Projects rarely fall behind in a single dramatic moment. They drift when assumptions about sequencing, access and logistics go unchallenged, says Francesca Zuddas

Francesca Zuddas (Large)

Most programmes don’t fail in one dramatic moment - they drift, often while the reporting still says everything is on track. That is usually the point where the programme and the reality of the day-to-day work on site start to separate.

On paper, the logic still works. The milestones are still there and progress appears to be happening. But on site, teams are adapting daily just to keep things moving forwards. Sequences change, access becomes constrained, logistics start driving decisions, but the impact on the programme is never fully reflected. And once that gap appears, it tends to grow quickly.

This is something I have seen repeatedly across live projects over the past 20 years, particularly on large, constrained schemes where there are multiple interfaces, operational pressures and very little room for error.

At Fulham FC’s Riverside Stand, for example, logistics were not a secondary consideration to programme delivery, they were the bedrock of it. A live stadium environment, no meaningful laydown space, heavy reliance on river logistics and constant operational constraints meant sequencing had to remain fluid throughout delivery. Assumptions that looked reasonable in a programme review became much harder to sustain once tested against the day-to-day reality of the site. That is not unusual.

Most programmes are built with good intent. But they are also shaped by commercial pressure, procurement strategy, design development and stakeholder expectations. The result is often a programme that reflects how a project could be delivered, rather than how it is likely to be delivered once construction kicks off.

A good programme should not just look credible in a report, it should reflect how the project will actually be built

The issues that cause programmes to drift are rarely dramatic at the outset - more often, they are small assumptions that go unchallenged:

  • It is assumed that access will be available when needed.
  • Interfaces are treated as neater than they really are.
  • Logistics are acknowledged but not fully integrated into sequencing.
  • Durations are based on ideal conditions rather than constrained environments.

Individually, all these elements are manageable but put together they create pressure.

On major projects, particularly complex urban schemes, those pressures often appear in the gaps between design, logistics and delivery. That is where programmes can look robust in reporting, while site teams are already working around growing constraints in practice.

We saw the same thing at St John’s Wood Square, where part of our role involved independently reviewing programme logic, sequencing and interfaces against the realities of delivery.

On paper, the sequencing looked straightforward. In reality, logistics, interfaces and access constraints started influencing delivery very quickly. The programme had to respond to the environment around it, not the other way round.

This is where independent programme oversight becomes invaluable. It does not replace the contractor’s programme, instead it creates space to challenge assumptions before the realities of the project do it for you.

A contractor is naturally focused on maintaining momentum and managing delivery. An independent programme review allows someone to step back and ask more difficult questions:

  • Does this sequence genuinely work once access and logistics are tested properly?
  • Can these trades realistically operate in parallel?
  • What happens if design information moves by a few weeks?
  • How much float really exists once site constraints are accounted for?

Those conversations are often uncomfortable, but they are significantly less painful before construction than during it.

Importantly, independent oversight is not about criticising programmes, it is about making them more resilient.

The strongest programmes are not necessarily the most detailed or the most optimistic. They are the ones that stay aligned with reality as delivery evolves. The risk is that once a programme and the site begin telling different stories, recovery becomes significantly harder.

A good programme should not just look credible in a report, it should reflect how the project will actually be built. Because the closer a programme stays to reality, the greater the control a team retains over time, cost and risk.

Francesca Zuddas is the founder of FZ, an independent programme advisory consultancy