Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Passion, not dry data, is the way to drive projects

With the exception no doubt of economists, anyone who has ever worked in the business of economic appraisal will recognise the truth in this week’s comments by Sir John Armitt about the limited value of this process when it comes to the promotion of major projects.

While it is perhaps unfair to suggest that many appraisals are reverse engineered from the desired solution, it often feels like that is the case - not least, of course, to those who don’t share a passion for the proposed scheme.
The problem, however, is that we find ourselves, for many good and proper reasons, locked into a democratic and accountable world, which demands that robust economic proof is ahead of any decision.

Oh for the efficiency of benign dictatorships! Have an idea. Sell that idea with passion. Get on with it and reap the benefits as quickly as possible. That of course is effectively what happened during the Victorian era, which was largely free of economic appraisal and planning scrutiny. As Armitt points out, get the “why” right and the “what” and the “how” quickly follow. The likes of Brunel, Stephenson and Bazalgette did just that and we are still reaping the economic benefits.

Of course it is important that, when public money is involved, proper checks and balances are put in place to ensure that investment in infrastructure delivers good value for every pound spent. But history shows that reliance on cost benefit ratios alone is not the best way to judge long-term project value.

For all the detailed assessment of reduced travel times, lower accident rates, increased business efficiency and even job creation caused by infrastructure investment, it is hard to quantify and assign a meaningful value to all of the wider and longer social benefits.

Which is why the driver for successful infrastructure projects must come from passionate advocates rather than spreadsheets. Sadly we still see too many of the latter and too few of the former. This failure is highlighted by Isabel Dedring, London’s deputy mayor for transport, who this week draws attention to the difficulty of getting medium-sized projects off the ground compared those of mega-scale.

The problem, she points out, is one of political support. No matter how attractive the business cases, multiple advocates for multiple schemes usually results in nothing happening. Transport for London is attempting to focus attention on a small number of key schemes. Likewise the UK government has assembled its targeted wish list in the shape of the National Infrastructure Plan.

And that is a positive step towards improving society and boosting the local and national economies with modern infrastructure. But as long as we continue to substitute genuine political advocacy with largely meaningless economic assessment we will continue to see costly delays to our infrastructure delivery.

Spreadsheets are wonderful things. But give me a quick and passionately supported ­decision any day of the week.

  • Antony Oliver is NCE’s editor

Readers' comments (2)

  • And what about those whom are passionately against grandiose schemes dreamt up by so called visionaries? If we don't have some way of making decisions based on logic (economics is as good as we can get at the moment) then he who shouts loudest, wins.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This article raises some very interesting debating points. I consider it essential that we have some metrics for assessing worth of projects. For most project types we have this (e.g webtag transport appraisal) and BCR is only one compenent. But I fully agree that once the worth of a project or collection of linked projects is articulated in dry fashion we must have good "PR" to bring them to fruition - good clients pay for this PR and the civil engineer must play a part and not leave this to PR companies. But I do wish that NCE would remember that the world is not just about big projects. It's about maximising benefits (however these are defined) from limited resources. Because treasury defines "good value for money" as anything with a BCR over 2.0 we often see it is easier to promote a big project with BCR of say 2-3 rather than a portfolio of smaller projects with BCR of say 10. The UK would benefit more from the latter, but PR for the latter is even harder to achieve than for the former.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.