projects launch without
Gallup CliftonStrengths: referenced by Chad in the context of team selection and understanding how people are wired
IPD chartering process: referenced throughout as both a best practice and a commonly misapplied one
WHERE TO FIND STACEY
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/staceymroot/ Canon Design: https://www.canondesign.com

Every owner eventually has to choose a delivery method. Design-bid-build, CM at risk, design-build, IPD. On paper they all promise something different. In practice, the choice ripples through every decision that follows: the team, the risk, the contingency, the contract, and ultimately whether the project succeeds or fails. In this episode, two of the most experienced practitioners in collaborative project delivery break down what owners get right, what they get wrong, and why the contract is never the solution, only the enabler.
GUESTS
Howard Ashcraft is a Partner at Hanson Bridgett LLP and one of the leading construction attorneys in the country on project delivery and integrated project delivery. He has structured 150 to 180 pure IPD projects over his career and was among the first practitioners involved in developing what became lean integrated project delivery. He is a Fellow of both the American College and Canadian College of Construction Lawyers, a member of the National Academy of Construction, an Associate Fellow at the Said Business School at Oxford, and the author of a forthcoming book on contracting for integrated project delivery to be published by Wiley in 2026.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-ashcraft-7485178/
James Pease is Vice President of Health Major Capital Projects at UCSF Health, where he is currently leading a $7 billion-plus program including a $4.5 billion adult hospital expansion and a $1.62 billion children's hospital expansion, both using integrated project delivery. He has delivered more than $8 billion in complex healthcare projects across his career and has worked on more than 25 IPD projects. He is also the founder and executive editor of leanipd.com, a practitioner-focused resource on lean and integrated project delivery.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamespease/
Chad Kruse is Executive Director and Project Advisor at Nebraska Medicine, where he provides business support for strategic and campus planning. Chad joins as co-host throughout the series, offering the owner's perspective as the conversation moves from concept to concrete.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-kruse-6714b47/
WHAT YOU WILL LEARN
Why design-bid-build makes perfect sense until you have actually worked in design and construction, and what the data says about final project cost versus bid price
How to match delivery method to project type, owner capability, and the likelihood of scope change during execution
Why the contract is an enabler and not a solution, and what happens to collaborative projects when things go sideways under a traditional contract
How owner resource requirements differ dramatically across delivery models, and why IPD front-loads people rather than back-loading them
How contingency works differently in fragmented versus collaborative delivery, and why shared project contingency changes team behavior
Why risk cannot be transferred through a contract and what actually happens to risk when you try
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introduction and framing the delivery method decision
02:21 - Howard's background: 150 to 180 IPD projects and why project delivery became his focus
03:40 - James's background: $8 billion in healthcare delivery and the leanipd.com resource
05:01 - Why design-bid-build makes sense on paper and falls apart in practice
09:45 - How project complexity and likelihood of change should drive delivery method selection
11:52 - Owner resource requirements: how delivery method shapes team size from start to finish
15:17 - More people upfront, fewer at the end: James on IPD staffing at UCSF
20:45 - How to phase team onboarding and avoid bringing partners on before you need them
23:37 - The Brooks Act, the Spearin doctrine, and how procurement law affects collaborative delivery
25:59 - Public versus private procurement rules and why Canada has more IPD public projects than the US
28:33 - How owners ensure competitive pricing in negotiated contracts
32:36 - Why James uses all delivery models at UCSF, and what drives the selection on each project
36:34 - Contingency: how it works in fragmented delivery versus collaborative delivery
39:13 - The risk register as a secret weapon versus a shared tool, depending on delivery model
43:40 - Can contracts actually transfer risk, or does risk just move to the least capitalized party
47:50 - Parting shots: what owners need to understand first before choosing any delivery method
RESOURCES MENTIONED
Ashcraft, H. (forthcoming 2026). Contracting for Integrated Project Delivery. Wiley.
leanipd.com - James Pease's practitioner resource on lean and integrated project delivery
The Spearin Doctrine: United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918)
The Brooks Act: governing quality-based selection of design professionals on federal projects
Kingston Third Crossing, Ontario, Canada: referenced as an example of mid-project design adaptation under a collaborative delivery model
WHERE TO FIND HOWARD
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-ashcraft-7485178/ Hanson Bridgett LLP: https://www.hansonbridgett.com
WHERE TO FIND JAMES
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamespease/ Lean IPD: https://www.leanipd.com

Front-end planning has been studied for decades. The data is clear, the tools exist, and the ROI is documented across more than 1,300 projects and $100 billion in capital work. And yet the industry is getting worse at it, not better. In this episode, we talk to the researcher who helped build the evidence base, and ask why none of it seems to stick.
GUESTS
Dr. Ed Gibson is President and CEO of the National Academy of Construction and Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University. A civil engineer by training, Ed has spent more than three decades researching front-end planning and capital project performance. His work through the Construction Industry Institute helped develop foundational tools including PDRI, the Project Definition Rating Index, now used on projects across every major sector. If you have ever used the term front-end planning instead of pre-project planning, there is a good chance Ed's research influenced why.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/g-edward-gibson-jr-pe-phd-dist-m-asce-nac-600b9128/
Chad Kruse is Executive Director and Project Advisor at Nebraska Medicine, where he provides business support for strategic and campus planning. Chad joins as co-host throughout the series, offering the owner's perspective as the conversation moves from concept to concrete.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-kruse-6714b47/
WHAT YOU WILL LEARN
Why the industry is performing worse at front-end planning today than it was 30 years ago, and what specifically drove that decline
The three phases of front-end planning and what a mature scope actually means before a project moves into execution
Why the best time to kill a project is during planning, and how good front-end work makes that decision possible
What PDRI measures, how it is commonly misused, and why the discussion it generates matters more than the score
Why front-end planning went from 90% technical to 90% people in Ed's view over his career
How to staff a planning team, why new graduates should never lead planning work, and what experience profile actually predicts success in the owner's seat
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introduction
01:47 - What the National Academy of Construction is and why it exists
04:34 - Why front-end planning is getting worse, not better, and what COVID accelerated
07:05 - Slow trigger, fast bullet: why speed at the front creates delay at the back
11:33 - The three phases of front-end planning: initiation, concept, and detailed scoping
14:55 - Mercedes appetite, Volkswagen budget: scope creep and where it actually starts
17:16 - Why keeping end users out of planning backfires every time
25:45 - How to get the right stakeholders in the room without sinking the process
27:40 - Front-end planning as both art and science: form versus function
33:53 - PDRI: what it is, how it works, and why the conversation it generates is the real value
46:17 - How to build and train an owner's planning team from the ground up
52:50 - Ed's five things you need to know about front-end planning
56:16 - Why Ed reversed his view: from 90% technical to 90% people
RESOURCES MENTIONED
Gibson, G.E., Wang, Y., Cho, C., and Pappas, M. (2006). "What is preproject planning, anyway?" Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Ed Gibson's research on front-end planning performance: approximately 1,300 projects representing over $100 billion in capital work, conducted through the Construction Industry Institute
PDRI, Project Definition Rating Index (Construction Industry Institute): construction-institute.org
National Academy of Construction: naocon.org
Gallup CliftonStrengths
WHERE TO FIND ED
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/g-edward-gibson-jr-pe-phd-dist-m-asce-nac-600b9128/ National Academy of Construction: https://www.naocon.org

Nobody wakes up wanting to be an owner. But the owner's seat might be the most consequential seat in design and construction, and it is the least understood. In this first episode, we start where every project starts: with the person who has to hold it all together before anyone else is even in the room.
GUEST
Chad Kruse is Executive Director and Project Advisor at Nebraska Medicine, where he provides business support for strategic and campus planning across one of the country's major academic medical centers. With 25 years in the industry spanning general contracting, design firms, and owner roles, Chad brings a perspective that is equal parts operational and deeply human. He is one of the clearest thinkers in the business on what it actually means to lead from the owner's seat.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-kruse-6714b47/
WHAT YOU WILL LEARN
Why the owner's role is consistently underestimated and what genuine owner leadership actually looks like in practice
How the pressure to move fast at the start of a project creates problems that no amount of good design or construction can fix later
Why picking the right team has more to do with people than brands, and how Chad approaches that decision under time pressure
How front-end planning works at the project level, and why you cannot rush or replicate that time
What procurement and contracting choices signal about an owner's priorities before a single drawing is made
Why Chad's institution pursued IPD, what surprised them when they got into it, and what integration actually looks like when it stops being a philosophy and becomes daily behavior
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introduction and what this podcast is trying to do
03:29 - Chad's background, from GC to owner, and why he keeps coming back
07:21 - What a good owner actually looks like and the stewardship mindset
09:30 - The convergence challenge: clinical, operational, financial, and design, all at once
13:25 - Why you cannot fast-forward front-end planning, at the project or career level
17:46 - A real $30M project that started with a phone call and what made it work
19:50 - How procurement and contracting decisions shape everything downstream
22:13 - Why owners need sociology more than technical expertise
27:37 - Picking teams: people over brands, and what that looks like under pressure
32:26 - Staying ahead of how the industry is changing
34:03 - IPD in practice: what Chad's institution learned going through it for the first time
39:39 - Advice for anyone who wants to get into the owner's role
RESOURCES MENTIONED
Gallup CliftonStrengths
National Academy of Construction
WHERE TO FIND CHAD
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chad-kruse-6714b47/ Nebraska Medicine: https://www.nebraskamed.com