DVK Consulting

Trust is Built Before the Project Starts

By Brandt Douglas von Krieger

In complex coastal and infrastructure projects, success often depends on something less tangible than a project plan or budget. It depends on trust. In my experience, trust is the foundation that supports everything else. Without it, the strongest technical plan can begin to fail. With it, even difficult projects become manageable.

Trust is not something that develops after a contract is awarded. It is built in the earliest stages of a project, well before any deliverables are due. The way a project team engages with stakeholders from the start sets the tone for everything that follows. Stakeholders quickly form impressions about intent, professionalism, and whether their input will be respected.

As a senior project manager, I view trust as a critical factor in risk management and delivery. It is a measurable input. When people trust the process, they speak up early, collaborate more effectively, and remain engaged during challenges. When trust is missing, decisions are delayed, communication slows, and even small issues can escalate.

This is especially true in projects involving Indigenous governments, regulators, or coastal communities. These environments require a deeper understanding of place, history, and governance. Relationships in these settings are not built on technical detail alone. They are built on transparency, consistency, and respect.

Building trust means arriving prepared, listening with care, and following through. It means acknowledging uncertainty when it exists and explaining decisions clearly. It also means creating space for dialogue and ensuring that all voices are heard and valued.

In my consulting practice, I help clients build this foundation from the beginning. We map the relationship landscape early, align internal messaging, and develop strategies that reflect the complexity of the real world. The goal is always to create clarity, strengthen engagement, and reduce risk.

When trust is established early, projects move forward with greater confidence and fewer surprises. If you are about to launch a new initiative, ask yourself whether trust has been built before the work begins. If it has, you are already on the path to a stronger outcome.

Why Emergency Planning Fails at the Stakeholder Level

By Brandt Douglas von Krieger, BA, PMP, MNI

Emergency response plans often look comprehensive on paper. They are built with checklists, roles, and protocols designed to ensure order during a crisis. Yet when real events occur, even the most detailed plans can fall short. The gap is not always in logistics or technical content. It is often in the relationships between stakeholders.

I have worked across emergency management, environmental response, and maritime operations for over a decade. What I have seen consistently is that plans are only as strong as the relationships behind them. Without clear coordination, mutual trust, and realistic role clarity, a plan becomes a document rather than a tool.

Many organizations focus their efforts on the structural elements of preparedness. They design communication trees, assemble resource inventories, and build formal frameworks. These are necessary. But what often gets overlooked is how those systems operate under pressure when multiple agencies, levels of government, or community partners need to respond in real time.

In high-stakes situations, ambiguity about roles or expectations causes delay. Misalignment between lead agencies and support teams can increase confusion. Stakeholders may hesitate to act if they have not previously engaged with one another. This is not a technical failure. It is a human one.

Effective emergency planning requires more than protocols. It requires sustained relationship-building, cross-training, and shared exercises that reflect the real-world environment where coordination will take place. Plans should not only meet standards. They should reflect operational realities and social dynamics.

In my consulting practice, I help clients strengthen their planning by focusing on this often-missing layer.

Bringing Calm to Complex Projects

By Brandt Douglas von Krieger, PMP, MNI

In project environments where conditions are uncertain and stakeholder expectations are high, leadership must offer more than coordination and reporting. It must bring clarity, structure, and calm.

In my experience managing large-scale programs across maritime operations, emergency response, and public-sector planning, I have seen firsthand how complex work tests more than systems. It tests people. The ability to remain composed and responsive under pressure is not optional. It is essential.

Projects involving multiple jurisdictions, Indigenous engagement, regulatory compliance, or environmental risk often evolve quickly. Priorities shift. Political conditions change. Operational realities present new challenges. In these moments, stakeholders are not only looking for status updates. They are looking for guidance, stability, and sound decision-making.

Calm leadership does not mean avoiding difficult conversations. It means entering them with clarity, professionalism, and a forward-looking mindset. It means understanding the role of communication in reducing ambiguity and creating space for alignment. It also means managing pressure in a way that keeps teams focused on delivery, not distracted by conflict.

From a project management perspective, calm leadership directly supports performance. It reduces escalation, improves stakeholder confidence, and helps maintain progress when other conditions are in flux. A well-designed schedule or risk register is important, but it is the tone of leadership that often determines whether a project can navigate adversity without losing momentum.

I apply this mindset to every engagement. Through DVK Consulting, I work with clients to lead projects that are operationally grounded and strategically resilient. My role is not only to manage milestones, but to help maintain focus and confidence in high-pressure environments.

When a project experiences tension, the quality of leadership becomes visible. It is in those moments that trust is tested, and the long-term success of the project is shaped.

Calm is not the absence of pressure. It is the ability to lead effectively in its presence.

Lessons from Working with Coastal Communities

By Brandt Douglas von Krieger, BA, PMP, MNI

Delivering projects in coastal environments requires more than technical planning. It requires a clear understanding of place, history, and the priorities of the people who live there. Over the course of my career, I’ve worked alongside coastal communities across British Columbia. Each project brought its own scope, stakeholders, and challenges. Yet a few consistent lessons stand out.

First, coastal communities are not passive recipients of development. They are active participants with deep knowledge of the local environment and long-standing ties to land and water. Any project that treats local input as optional will quickly lose credibility. Effective engagement is not a checkbox. It is a foundation.

Second, timelines must reflect operational reality. Weather, transportation limitations, and seasonal priorities can all influence project execution. Standard delivery models may not translate well to coastal regions where marine access, ferry schedules, or remote logistics create constraints. Plans must account for these conditions up front—not as exceptions, but as core parameters.

Third, trust is built slowly. Community leaders and stakeholders watch how you conduct yourself, not just what you say. They notice follow-through, how concerns are documented, and whether changes to scope or timing are communicated with respect. Long-term success depends not only on the work completed, but on the relationships maintained after the contract ends.

I’ve found that coastal projects benefit most when planners listen early, show flexibility, and understand that technical efficiency is not the only measure of value. Respect, transparency, and community readiness are just as important. In many cases, they are the difference between a project that proceeds and one that never gains support.

At DVK Consulting, I help clients navigate this reality by shaping engagement strategies, delivery models, and timelines that reflect the true working conditions of the coast. Success in these regions depends not only on technical readiness, but on the ability to lead with awareness and humility.

Tools for Risk Clarity in Marine Infrastructure Projects

By Brandt Douglas von Krieger, PMP, MNI

Managing marine infrastructure projects requires more than a solid work plan and a well-structured budget. It also requires the ability to understand and communicate risk clearly. In my experience, projects that struggle often have risk registers in place, but lack true visibility into how those risks will impact decision-making, delivery, and stakeholder confidence.

Risk clarity is not about identifying every possible scenario. It is about knowing which issues could affect progress, how they connect, and what can be done when they start to emerge. In marine and coastal environments, where operational conditions change quickly, risk is not a future event. It is a constant part of the working context.

One of the most effective tools I use is scenario mapping. This involves looking at how different risks interact, not just in isolation but as a sequence. For example, what happens if a weather delay coincides with a stalled permit? How will that affect marine access, supply schedules, or seasonal windows for construction? Walking through these scenarios as a team creates shared awareness and allows for better decision-making.

Another important tool is stakeholder profiling. Many risks are tied to how people respond, not just to what happens on-site. If a stakeholder feels they were not properly informed or consulted, it can introduce delays that are just as disruptive as any technical issue. Understanding who influences what, and how they are likely to react under pressure, helps reduce surprises.

I also recommend involving marine operators and field crews early in the planning process. Too often, risks are scoped by people who are not directly involved in execution. When those who will be in the field help shape the risk picture, the result is more practical, grounded, and aligned with the realities of the work.

At DVK Consulting, I help clients move risk out of the background and into everyday project leadership. We design risk strategies that are not just technically sound, but usable, communicable, and easy to adapt as the situation evolves.

In fast-moving project environments, clarity is just as important as contingency. Teams need to understand the real risks, not just track them. That is how we stay ahead of problems instead of reacting after they land.