The transition from military service to civilian service is rarely straightforward. For me, it led to the built environment – the industry, surprisingly, felt familiar immediately.
Construction sites, development teams, and project organizations operate under pressures common to military units: tight timelines, limited resources, high stakes, and the need to coordinate across disciplines. Success depends on trust, clear roles, training, and shared awareness, while failure often results from misunderstandings and poor communication.
It quickly became clear that, while the architecture reflects the structure and complexity of the military, we sometimes lack the systems and principles that make those areas work effectively at scale.
Transferable skills – and non-existent infrastructure
Military service instills habits that translate well into construction: accountability, respect for procedure, chain of command, and a bias toward execution. In both worlds, no one group works alone. Results depend on cooperation between planners, operators, transportation, and leadership.
But in design, systems intended to support this integration often fall short.
In the industry, I have seen firsthand how ‘finger pointing’, disparate tools, legacy software, and disconnected data create blind spots between stakeholders. Financial data lives in one system, a schedule in another, and field updates elsewhere – often compiled manually, late, or sometimes not at all. The result is a lack of shared truth across owners, lenders, project managers, and site teams.
In the military, incomplete or delayed information can jeopardize a mission. In construction, it compromises budgets, schedules, safety, and reliability.
Transparency gap throughout the project life cycle
One of the most persistent challenges in design is the uneven distribution of knowledge and accountability throughout the project’s life cycle.
Owners and lenders often lack real-time visibility into how field decisions affect financial results. The site teams use without full context about costs or risks. Project managers spend more time closing system and communication gaps than managing results.
This lack of transparency is often brutal. The structure. The industry is used to working with partial information, reporting delays, and reactive decision-making. Over time, this eliminates accountability. When no one has the full picture, determining ownership of tasks and results is difficult.
In contrast, the most effective organizations – military or otherwise – direct incentives towards shared visibility. Everyone understands how their actions affect the larger goal.
Ownership requires more skin in the game
Another lesson from the built world: true accountability requires tangible ownership throughout the project’s life cycle.
Too often, information flows upward in a delayed, filtered way: field teams report progress after the fact, financial updates come monthly, and risks are only recognized when problems arise. At that point, options are limited, and trust is at stake.
When owners, lenders, and development partners have continuous access to accurate, consistent data, dynamic changes. Discussions shift to problem solving, and decisions come into play. Teams can perform well early on, when conversions are less expensive.
This does not mean less management. It means shared accountability – a principle that is heavily focused on military operations and still underutilized in construction.
Data integration is no longer preferred
Construction is becoming more complex, expensive, and scrutinized. Yet many projects still rely on decades-old plans built for a different scale.
When data is inconsistent across stakeholders—when schedules, budgets, and field realities are inconsistent—trust erodes, decisions stall, and risk increases.
Consistent data throughout the project lifecycle is not a “nice to have.” It’s basic. Without it, cooperation breaks down, and accountability becomes the norm.
Accessibility is also important. The more expensive, complex, or robust the systems are, the stronger the silos. Some participants are privileged while others are excluded, resulting in different uses.
Collaboration is not a buzzword — it’s a necessity
One of the worst ways to run a construction project is to work sequentially, assign or divide responsibilities between departments. Overlap is inevitable: design affects construction, financing affects sequencing, and field conditions affect budgets. Everyone’s work is different.
Successful projects acknowledge this fact and build systems – and cultures – that support collaboration across all divisions and roles. That requires shared visibility, aligned incentives, and tools that show how the work actually happens.
Soldiers thrive not just on rank, but on teamwork, trust, and clarity under pressure – with well-defined independence. Construction deserves the same discipline.
A moment of change
The built environment is facing a turning point. Rising costs, tight capital, growing compliance requirements, labor constraints, and growing complexity are forcing the industry to rethink its assumptions.
My transition from the military to construction made one thing clear: the industry already has the talent, experience, and ethics to work at the highest level. What is often lacking is the infrastructure – technological and cultural – to support real transparency, accountability, and collaboration.
If construction can bridge that gap, the results won’t just be better projects. It will mean building strong teams, strong organizations, and delivering results commensurate with what is being built—or what can be built. Now is the time for industry leaders, owners, and teams to prioritize building the technical and cultural infrastructure that enables true accountability, visibility, and collaboration. Take the first step: invest in systems, processes, and behaviors that support shared reality and effective relationships at all project stages.
Adam Stark is a Special Forces veteran and construction technology executive with experience in development, project delivery, construction management, and applications in the built world..
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
