GGB Founder-led development governance — options, layouts, kitchen logic, contractor scope and commercial agreements governed before construction committed the money.
The Decision Path
-
Brief
Mistake prevented: designing a café nobody defined. Detailed scope and activity sequencing came before drawings.
-
Options
Mistake prevented: falling in love with the first plan. Restaurant-layout alternatives were held side by side.
-
Layout
Mistake prevented: allocating space by habit. Space-allocation reconciliation and category allocation did it by logic.
-
Kitchen flow
Mistake prevented: a kitchen drawn as furniture. Kitchen-layout alternatives, service-flow review and the kitchen BOQ drew it as production.
-
Contractor scope
Mistake prevented: scope gaps priced as variations later. Fit-out and kitchen contractor documentation and supplier drawing reviews closed them first.
-
Commercial agreement
Mistake prevented: signing a design agreement nobody reviewed. The design-consultant agreement and PO/BOQ governance were reviewed as commercial instruments.
-
Pre-construction readiness
Mistake prevented: mobilising against an ungoverned baseline. The proposed Gantt programme stood as the control instrument.
GGB development framework — seven decisions governed on paper, each named with the mistake it prevented.
The situation
Before a contractor mobilises, every unmade decision is still cheap. The consultancy sequenced the decisions — brief, options, layout, kitchen flow, contractor scope, commercial agreement — so that construction would start against a governed baseline instead of an optimistic sketch.
The mandate
Restaurant-development consultancy and pre-construction governance. Founder-led development governance — options, layouts, kitchen logic, contractor scope and commercial agreements governed before construction committed the money.
What the mandate covered
- Consultancy proposal
- Detailed scope
- Activity sequencing
- Kick-off meeting
- Category allocation
- Proposed Gantt programme
- Restaurant-layout alternatives
- Kitchen-layout alternatives
- Kitchen BOQ
- Preliminary visualisations
- Service-flow review
- Kitchen-supplier drawing review
- Space-allocation reconciliation
- Design-consultant agreement review
- Fit-out and kitchen contractor documentation
- PO, BOQ and scope governance
How it was run
- Fixed the brief before the drawings: detailed scope, activity sequencing and a kick-off that put every decision in order.
- Held restaurant-layout and kitchen-layout alternatives side by side instead of committing to the first plan.
- Reviewed the kitchen as service flow — kitchen BOQ, supplier drawing review and space-allocation reconciliation together.
- Reviewed the design-consultant agreement and the fit-out and kitchen contractor documentation before signatures committed the money.
- Installed PO, BOQ and scope governance with a proposed Gantt programme as the control instrument.
- Decision made
- Hold real alternatives open until the numbers and the flow chose between them.
- What was controlled
- Restaurant-layout and kitchen-layout alternatives, preliminary visualisations.
- The record
- Alternative layout sets and visualisation records (attested).
- What it proves
- Spatial decisions were governed across options, not defaulted.
- Where the record stops
- What was ultimately built — construction is not part of this record.
- Why it matters to your project
- The first plan is an opinion; the second plan is a decision.
- Decision made
- Read the kitchen as service flow before anyone priced stainless steel.
- What was controlled
- Kitchen alternatives, service-flow review, kitchen BOQ, supplier drawing review.
- The record
- Kitchen BOQ and review records (attested).
- What it proves
- The kitchen logic was specified and challenged on paper.
- Where the record stops
- Installed equipment or operating performance.
- Why it matters to your project
- A kitchen drawing is not equipment placement — it is the restaurant’s production logic.
- Decision made
- Treat agreements and contractor documentation as governance instruments.
- What was controlled
- Design-consultant agreement review; fit-out and kitchen contractor documentation; PO, BOQ and scope governance.
- The record
- Review and governance records (attested).
- What it proves
- The commercial baseline was governed before commitment.
- Where the record stops
- Contract award or construction outcomes — neither is claimed.
- Why it matters to your project
- Variations are born in the paragraphs nobody read before signing.
What the record consists of
- Consultancy proposal and detailed scope
- proves the proposed consultancy scope
- Layout and kitchen alternatives
- proves design-governance work across real options
- Kitchen BOQ
- proves specification work for the kitchen package
- Proposed Gantt programme
- proves planned control — never built work
- Agreement and contractor-documentation reviews
- proves commercial governance before commitment
The source records for this project — proposal, scope, programmes, alternatives, BOQ and review records — are held on file and described here rather than reproduced, so client and commercial material stays private.
Delivered by GGB’s founder through the operating and consulting practices he led at the time; presented here as one continuous professional record.
The outcome
No outcome figure is claimed for this engagement — the record itself is the claim.
Not claimed
- This record is deliberately presented as consultancy and pre-construction governance — no construction, completion or trading claim is made.
- The proposed programme proves planned control, not built work.