Project Red Flags: 15 Signs You Can't Ignore
The 15 Warning Signs That Put Openings at Risk
Part of our “Multi-Site Rollout” series
👉 Read this first: The Multi-Site Store Opening Playbook
👇 Download this: Partner Scorecard
One of the most consistent themes throughout these interviews was that store openings rarely fail because of a single catastrophic mistake. More often, schedules are slowly compromised by a series of seemingly minor decisions, assumptions or delays that compound over time. A material takes longer to source than expected. Drawings sit in review for two extra weeks. A site is measured before it's truly ready. A field condition changes after engineering is complete. Individually, none of these issues may appear significant. Together, they can consume the flexibility that protects a project's opening date.
The following warning signs surfaced repeatedly during conversations with project managers and program leaders who manage fixture and millwork programs every day.
Red Flag #1: Long-Lead Materials Identified Too Late
If there was one issue mentioned by nearly every interviewee, it was material availability.
According to Jerry Cruz, director of program management at DisplayIt, one of the biggest risks to any schedule is discovering late in the project that a specified material is difficult to source, requires special ordering or has a lead time that does not align with the project's timeline. Designers are often focused on achieving a specific aesthetic, while manufacturing teams must determine whether those specifications can actually be procured within the available schedule.
Cruz shared several examples, including a stainless steel tube specified at an uncommon diameter that was nearly impossible to source. Increasing the tube size by only one-quarter inch would have made the material readily available, but that conversation occurred much later than it should have. In another instance, a cabinet pull specified by the design team was sourced from Sweden. What appeared to be a simple hardware selection ultimately carried significantly higher costs and longer lead times than a visually similar option available domestically.
The lesson is simple: material vetting should begin during estimating and design development, not after engineering is complete. The earlier challenges are identified, the more flexibility brands have to evaluate alternatives without affecting schedule or design intent.
Red Flag #2: "Minor" Finish Changes
To many project stakeholders, changing a finish appears relatively harmless. A laminate color changes. A wood species changes. A metal finish changes. On paper, it may look like a simple note revision.
The reality is often much different.
Matthew Hollenbeck, DisplayIt Project Manager, described finish substitutions as one of the most underestimated schedule risks in commercial construction. A finish change can affect procurement timelines, pricing, engineering coordination and manufacturing schedules simultaneously. What architects may view as a single crossed-out note on a drawing can result in entirely new procurement requirements for the fabrication team.
Hollenbeck provided one example involving laminates. A project originally used a readily available material, but the finish was later changed to a product that could only be sourced internationally. While the design change appeared insignificant, the revised specification introduced extended lead times, shipping complexities and additional costs that had not existed in the original schedule.
For brands managing rollout programs, finish changes should trigger a review of both cost and schedule implications before approval. The actual design impact may be small, but the procurement consequences can be significant.
Red Flag #3: Delayed Shop-Drawing Approvals
Every interview touched on this issue.
Project teams often view shop-drawing review as an administrative process; project managers view it as one of the most schedule-sensitive phases of the entire project. Manufacturing cannot begin until drawings are approved. Materials frequently cannot be purchased. Engineering cannot move forward with confidence. Everything waits.
Hollenbeck explained that review cycles can quietly consume weeks from a schedule without a single piece being fabricated. A drawing may spend two weeks under review before returning with a "revise and resubmit" request. The project team must then redraw portions of the package, resubmit documents and wait through another review cycle. Suddenly, three weeks have disappeared from the schedule while the opening date remains unchanged.
Similarly, Jerry Cruz, director of program management at DisplayIt, described projects involving dozens of individual elevations and drawing packages. Rather than receiving one consolidated review, some clients return comments in separate phases, creating dozens of independent review cycles that significantly increase coordination requirements.
When approvals take longer than planned, fabrication time rarely increases to compensate. Instead, pressure shifts downstream to engineering, manufacturing and installation teams. For that reason, approval timelines should be treated as hard schedule milestones rather than administrative checkpoints.
Red Flag #4: Sites That Are Not Actually Ready for Measurement
Many brands assume a project becomes measurable as soon as construction begins. The reality is considerably more nuanced.
According to both Hollenbeck and Anthony Zaccaro, DisplayIt Project Manager, measurement readiness depends entirely on the specific scope of work. Straight walls may only require steel stud framing to be complete, while radius walls often require drywall installation before accurate templates can be produced. Wall-to-wall millwork may require completed dimensions, while freestanding fixtures may require little or no field verification at all.
Hollenbeck explained that curved conditions are particularly challenging because drywall installation rarely follows architectural drawings perfectly. In these situations, physical templates may be required to ensure cabinetry fits properly once installed. Measuring too early can result in incorrect dimensions that eventually affect fabrication and installation.
The solution is not simply to measure sooner. It is to understand exactly what must be complete before measurements can be trusted and to communicate those requirements clearly with the GC and project team.
Red Flag #5: Construction Changes After Approval
One of the strongest examples shared during these interviews came from Sean Painter, DisplayIt Project Manager, Starbuck Division.
Painter described a project where the ceiling height was discovered to be seven inches lower than originally documented after a full-height metal cabinet had already been engineered, fabricated, powder coated and finished. To the client, the request sounded simple: "Can you just shorten the cabinet?"
In reality, the adjustment triggered meetings between project management, engineering and production teams. The cabinet required evaluation, redesign, fabrication modifications, cutting, re-welding, refinishing and updated internal documentation before it could proceed. What appeared to be a small dimensional change affected multiple departments and introduced new schedule risk.
Painter's story highlights a broader truth: construction changes rarely affect just one component. A dimensional revision often impacts engineering, procurement, production planning, installation sequencing and quality control simultaneously.
Red Flag #6: Incorrect Site Conditions
Field conditions rarely match drawings perfectly, but the severity of those discrepancies can vary dramatically.
Zaccaro described discovering missing walls, incorrectly located outlets, lighting conflicts and ADA compliance issues while visiting project sites. In one example, a display case with integrated lighting was designed to connect to an outlet recessed below a countertop. However, when the project team arrived, the outlet had been installed flush with the countertop instead of below it. The resulting condition required field adjustments and problem-solving that could have been avoided with earlier verification.
The common thread behind these challenges is coordination. Zaccaro's response when asked how these kinds of issues are prevented was simple: "Communication."
Regular field verification, cross-trade coordination and proactive site visits remain some of the most effective ways to identify discrepancies before they affect installation.
Red Flag #7: Delivering Before the Site Is Ready
A completed fixture package sitting in a warehouse feels like a problem.
Unfortunately, delivering it too early can become an even bigger problem.
Cruz and Zaccaro both warned about the risks associated with early deliveries. Products delivered into active construction environments often become temporary work surfaces, storage locations or obstacles for other trades. As construction continues around them, damage becomes increasingly likely.
Zaccaro shared one example from a project where millwork had been delivered before the site was truly ready. A finished component was stood on its finished edge and dragged across a floor by another trade, leaving visible damage that required repair work. The issue did not originate from fabrication. It originated from delivering product into a construction environment that was not prepared to receive it.
Successful rollout partners spend significant effort validating site readiness before shipping products because once millwork arrives, protecting those finished components becomes substantially more difficult.
Red Flag #8: Outdated Drawings
According to Cruz, one of the most important responsibilities in project management is continually verifying that everyone is working from the latest information available. Architectural drawings serve as the project's contractual source of truth, yet projects frequently evolve over months of design, permitting and construction activity.
As Cruz explained, shop drawings represent a snapshot of design intent at the moment they were produced. If architectural plans change afterward and those changes are not identified before engineering or manufacturing proceeds, teams can unknowingly build to outdated information.
For that reason, Cruz emphasized the importance of repeatedly returning to the latest architectural drawings before advancing work between major project phases. Failure to do so can create costly field corrections later in the process.
Red Flag #9: Too Many Communication Channels
One of the most memorable observations from the interviews came from Cruz: "When a lot of people are replying, nobody is really replying."
Large rollout programs often involve architects, designers, development managers, construction managers, general contractors, subcontractors and fixture suppliers. Without a clear communication structure, accountability begins to erode.
Cruz described programs involving multiple architects, multiple general contractors and numerous active sites operating at the same time. In those environments, having a primary point of contact and a defined source of truth becomes critical to maintaining schedule control.
The lesson is not to reduce participation. It is to create clear ownership for decisions, approvals and communication.
Red Flag #10: Assuming the Site Is Ready
Several interviewees described situations where they were assured a location was ready, only to discover significant issues upon arrival.
According to Hollenbeck, the safest approach is not to rely solely on verbal confirmation from the GC. Site readiness should be validated through field verification, photographs, measurements and direct communication about specific readiness requirements before installation teams are mobilized.
The question should not be, "Is the site ready?"
The question should be, "Have the specific conditions required for our scope been verified?"
Those are very different conversations.
Red Flag #11: Unrealistic Contract Timelines
Zaccaro compared accelerated projects to a snowplow moving through the production facility. When a project arrives with unrealistic timing requirements, it rarely moves through manufacturing alone. Instead, it pushes other projects aside, disrupting production schedules across the organization.
One project described by Zaccaro required completion within an extremely compressed timeline. While DisplayIt ultimately succeeded in delivering the project before opening, doing so required production resources to be redirected and priorities to be adjusted throughout the facility. The project succeeded, but only because other schedules absorbed the impact.
Compressed schedules are sometimes unavoidable. However, brands should recognize that every week removed from the schedule increases risk and reduces flexibility for everyone involved.
Red Flag #12: New Team Members Relearning Old Lessons
Rollout programs are designed to benefit from repetition, but personnel changes can undermine that advantage.
Painter discussed the challenges created when new team members, designers or decision-makers enter an established program without understanding lessons learned from previous locations. Problems that were resolved months earlier can reappear, forcing teams to revisit conversations they have already had.
For large programs, knowledge retention becomes just as important as technical execution. Lessons learned must be documented, shared and incorporated into future projects so each location benefits from previous experience.
Red Flag #13: Failing to Capture Lessons Learned
Zaccaro provided one of the clearest examples of how successful rollout programs improve over time.
While working on a fitness-club rollout, his team discovered that a sink cabinet failed to meet ADA clearance requirements by approximately two inches. The issue required corrective action at the current location. Rather than treating it as an isolated problem, the team immediately reviewed future locations. A second store that had already been installed was proactively modified before inspection, and a third location still in engineering was corrected before production began.
The result was that a single mistake produced exactly one field correction instead of becoming a recurring issue across the entire rollout.
That is what continuous improvement looks like in practice.
Red Flag #14: Poor Material Vetting During Estimating
Cruz believes material review should begin much earlier than many organizations realize. Rather than waiting until engineering or procurement, material availability should be evaluated during estimating, when project requirements, timelines and budgets are first being established.
At that stage, teams have the greatest flexibility to suggest alternate materials, evaluate lead times and identify potential sourcing challenges. Once engineering is complete and shop drawings are approved, alternatives become more difficult, more expensive and more disruptive.
Simply put, the earlier availability is discussed, the more options everyone has.
Red Flag #15: Treating Every Store Like a Copy-and-Paste Project
The final red flag may also be the most important.
Brands naturally seek consistency during rollouts, but every interviewee acknowledged a simple reality: no two stores are truly identical. Different locations bring different dimensions, permitting requirements, site conditions, contractors and field challenges.
As Byron Waller explained, successful partners recognize that consistency does not mean duplication. The goal is not to build identical stores. The goal is to deliver a consistent brand experience while adapting intelligently to the realities of each location.
The strongest rollout partners know how to protect brand standards while remaining flexible enough to accommodate real-world conditions. That balance is what ultimately keeps programs moving forward and openings on track.
Download the Project Rollout Red Flags pdf 👇
Planning a multi-site rollout?
We'll make sure you open on time. Contact us at sales@displayitinc.com or use the button below to schedule a call with our team.
Comments