Ballooning infrastructure costs could be quelled if Whitehall embraced clear data
Infrastructure is one of the government’s latest passions. It could be, in ministers’ eyes, a foundation for Global Britain and a way out of the economic decline that Covid-19 has brought in its wake. We have a National Infrastructure Strategy, and the prime minister, announcing it last summer, admitted it sounded “positively Rooseveltian” and pledged to “build build build”
However, the focus of the interested public is more than ever on value for money, and even the sharp-eyed bean-counters of the National Audit Office cannot be everywhere, all the time. The numbers are so dizzying that they seem to become unreal—HS2 is now expected to cost £107bn, while delivering full fibre broadband across the country would come in at £35bn. Public-sector infrastructure projects are hardly known for coming in under budget.
But if we use data better, we could save £23bn a year, or so says the Project Praxis group at the University of Warwick in a new report on project data analytics and infrastructure projects.
Professor Naomi Brookes, chair of complex programme management at Warwick and leader of the research group, said “Project data analytics involves using data better to support decision-making in project delivery.” The problem, perhaps surprisingly, is neither technology nor a lack of data analysts; rather, it is the quality of data we use which leads to cost overruns and delays.
The study, conducted by Warwick and the data consultancy company Oakland Group, was informed by the views of major practitioners like Transport for London, Network Rail, Severn Trent and Sellafield. These encompass some of the biggest areas for public infrastructure, communications, utilities and energy generation. It is hard to think of a big-ticket item on the government’s wish list which does not fall into one of these categories.
If project data analytics can provide a key to unlock major savings, we need to figure it out – fast.
So what do we need to do? One senior government official, interviewed anonymously for the report said project data analytics would not be a “silver bullet”. Certainly we cannot expect change overnight. A critical part of it is creating virtuous circles; quick wins need to be used as models for further progress, there needs to be greater transparency between different parts of organisations and departments, and there must be genuine accountability.
Accountability here is not merely a matter of identifying culprits for when things go wrong or knowing who the scapegoat will be. Though a no-blame culture will do us little favours. It is about knowing where things went wrong and why, and using that data for future projects.
Though the details of the study are technical, this is neither new nor particularly impenetrable. Accountability, transparency and expertise are qualities which should be ingrained in Whitehall and its ilk. For this, there needs to be a fundamental change of culture with greater training and development and greater exploitation of outside expertise.
Like many simply explained solutions, it is not easy to do, nor is it swift. No ministerial wand can wave and instantly make outcomes better. But, put bluntly, Whitehall has to “feel” more professional and more foresighted, less like an organism rushing to catch up and making do with mending. If that culture can be achieved, the potential to do big things better and more cheaply is vast.