Large infrastructure projects have a dubious record - rarely are they delivered on or before the original planned due date. Analysis of every failed project reveals that the delays are due to uncertainties, apparently, outside managers’ direct locus of control.  Is that really the case? Are we sure that no wastage is created due to dysfunctional management practices? The wastage of time and capacity in projects emanates from the following erroneous paradigms of management: <h2>Assumption of (in)adequate resources</h2>Most large infrastructure projects are actually many independent sub-projects, executed in parallel with integration at the end. The managerial and technical bandwidth, as well as the direct resources (civil labour, fabricators, engineers, etc.) required to manage it, are significant. But, in most cases, there is always a scarcity of resources. But at the same time, to complete a project on time, it is considered imperative to work on all fronts sooner rather than later. This, in turn, leads to bad multitasking in engineering and procurement. Delays creep in, and almost every sub-project is delayed in the pre-erection phase. Civil work invariably starts without complete drawings, leading to further interruptions. At the same time, when many civil works fronts are started simultaneously, progress slows down due to the thin assignment of resources. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-1-1735539755_1777297379.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure>Almost every manager in every key area attributes delays to ‘inadequate resourcing’, and all efforts go into recruiting experienced or skilled resources, which seem ever elusive. However, what gets ignored is the rampant wastage of limited resources caused by multitasking across various support departments, leading to inadequate preparation before the start of the site job or poor issue resolution due to stretched management bandwidth.  <h2>Conflict of cost and time</h2>Large projects invariably involve substantial procurement budgets, with significant scope for negotiating price reductions. Typically, using multiple vendors and aggregating various parts in different modules (or sub-projects) is considered the best way to reduce the costs of buyouts. But, at the same time, such aggregations also create a ‘batching effect’ in design and procurement. This leads to a situation where work has to be done in parallel across all sub-projects at the site. In the end, one reaches a stage where commissioning not only has to be done independently for each sub-project but also for the larger integration between sub-projects to go live with the entire operations. This invariably leads to rework and cascading delays. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-2-1735539768_1777297238.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure><h2>Management by milestones</h2>In such projects, it is considered that task detailing and scheduling are beneficial to the overall project. Scheduling of minor tasks is usually done up to Level 4 and even Level 5. This level of detailing in task scheduling leads to buffering and higher overall lead time. When task milestones are converted to a deadline, it invariably leads to adding buffers to plans, most of which is wasted in execution. Surprises are revealed only close to milestones, when delays are no longer recoverable. Issue resolution slows down, blame games become rampant, and plans are rescheduled to follow the execution. Execution drives plans rather than the other way around. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-3-1735539779_1777297409.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure><h2>The way out</h2>The first step is to acknowledge that there are limitations in resourcing and management bandwidth in the current way of working. Once this limitation is accepted, the focus shifts to exploiting the limited bandwidth rather than wasting it by bad multitasking. So, the way ahead is to visualise the large project as a portfolio of small sub-projects and stagger them, considering the limitations in resources. The rules for WIP (work-in-progress) control are put in place in design/procurement, with clear prioritisation of different modules. Work on a module is activated not based on a planned start date, but rather on a module being completed from allowed WIP. The staggering of work fronts in pre-erection leads to staggered execution in civil. completed from allowed WIP. The staggering of work fronts in pre-erection leads to staggered execution in civil. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-4-1735539786_1777297290.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure>The conflict of cost and time is resolved by organising work for collective simultaneous decision-making. The procurement contracts are designed to get aggregation benefits without having to aggregate and batch work modules. Similarly, daily management becomes the guiding management mantra rather than milestone management. The buffers are shifted from the tasks and aggregated at the project level to provide maximum safety where it is needed the most.

Key Takeaways

Most large infrastructure projects - essentially a collection of independent sub-projects executed in parallel and integrated at the end - often face delays. The underlying conflict is between limited resources and the need to balance cost and profitability. However, delays can be avoided without increasing costs.

Improving flow in large infrastructure projects

Large infrastructure projects have a dubious record - rarely are they delivered on or before the original planned due date. Analysis of every failed project reveals that the delays are due to uncertainties, apparently, outside managers’ direct locus of control.  Is that really the case? Are we sure that no wastage is created due to dysfunctional management practices? The wastage of time and capacity in projects emanates from the following erroneous paradigms of management: <h2>Assumption of (in)adequate resources</h2>Most large infrastructure projects are actually many independent sub-projects, executed in parallel with integration at the end. The managerial and technical bandwidth, as well as the direct resources (civil labour, fabricators, engineers, etc.) required to manage it, are significant. But, in most cases, there is always a scarcity of resources. But at the same time, to complete a project on time, it is considered imperative to work on all fronts sooner rather than later. This, in turn, leads to bad multitasking in engineering and procurement. Delays creep in, and almost every sub-project is delayed in the pre-erection phase. Civil work invariably starts without complete drawings, leading to further interruptions. At the same time, when many civil works fronts are started simultaneously, progress slows down due to the thin assignment of resources. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-1-1735539755_1777297367.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure>Almost every manager in every key area attributes delays to ‘inadequate resourcing’, and all efforts go into recruiting experienced or skilled resources, which seem ever elusive. However, what gets ignored is the rampant wastage of limited resources caused by multitasking across various support departments, leading to inadequate preparation before the start of the site job or poor issue resolution due to stretched management bandwidth.  <h2>Conflict of cost and time</h2>Large projects invariably involve substantial procurement budgets, with significant scope for negotiating price reductions. Typically, using multiple vendors and aggregating various parts in different modules (or sub-projects) is considered the best way to reduce the costs of buyouts. But, at the same time, such aggregations also create a ‘batching effect’ in design and procurement. This leads to a situation where work has to be done in parallel across all sub-projects at the site. In the end, one reaches a stage where commissioning not only has to be done independently for each sub-project but also for the larger integration between sub-projects to go live with the entire operations. This invariably leads to rework and cascading delays. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-2-1735539768_1777297207.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure><h2>Management by milestones</h2>In such projects, it is considered that task detailing and scheduling are beneficial to the overall project. Scheduling of minor tasks is usually done up to Level 4 and even Level 5. This level of detailing in task scheduling leads to buffering and higher overall lead time. When task milestones are converted to a deadline, it invariably leads to adding buffers to plans, most of which is wasted in execution. Surprises are revealed only close to milestones, when delays are no longer recoverable. Issue resolution slows down, blame games become rampant, and plans are rescheduled to follow the execution. Execution drives plans rather than the other way around. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-3-1735539779_1777297429.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure><h2>The way out</h2>The first step is to acknowledge that there are limitations in resourcing and management bandwidth in the current way of working. Once this limitation is accepted, the focus shifts to exploiting the limited bandwidth rather than wasting it by bad multitasking. So, the way ahead is to visualise the large project as a portfolio of small sub-projects and stagger them, considering the limitations in resources. The rules for WIP (work-in-progress) control are put in place in design/procurement, with clear prioritisation of different modules. Work on a module is activated not based on a planned start date, but rather on a module being completed from allowed WIP. The staggering of work fronts in pre-erection leads to staggered execution in civil. completed from allowed WIP. The staggering of work fronts in pre-erection leads to staggered execution in civil. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:4000/1558;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//ec-article-12-img-4-1735539786_1777297304.png" width="4000" height="1558"></figure>The conflict of cost and time is resolved by organising work for collective simultaneous decision-making. The procurement contracts are designed to get aggregation benefits without having to aggregate and batch work modules. Similarly, daily management becomes the guiding management mantra rather than milestone management. The buffers are shifted from the tasks and aggregated at the project level to provide maximum safety where it is needed the most.

<h5>Improving flow in large infrastructure projects</h5>

Download PDF

Discover why traditional project management paradigms fail large infrastructure projects. Learn how to eliminate bad multitasking, optimise resources, and accelerate delivery.