How Big Things
Get Done

Why major infrastructure projects succeed or fail

Joe Incutti

_{Group Managing Director}
_{Kier Infrastructure}

Also on this panel:

Malcolm Dare

_{Commercial Director,}
_{Sizewell C}

Sally Cox

_{Managing Director,}
_EKFB

David Bray

_{Delivery Executive Director,}
_{East West Rail}

Claire Benham

_{Commercial Director,}
_{Defence Infrastructure Organisation}

Quick read

When it comes to major projects, most cost, risk and delay are locked in early. However, we have seen that projects perform better when time and effort are deliberately shifted into design maturity, consenting and production planning.
Integrated design and build is critical to closing the gap between what is designed and what can realistically be delivered on site.
Major projects succeed when customers, contractors and the supply chain work with trust, shared goals and clear accountability.
Leadership and skills at the frontline remain a constraint on productivity and need sustained, structured investment.
Better use of data and digital systems can reduce friction, speed up decisions and improve confidence at handover.

This session addressed an age-old industry challenge: why do large infrastructure projects so often struggle to meet cost, time and outcome expectations, and what learnings have we had from projects that have been delivered successfully, so we can understand what can be done differently. Drawing on experience from major live projects across highways, rail, nuclear and defence, the panel focused on practical changes in how projects are set up and led, rather than contractual or theoretical fixes.

Joe Incutti opened by framing the discussion around confidence and predictability. With a long-term infrastructure pipeline dependent on private as well as public investment, projects need to be organised, repeatable and credible. That credibility is undermined when schemes routinely overrun or fail to deliver the benefits set out at the start.

A recurring theme was the importance of “left shifting” decision-making. Malcolm Dare described how lessons from manufacturing and defence highlight the need to invest earlier in design and production thinking as those sectors design in cost and performance from the outset. By contrast, infrastructure delivery often separates designers, constructors and operators, creating a disconnect that surfaces later as delay or cost growth. The panel was clear that once a project reaches site, many of the most important decisions have already been taken, for better or worse.

If you don't think about it in the design phase, you're somewhat stuffed because that's where you lock in so much.

Malcolm Dare, Sizewell C

Skills development was also seen as a shared responsibility across the supply chain. Examples included structured leadership programmes, targeted training to address specific shortages and initiatives designed to leave a lasting capability beyond the life of a single project. The Roads Academy was cited as a model where customers, contractors and designers learn together, solving real sector problems while developing future leaders.

Integrated design and build was presented as a practical response to this problem. When designers and contractors work together from the start, designs are more likely to reflect buildability, logistics and supply chain realities. Examples were shared from highways and nuclear projects where closer integration, offsite manufacture and earlier logistics planning have improved certainty. The underlying point was not about adopting a single model, but about ensuring that design decisions are informed by how assets will be delivered and operated.

If you really focus on getting the right level of design before you procure, before you start on site, then you can start to introduce some of that left shifting.

David Bray, East West Rail

_{^{Illustrated highlight from the panel discussion - by}}_{^{David Lewis}}

Several speakers reinforced that design maturity is not only a technical issue. Sally Cox highlighted the role of consenting, approvals and stakeholder engagement, which often drive programme risk on major schemes. Mobilising large workforces before these elements are settled can create significant cost exposure. David Bray echoed the need for the Rail sector to focus on having the right design at the right level of maturity before procurement and construction, rather than measuring progress by volume of drawings produced.

You can deliver anything with the right team, but it’s about trusting also. I think quite often where these big projects go a little bit to the right where they shouldn’t be is that there isn’t that trust between client and contractor.

Sally Cox, EKFB

People and leadership ran through the discussion as equally important to technical solutions. Major projects were described as fast-moving, complex businesses that rely on trust between customers and delivery partners. Where that trust breaks down, progress slows. The panel emphasised the role of frontline leadership in driving productivity, arguing that investment in supervisors and junior leaders is essential if the industry is to deliver the scale of work anticipated over the next decade.

The role of data and digital systems featured strongly. David spoke about the need for a digital backbone that provides a single source of truth across a programme, enabling better decisions and reducing avoidable risk. Malcolm was direct about the cost of poor data, noting that too much time is wasted arguing over basic facts rather than focusing on delivery. Sally added that assurance processes on major projects can generate vast volumes of documentation, and that the industry needs to simplify how information is captured, managed and handed over.

Claire Benham set out the pressures facing defence infrastructure: high governance requirements, affordability constraints and the need to demonstrate value for money. She acknowledged that customers do not always make it easy for the industry to engage, particularly around scope definition, risk allocation and procurement. Her message was that better outcomes depend on earlier engagement, clearer thinking about where risk should sit, and partnerships that hold when conditions become difficult. Collaboration, she argued, needs structure and measurable outcomes, not just good intent.

We are only going to be better if we are better together. It is very, very clear that we at times have created environments that make it really, really hard for you to engage, whether that’s in procurement or delivery.

Claire Benham, DIO

The session closed by returning to the theme of certainty. Panellists pointed to political and pipeline uncertainty as a real risk, particularly where programmes are slowed, re-scoped or stopped after commitments have been made. The industry performs best when objectives are clear, economically sound decisions are pursued, and projects are then delivered with discipline and consistency.

Key take-aways

Strong project performance starts before site mobilisation, with mature design, clear scope and informed production planning.
Trust, leadership and skills across the whole supply chain are as critical as technical solutions.
Better use of data and digital tools can remove friction and improve confidence in delivery and handover.
Projects need clarity of purpose and a stable pipeline if the industry is to invest, plan and deliver with confidence.

_{^{Turning insight into delivery}}