Why Mega Projects Keep Failing
Peter Luff argues, “it’s not what you do but the way that you do it.”
Across every major sector – from infrastructure to healthcare, technology to clean energy – organisations are pouring billions into capital mega projects. Ambition is high. So are the stakes. But outcomes? Still depressingly familiar. Projects arrive late. Budgets blow up. Outcomes underwhelm. Trust breaks down. Teams burn out. This isn’t just inconvenience; it’s colossal waste, eroded trust and missed opportunities. The data is clear: over 90% of large projects miss their targets. Some run 80% over budget. Fewer than 1% deliver on time, on budget and to the satisfaction of stakeholders. If these were clinical trials or financial audits, the approach would’ve been overhauled long ago. So why does this keep happening?
The problem isn’t the plan.
It’s the system Most organisations treat delivery issues as process problems; planning, scheduling, procurement. But these are just surface symptoms not the problem. The real issue runs deeper and it’s how people coordinate, make promises, respond to surprises, and manage shared effort under pressure. Or more precisely, how they don’t. Coordination failure is the invisible tax on every capital project. It shows up in half-finished plans, vague roles, mismatched timelines, secondguessing, and ‘just in case’ buffers that inflate everything. And the tools we use – Gantt charts, milestone trackers, risk registers – don’t touch the core of the problem. Worse, many delivery frameworks assume people will collaborate once the contracts are signed. But collaboration doesn’t follow from structure. It follows from trust.
A better way of working
Experience from some of the most complex delivery contexts in the world – from semiconductor megaprojects to public infrastructure – shows that you don’t fix broken delivery with tighter control. You fix it by creating a system that enables people to make clear commitments, adapt fast, and support each other to deliver them. That system has four core components:
1. Transformational leadership
Big projects require big leadership, of a different kind. Leaders must step into a new role: not just technical sponsors or budget holders, but community convenors. That means: Calling the room together – clients, suppliers, designers – and setting shared direction early. Challenging the behaviours that quietly kill collaboration: turf protection, blame, gamesmanship. Creating space for teams to solve problems together, not escalate endlessly upward. And sometimes stepping back at the right moment, to let others step up. Leadership in these environments is not about heroic control. It’s about enabling collective courage.
2. Transformational governance
The governance models seen on most major projects are built for compliance, not performance. They track outputs, not outcomes. They escalate decisions, but rarely resolve them. A stronger governance structure: Aligns decision-making to different time horizons – strategic, tactical, operational – so the right people are focused on the right problems. Builds feedback loops between layers of the system, where insight f lows up, not just pressure down. Uses structured meeting rhythms, clear decision protocols, and even rotating chairs to avoid bureaucracy and stagnation.
3. Shared risks and rewards
If a project’s financial model is still rewarding people for their own eff iciency, not collective success, it’s f ighting the wrong battle. Better commercial models reset around: Open-book costing and shared f inancial baselines. Profit pools tied to total project performance, not individual workstreams. Transparent contracting that makes innovation safe, not risky. And budget-holder accountability for the things that can’t be outsourced: big decisions, environmental risk, political exposure. This isn’t just fairer. It’s smarter. Because when everyone shares the outcome, everyone pulls in the same direction
4. Commitment-based management
This is the engine room of how things actually get done. In this model, work happens through explicit commitments, not assumptions, not heroics, not vague ‘next steps.’ Teams can be trained in: ❙ Making clear, time-bound, costed promises to each other. ❙ Listening for what’s really being asked, not just what’s said. ❙ Managing their own moods and energy, and coaching others out of resentment, fear, or resignation. ❙ Surfacing ‘surprises’ fast, so recovery is possible before things derail. It’s not just about communication. It’s about coordination as a discipline. When done right, it creates a rhythm of trust that carries the team forward even through turbulence.
Shift the system
When projects adopt these principles, they can cut delivery costs dramatically, reduce delays, and help overloaded supply chains operate like high-trust partners. But the most powerful outcomes aren’t just commercial. They’re cultural. ❙ Teams stop blaming and start building. Meetings get shorter, sharper and more results focused. Decisions move faster. People feel safe enough to be bold again. You don’t just get better delivery. You get people who actually want to work together again.
Delivery to community
Every complex project is more than just a structure. It’s a community of people trying to make something diff icult happen, together. But communities don’t self-organise. They need intention. Governance. Language. Leadership. And a way of working that supports trust, not stress. Mega projects will always be challenging, but they don’t have to keep failing in the same ways. By shifting from control to coordination, from contracts to commitments, we can turn projects into communities that deliver not just outcomes, but trust and lasting capability.
You don’t just get better delivery. You get people who actually want to work together again.
Curious how these principles could transform your next mega project? Reach out to Peter at pluff@vision.com to explore how Vision helps organisations turn coordination into outcomes.
