Is there a problem and what is the nature of that problem?

Whilst the available literature suggests a research gap, this does not, of course, necessarily equate to a problem in reality (Section 2.2). Indeed, some of those interviewed did feel that they (team/organisation/sector) were performing well, although acknowledging the need for ongoing improvement, for example:

I would say that in the last five years, people are [...] understanding what outcomes truly are [...] Therefore we are getting better at articulating in strategic terms, the outcomes we are truly trying to deliver […which] are generally broader than they used to be […The] work still to be achieved is then to be able to connect [...] the individual works you do, to those outcomes. To satisfy yourself that [you] truly are [...] strategy led.

[PR33]³⁶

However, there was a general observation amongst those interviewed that good performance was patchy, whether between sectors, organisations, projects, or over time.³⁷ So, even where areas of good practice were identified,³⁸ other individuals would have a different perspective and could point to where these were incomplete, or could improve. The interviews provided a good degree of triangulation in this regard.

The interviews also unearthed a series of belief-systems in more than one organisation, whereby one part of an organisation believed something had been addressed by another (in contrast with the subject department’s own view that their

36 This section contains quotes and references to interviews to provide examples to support the assessment. This is not a proxy for the underlying assessment.

37 The exceptions being [PR14], [PR20], [PR38], [PR54], [PR59], [PR67-PR68] where no specific issues surfaced.

38 e.g. recent improvements in the rate of delivery of projects to the construction market, project procurement, and asset management.

40 Industry Need and Focus CMB150717_E

practice was rudimentary or essentially non-existent).³⁹ The Controller and Auditor-General (2014b) has raised similar issues.

From the perspective of those within the industry, there is a problem and the overall outcomes were suboptimal in some way. Whilst there may be many reasons contributing to this, the crux of the problem (issue) is the inability to fully deliver appropriate and relevant infrastructure outcomes over the long term:

I mean if you put a bunch of engineers in charge of a project, they’ll do a fantastic job of delivering you a project, but [...] that may not actually deliver what you want to see! ‘Cos they’re focused on design and implementation and doing and all of that good stuff —mission critical — but if you haven’t got your problem definition and solutions sorted out in the first place, you end up with the sorts of problems that [...] we’ve just had a long discussion on! [PR18]

In describing the overarching problem, many interviewees⁴⁰ also pointed to a misalignment between the intended strategic, or system-level, outcomes (or

benefits) and the delivery, or management of those outcomes over the longer term.

What was also clear was that there was no real understanding of the scale and scope of that misalignment, nor the significance of any implications, because system-level outcomes were not being given sufficient attention:

There definitely [is a] loss of value there [in operations and maintenance (O&M)…]. I think that [things like community aspirations] probably gets lost quicker because of the relationships with [...] whoever the

community or stakeholder is, tends to be quite strong in the design phase, but gets lost quite quickly in the O&M phase. Even within the client they’re different people usually. [PR25]

39 e.g. [PR 16], [PR19], [PR21], [PR 25-PR26], [PR32-PR33], [PR37], [PR39], [PR44], [PR47], [PR53-PR54], [PR56].

40 In addition to those quoted below, this surfaced in the following interviews: [PR13], [PR15-PR16], [PR18-PR19], [PR21-PR22], [PR24], [PR26], [PR28-PR33], [PR35], [PR37], [PR39-PR40], [PR42-PR44], [PR46-PR47], [PR70].

Well I think in [...] a long-term analysis point of view there’re some learnings you get [...] at the completion of the project. So it’s the success of the project. But when you have the longer-term [...]

evaluation, it’s the success of the original intent or the intention that led to the project being one of the reasons why [...] the money was spent [...] And I think we don’t do that enough [...] We don’t look at whether the assumptions we made —and [...] it’s probably because the

environment’s always changing and [...] well, one, I think we don’t think about it and two [...] if I think about it, we say ‘oh well, there’s so many variables, and there’s gonna be ups and downs and overall [...]

somehow and somewhere [...] it would balance out’. [PR27]

I don’t think we do well at going back to the [...] three years review and say ‘well, why didn’t that play out?’, and understand why [...] and [...]

informing decisions going forward from that point [...] You just keep stacking more and more jobs on to the [...] schedule of work to be done,

‘cos we want to develop more areas, and we don’t [...] actually draw value out of the decisions we’ve made in the past. We [...] don’t go back and test the outcomes [...] that we thought we were going to do from [...]

the first decision process [...] I can see nowhere where we can sit down and do a real benefit evaluation at the end of the process. [PR64]

From the perspective of those being served by infrastructure, the problem is a significant one. For example, New Zealand local government, where infrastructure-related services are a vital part of council function, has recently surveyed 2,400 residents and 594 businesses (Local Government New Zealand, 2015). That survey found that whilst the results might generally be ‘good’ by being indirectly comparable to countries such as Australia and the UK, this was of “little comfort”.

This was because respondents to the New Zealand survey only rated local government performance at 28 out of 100 (Ibid.). IPENZ (2010) has reported similarly poor customer feedback in other infrastructure sectors.

42 Industry Need and Focus CMB150717_E

So, whilst there is no suggestion of catastrophic failure, this points to a more insidious issue of omission and unrealised potential; of society working around its infrastructure. As Hellström (2007, p. 417) observes:

Disruption does not come about through expansion of a system, but rather because incremental change may embed design flaws gradually deeper into a system, where ad hoc solutions to improve workability hide problems under increasingly thick layers of technological ‘improvements', yet do not eliminate them.

Ironically, whilst the primary issue might be simple to articulate, it is paradoxically complex. In this vein, four key problem dimensions emerged from the interviews:

 Needs: What is delivered and how it is delivered.

 Precepts: What customers believe or expect to be delivered.

 Choices: Whether the choices are appropriate and purposeful, and that compromises have been understood.

 Aptitudes: Whether there is the ability to change both reactively and proactively.

Much of the infrastructure literature currently focuses on ‘doing the right projects right’. Yet the emergent dimensions show that there is more to the problem space than addressing ‘need’ in any simple sense. Furthermore, whilst there was a shared awareness of the importance of improving long-term infrastructure

outcomes at senior levels, the management of system-level benefits also seemed to be the ‘elephant in the room’. Because a piece of infrastructure hasn’t fallen down and may ‘only’ be perceived as (i.e. not ‘actually’) a problem, does not mean that the problem is neither real nor significant as there are more dimensions to the issue than indicated by the hard infrastructure assets alone. Infrastructure

customers often have little or no choice in where they go for infrastructure services, and may not be heard over technical and funding considerations. These are the matters of stakeholder salience and legitimacy⁴¹ developed by Mitchell et al. (1997).

41 “Who and to what managers actually pay attention” (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997); similarly, Ramsden and Spoonley (1993) ask who defines what is important.

And yet, as the industry proverb goes, there is no point building good quality concrete life jackets.

3.3 Generalisability

Interviewees were asked whether the issues they raised related solely to a

particular instance or context described (circumstances, organisation), and whether this was a country-specific issue. Many of those interviewed had worked in more than one country within a variety of different contexts, and had experienced

common themes across these.⁴² Interviewees were therefore well placed to affirm the generic nature of the examples and the issues raised. Their feedback suggests that it is not ‘just’ poor organisational, sector, or country-specific practice, and that the issues are worthy of being explored further. Comments particularly

emphasised differences between theory and practice, and how the issues can stem from an expectation or perception that practice occurs ‘by the book’.

Some interviewees suggested that the problems they described could be addressed within existing asset management practice.⁴³ More often though,⁴⁴ it was held that a different approach was required:

It’s more than asset management […which] is quite simply what do you own, what condition is it in, and how much money do I need to spend [...] to keep it going? This is about [...] looking at how [...] the benefits [in] the business case actually roll out and are affordable in terms of maintaining and renewing that new asset. [PR16]

Feedback also pointed to the timeliness of this research. Comments suggested that there was now an appetite to start exploring and addressing the complex problems being faced in infrastructure administration.

42 e.g. [PR15], [PR24], [PR26-PR27], [PR32], [PR35-PR37], [PR39], [PR48], [PR50-PR51], [PR53], [PR57-PR58], [PR62-PR63].

43 e.g. [PR22], [PR25], [PR37].

44 e.g. [PR15-PR16], [PR18], [PR20-PR21], [PR24], [PR26-PR27], [PR29], [PR32], [PR34-PR36], [PR39], [PR42], [PR47].

44 Industry Need and Focus CMB150717_E