Coming To Resolution

A Structured Approach to Decision-Making in Construction Projects

The Cost of Indecision

In construction time is the resource most easily lost and hardest to recover. Every day lost in the design phase comes directly off the construction programme. Continued reworking of options consumes cost and people’s time; Multiple meetings that reach no conclusion erode confidence and morale. And yet this pattern of capable, committed professionals unable to land a decision is one of the most common and least addressed problems we observe on infrastructure projects. 

It tends to show up in two ways. The first is solution development. Engineers, focused on finding the most robust long-term solution, can lose sight of programme milestones and budget constraints, particularly when the client has not articulated those constraints clearly. The second is client-side governance: where complex decisions require input from multiple people of similar seniority across different departments, and accountability for actually making the decision becomes blurred. In both cases, the result is the same, a group that believes it is making progress while the opportunity to progress the project recedes to a background concern.

Coming to Resolution: What It Is

Coming to Resolution (CtR) is a structured meeting process designed to bring a group from competing options and assessments to a clear, shared decision and one that sticks. It is not a workshop, a consensus exercise, or a vote. It is a process with defined roles, a clear sequence, and a specific outcome: a declaration of direction by an empowered decision-maker with agreed next steps to achieve it.

Roles
Four roles are assigned before the meeting. Each has a clear and bounded function:

• The Decision-Maker (sometimes called the Investor) is the person with the authority to make the decision. This must be someone with genuine mandate. If the decision sits at CEO level and the CEO is not in the room, the process will not work. The Decision-Maker does not also take on the role of Proposer.
• Proposers bring forward options for consideration. Ideally, more than one proposal is presented. Each Proposer has a fixed time to present, around five minutes and the group asks clarifying questions, not evaluative ones, during this stage.
• Assessors – everyone in the room give their views on the options in a structured round. Each person speaks fully; simply agreeing with a previous speaker is not sufficient.
• The Facilitator guides the process and ensures the structure is maintained. For groups new to CtR, an independent facilitator is valuable, it is much easier to run well with experienced support.

The meeting

Preparation establishes who needs to be in the room, what proposals will be brought, and ensures that everyone understands the purpose: this is a meeting to make a decision. Any person or function whose absence would prevent a decision, an environmental specialist, a finance lead, must be identified and included in advance.

The meeting itself follows a clear sequence: proposals are presented, clarification questions are taken, assessors give their views in round-robin, the Decision-Maker states which option they prefer and why, the room is asked whether they are in agreement given what they have heard, and the Decision-Maker then reaffirms the decision and confirms the actions that follow.

The outcome is a declaration: a clear statement of what has been decided, what happens next, and how the other options will be closed down.

Why This Approach Works

It creates a decision, not just a discussion

The structure is designed specifically to produce a decision rather than to facilitate further deliberation. The Decision-Maker’s role is explicit and visible. The sequence moves the group forward rather than allowing it to circle. And the constraint on assessment, with each person speaking once, in turn, without debate, ensures that all views are heard without the process becoming a forum for argument. By the time the Decision-Maker speaks, they have the full picture.

It works without full consensus

Waiting for everyone to agree before a decision is made is rarely viable on a fast-moving programme, and yet the absence of a legitimate alternative often leaves teams stuck. CtR does not require consensus. It requires that all relevant views are heard and that someone with the authority to decide then does so. Participants who hold a different view remain part of the team and part of the delivery and their perspective, on the record, may prove valuable as the project develops.

Surface what is missing before the meeting

The preparation process forces a discipline that is often skipped: identifying who needs to be in the room, what authority the Decision-Maker holds, and what proposals will actually be brought. Problems that might otherwise emerge mid-meeting such as a key stakeholder absent, a decision that sits above the level of everyone present, are caught in advance.

It produces a declaration, not minutes

The output of a CtR meeting is not a set of notes to be circulated and reviewed. It is a declaration: the decision that has been made, and the actions that follow from it, including how remaining options are to be closed down. This gives teams something concrete to mobilise against, and makes it clear to everyone what has been decided.

Getting It to Work

CtR works best when applied at genuine decision points: choosing a preferred design option, committing to a delivery strategy, resolving a prioritisation conflict between competing programme elements. It is a one-off intervention for a specific decision, not a standing meeting format.

The first time a team runs it, it can feel unfamiliar, the structure is more disciplined than most project meetings and the expectation that a decision will actually be reached can itself feel unusual. Getting it to work well the first time and demonstrating what is possible, is what builds the confidence to use it again. Independent facilitation makes a significant difference here, both in maintaining the structure and in giving participants confidence that the process is being run properly.

The conditions for success are straightforward: the right people in the room, with the right proposals prepared in advance, and a Decision-Maker who has genuine authority and is ready to use it.


If your projects are feeling the drag of indecision, Coming to Resolution offers a practical way forward. To explore how this approach can be applied in your environment, connect with VISION Capital Projects Director, Peter Luff, at pluff@vision.com.