India is entering
another large capex cycle. Across manufacturing, infrastructure, healthcare,
education, logistics, real estate, energy and process industries, organisations
are committing thousands of crores to new plants, facilities, expansions and development
projects. These projects are not just engineering or construction assignments.
They are tied to revenue plans, capacity creation, market entry, financing
assumptions and competitive positioning. Delays are no longer only a project
problem
When such projects get
delayed, the loss is much larger than the visible cost overrun. Revenue starts
late, capital remains blocked for longer, market opportunities are missed, and
management bandwidth stays trapped in execution issues. Contractors, suppliers,
consultants and internal teams remain engaged beyond the planned period.
Equipment, manpower and decision-making capacity that should have moved to the
next opportunity remain tied to an unfinished project.
In large capital
projects, delay is not merely a schedule problem. It is a business problem.
Why
large projects are difficult to execute
A large capital project
is not executed by one organisation. It is a temporary system where the owner,
consultants, equipment suppliers, contractors, statutory authorities, operating
teams and multiple specialist agencies have to come together for a limited
period and work toward one common goal.
But they are not one
organisation. Each participant has its own commercial priorities, capacity
constraints and business pressures. An equipment supplier may accept an order
for one project, but the same supplier may also have dozens of other orders to
deliver. Its business objective is to use capacity well, protect margins and
keep multiple customers satisfied. A contractor may be working across several
sites, trying to maximise billing, maintain cash flow and keep its workforce
productive.
These are not wrong
intentions. They are normal business realities. The difficulty begins when the
project owner assumes that all these independent interests can be aligned
simply through more dates, tighter follow-up and stronger pressure.
The
usual response: more dates, more tracking, more pressure
Most large projects are
managed through a familiar method. The project is broken into detailed activities.
Dates are assigned to each activity. These dates are passed on to contractors,
suppliers and internal teams. Once execution begins, every missed date creates
a new round of review, explanation, revised commitment, escalation and
follow-up.
Over time, the project
environment becomes increasingly busy. More dashboards are created. More
trackers are updated. More meetings are held. More software is introduced.
Today, even AI is expected to help synchronise complex execution environments.
But if the underlying
execution logic is flawed, better visibility only shows the delay more clearly.
It does not prevent the delay from being created.
This is why
spreadsheets continue to survive in project environments despite large
investments in project management software. A spreadsheet is not sophisticated,
but it is easy to change. When plans keep shifting, commitments keep getting
revised and dependencies keep breaking, the tool that can be changed fastest
often becomes the most practical tool.
This should make leadership
reflect. If the plan requires constant rewriting, is the real issue the tool,
or the way execution is being structured?
The
belief behind many project delays
The deeper issue is a
belief issue. Most large capital projects are driven, consciously or
unconsciously, by the assumption that if we start more work, push harder, track
tighter and keep everyone busy, the project will finish faster.
This belief is rarely
stated openly, but it shapes execution behaviour every day. Starting more
fronts is seen as progress. A crowded site is seen as momentum. High manpower
deployment is treated as acceleration. Detailed activity tracking is treated as
control. When delays appear, the usual response is to add more reviews, more
follow-ups, more dashboards and more pressure.
But projects do not
finish because many things have started. They finish when the right things are
completed in the right sequence.
When the system is
designed around starting more and keeping everyone busy, it creates a large
volume of unfinished work. Civil work starts in several areas, but few areas
become fully ready for the next agency. Installation begins, but connected
services, access or utilities are not ready. Materials arrive, but drawings or
approvals are pending. Contractors show progress, but handovers do not happen
cleanly.
From a distance, the
project looks active. In reality, the flow toward completion remains weak.
Conflict
1: contractors need billing, projects need handovers
The first major
conflict appears at the contractor level. Contractors are often measured and
paid on the basis of quantity completed. Naturally, they try to maximise
billable progress. If a contractor can work in multiple areas and generate more
volume, that becomes attractive. From the contractor’s point of view, this is
rational. It helps billing, cash flow and resource utilisation.
But the project does
not move forward merely because quantity is produced somewhere. The next agency
needs a complete and usable front.
If civil work is
partially completed in five areas but no area is fully ready for the next
trade, the next contractor cannot execute smoothly. If structures, services or
utilities are completed in fragments, subsequent work becomes interrupted.
Everyone may show progress, but the project still struggles to move toward
completion.
This is a fundamental
difference. Contractors are often pulled toward volume. Projects need
handovers. When the system rewards volume more than completion, scattered
progress increases and real project movement slows down.
Conflict
2: everyone has reasons, so accountability weakens
The second conflict is
accountability. In a delayed project, there is rarely one clean reason for
delay. A supplier may miss a date because inputs were delayed. Inputs may be
delayed because of design changes. Design changes may arise because site
conditions or operational requirements changed. A contractor may underperform
because the front was incomplete. The owner may push for faster work, but the
material sequence may not support it.
By the time the issue
reaches a review meeting, everyone has an explanation, and many of those
explanations are valid.
This is where
conventional accountability breaks down. Management can express frustration,
demand revised commitments and escalate the issue, but if the dependency
structure remains unresolved, the next commitment is also made on weak ground.
The review may create pressure, but it does not create reliability.
Over time, the
organisation becomes very good at explaining delays, but not necessarily better
at preventing them.
Conflict
3: contract dates assume a cleaner world than execution allows
The third conflict is
created by the dates themselves. At the planning and contracting stage, dates
are often built on assumptions that look reasonable on paper: drawings will be
released on time, approvals will not hold up work, vendors will supply as
committed, contractors will mobilise as planned, resources will be available
when required and site conditions will remain stable.
Large capital projects
rarely operate in such clean conditions.
Once one major
assumption changes, the effect travels through the project. A drawing delay
affects procurement. A procurement delay affects installation. A partial
handover affects contractor productivity. A design change affects already
planned work. A late equipment delivery changes the commissioning sequence. The
original dates begin to fall like dominoes.
The project then enters
a continuous cycle of revising dates across agencies and packages. Dates that
were intended to provide control begin to generate more negotiation and
coordination because each new commitment remains dependent on several other
moving parts.
Why
pressure does not solve a structural problem
If work has been released
before it is truly ready, pressure creates confusion. If resources are spread
across too many open fronts, pressure creates multitasking. If contractors are
rewarded for quantity rather than usable handover, pressure creates more
fragmented progress. If revised dates are taken without resolving the
dependency that caused the slip, pressure only creates the next missed
commitment.
The belief that more
activity means faster completion is therefore dangerous. It pushes the project
toward more starts, more open fronts, more local optimisation and more
coordination load. The project becomes busy, but not necessarily faster.
The
Need to Rethink Project Execution
The way leaders define progress
eventually determines the way projects are executed. If progress is represented
by activity across many fronts, the project will continue to accumulate
unfinished work and coordination pressure. If progress is represented by
completed handovers that allow the next stage to move without interruption, the
project begins to behave differently.
This requires a fundamental
rethink of project execution. The question is no longer how to push every
stakeholder harder against dates that keep shifting. The question is how to
organise execution so that work moves towards completion with greater stability
and predictability. For leaders responsible for large capital projects, that is
the belief worth examining.
Author: Mohd Aadil Siddiqui, Director – Realization
India (www.realizationindia.com )