Every major development represents a significant commitment. Of time. Of capital. Of reputation.

When it performs, that commitment is vindicated.

When it does not, the consequences are public, on the record, and slow to recover from.

The difference is rarely design or approvals. It is whether the logic underneath the project was sound before commitments locked it in.

The property sector exists solely to create environments for people. Without people, there is no commercial return and no social benefit. It is the dimension that determines whether the project achieves what it was built for. It is the dimension least independently assessed before commitments lock in.

My work exists at that gap. Before commitments lock in.

No one in that room wants to be associated with a development that fails to deliver what it promised.

The consequences land differently depending on where you sit.

For the developer who builds to sell, every month of slow absorption is interest cost eroding margin. For the developer who builds to own, a development requiring constant reactivation is a liability, not an appreciating asset. For the government agency, the obligation is economic and social benefit sustained over time, not a recovery funded by the public. For the consultant whose work shaped the direction, reputational exposure follows association, not causation.

The fear is not cost overrun. It is the outcome that cannot be managed after the fact.

Oxford University and University of Sydney research, building on Kahneman’s work on behavioural bias, identifies optimism bias at the approval stage as a primary cause of major project benefit shortfalls. In Australia, the Grattan Institute found that governments overspent by approximately A$34 billion on major transport infrastructure over two decades.

The root cause is not technical failure. It is untested logic at the decision stage: assumptions about how people will use a place, what will draw them, why they will return, and what the development needs to do commercially and socially to hold its position, that have never been examined from outside the disciplines that created them.

That logic hardens at two specific points. At pre-feasibility, before the opportunity hypothesis is tested and the vision forms. And at feasibility and business case, when the project direction is forming but not yet committed to capital.

Consequences surface either way. The advantage is seeing them early.

Most projects have experts in every discipline. None of them are commissioned to hold the question that sits across all of them.

Will this actually work for the people it is being built for, commercially, operationally, and humanly? What is this environment monetising? Is experience the mechanism or the decoration? Why will they come? Why will they stay? Will this place deliver the social benefit it is promising across the years that follow?

Specialist value requires deepening into one field. That depth is what makes cross-field synthesis impossible from inside it. A firm retained for work after approval cannot hold a fully independent position. And the advisers who help shape the direction at pre-feasibility and feasibility often bid for the work that follows.

At Smales Farm Technology Office Park in Auckland, the assessment identified that neither of the two directions under consideration resolved what the precinct needed to do for the people who would use it. A third direction was proposed. The hub became a commercial and community asset simultaneously. That outcome was not in the original brief. It was in the logic that had not yet been examined.

My work exists at that position. Outside any single discipline. Outside the delivery incentive structure. No downstream interest beyond the project performing as intended.

The work operates at two stages, each with two services.

Stage One: Pre-Feasibility

Project Intent: establishing the commercial, social, and human behaviour logic before the vision locks.

Project Rationale Assessment: an independent assessment of whether the logic of this opportunity is sound enough to proceed.

Stage Two: Feasibility and Business Case

Project Intent: strengthening the logic before it locks into the brief.

Project Rationale Assessment: identifying where attention is needed before capital commits and gaps become fixed conditions.

Capital commitment is where my work ends. At either stage.

This work is advisory only.

I do not design, manage, plan, or implement projects. The engagement is with me directly, from initiation to completion. There is no handover to a junior team.

The engagement is typically initiated by a senior sponsor, project director, Group Executive, or a principal of a major project advisory firm at the point where independent consequence clarity is needed.

In government procurement, the advisers who help shape the project brief often subsequently bid for the delivery phases that follow. Probity frameworks require that conflict to be managed. But disclosure manages the appearance of a conflict. It does not eliminate the structural incentive. The work ends at capital commitment. No delivery role. No bid for subsequent work. That boundary is not a limitation. It is the condition that makes genuinely independent assessment possible.

The work is not geographically constrained. Human behaviour is consistent in its fundamentals across markets. What differs is the cultural context that shapes specific behaviours. That distinction is part of the analytical work, not a barrier to it.

When this is most valuable

A sound approval does not guarantee sound performance. In other high-scrutiny sectors, independent consequence review before major commitment is routine. This advisory brings that same discipline to complex property and civic decisions, at the point where it still makes a difference.

The work is most consequential when a project is at pre-feasibility and the starting conditions have not been independently assessed. When a project is approaching capital commitment and the human, social, and commercial logic has not been examined from outside. When direction is forming but the brief has not yet resolved what the project is fundamentally trying to achieve for people. When the decisions being made now need to be defensible later, on record.

This discipline helps delivery proceed with clearer project direction, stronger commercial logic, sustained social benefit, and fewer late-stage reversals.

What clients say

“Michael clarified direction at the right commitment stage and strengthened overall intent.”

Dr Scott Bourke GAICD, Innovation Precincts Advisory,Logan City Council

“Michael strengthened project direction early, bringing clarity across teams and stakeholders.”

Michael Geale, Development ManagerAMP Botany Town Centre

“Michael brought commercial clarity to early decisions grounded in real-world people use.”

John Green, CEOH&J Smith Department Stores

“Michael’s input sharpened intent beyond completion, with a focus on long-term use.”

Jason Eldering, CEO Southern Cross Care Queensland

“Michael sees what others miss, identifying key insights early.”

Alex Lovell, DirectorOBE

Previous Next

Credentials

The question that has guided my work has been the same since the late 1980s: does the experience match what the project is promising?

At Smales Farm Technology Office Park in Auckland, Michael was brought in before development decisions were made. The retail hub had been conceived to serve the office park tenants only. The assessment identified that this would limit both tenant quality and commercial return. The recommendation: open the hub to the wider community and soften the entrance so the development felt permeable rather than private. Hospital workers, school communities, and commuters arrived. Parking had to be expanded. The hub became a commercial and community asset simultaneously. That outcome was not in the original brief. It was in the logic that had not yet been examined.

Princes Square in Glasgow opened in 1988 as a boutique shopping and dining destination. Brought in before the centre opened to translate development intent into a retail experience Glaswegians would recognise as theirs. When revisited thirty years later, more than half the original tenants were still trading, the original design was largely unchanged, and the centre was functioning as a community gathering place as much as a retail destination. Following new ownership in 2024 it underwent full recovery, near-full occupancy, and renewed footfall. The original direction held across thirty-seven years of market cycles.

Before a retail complex was built at Viaduct Auckland, the commercial logic and human behaviour of two potential tenancy sites was assessed for a cafe and restaurant operator. The recommendation was to take the corner opposite to the one they were considering. The assessment was based on footfall patterns, sun orientation across trading hours, and the movement logic of an unbuilt environment. The prediction proved correct. The corner taken performed strongly. The alternative corner was in shade by midday and did not attract the same foot traffic.

Prior to establishing MGM Advisory, Michael formulated strategic briefs, conducted peer reviews, and completed feasibility studies for retail, commercial, and residential clients across New Zealand. The work was commissioned at the same level of seriousness.

Michael Major’s MDM thesis, Strategic Branded Experiences, investigated the integration of three-dimensional branding and neuroscience in the built environment. In 2003 he spoke at the International Conference on Thinking in Phoenix on Soul Emergence, an early articulation of how environments generate belonging, identity, and long-term human attachment to place.

He is Co-Founder of the Institute of Neuroarchitecture, sits on the Brisbane Transport, Logistics and Mobility Subcommittee and the Creative Brisbane Collab Corporate Advisory Board, and in 2025 gave three presentations at the State of Australasian Cities Conference on the role of neuroarchitecture in city planning.

Disclaimer

All work is provided strictly in an independent advisory capacity, focused on upstream and decision-making only.

Clients retain responsibility for all decisions, approvals, delivery, and implementation.

Michael Major does not provide design, legal, financial, or delivery services.

Let’s talk

If you are quietly asking, “Will this actually work once people arrive?”, this is the moment to engage.

If a project is at pre-feasibility and the starting conditions have not yet been tested, that is the earliest moment. Before the vision forms. Before the logic hardens into a direction no one has examined from outside.

If a project is approaching capital commitment at feasibility stage, an independent assessment can strengthen confidence before direction locks and board approval is sought.

And if the current project has already passed that point, the conversation is still worth having. Most senior developers, government agencies, and consultant principals are working across more than one development. The question of fit is rarely about a single project.

The answer is easier to find before commitments lock in.

To discuss a project, contact Michael directly via email or LinkedIn. The first conversation is not just about fit and scope. It is where the value first becomes visible.

Michel G Major BA (Hons), MDM

Phone Number
+61 (0)406449007
Address
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Email Address
michael@michaelgmajor.com
LinkedIn
linkedin.com/in/michaelgmajor

I am Co-Founder of the Institute of Neuroarchitecture, a not-for-profit initiative advancing understanding of how environments influence human behaviour, wellbeing, and long-term outcomes.