A new report examines how the UK can better deliver the biggest, most challenging infrastructure projects.
Mega-projects take a long time to plan and deliver. But they can be transformational for the economy and society.
These are the small number of public projects that are “particularly costly, innovative, risky, complex and/or strategically important”, according to the National Audit Office (NAO).
High Speed 2 (HS2) and the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games are recent examples.
The scale of mega-projects means the consequences of getting them wrong can be much worse: higher costs, greater disruption and longer delays to essential public services.
The NAO recently published new research on improving the delivery of these projects.
Its recommendations aim to help strengthen how those projects are organised and overseen to reduce the risks.
The report references the ICE's work on learning lessons from HS2.
Here are three takeaways:
1. Give mega-projects special status
The government should categorise infrastructure projects according to their level of risk and strategic importance.
There should be a defined category of mega-projects based on specified criteria.
This would distinguish particularly complex projects which demand different governance arrangements.
One approach could be using project boards to better align funders and delivery organisations and give greater certainty.
2. Be clear about roles and responsibilities…
Mega-projects usually involve multiple government departments and other stakeholders.
It’s crucial that their roles and responsibilities are as clear as possible – especially when it comes to decision-making and accountability.
This clarity must include those not directly involved in governance – such as HM Treasury, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) or the government’s mission boards.
As the ICE has previously highlighted in its work on HS2, getting the right level of oversight for arm’s length delivery bodies is difficult. But it’s a critical factor in a project’s success.
… and prioritise capabilities
Mega-projects take decades to deliver. Governance will need to adapt, and issues will be inevitable over such a timespan.
Resolving them can be especially difficult due to the project’s size and complexity.
It’s therefore essential to have the right people (at the right time), behaviours and culture involved in overseeing mega-projects.
3. Strengthen approvals
The strategic importance of mega-projects often creates pressure to start them quickly.
But vital preparatory work tends to be more difficult on mega-projects.
Committing to budgets and timetables before fully understanding delivery requirements can lead to cost increases or delays later on. As can starting mega-projects without a clear, strategic case that is backed by all stakeholders.
The NAO calls for stronger project gateway reviews and business case approval processes early in the project lifecycle.
Its report references the ICE's call for tighter controls until design and planning are mature enough. And, for decisions on long term projects to be aligned to a central purpose.
NISTA and others in charge of governance should advise government to stop a project if need be. Particularly where early work indicates that delivery is too risky, costly, or unlikely to achieve the required benefits.
The ICE’s view
It’s extremely encouraging to see that the lessons in the NAO’s report align so closely with recommendations put forward by the ICE.
These include an approach to project planning and delivery that prioritises shared vision, and clear governance and decision-making processes.
These themes run through the NAO’s report.
Having set out its approach to infrastructure projects, the government must now focus on successful delivery.
As the NAO notes, the government is already making several key changes it hopes will boost governance, including:
- framing delivery around its five missions
- publishing a new 10-year infrastructure strategy in June
- creating NISTA to combine the work of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Infrastructure Commission
- setting up the Office for Value for Money to reduce waste and inefficiency
The ICE will shortly publish a paper setting out its priorities for NISTA.
Read the report referenced in the NAO's research
The ICE's report on learning lessons from HS2 examined how and why the decision to cancel the project's northern leg was made. It explored decision-making in planning, procurement and delivery on HS2 to understand why costs spiralled and support evaporated. Its lessons for policymakers and practitioners align with the NAO’s findings.
You may also be interested in
- Type
- Infrastructure blog
How can the UK bring global investment back into its infrastructure?
Mike Reader MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Infrastructure, explores barriers to investment.
- Type
- Infrastructure blog
How can countries develop green skills for future infrastructure needs?
A joint UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and Enabling Better Infrastructure (EBI) event explored how Spain and South Africa can prepare individuals to deliver sustainable infrastructure.
- Type
- Infrastructure blog
What should the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority's priorities be?
A credible pipeline, long-term planning, independent advice and public engagement should be priorities for the UK government’s new infrastructure body.