A stronger approach to delivering UK infrastructure projects
There is now overwhelming evidence that infrastructure development through shaping and delivery is more effective when the project owner is strong and capable.
This is increasingly the case as major projects become more complex due to complex stakeholder trade-offs, the switch to renewals rather than new build, and suppliers lacking the capacity to have risks transferred to them. The capabilities of project owners underpin developing a strong business case, governing the project delivery organisation, and engaging commercially with suppliers.
Yet UK central government has never had an internal body that holds and develops these owner project capabilities, preferring to rely on external consultants.
However, recent reports have suggested this should change. The Boston Consulting Group report on Reshaping British Infrastructure, the Stewart Report on HS2, and the Institution of Civil Engineers report on project costs, all suggested some kind of centre of excellence on infrastructure delivery is required within Whitehall.
Learning from other countries
The recent report that I authored for the Association for Project Management sketches out what such a centre of excellence might look like as a UK Infrastructure Delivery Agency (UKIDA). This was launched in Portcullis House on 10th June to two All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) - Infrastructure and Project Delivery - stimulating a lively discussion.
The report specifically looked at what we can we learn from other countries and selected France (Corps des Ingénieurs des Ponts, des Eaux et des Forêts: IPEF), Netherlands (Rijkswaterstaat), and Denmark (Sund & Bælt Holding A/S) as case studies.
It is worth stressing that the organisations in these countries are all very different, but they all place owner project capabilities at the heart of government. For instance, IPEF operates as a centre of excellence for French infrastructure development, Rijskwaterstaat sits within the Ministry of Infrastructure owning and operating the ‘dry’ road and ‘wet’ canal and flood protection networks, while Sund & Bælt is responsible for developing and operating Denmark’s fixed cross-water transportation links.
What might UKIDA do?
First, we need clarity about scope. Here in the UK, the regulated utilities have developed strong owner project capabilities for their programmes within the five-year regulatory cycles. UKIDA would not cover those programmes. Rather it would cover those more complex programmes that do not fit easily within those cycles such as new reservoirs, the Lower Thames Crossing and, of course, the likes of Crossrail and HS2.
Second, it would complement NISTA (the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority) but not be part of it. This is because NISTA has important project governance responsibilities and so there would be a conflict of interest if UKIDA were part of NISTA. UK infrastructure strategy would also stay with NISTA and sponsorship with the relevant government department as the aim of UKIDA is to support delivery, not strategy development.
Third it would be a public private partnership to ensure that market-leading salaries and conditions are available.
Practical measures
In terms of practical measures UKIDA could do the following:
- Support sponsoring departments in shaping major projects, ensuring that delivery considerations are taken into account prior to the depositing of a Hybrid Bill or application for Development Consent
- Provide delivery certainty to attract international investors
- Support the mayoralties in the development of their own infrastructure development strategies
- Support the start-up of arms-lengths project owner bodies such as HS2 Ltd and Crossrail Ltd
- Provide a consistent, experienced commercial counterpart for delivery partners
- Carry out the Project Representative (P-Rep) role on behalf of sponsoring departments
- Act as a knowledge base of best practice, championing the digital transformation of infrastructure development
- Promote standardisation and off-site production across infrastructure sectors
- Collect, hold and analyse project out-turn data to ensure early phase estimations for major projects are based on rigorous benchmarking
- Hold a centralised database on supplier delivery performance
In summary, this is an ambitious institutional reform that will take time to mature, but it is worth considering seriously, and the journey towards that reform will undoubtedly stimulate a debate on how to move forwards with improving the development of larger cross-cutting infrastructure projects that the country needs if it is to achieve our collective aspirations for the future around green growth and energy security.
If you'd like to explore these ideas further, I discuss them in more depth on the Leading Major Projects programme, where I teach alongside colleagues with extensive experience in project leadership, and we draw on practical examples from major infrastructure projects.
