Major infrastructure programmes are best described as a high-stakes balancing act. Civil servants operate under intense scrutiny. They must navigate political urgency, public expectation and technical complexity, and are often judged more by delays and cost overruns than by the uncertainty they manage.
With the announcement of the UK’s 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy in 2025, the stakes have never been higher. The £725 billion commitment, reinforced by the creation of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), marks a step change in scale.
However, we cannot wait until 2035 to judge whether this strategy is a success; the real litmus test is happening now. We will know within the next few years whether the UK is on track based on how well the nation’s programmes perform in the all-important first phase of delivery. For infrastructure leaders, the challenge lies in converting this momentum into demonstrable programme maturity that can be measured in the next 24 months.
In our conversations with civil servants across major programmes, we often point to Metroselskabet, the owner of the Copenhagen Metro, as an exemplar. Drawing on this work and programmes across the UK, we set out three pillars for creating the robust programme foundations required to deliver long-term value at scale.
Pillar 1: Anchor delivery in realism and outcomes
Complex infrastructure projects tend to suffer from ‘realism gaps’. Projects are inherently defined by uncertainty, yet government processes often require an investment appraisal that attempts to lock everything down at an early stage where such certainty is impossible. This tension frequently leads to projects becoming rigid, budget-led exercises – often with unrealistic expectations attached – rather than flexible, outcome-led investments.
From the outset, Metroselskabet leaders have avoided this trap. The multi-year strategic framework underpinning the next phase of the Copenhagen Metro focuses on articulating a clear future picture: a transport system that is sustainable, connected, reliable, and trusted. Within that framework, we provided support in clarifying an outcome-driven and prioritised justification for the investment decision, ensuring consistent translation of technical aspects into performance and business value for Metroselskabet. Likewise, we clarified which organisational changes will support successful implementation during execution and in the subsequent operational phase.
For UK programmes, this requires a shift beyond the traditional project markers of time, cost, and quality towards governing on intended benefits. While business cases routinely articulate social value and net zero objectives, teams often fail to own them or hardwire them into delivery governance. Under pressure, they are quickly deprioritised or quietly unenforced.
The Elizabeth line illustrates this challenge. While passenger experience, network integration, and long-term capacity were central to the business case, sustaining those outcomes under pressure required a deliberate leadership intervention and a recovery strategy. Societal benefits must be embedded as control parameters from day one – reflected in decision rights, performance measures, and commercial incentives.
Pillar 2: Explore delivery hurdles early and deeply
In infrastructure, it’s significantly harder and more expensive to make changes late in the project lifecycle than at the beginning. The priority, therefore, must be to get the right thinking into the preparations and design before capital is committed, and with key strategic suppliers involved in this process.
Copenhagen Metro upgrades have been rooted in resolving ‘early hassle’ long before physical implementation begins. This has been achieved by dedicating time to test assumptions and pilot interventions alongside stakeholders. We often recommend committing around 10 percent of programme value to structured, collaborative preparation. This discipline works best when leaders set clear readiness thresholds, including both minimum levels of testing before commitments are made, and maximum tolerances beyond which delay or uncertainty triggers intervention.
A small number of UK programmes have been able to apply this approach. The Thames Tideway Tunnel, for example, dedicated time and resources to early ground investigation and contractor-led testing to validate assumptions, reduce risk, and inform sequencing before construction scaled. While this project was enabled by stringent regulation, this level of investment in readiness should not depend on exceptional conditions.
For this to work, the cost of delay must be made explicit to Investment Appraisal Committees and ministers to secure timely approvals. Prevarication is often a consequence of the pursuit of ‘perfection’. Yet no programme is ever perfect – and you cannot keep reworking or delaying decisions beyond a sensible point. When momentum stalls, the foregone benefits and holding costs often dwarf any savings found through further deliberation. Quantifying these costs in a clear way – such as £/day or week – shifts the conversation from pace alone to readiness, ensuring governance encourages the active resolution of uncertainty.
Pillar 3: Manage risk and reward at the system level
Major infrastructure is delivered by systems of organisations working together under sustained leadership. However, we often encounter programme leaders treating delivery as a transactional exercise, or assuming risk can be transferred across the supply chain.
Metroselskabet has set itself up quite differently – preparing for a successful, eyes-open marriage rather than anticipating a divorce. By acting as an intelligent client and retaining end-to-end responsibility across a multi-vendor ecosystem, it aims to manage risk at the system level rather than allowing it to fragment or be misjudged. This lays the foundations for collaboration, adaptability, and innovation over time.
Commercial models must reinforce this alignment, not dilute it. Metroselskabet’s strategic framework prioritises long-term partnerships over short-term contracts. This allows the supply chain to invest and scale up to meet the known demand, while creating the conditions for effective collaboration and continuous improvement.
UK programme leaders are increasingly adopting collaborative commercial approaches, including NEC4 alliance-style contracts, to better align incentives with programme success. Data is a critical enabler of this model. Leaders must treat a Common Data Environment (CDE) as a core governance asset, providing a single source of truth to enable earlier, more confident decision-making. In the UK, Scottish Water’s move to procure a CDE and integrated asset management tools reflects this shift, using real-time data to target investment where it delivers the greatest value.
To realise the UK’s infrastructure strategy, these collaborative approaches must become the norm. Taken together, governance, data, and commercial alignment are not separate choices. They are the prerequisites for enterprise leadership, and they will matter far more as the UK’s infrastructure portfolio scales.
The future of infrastructure: Shaping success by design
The sheer scale of the UK’s 2025 infrastructure strategy demands more than urgency; it requires a radical commitment to programme discovery and design. Importantly, a protected and intentional preparatory phase is not a delay – it is the catalyst for early impact and long-term value.
Working in collaboration with supply chain partners, the opportunity for UK leaders is to build their blueprint for success now – treating the next 24 months as the definitive window for establishing readiness. This will ensure the infrastructure of tomorrow actually delivers its full promise.