Navigating Major Programmes

You're listening to Navigating Major Programs, the podcast that aims to elevate conversations in the infrastructure industry. We'll press the industry's experts on the complexity of megaproject management, emerging artificial intelligence, and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over two decades of major program management experience. Most recently, I acquired my master's in major program management from Oxford University's Business School, which shook my beliefs about major programs. Now it's time to shake yours. Hello, everyone, and welcome to a new episode of Navigating Major Programs.

I'm here today with an esteemed panel of colleagues and friends, if I can say so much. I'm joined today by John Allen, Matti Semiotiki, Suzanne Moreland, and Kirsten Watson. Maybe I can ask each one of you to introduce yourself, but today's conversation, before we do that, today's conversation is about the importance of leadership in major programs and leadership skills at a major program management level. But before we get into that interesting discussion, maybe looking at my screen, John, can you just give a bit of background about yourself?

Well, yeah, I think firstly, Ricardo, it's the first time I've been called esteemed, so thank you for that. My name's John Allen. I sort of head up the future of infrastructure group as the executive director, which is a group made up of leading companies, including Atkins Realis being one and ACOM who are both participating today. So thank you for inviting us. Maddy? Yeah, thanks, Ricardo. I'm Matty Simiaticki. I'm the director of the Infrastructure Institute and a professor of geography and planning at the University of Toronto. I've been interested in major project delivery and how to achieve on-time and on-budget projects for some time now. And I'm really fascinated by this topic of how we work with governments and industry practitioners to turn this dream of smooth project delivery into a reality. Suzanne?

Hi, I'm Suzanne Moreland. I am the Global Program Management Practice Lead for AECOM. And my background is in delivering major programs. And I've been working with University College London and the Cambridge Smart Infrastructure Organization to help build out more competence in both sides of the table so the asset owners and the consulting world and building them together so that we have more synergy across that spectrum of delivery.

Thank you, Suzanne. And last but not least, Kirsten.

Hi, everyone. Hi, Ricardo. Thanks for hosting the conversation. Yeah, I work at ACOM with Suzanne. I'm on the transit side of the business in the Canada region, involved, obviously, in a lot of the big projects that are happening around the GTAA and seeing where good leadership makes a difference and some of the work that we need to do around leadership. I'm also the co-chair of FIG, so working with John and the team to try and influence the conversation and get government to the table on this one.

Okay, well, this is definitely an esteemed panel, so I wasn't wrong. Thank you all for joining me. So I'll kick it off because I believe, I mean, this conversation, I mean, I was privileged and fortunate enough to getting an executive education on and around major program management. Suzanne, I went to the other institution in the UK. But for me, it was a transformative experience, even though I had 20 plus three years in major program management in different levels, different functions. But the master degree that I did in major program management was really eye-opening and really gave me a different perspective about project management.

And understanding the nuances between project and major projects and the skills and resources that are needed in major programmers as different in the skills and resources needed for projects. I don't think you need more or less. It's just it is slightly different skill set. And while I was getting this education, I've learned that in the UK, the public sector, the Treasury Department actually puts most of the most senior project leader of major projects through a similar master, a similar program that I went through called the Major Project Leadership Academy.

which is really, you know, the two programs, the master and MPLA, a twin program, assistant programs, one offered to the public and one offered to government employees. And so as I was learning about that, I realized there was a bit of a gap in Canada about that type of education. I mean, we couldn't quite figure out an institution and then Having conversation in the industry with Maddy, bumping into Maddy, Maddy into John, and realized that there were other people looking at this and thinking about this problem. And so this is just us coming together, following a very successful panel we had with Fig, which was limited.

So I felt, why don't we try to broadcast a bit more for a podcast and try to... send out the message and have a broader conversation. So that's why we're here today. And we can take this conversation wherever we want. But maybe, Mari, since you and I had, you know, I think it was a year and a half ago, we talked about this when you first came on the podcast. You know, what has been your journey about and what is your interest in pursuing and pushing this agenda?

Yeah, thanks, Riccardo. I think where I start, I've been studying as a researcher mega projects in Canada and abroad for the better part of two decades now. And what I've been finding over the years is in Canada, we have a disastrous track record of delivering big projects. That may sound bleak and like hyperbole, but if you go look at the figures and facts on what's been happening, it's terrible. I mean, we have projects that not only go over budget and are late, but cost so much more than anywhere else in the world to deliver similar projects. And the hypothesis in Canada when I started studying these big projects was that it was a procurement model problem.

The problem was that government were delivering these problems, these projects, and they were delivering them using traditional methods where they were ultimately bearing all of the risk. They were designing the projects themselves. They were putting the projects out to tender and then getting bids back and trying to project manage the projects on their own. And because there was no skin in the game, the projects were going way over budget and the governments were getting fleeced. So the hypothesis for the better part of the last two decades has been if you just come up with a better procurement model, we can solve this problem.

And essentially Canada gravitated towards public-private partnerships for big public infrastructure projects. And so for two decades, that was the modern and contemporary way of doing things. And the projects got more expensive and continued to have many of the same problems. And the theory was that essentially the model would smooth out any problems with the people delivering the projects and their misaligned interests. And it turns out that after two decades, I think it's fair to conclude that That it's not just the model.

It's actually this is a really human business that people deliver projects and their skill and capacity matters and makes a big difference between a project that will be successful and a project that won't. And over time, I think more recently, the fad of public private partnerships has waned. the hype around them has really left the building.

And now we're talking about facts and we're trying to understand how do we make these projects better at a time where we know that infrastructure is going to play a huge role in Canada's future prosperity, given all of the challenges we're facing around trade wars, around the country's continuity and sticking together, that we're going to need big infrastructure in order to keep us prosperous and together. And yet, at the same time, we have to deliver these projects effectively. And I think this idea of leadership now is key. Leadership at the political level, but also leadership at the project level.

And The professionals in the room who do this stuff for a living can tell us much more about how one goes about it. But I think we're now focusing on people as much as on business models and on project delivery models. I think that's really an important step forward.

John, maybe like obviously jumping on you and Kirsten, you as the two leaders of FIG and FIG, this is something that FIG picked up as well. So from a public policy standpoint, I mean, why you felt FIG was interested in this and was good for the industry?

Yeah, I mean, the whole sort of focus for FIG is really to sort of try and come to the table with solutions. So sort of talking to the members and understanding what do they see as sort of really driving issues on projects. So we did some work on risk and transit projects and did a paper that came out of that. And I think to Matty's point, it's about people. So when you're delivering these huge projects, there's... a number of people that you've got from different types of organizations that are motivated in different ways. And to get the best out of that sort of different group with sort of different motivations, different skill sets, different interests, it's hard.

So you have to prepare those people to succeed. And I think sort of one of the things that we sort of highlighted in that risk in transit project that there's this sort of whole, when projects go wrong, there's this sort of scapegoating of, you know, whose fault was it? We want a name and we want to blame them totally, which I think is fair to a point. But if you're not preparing those people to succeed, it's, it's also not really fair to sort of point all the fingers at them.

So just sort of talking to the FIG members and you sort of look at what are the sort of common issues across these projects and it's stuff about sort of handling risks when projects go off track, how do you sort of react to that? It's sort of avoiding disputes, keeping things out of disputes. It's better communication. It's sort of motivation. It's collaboration. And it's really the sort of art side of the project as opposed to, I think we're pretty good on the sort of more fixed elements, the processes, the engineering, all that technical stuff. I think is pretty good.

Where we need to really focus on is the people bit so people can make decisions more confidently, quickly, know how to motivate people on their own team, know how to sort of get the best out of the contractors and suppliers that are working on these projects. So I think that was really the motivation behind it and how do you do that is provide some sort of structured training so people are prepared and they've got the tools and the experience and have that sort of network where they can come to the table and feel confident and make decisions quickly and so that's really the emphasis or the driver behind it.

If I can just pick up on that as well from, you know, we don't, there's no resistance to this idea, right? I think that when we talk to the members of FIG and we talk to other people in the market and in the industry and, you know, in our government partners, there is a recognized need. for these leadership skills to stand up these organizations of hundreds of people from different companies with different interests, different skill sets. And how are you going to pull all those people together to pull best for projects? feel like the conversation is, yes, we need this. We recognize the need for some leadership training.

And we do recognize that we have to up our game around major project leadership. So I think the work that FIG has done in those conversations has really advanced where we are. And I think you made reference, Ricardo, to the earlier session we had with, I think there was about 40 or 45 people there. And everybody embraced it, I felt. I felt a lot of really positive energy in that conversation for the idea.

And Suzanne, maybe before I come to you, I just want to contextualize something I said in the opening, which is, you know, major project versus projects. And I think I was actually listening to a podcast this week and somebody said it very well, but we all know intuitively, but we kind of forget, you know, what the reason a major project is different than a project is because a major project, if you think... You know, a project that might be five years long or six years long with the planning and development. We're talking, you know, $5 billion that, you know, that's a five-year program. That's a billion dollar a year. When you look at the, when are you going to have companies, businesses?

Like there aren't many 1 billion companies a year in revenues and there aren't many that go from zero employee to thousands of employees in a heartbeat to deliver that. And then they disappear after five years. So the context is very, very different than a project, right? Where you have resources on standby or you might pull resources because you have them available. And, you know, it's just a smaller scale. You know, I always like to contextualize it because a billion dollar company a year, that's a massive company. And we kind of assume that any person or most people with some civil engineering or program management training can just jump in that role and be successful.

I want to agree with everything that everybody says. And it kind of goes back to what Kirsten said. There's no argument. that this is needed. You can see it around the world. Everybody looked, all of the different countries looked for, they understood that it's over time, over budget, over and over again is what we learned from the researchers at Oxford, right? Major programs are not delivered well and historically have not been delivered well. And current research tells us that it's the organization, not the technical issues that create the poor performance. And it's exactly what you said, Ricardo.

These are temporary organizations built very quickly and expected to become very productive, working in step across the entire organization in no time. And so the question that I heard out of the panel discussion that we had was, really not, this isn't something we need or why would we need this? But how is this different from the leadership training and the leadership business skills and what already exists out in the world today? And I think it kind of lays on what you just said, Ricardo, that this is not everyday leadership. This is not creating an organization that's going to thrive over a very long time.

This is creating an organization, figuring out today how you're going to work together for the next 5, 10, 15 years. But really, how are you going to get off the blocks, running quickly, very effectively, making the right decisions, putting the systems in place that will support and thrive and grow with this organization over time? And people aren't born knowing that. People don't come out of school knowing that. Because this isn't what's taught in school. We're taught standard, the management by walking around, build people up, motivate them. We've got to bring people in, attach them to the vision. And it's not just the people in the program.

It's across the supply chain, all of the stakeholders, the funding agencies, everybody who has anything at all to do with that program has to get brought in and made a partner to the success. And that's not something that systems are currently set up to do, which is what FIG I think really is positioned to do differently from what was done at Oxford, what's being done at UCL is a timing thing. We know so much more now, and there's such a great need for getting this up and running in a kind of in a parallel way that programs need to get up and running, right?

This needs to stand up and move quickly Get people engaged, get people involved, help people who are going to benefit from it understand why they need to engage and how they're going to benefit from it. So from our experience, you look at like the Australia, New Zealand region, they leaned heavily on alliance partnerships and they collapsed because you get competing private companies competing. wanting different parts of the business, of the action, of the profits or the work. And so they grow an internal competition.

In the UK and the US, they went to this delivery partner model where it was, you know, everybody was supposed to have a stake in the outcome, but it really wasn't well understood. It wasn't well understood by the asset owners how they could have a stake. They've got this budget to spend on building out this program. How can you share that out into the organization? It's still a push me, pull you. And I really think that the long-term, short-term, like what is needed to deliver programs now is helping people understand that it's not a model. It's getting the people to work together.

How do you come to the table, quickly agree on how you're going to work together and then implement that agreement and continue to improve on and how you will bring others into that vision long-term.

Yeah, I think everybody was nodding. People can't see the face of it, but I think everybody was nodding, Suzanne, as you were elaborating. And maybe if I can just jump, okay, let's jump into maybe some of the challenges associated with... I think we all understand it's important, it's beneficial, it's going to have... Huge impact, most likely. I mean, the UK has demonstrated that it does have impact. And I was actually in Oxford two weeks ago and MPLA cohort 42 was in the building. So they clearly got, you know, 42 cohorts that went through this program. So clearly the UK is a strong believer of this. But the challenge is there's a cost, right?

I mean, it's a big cost associated with this because we're talking about developing executive leadership skills, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here. I mean, we're talking about, you know, the person that is going to run that $1 billion a year program, right? I mean, there are CEOs in companies that don't have that mandate. They're not that big. And so we're now asking these individuals who probably run a program of much smaller size to then jump in and be the leader that this temporary organization needs. So I almost equate this to an MBA for program managers, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here. But the cost is significant.

And we know we've had feedback about that. What's the solution? Is there a middle ground?

I think you've got to value the role that those people play ultimately and what they can deliver. I mean, if you were to ask people sort of, you know, this project's being delivered, what would you sort of, Would you sort of think, okay, a $10,000, however many thousand dollar investment in training, is that worth it if they're going to avoid $10 million of additional costs, for example? And you get what you pay for. I don't think you can... expect people to go into these projects without investing in them. And we've got to value this group of people as a profession.

So I think if you sort of look at sort of traditionally how it's been approached, we've got some very intelligent people, very experienced people, very skilled people across the public service, across the agencies that are delivering these projects. But quite often they're thrown in. It's the Viking school of swimming. It's sort of good luck. And this is a project and you don't have the tools and you don't have the training to do it. So it really is a sort of question of if you're putting your trust in the hands of those people, I mean, would you prefer to sort of... We've got an example in our FIG brief that to be a pilot you need, I think it's 200 hours of training.

No, sorry, 25 hours of training. You wouldn't want somebody with 25 hours of training flying a... one of the biggest commercial flights, you want them to be prepared, have the top-notch bells and whistles training because they have a huge level of responsibility, and that's quite right. So when you're talking about programs that are multi-billion dollars, why are we not investing a relatively small amount in getting those people up to that level where they're capable of flying the 747s of the world when it comes to these projects? You know, Ricardo, I think from my perspective, part of this is about differentiating between project management and project leadership.

Like you can take a project management course pretty much at any university now in Canada. And there are also some project delivery courses across the country. And those are great. I think what we're talking about is something a little different. We're actually talking about leadership for those who are at the very tippy top of these organizations. And Suzanne kind of charted out what the difference is. And you've been alluding to it as well. I mean, you're standing up a multi-billion dollar organization. You're doing it very quickly. You're doing it under a ton of scrutiny and often with competing interests and with not just technical, but also they're often highly political as well.

And so training people how to work in those type of environments and giving them the tools and techniques is something different than just a straight project management course. And I think when we think of this as leadership, it kind of changes the nature and the scale of it a bit. And You would think that after each one of these project failures that we've had that are just high profile and so demoralizing and so debilitating for a country that's now about to put its faith in infrastructure. I mean, this is a moment where I think it's going to take joint investment. I think in some ways we're going to need a made in Canada solution.

Like I understand, I mean, places like Oxford and Harvard and others who offer these, I mean, they have a real cachet and they attract people from around the world to come to those programs because of their global scale and cachet. I actually think in some ways we need a Made in Canada solution for this and a Made in Canada program, because what I've learned over the years is we have a different project delivery culture here that has some real strengths to it. But also, if we were to then have people going off and being trained abroad, some of the lessons you learn abroad are actually different than the business culture we have here and different than the political culture we have here.

And I think we can create a program that builds on the global experience and best practices, but also captures our own project delivery cultures and our own business practices and our own community needs and sees leadership through that lens and enables us to deliver projects. But it's going to take governments coming on board and, as everyone has said, recognizing the value that it's not just private sector expertise on these projects. You don't just hand it over a project and then say, come back in five years and we'll cut the ribbon together.

I mean, there's a ton of leadership that's required on the public sector side too, at the highest levels of the organization to make sure that these projects stay on track.

Maddie, I want to expand on that. As you were talking, I had this idea and one of the, you all know that I sit on the side of let's bring everybody in at the same time. But why don't we think about this Made in Canada idea as an innovative approach and say that, you know, offer this training as programs are being conceived and developed. That's a long process. There are often a couple of years, you know, from the time that somebody says, we're going to invest in whatever the new infrastructure, we're going to rebuild bridges across the country, or we're going to fill in the blank, whatever that infrastructure investment is going to be. there's a lead into that.

And part of that time can be a space for you select your delivery partners and the leaders from both organizations go through this and it's paid for as part of setting up that program. So it's not a train these people just in case, it's a get them ready for this program kind of approach that then it does build both sides and it also pays for half of the course by the private sector chipping in to pay for making the investment in their own people. We struggle in the private sector with this notion of how do we help build a capable client?

Because from our side, working with people in the private sector who don't have this experience puts us at a disadvantage in terms of our reputation, the investment we need to make, how much we struggle, especially at the beginning, just helping our clients understand why we need things like six months to set up systems, processes, get people ready, build the governance, put all of these things in place so that we can get going. We can't just start designing. You can't just start putting pen to paper. You've got to put the systems in place.

And so maybe we can back up and look at that whole life cycle of a major program or major projects and say, this piece of that, once we know what we're going to do, we have an idea of who we're going to do it with, It's then that we say, this is how this learning and training comes to bear most effectively is in a practical application, getting them ready to run this program. Just a thought I had while you were talking.

Yeah, and Suzanne, I think what we learned is that, you know, the MPLA program, I mean, it is a part-time program. It is something that happens as these SRO are actually delivering the projects and the programs, and they're also getting trained at the same time, right? You're learning on the job, right? It's contextualizing the learning within real-time experience. Sorry, I jumped in. Kirsten, how did you do?

No, I mean, I was just reflecting on that as well, because as Maddie alluded to, I mean, we do have a very ambitious agenda coming our way from the federal government around infrastructure. And these are going to be, I mean, I think $5 billion is going to look like small potatoes in some of these giant projects. And these projects are going to be new to us in many regards. you know, building new ports and pipelines and the Ring of Fire and whatever the list ends up being. But is there an opportunity to introduce this idea that if you're going to do these big projects, maybe this needs to be part of the planning for the leadership training and so on?

And can we insert ourselves into that conversation more and to be sort of more solution driven for how they're going to lay these projects out as Suzanne is kind of alluding to here? I think that would be something to think about if we could get in there.

You know, I think when you're looking at nation building projects as well as a nation, it's probably the people. Looking at sort of an investment that can have the biggest impact across that range of projects, something like this, an investment in upskilling and having this sort of Canadian group of leaders that can sort of take on these projects. Building on best practice, it seems like a perfect time to be doing that when you've got all the... the provinces and the federal government all on the same page in terms of trying to bring down different barriers to the way we do things. There's more collaboration this should be the right time to do it, I would hope.

I think there's still a view given, you know, so far there's a view that we're going to be able to muscle these projects forward through brute force because we say it's important for them to go quickly as well as be on time and on budget. And, you know, you can say that as many times as you want, but anyone who's been involved in a big project knows that as it goes along, people's attention and focus at the top waxes and wanes. And in the meantime, the projects are sputtering under the surface until it bursts into the public eye.

So, you know, I think some of these ideas that we're talking about are just are so important to to make sure that once the focus at the political level kind of moves on a little bit, that there's the the the pieces in place that these projects can actually succeed. And I really like, Suzanne, your concept of like a made in Canada solution. Like we may not be able to stand up an MPLA style program, which when you listen to the folks from the UK describe it, I mean, it is so formalized and so ordered and it's nested and you start at the lower levels from a lower level of project delivery.

And as you go up the scale of projects, you get more training and it's It's really formalized with examinations and whatnot. That's a multi-year program here to get that off the ground in Canada. And yet we need something quicker. Like we need something that goes now because we're planning some of the biggest projects and most important projects that will determine like Like not to be, again, hyperbolic, but I mean, some of this stuff is about our national unity and our potential as a country, given some of the pressures we're facing. So I think we're going to need initiatives that are in place now and that we can go faster, even if we're building up this more formal program over time.

And I love some of these ideas that are coming out about how we could build this.

Maybe if I can be provocative, do we think as a panel that the problem is understood? Because I think we, I mean, we're talking about how, you know, a project is different than a mega project and the skill set is slightly different and, you know, the size and complexity and scale is different. All these things are like, you know, I'm starting to being, I guess you guys are my echo chamber, right? But do we think that before we can even get to training, we need to shine more lights on the problem, which is, you know, a project is not the same as a major project.

I think that's such a great question, Ricardo. Major programs, mega projects have been researched every direction that you can think of. And there's so much information out there. And to Maddie's point, how much of that has been done in Canada or in the Canadian context? So I wonder if it isn't right now, this moment is a really good time for us to take a step back, look at what the research has told us going on around the world and say, okay, as a human, those things are true and relevant. But what does that mean in the Canadian context?

And what does that mean in terms of how Canada's government is structured and how projects are funded and how, you know, the population across Canada thinks about infrastructure and understands their connection to it and to major programs. And maybe we do need to put some more thought into what is the specific problem we're solving for, because then there will, you know, everybody is like, yes, yes, we need this. But the this is what is nebulous, right? And so maybe... It's exactly what you're saying. We understand what this is. Just like I was saying before, you've got to have a vision that everybody can attach to.

We create that vision for what everyone needs to attach to, what this is going to create and offer. And then we can take it out and people will be, of course, we're doing that.

I think the point you make, though, Ricardo, is it well understood? I think part of the challenge is it's hard to quantify. So when you look at something like this, how do you sort of quantify that because somebody went through this training program They make whatever decision it is on a project and it avoids however much cost. And when you look at it across the sort of course of the whole program, that's very difficult sort of sum to pull together. So I think sort of at the political level, the ones that would sort of pay for this or just make the decision to pay for it, they want to see that sort of hard return on investment, which is difficult.

You know, one of the reasons public private partnerships gained so much popularity in the first place in Canada is because they were they were not just the technical risk management approach, but they were also seen as political risk management. Like the mantra for the first decade of public private partnerships was on time and on budget. And essentially what governments were doing was paying more upfront in risk transfer premiums in order to ideally avoid costly and embarrassing overruns down the road so that you could go out and say on time and on budget. What turned out is two things.

First of all, the project still had overruns, which were embarrassing when the projects were skyrocketing in cost and late. And then second of all, it turned out we were paying way more than our peers for the actual infrastructure. And some of the work by the Transit Cross Project at New York University is showing just how much more we're paying per unit of transit, per kilometer of transit, than pretty much any of our peers globally. And I think this is, in a nutshell, the problem.

You could probably see that in any number of contexts, whether it's healthcare, whether it's the justice sector, whether it's in education, that we're just paying more and we're getting less or we're getting poorer quality transportation. or we're getting longer delays than elsewhere. So I think the problem is actually fairly well defined. I think what we don't know in Canada is what is going on inside these organizations and why this keeps happening in some ways, because it's hard to get information in this country. Information, I have peers in the academic community who say, I can get that information easily. in the United States or easily in the UK.

And then I come to try to do comparative studies in Canada, and I can't get a whiff of any publicly available information of what's been going on and facts and figures. So, you know, I think actually we have a fairly good understanding of the problem. It's a matter of in whose interest is it to solve it. And I think we're actually at a moment now where there's so much pressure. It's so public that these projects are failing. And there's so much initiative focused on infrastructure that I do think we might have a window to see something around leadership go forward.

Yeah, Matty, I think you just kind of made Ricardo's point in my mind. The problem, the outcome of the problem is really well understood that projects and mega programs are being overrun and that we're paying more than peers around the world. But the root cause of that, what is happening that is driving that is not well understood. And that can all boil down to any of the things that were found in that mega study of major programs that gives us six buckets of what causes poor performance. And so it could be poor decision making. It could be lack of stakeholder engagement. It could be that risk is not understood or well managed. It could be that the supply chain isn't there, isn't responsive.

You know, they go to the highest bidder and Canada's at the end of the line, you know, in terms of making deals. So I think we might understand what the outcome of the problem is, but do we really understand if we can't get the data from inside those organizations, what's happening, what the real problem is? And as I'm saying that, I'm thinking we don't have time to figure out all the things I just said. We know kind of at the bucket level what those six things are and how to address them.

And maybe in that vein, the bigger knowledge from that higher 20,000-foot view, we can kind of focus it down into the Canadian, through the Canadian lens and figure out an approach for that, what is likely causing these problems. But I do think there's a narrative here that is not just programs are being overrun, but we've got to be able to tie it to behaviors. So then we can say, these are the behaviors we need to put some leadership structure around and some frameworks in place so that people do this differently. Yeah, Maddy, if I can jump in.

I mean, for whatever reason, I'm a big advocate of the Ottawa Inquiry because that provided information. You said, you know, there isn't a lot of information, but that was a great process where everything would surface. In fact, I think there was too much information. I mean, I don't know how you see through all that, but I think the commissioner and the lawyers did a great job at passing through, and I exposing the issues. And I do feel that there's not enough of that happening in Canada. There's not enough review of what went wrong, but objective review, right? I think, yes, the inquiry was good. It was expensive. That's probably why we don't do it, because it was an expensive process.

But what was able to surface was, was impartial to a certain degree, which is sometimes is what we're lacking because, you know, when, when the public sector puts out a report or when the private sector puts out a report, you know, it's the battle of the reports. It's the bias, but like having an independent body looking at it, and even that independent body was not technically nature, right? Those were lawyers who never really built a thing and they were able to pick up some of the problems and, and, Even having openness to that investigation and understanding what the real problems are, not the political headlines problems, but the real project delivery, program delivery problems,

And I think if you look at that inquiry as well, the output of it was really, I think they were looking at the consortium delivering the project as a vendor, essentially, and not a partner. And that sort of all comes down to the behavioral aspect. If you can build an environment where you're essentially working together to succeed, then you're going to get better results.

If you're sort of coming in to basically police everything and say, you know, looking at the project agreement and sort of ticking off like that's a non-compliance and everything sort of goes through communications by letter and through lawyers, then that's a problem and a lot of that comes down to the experience of the people that are delivering the project on both sides and you want to have a position where those people can act as peers and there's trust and there is process but there's also a bit of give and take and that sort of comes with confidence as well to say okay you're a bit late on submitting this but We'll let that slide for now.

It's just sort of emotional intelligence that you can bring to some of these projects. And I'm sort of curious, Ricardo, you're the only one of us that's been through this program, sort of what your key takeaways were from it.

It's having that bigger picture, right? I mean, if we take it back to the Ottawa issue, there was a zero-sum game. It's like infrastructure zero-sum game. Is it my fault or your fault if the transit system is late? And I think what being through this program now gives me is that system view. It's like, okay, the two entities can be here arguing about this problem. The transit user, I'm not using the transit that has not been built, right? So, you know, there's almost... It allows me to have more of a system view of what's happening and a better understanding on what we're trying to achieve and what...

You know, what we're trying to do, we're trying to deliver a public infrastructure, in this particular case, for the general public to use. And ultimately, I now have a better understanding that the claim between the private entity and the public entity, sure, that takes care of the contractual relation, but it doesn't take care of the ultimate user who's actually suffering the And that never seems to be part of the equation. And to be honest, for 20 years, that was never part of my equation in thinking about what we were delivering. And so, listen, I'm always going to, you know, I'm on the private side. I'm always going to do my job and do what I have to do. Right.

But I do have a better understanding now that there are bigger forces at play and there are bigger dynamics beyond what you see written in the contract.

So I was actually a technical advisor to the Ottawa LRT Commission. And I think what the commission and the lawyers did there was just like such a service to our whole sector. I think it was remarkable for them to be able to get that level of detailed information and to watch what happens in a more sort of legal or court type proceeding, even compared to academia, where like you can, I've interviewed a lot of people for research and you can ask people questions, but it's certainly not the same as when it's being done in a judicial setting by a trained professional lawyer asking questions.

And I think what came out, you know, two words come to mind of where the failure for that project happened. One is anchoring. That right from the beginning, you know, the mayor at the time anchored that project, said it's going to be done for $2.1 billion and it's going to be done by this day. And as soon as that happened, I mean, it's such a powerful political idea, but really it set that project on a bad path. And then the second... word is trust. Trust was lost so quickly and not just between public and private, but actually within the consortium. And this was something that you never you never see that dirty laundry being aired anywhere.

But it was so interesting in a legal procedure to hear how All of the like and I think maybe Kristen or Suzanne alluded to it earlier, like all of the parties internal to that consortium who in theory are supposed to be on the same page, rowing in the same direction for one goal. And the project is wrapped through the public private partnership. Underneath that, we're all fighting with each other and all trying to. further their own position or protect their own backside. And when it all came out, you saw them pointing fingers at each other and then the public sector also losing trust.

And before you knew it, it was just like a complete pile on of what John said, like everyone's trying to blame and defer responsibility to someone else, which is exactly what is not supposed to happen in these projects. And I think when you see the report and it's so clearly laid out by the commissioner, it really gives us a sense. It paints the picture of why we need this type of leadership academy. I mean, it paints the idea of like, this was a matter of there was some behavioral psychology at the beginning of the project.

And then there was just a sheer breakdown of trust that I think actually could have been avoided with a more experienced team and folks with not just project management, but actual project leadership skills.

Yeah, and I think what a program like this would do, it gives you that space on a weekly basis because it's part-time, you're working, but it gives you that space to reflect and have a different perspective. Because, look, I was in that project and we all have our head down and you go, right? And there isn't space for reflection. There isn't space to review back. Having a project leader that is going through that training as that project leader is also facing these challenges, that project leader will have a completely different perspective.

I think one of the other things we heard as a blocker was really this notion of, OK, we'll pay for the training, then they'll leave, particularly on the public sector side. I think one of the interesting things that came out of the conversations we had with what was the Infrastructure and Projects Authority from the UK, who set up this whole sort of project leadership framework of which the Major Projects Leadership Academy is a part of, was really professionalizing that project director role within government. So there's a career path.

You go in, you learn the skills, you get the foundational training, you build up with these projects, and you can see, like, okay, if I do a good job, I'll go to the next one, the next one, and then you become the senior responsible officer. I think they're called Ricardo.

And that's seen as a sort of really – respected position i think they go into parliament and they're sort of presented to parliament having sort of reached this role but it gives people a sort of clear career path that they can sort of learn and thrive and yes they might ultimately move into the private sector but if they're in the private sector they're working for companies that are delivering these projects that are being paid for by public money anyway so you could argue that that's a benefit in of itself. So I think that's something we've obviously got to get past.

But I think having that sort of clear career path is, I would think, be a very powerful tool in terms of retention of talent in the public sector anyway.

you know, having been on that side of the fence in the public sector and paying for very, very expensive training. I mean, they do pay for MBAs now and they do pay for various, you know, there are, there's a pragmatic way of dealing with that and from a retention perspective. And I hope we don't get lost in that conversation when there's, I think there's simple solutions that they probably already have in play that they can implement. But to your, you know, I think the benefit for all of that training is it will benefit the market generally. and the government generally, but I think we can help them solve that problem pretty easily around retention.

Yeah, and I like Mari reminding us about the career path and why it was done. Because we are all infrastructure professionals here, mostly, and so we focus on infrastructure. But when we talk about major programs, for me it was eye-opening that there were people from the IT sector, there were people from insurance. And the amount of people that go and do this training well, the one I've seen on the master side, but I think it's the same on the MPLA, you have people delivering all sorts of programs, right? The infrastructure that we know, like a major IT transformation within government, that's a major program, right?

And so I think we have a perfect example in Canada with the payroll system of the federal government, right? I mean, that, you know, we don't, We as a group don't focus on those type of mismanaged programs, but those also could benefit from the same leadership skills. And as I said, it's what you deliver, it's almost, I don't want to say it's irrelevant because the technical know-how is important. But those skills are transferable. A major program in the IT sector creates a major transformation and has to deliver benefits can be viewed as a similar major program as an infrastructure projects.

One of the questions I have, I'm curious from the group, is how AI changes any of this? I feel like we're just at the beginning of a revolution in how things are going to be done. I mean, I even think about it with our students. you start to see how they're writing papers and how they're using this material. And I do wonder too, if we believe that AI is going to make any difference, and there's some questions about its scale and magnitude, but in the project delivery world, are there ways that it could start to find its way into scheduling, for example, or budgeting or evaluating proposals?

I mean, it's certainly, there are companies out there who will write your whole proposal for bids for you with AI. So how do you evaluate a bid that an AI wrote, which essentially means it drew on the whole universe of proposals that have been written previously, not necessarily your own words or your own values. But even beyond that, then, I think in a world where there's so much flux, not just about the projects, but about the tools and techniques, again, just having the people at the top being conversant and comfortable and being in spaces where they're learning about some of these changes and transformations, I think is really...

Could be a way where we actually shoot ahead in Canada rather than like waiting for everyone else to do this and then trying to catch up and wonder why our projects keep going over budget.

I think AI is going to transform every aspect of our lives. To answer your question specifically about the proposals, we just went through a major pursuit in the UK where they almost took the written word out of the entire evaluation, and it was all behavioral. It was almost all behavioral. We had person-to-person interviews. We had group working sessions with a lot of interpersonal interaction. They videotaped us. They did a lot of different things to see who we were as people and to determine whether they wanted to work with us. They factored in the finances and our technical response to how would we actually build and implement the infrastructure, of course.

But it really was about the people. And I think that's something that AI can't replace. And as long as we are looking at infrastructure as a benefit to communities and not just infrastructure for the sake of a car driving down the road, but how does that bit of infrastructure being placed exactly where it is, when it's being placed there, and how it's being placed there, how does that affect the community and the funders and the stakeholders and the environment, and all of those things that are human interaction, AI can't fix that. It can't fill that space, at least not yet. We may get warm and fuzzy about AI, but we're not there yet.

And so I think it goes back to all the things we've been talking about, about this being The training that's needed is about leadership. It's not about how do you create a better schedule. It's not about how do you write a better risk register. Now, all of those things can be done by AI, and AI can probably see farther into the future in the details of a schedule and a risk register to raise flags. But it's how do you message that and how do you engage people in taking on more risk or in sharing the risk or in accepting these are some of the effects that are going to happen while we're doing this, but it's for the greater benefit later on.

I think messaging may be, but not helping people through it is the difference.

Yeah, I think there's some really good parallels to what you were saying before, Matty, that the procurement model is the solution to everything and we'll come up with a new procurement model and it'll solve all our issues and projects and there we go. And I think there's sort of a similar narrative around technology at the moment.

I spent most of the morning writing an overdue report on digital twins for FIG and it's the sort of similar thing that sort of collecting good data using digital twins and then ultimately ai will fix everything but if it's sort of done in a silo off at the side and people don't know how to use that data and those digital tools and all the technology and you've not trained the leaders and the people in the key roles on those projects to sort of interpret it and it's not the sort of you know the the hard sort of technological stuff. They don't need to sort of be able to write software code or anything like that, but they need to sort of know what's out there and how they can leverage it.

And maybe that's an important part of a program like this to sort of what's, and it's probably an area you covered, Ricardo, of what are these sort of, where is technology going and what role can it play at any point in time?

I think, no, I think what the, so technology, AI in this particular case, but technology in general, it's, you know, is going to be a disruptor, has been and will be a disruptor. There's always going to be disruptors in the way we do things. And so I think AI is just another one. And it's even more important that the leader has the skills not to select the technology because he'll have a team of people that do all that, he or she, sorry. that does all of that. However, managing and stewarding the organization through that process is the skill that is needed, right?

I mean, sure, the leader of tomorrow will already have to deal with AI, but think of the leader of a mega project that started three years ago, there was no AI. Now that individual has to steward the temporary organization through these changes, right? And so it's not about the technology, it's about having the skill. And it could be AI, but it could be another global pandemic. It's like these massive disruptors that requires leadership skills to wear the fruit.

And I think just looking through, so I was looking at the project delivery capability framework. So when they're sort of talking about those behavioral pieces, and I think that's maybe a bit of the challenge as we've talked about before, that when we talk to people in government, project leadership is sort of immediately becomes project management and they think, oh, it's engineering. But then there's basically you've got this sort of big, I think there's 19 technical components to it and then 10 behavioral leadership components. And it's stuff like conflict resolution, inspiring others, resilience, innovation, cultural change, visible leadership, that sort of thing working in ambiguity.

And I think one of the interesting areas was sort of knowing like the self-awareness portion sort of knowing where you need people to sort of step up and help you and being able to do that rather than sort of take it all on yourself um if you're in one of those roles so i think it's becoming increasingly about leaders having that sort of behavioural sense. I know, Matty, you're the same, sort of look at the sports analogies, but it's sort of days when a football manager used to sort of scream and shout at their players. That's changed now.

You've got to sort of think about how to get the best out of your players, sort of their wellbeing, the sort of health bit, tactics, but it's ultimately motivation in many instances. So that's all changing. And I think probably We're unfortunately in an industry that's probably been at the back of the queue in terms of sort of how we sort of see that day to day practice in terms of getting the best out of people that we are perhaps a little bit old school in that sense.

It's like the Ted Lasso of project delivery. That's what we're looking for. I think we have embraced this concept of collaborative delivery and collaborative behaviors because even when I look at an organization like Metrolinx and I think about the resources spent on their collaborative training. So, you know, I think we're there. It's just understanding that that CEO piece and that top leadership piece, I think, you How do we get that conversation across the piece? I think it's important.

Yeah, I think I think that's it, too. I mean, I've seen a lot of these trainings where we encountered at least where we say it's going to be the leaders and then it's usually one or two levels down. And before you know it, it's the directors and the senior managers. And it's just really not actually the leader, like the concept of the senior responsible officer in the UK and having like that person dedicating time. It's not just the money paid for them. It's also the time that they could be doing other things. It's such an investment. And I think that's really important.

And just coming back to that leadership idea, I think sometimes we have this sense that leadership is born, like you're born a leader and either you can give like an inspirational speech and that's what leadership is. Or if you don't have that gift of gab, then it's just not with you. And I think we can teach it. I think what we've seen over time is you can teach leadership and leadership doesn't look just like someone with a huddle around them and they're in the center of it, you know, diagramming the play and being inspirational.

I mean, there's all sorts of other ways that leadership gets demonstrated by showing up for your team, by supporting them in moments where it's hard, by having their backs, but also being firm when it's needed as well and being straight with your talk too. So I think there's many ways that we can think about leadership. And I think we have to get away from this idea that it's just born. Like we can teach this with the right curriculum and with the right people in the room.

And so part of this is making sure, I think in Canada, that will be a challenge is like the really senior people who have done this before and gone through the battles on their past projects to say, you know what, it would actually benefit you still to come to this program. Even though you have 20 years of experience, even though you've delivered a couple of big projects, you would benefit from this. And I think Canada would benefit as a whole if some of the people who are now gonna be leading the next generation of projects are even if they're doing this program in parallel while they're running those programs, it actually might be even more beneficial.

We're not talking about like taking someone out of their job for two years. Ricardo, as you said, this is a professional program that runs in parallel. It's while you're in your job. And I think actually they'd be learning on the fly as part of their role. And I think actually that would be even more beneficial.

So we're almost at time. Maybe just to go around for final thoughts. I think, Maddy, that was a really good thought. Who wants to go next? Suzanne? Kirsten?

I think this is not just a timely conversation. I think this is a really critical conversation, and we really need to crack the code on this. How do we get people not to say, oh, yeah, that's really important, but to say we have to do this? And I think that's going to come from identifying the specific right messages, just like all stakeholder engagement, right? You've got to figure out what draws them. What is it that the specific particular funding agencies, politicians, whoever is making the decision about this agency or that municipality is going to get the funding to do fill in the blank, we need to get to them to help them understand this has to be part of the funding.

This has to be part of how those programs are going to be successful. And so Maybe it's what Ricardo said. It's, you know, take a break right now, just a moment in time, open up some space for us to think about who are those stakeholders, what do they need, and what is it that FIG can do to meet that need and bring them into the fold so that they say, if you're going to get this money, you're going to get this money because your people are ready for it, ready to deliver and have what we know to be the skills to lead this effort.

Yeah, I think I'm picking up on that as well. I think it's so, you know, we've had the conversations. I think there's people recognizing these. I do think that based on the conversation we've had today, I think we have to articulate the problem, put a sharper point on the problem. And then I think it's bringing back to those stakeholders. And I think about a two page briefing note, you know, what is, what is the problem we're trying to solve and then what are the options for solution? And we can't forget that, you know, problem of cost.

And so what are, what are we talking about in terms of cost and trying to help, help them, um, navigate their internal conversations to to bring the right people to the table to say yes because i do think time is of the essence i really i feel and maddie you know this you know practical approach in the canadian where we are in canada is let's get something started so that we can support you know basically support our country i mean if we want to put a a really big nationalist flag around that. I mean, it's very important stuff right now. So getting to the, getting, helping our stakeholders have those conversations, I think is where we need to go.

John, you can have the final word. I hope I don't disappoint.

I think to Kirsten's point that there's so much stuff being built across the country, governments are not lacking in ambition when it comes to that right now, either sort of enabling that private investment or building stuff themselves. I mean, the scale of transit investment alone in the Toronto region is off the charts, but But always sort of look at all the issues around the cost inflation. We can build less and less because of that. And there's no shortage of sort of pointing to all the challenges that are sort of driving that cost inflation. I think the University of Toronto did a piece of research looking at what the hard costs and the soft costs are.

And I think it was sort of 50% of those, like the project cost is soft cost. So when you look at what is at the heart of those soft costs, it's probably people and processes. So being able to develop the skills of people who can adapt, can learn, can sort of get the best out of the organisations is probably the most value for money investment you can make right now in trying to sort of flatten that curve of cost increases and delivering things better, frankly. And I think if we're not preparing the people that are delivering these projects in sort of a smart way, sensible way, structured way, then we're really sort of setting them up for failure. But I think it's really...

If there's anything governments could do to really be impactful, this is it. Invest in a major projects leadership academy. I have nothing to add.

Okay. I think we're out of time. I feel very privileged to have had this conversation with all of you today. It's a topic very close to my heart. So I want to thank John, Maddy, Suzanne, Kirsten for joining me today. And hopefully the listener found this interesting and maybe some influential listeners that might help us with this. And on that, till next time. Bye now. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programs. If you enjoyed this episode, please consider following and leaving a review. Up next, I invite you to continue elevating the conversation on my personal LinkedIn at ricardocosentino.