The certainty trap: Why major infrastructure delivery needs better systems for uncertain times

Complex projects frequently fail. Take any large-scale business transformation initiative, for example. They involve tasks, stakeholders and external forces moving in ways that are usually impossible to predict. The result, according to the Project Management Institute (PMI), is that a third of them don’t meet their original goals.

Those delivering critical infrastructure that society relies on can recognize this pattern. 

Every major infrastructure program begins with a plan and a set of assumptions about how delivery will progress. Then reality arrives. Approvals take longer than expected. Funding conditions shift. Technical issues become harder to solve at scale. People and organizations resist change. 

But PMI’s research also points to the other side of the equation. The projects that are designed to absorb change are five times more likely to succeed.

That’s where agile leadership and the discipline of program management demonstrate their value: bringing together risk, data, governance and the supply chain so decisions are expedited and delivery isn’t delayed.

The certainty gap 

Major infrastructure programs are planned across decades, funded across institutions and political cycles and delivered through supply chains that can stretch around the world.

The asset is only part of the challenge. A tunnel, a data center, a road — each piece of the built environment sits inside a wider network of dependencies: power, land, permits, materials, labor, local consent and long-term operations. Each new relationship adds decisions. And each decision can move cost, schedule and outcome. A permitting delay may alter the construction sequence, which then changes labor needs, procurement timing and the conversations with funders or stakeholders. A supply issue may begin as a logistics problem and end as a design trade-off.

The result is a widening certainty gap: McKinsey’s review of a sampling of 300 billion-dollar-plus megaprojects found average cost overruns of about 80% and schedule delays of about 50%. Investors and communities need confidence that a program will deliver on its objectives. Yet these programs themselves are now carrying more uncertainty than ever. 

Digital rehearsal 

Too many programs still treat contingency as a percentage of contract value. Putting risk as a line item in a budget creates a false sense of certainty and can hide the question that matters most: where does the exposure actually sit? 

A better approach starts with identifying the risks themselves. What could happen, how likely it is, what impacts it would have on cost and schedule, and which decisions would reduce exposure while there is still time to act. It requires planning and effort, which is why it’s often squeezed by the pressure to start building. 

Digital tools empower teams to rehearse those decisions while they’re still choices. Before construction is too advanced, teams can test scenarios in a virtual environment and see how a change in one part of the program impacts other outcomes. That gives a clearer view of risk before design parameters are locked in.

Data centers show where this is heading. As AI facilities move toward gigawatt scale, interdependent factors like power and cooling must be considered together. A decision about cooling affects energy demand. A decision about energy demand affects grid connection, backup power and operating cost. A change in the external environment, from extreme heat to water stress, can alter how the facility performs and what it requires from local infrastructure. 

Digital twins allow design and delivery teams to test those relationships earlier. They can model how a data center might perform during periods of extreme heat, and what that means for power use. This rehearsal provides a way to understand the consequences of decisions before they become harder to change. 

The same discipline can be applied to the program itself. Bringing cost, schedule, risk and project data into a more connected view, and including insights from previous programs, enables leaders to see where assumptions are changing, what that means for delivery and where a decision is needed. It moves the value of digital rehearsal from the asset to the management of the program.

Despite the benefits, the industry is still uneven in how it uses digital solutions. Tools for risk monitoring, supply chain tracking and sustainability assessment remain underused

Partnership before pressure 

Major programs are shaped long before construction begins. The procurement strategy, governance model and commercial terms decide who’s in the room early enough to see risk forming and who has the authority to act.

Partnership has to start early. When delivery expertise is brought in after the model has been set, teams are often left managing choices they had little chance to shape and influence.

The stronger model brings the infrastructure owner, delivery team and supply chain closer to the problem while there’s still time to influence the program. That doesn’t remove tension. Large programs will always face levels of commercial pressure, political scrutiny and technical uncertainty. But it empowers teams to see trade-offs earlier and work through them together.

A living example of this model in action: the Port of Alaska Modernization Program. It relies on a long-term, phased approach and deep stakeholder engagement where seismic risk, environmental constraints, operations and supply chain resilience must be considered together before construction decisions narrow the options. By bringing program management discipline to those choices early, the work protect a critical national logistics gateway while giving the owner and delivery teams a clearer basis for decisions as cost, schedule and technical pressures rise. construction decisions narrow the options. By bringing program management discipline to those choices early, the work protects a critical national logistics gateway while giving the owner and delivery teams a clearer basis for decisions as cost, schedule and technical pressures rise. 

Shared ownership can extend a program’s ambitions 

Infrastructure programs are a human endeavor — they succeed when people are committed and believe they are contributing to something larger than their individual scope of work. Contractors, suppliers, technical specialists and operators can all make decisions that shape cost, schedule and outcome.

If the supply chain is engaged only to deliver a fixed specification at the lowest price, they have limited reason to improve the whole program. This approach may be commercially competitive, but it leads to execution capability and transactional delivery. In contrast, in an environment where shared ownership co-exists, suppliers feel empowered to identify delivery risks and opportunities to improve cost and productivity. 

The Thames Tideway Tunnel shows what this can look like in practice. The “super sewer” project, led by Tideway, was designed to serve London’s growing population for at least 120 years, while also creating a lasting legacy for the city. Jacobs supported Tideway in embedding skills, education and employment objectives into supply chain performance, helping turn the client’s ambitions into measurable outcomes across the program. 

The program created more than 4,000 direct, sustainable jobs, established more than 150 apprenticeships, generated an estimated $129 million in social value and engaged more than 80,000 young people in STEM. It shows how clear client leadership, supported by effective program management and supply chain engagement, can connect infrastructure delivery with longer-term outcomes for communities.  

From delivery to outcomes 

A major program is easy to describe by what it builds: a tunnel, terminal, treatment plant or grid connection. But that’s rarely why it exists. It exists to provide a function for communities and businesses.

That’s why program management must begin early, before the design is set and the commercial model is fixed — to ensure the asset can stay connected to its purpose when pressures arise and complexity increases. 

Every major program will face conditions it couldn’t have fully anticipated. The programs best placed to succeed have more than a plan. They have the systems, relationships, culture and information to keep evolving and make more informed decisions as conditions change.