Program pioneers | What does a program look like when it's built to evolve?

Suzanne McCormack, vice president, major programmes director, Europe at Jacobs, has built her career at the intersection of delivery, design and decision-making. From Expo 2020 Dubai to long-horizon public programs in the U.K. like the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, she leads where the stakes are high and timelines are fixed while the margin for error is small. Her approach is grounded in structure, but shaped by experience, particularly in navigating uncertainty and the realities of large-scale stakeholder environments. 

Suzanne doesn’t shy away from complexity. She plans for it. 

Programs are delivered by people operating under sustained pressure. Left unmanaged, that pressure cascades from leadership into teams, from teams into decisions. Suzanne’s role is not to remove that pressure entirely, but to control how it is experienced. 

Her foundation as an architectural technologist still informs how she leads today. Starting on a drawing board and coordinating design inputs to translate ideas into buildable outcomes, Suzanne developed an instinct for how different elements come together. 

At program level, her focus is on creating stakeholder alignment across systems and decisions so delivery remains coherent. 

Signature programs across regions: 

• Expo 2020 Dubai (United Arab Emirates, Middle East) 
• London 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games (U.K., Europe) 
• Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games (U.K., Europe) 
• The Ellinikon (one of Europe’s largest urban infrastructure development investments) (Greece, Europe)

As a program pioneer, Suzanne believes legacy planning must be incorporated into the program. 

It’s more than the long-term use of assets. It’s about who’s there to operate them and how they’re set up to succeed. Programs often focus heavily on delivery, but underestimate the organizational capability required at the point of handover. 

In her experience, the most successful programs make legacy planning part of the early investment in both structure and people, starting with experienced teams to establish control, and then building capability into the client organization over time. Without that, even well-delivered programs can struggle once responsibility shifts, putting long-term program outcomes at risk. 

We asked Suzanne to share some of the lessons she has learned leading complex programs around the world. 

Ask Suzanne

What part of complex programs is most underestimated? 

The scale of change that needs to be managed. 

Even when there’s a defined vision, programs rarely follow a fixed path. Stakeholders shift, briefs evolve and external conditions intervene. On one project, a complete change in operator meant redesigning an asset mid-stream, affecting consultants, contractors and timelines. 

Change is inevitable. What differentiates successful programs is when teams are prepared for it. That means structuring contracts properly and building in contingencies, as well as establishing clear program governance mechanisms to manage adjustments without disrupting delivery. 

What are the most pressing challenges in program delivery today? 

Long-term programs are being delivered within short-term funding frameworks. 

In many delivery environments, budgets are allocated annually, even when programs span 10 to 20 years. This creates uncertainty about access to funding over time and affects everything from procurement timing to supply chain confidence. Programs that should move forward stall and contracts are delayed — and costs increase as a result. 

The issue is the lack of certainty around funding. Addressing this requires legacy planning as well as greater certainty around funding pathways and, where appropriate, alternative funding models that enable programs to maintain momentum while remaining flexible to change. It also requires effective program risk management to anticipate uncertainty before it affects delivery.

What truth do clients often realize too late? 

That planning for legacy can’t be deferred. 

There have been many global programs where legacy planning wasn’t fully considered early enough, resulting in assets that lacked long-term purpose. 

More recent programs have learned from this, but it remains a recurring risk. Defining future use, engaging operators and long-term value from the outset is critical. Without that, even a well-delivered program can fall short of success.

What’s the first signal that a program may be drifting off course? 

The data will tell you if the system is credible. 

Strong programs are built on disciplined reporting, cost, schedule and performance metrics tracked consistently. Variance in those indicators is often the first signal that triggers deeper program risk management activity. 

But beyond metrics, there’s also market intelligence, stakeholder insight, supply chain signals. In one instance, early visibility of a contractor’s financial instability enabled contingency plans to be put in place before it affected delivery. 

It’s both hard data and what’s happening on the ground. 

How has program delivery evolved in recent years? 

In some ways, it’s moved away from proven models. 

There’s been a shift toward staff augmentation approaches, where individuals are embedded into programs rather than fully empowered delivery partners being engaged. 

The difference is accountability. A delivery partner brings institutional capability, collective responsibility and a direct stake in outcomes. That model proved effective in programs like the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

Reintroducing that level of empowerment with aligned incentives is key to achieving better program outcomes at scale.