The Questions Capital Projects Leaders Are Facing Today

• We have a multi-billion-dollar capital agenda ahead of us. How do we know we're set up to deliver it?

  A lot of organizations aren't set up to deliver a multi-billion-dollar capital agenda, and the gaps only surface once commitments are made and execution is underway.

  The issue is rarely a single failure. It's a compounding effect: governance that doesn't match project scale, decision rights that are unclear at critical milestones, and delivery capability that was sized for a smaller portfolio. The result is delayed decisions, scope drift, and cost overruns that become structural.

  The starting point is an honest diagnostic:

  • Does our stage-gate governance actually stop or redirect projects, or just rubber-stamp them?
  • Are critical-path decisions owned by named individuals with authority to act?
  • Do we have the delivery capacity and capability the portfolio demands - or are we stretching the same team across too many fronts?

   

  Addressing these early is the difference between a capital plan that compounds value and one that compounds risk.

• How can we maximize project value during pre-FID and set up delivery for success?

  Most value erosion happens before a final investment decision is made – through over-specification, optimistic baselines, and insufficient readiness on the things that actually gate execution. 

  Maximizing value pre-FID means locking in the right decisions while they're still reversible: 

  • Pressure-testing the investment thesis and enforcing scope discipline, not just validating the business case the project team wants approved
  • Securing execution prerequisites that cause the longest delays if missed e.g., permits, long-lead equipment, key contractor commitments
  • Setting cost and schedule baselines grounded in reference-class data, not bottom-up estimates built by the teams delivering them 

  This is where the strongest project economics are won or lost. Getting it right reduces downstream rework and gives leadership genuine confidence in the numbers at FID. 

• Our capital project is over schedule, over budget, or falling short on quality. How serious is the situation, and how can we recover?

  When a project is off track, it’s typically more serious than the current reporting suggests. Problems on capital projects rarely arrive in isolation – they compound along the critical path, and by the time they're escalated, the recovery window has narrowed. 

  The instinct is to add resources or accelerate everything. That rarely works. Recovery means focusing on the few things that actually determine outcomes: 

  • Isolating the true critical-path drivers -- not the longest task list, but the dependencies that gate completion
  • Resetting scope and sequencing where the original plan is no longer viable, including hard conversations with contractors on rebaselining Strengthening governance so that leadership sees problems at the decision point, not three months after 

  Early, targeted intervention can still recover significant value. But it requires honesty about where the project actually stands – not where the last report said it was. 

• How can owners/ developers and contractors work together more effectively to improve project outcomes?

  The default relationship is transactional – governed by contract clauses, change orders, and claims. That model consistently produces adversarial dynamics, delayed decisions, and value leakage on both sides.  

  Better outcomes come when owners and contractors are aligned on value, incentives, and decision-making—not just contract compliance. 

  Misalignment often leads to disputes, delays, and inefficiency. Improvement comes from: 

  • Incentive structures that reward project outcomes, not just contractor utilization -- e.g., shared upside for schedule acceleration rather than margin protection on change orders
  • Clear escalation and decision rights so disputes are resolved in days, not months
  • Genuine integration of contractors into the planning and execution rhythm, not just status reporting after the fact 

  This isn't about being "more collaborative" in the abstract but shifting the relationship from adversarial to performance-driven—resulting in faster delivery, fewer disputes, and improved cost outcomes. 

• How will AI and digital tools reshape capital project delivery across engineering, construction management, etc.?

  AI and digital tools will reshape project delivery, but most organizations are capturing a fraction of the potential because they're layering tools onto broken processes. 

  The highest-value applications aren't dashboards and reporting. They're capabilities that change when and how decisions get made: 

  • Predictive schedule and risk analytics that flag slippage weeks before it hits the critical path
  • Real-time contractor and productivity performance tracking that replaces lagging monthly reports
  • Engineering and design optimization that reduces rework before construction begins 

  To harness the full impact, governance will need to evolve alongside the tools. AI that surfaces a risk two weeks early is worthless if the decision-making process still takes six weeks to respond. The organizations getting this right are redesigning governance and decision rights around what the technology now makes possible – not just digitizing the status quo.