After years racing between client presentations and airport gates, I traded my consultant bag for a university name badge. I walked into my first campus planning meeting expecting familiar rhythms, clear deliverables, crisp timelines, and decisive feedback. What I found instead was a different world entirely: one driven by consensus, tradition, and internal politics. And it changed the way I see everything.

In my first design review meeting as a university planner, the contrast between consulting and internal planning became vividly clear. Consultants arrived polished, prepared, and expecting swift feedback. University faculty and internal staff, however, were navigating institutional politics and entangled in layers of decision-making. Although we shared common goals, it was evident that we spoke entirely different professional languages.

Now back in the consulting world, I carry with me a deeper appreciation for empathy, adaptability, and an understanding of institutional culture. The divide between university planners and consultants is more than inconvenient - it can derail timelines, inflate budgets, and compromise outcomes. At a time when universities face tight budgets, enrollment pressures, and sustainability imperatives, bridging this divide is more critical than ever.

Cracking the Code: Why Consultants and Universities Struggle to Align
Before joining a university planning department, I "interviewed" several planners. Their roles appeared enjoyable, stimulating, and relatively stress-free. Reality, however, quickly altered that perception.

University planners must balance visionary initiatives with operational constraints. Academic calendars shape project schedules, leadership turnover shifts priorities, and limited resources require continual adaptability. Planners must also juggle space management, sustainability mandates, regulatory compliance, and long-range strategy.

In contrast, consultants function within structured frameworks defined by contracts and deadlines. Their work depends on efficiency, predictability, and timely decision-making.

This disconnect becomes apparent when consultants expect linear progress, only to find themselves amid a highly iterative, complex institutional process. Multiple layers of bureaucracy and stakeholder involvement frequently slow down decision-making.

Timelines vs. Turbulence: Navigating Campus Project Realities
During my time at the university, several leadership changes shifted and reshaped our priorities, seemingly overnight. Each new administration brought new goals, requiring planners to adapt quickly and flexibly.

University projects are inherently complex. Decision-making can shift based on donor influence, academic needs, or internal realignments. Delays and scope adjustments are commonplace - and often unavoidable.

Meanwhile, consultants rely on well-defined timelines, milestones, and accountability structures. Any deviation can significantly impact their profitability and schedule.

 

This creates tension: consultants may see delays as inefficiencies, while university staff may view consultant expectations as rigid or unrealistic. I once witnessed a nearly completed project get entirely re-envisioned following a leadership change - requiring a full redesign on the same timeline.

Scope or Slope? Managing Project Changes Without Losing Balance
As a university planner, contract negotiation was my least favorite task. Proposals often seemed overpriced, full of assumptions, and laden with extra fees for tasks considered beyond scope. One consultant openly admitted their pricing reflected the university's perceived inability to make clear, timely decisions.

Consultants operate within clearly defined contractual limits. Scope, deliverables, and timelines are sacred. Ambiguities create risk and often necessitate formal amendments.

Universities, however, operate in a fluid environment. Shifting priorities, changing stakeholders, and dynamic requirements often demand flexibility - creating friction over scope clarity.

Lost in Translation: Bridging Formal Expectations and Informal Realities
Consultants often rely on structured communication - formal meetings, clear documentation, and defined decision-making protocols - but this overlooks the informal dynamics central to university operations.

A colleague once told me that for every hour a consultant spent on a project, university planners might spend double that time navigating internal feedback and approvals. Much of the university decision-making process happens through informal channels - personal relationships, institutional memory, and off-the-record conversations.

This disconnect can leave consultants blindsided by late-stage changes and university planners feeling misunderstood or rushed. What appears to be a straightforward meeting to the consultant may represent hours of behind-the-scenes coordination for the planner.

Closing the Gap: Practical Strategies for Better Collaboration

Recommendations for Consultants
• Incorporate Flexibility: Account for institutional complexity in scope, schedules, and expectations.
• Understand University Culture: Learn the internal politics, relationships, and decision-making processes.
• Define Scope Clearly - and Revisit Often: Communicate the impacts of scope changes proactively.
• Identify Strong Leadership: Insist on a university representative with the authority to make timely decisions.

Recommendations for University Planners
• Prioritize Transparency: Clearly outline internal processes, constraints, and anticipated timelines.
• Advocate Internally: Actively manage stakeholder expectations and champion timely decisions.
• Establish Clear Objectives: Define measurable success metrics that can endure shifting priorities.
• Empower Project Management: Assign project managers who understand internal dynamics and have the authority to act.

Joint Best Practices
• Kickoff Meetings: Use early meetings to align on roles, constraints, and expectations.
• Stakeholder Mapping: Develop visual tools to clarify who holds responsibility and decision-making authority.
• Consistent Check-Ins: Regular updates prevent misalignment on scope or timeline changes.
• Post-Project Reviews: Capture lessons learned and apply them to improve future collaborations.


Beyond Boundaries: Collaborating for Campus Success
Bridging the divide between university planners and consultants isn't just beneficial - it's essential. Success in campus planning depends on empathy, shared understanding, and a willingness to meet in the middle. When both sides collaborate openly and recognize each other's constraints, projects are more likely to stay on track, budgets hold firm, and outcomes improve.

Together, planners and consultants can create vibrant, resilient, and innovative campus environments that rise to the challenges of a dynamic future.

About the Author
Tony Catchot is a seasoned Landscape Architect and planner with over 40 years of experience in higher education, mixed-use, innovation, healthcare, and corporate environments across the U.S. and internationally. His expertise lies in leading interdisciplinary teams and building consensus among stakeholders to deliver visionary yet practical results.

His public-sector experience includes a decade at the University of Michigan, where he oversaw planning, design review, and construction coordination. Currently, as Principal at RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture, Tony continues to craft forward-thinking, context-sensitive environments that reflect institutional missions and community needs.