Everything That Comes After Building (Is Really Hard)
I spent a few days in April in Denver, Colorado at COAA (Construction Owners Association of America)’s 2026 Spring Connect. The sessions covered a wide range of topics from construction closeout, artificial intelligence, deferred maintenance, urban development, to leadership and professional development.
(Hat tip to Howie Ferguson, Jessica Bonin, Jenell Calloway CMP CHA, and the whole COAA team for another great conference!)
My major takeaway, and what seemed like a challenge across the board for all attendees, was that big issues in the built environment were not happening independently in the design or construction phases, but most noticeably in the gaps between them. Specifically, the biggest issues were (and still are) happening at the transition to operations and across the lifecycle of the asset.
We are very good at building things. We are far less effective at sustaining them.
The reality presented across multiple sessions was that persistent failures show up in how information, responsibility, and accountability move across the lifecycle. The transition from construction to operations is where value is either realized or lost. And right now, too often, it is lost.
The Problem No One Owns
One of the clearest examples came from a session on transitioning projects into operations. It was led by Nicholas Johnson and Sergio Aranda.
The process sounds simple on paper. Subcontractors provide documentation to the general contractor. The general contractor passes it to the owner’s project manager. The project manager routes it to the facilities team.
In practice, it breaks down at every step.
The people responsible for moving the information are not the ones who actually need it. Project managers become intermediaries. Facilities teams receive incomplete or unusable data. And in some cases, facilities teams are performing condition assessments on brand new buildings because they do not trust the information they were given.
Some of the solutions discussed were practical. Assign a dedicated person responsible for transition. Tie documentation turnover to invoicing. Create accountability at the point where incentives matter. Of course, all of this is easier said than done.
Tackling the Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Another session focused on deferred maintenance. It was led by Gina Rossi, RA, LEED AP ND, Robert Lingenfelter, AICP, PLA, LEED AP, and Justin D. Seltzer. It had great insights (regardless of how bad the elephant puns were).
A big number stood out for me. I knew it in theory, but seeing it on a screen helped solidify it. If you defer one dollar of maintenance today, it becomes four dollars of renewal cost in the future.
Most institutions are underestimating how quickly the deferred maintenance backlog can grow and how deeply it is tied to planning decisions made years earlier.
Deferred maintenance is often framed as a resource constraint problem like not having enough labor, or time, or funding. But they are not the root cause. The deeper issue is that deferred maintenance projects are often treated as a series of isolated fixes when really they should be looked at as a holistic program. Every project should be tied to a long-term operating and maintenance plan. Not just capital cost, but ten-year operating cost, renewal cycles, and lifecycle implications.
AI Is Removing Friction, Not Replacing Judgment
Artificial intelligence showed up across multiple discussions, but in a very grounded way. Several speakers shared their insights including John Audi, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Jonathan McCann, Dareen Salama, Matthew Sprague, and Cherie Chenoweth.
The most valuable applications today are operational: reviewing invoices, verifying certified payrolls, managing files, and analyzing and negotiating change orders.
In the field, AI is being used to capture asset data through photos and video. A technician can walk a room, record a video, and generate a punch list automatically. Equipment data can be captured and uploaded directly into asset databases. In design, the shift is helping to enhance the speed of delivery. Renderings that once took weeks or months can now be generated in seconds by combining prompts with existing design standards.
One of the more compelling case studies came from a discussion on downtown Denver, led by Andrew Iltis with a major mood booster from Meg Hohnholt, RA, PMP.
Denver's evolution was not the result of a single project or a single policy. It was the result of coordinated action over decades. In the 1970s, large portions of downtown were cleared due to urban blight. In the 1980s, leadership began to reimagine what the city could become by reconnecting key assets like Union Station and 16th Street. Today, that vision has evolved into a broader strategy.
Public safety improvements. Investments in streetscapes and infrastructure. Activation of parks and civic spaces. Coordination with major developments around sports venues and surrounding districts. Even permitting processes have been streamlined to accelerate ground-floor activation.
Growth does not happen through isolated investments, but through alignment across systems.
The Leadership Gap Behind the Technical Problems
The keynote session by Darrell Hammond, Sr. shifted the conversation from systems to people. As professionals advance, the skills required change. Early roles demand technical expertise. Mid-level roles demand people management. Senior roles demand strategic thinking. Many organizations plan for succession. Fewer invest in succession development.
The problems discussed throughout the conference were both technical in natured, but grounded in basic leadership problems. Do we have the right organizational prioritization to tackle these technical problems? Can we clearly articulate the top reasons why our roles exists?
If not, it is difficult to align decisions, allocate resources, or lead effectively across a complex system.
A Changing Workforce, A Changing System
I was excited to share my own insights with the conference attendees. My presentation was data-driven for campus planners and builders, but also strategic and insight for those looking to hire the graduates coming off campus. My session focused on the emerging youth workforce and the implications of shifting graduate demographics.
The core idea is straightforward. The characteristics of the workforce are changing. Behavior, expectations, and career paths are evolving. At the same time, many of the systems we rely on were designed for a different user. That mismatch is not always obvious in the moment. But over time, it shows up in utilization patterns, operational strain, and the need to retrofit spaces and services.
What This Means for Owners and Operators
For those responsible for capital programs and operations, the implications are that ownership of transition matters. It cannot be an afterthought or a shared responsibility without accountability. Moreover, maintenance must be treated as a strategy, not a reaction. The decisions made during planning and construction directly shape long-term performance. And perhaps most importantly, assets should be understood as part of a broader system. Not individual projects, but interconnected pieces of a long-term portfolio.
The built environment does not have a capability problem. It has an integration problem. We know how to design. We know how to build. We are getting better at using technology to execute. What we have not fully solved is how to connect those pieces into a cohesive system that carries value from concept through operation and over time.