As infrastructure delivery becomes more complex and capital-intensive, many companies are realising that their biggest delivery risk isn’t capability, but structure. In an industry where speed, coordination, and quality are increasingly non-negotiable, outdated operating models can quietly erode performance, even in high-performing teams.
One mid-sized business recently confronted this challenge head-on. Despite strong talent and a healthy pipeline, its delivery model was starting to break under the weight of growth. Here’s where an effective organisation design becomes crucial in ensuring delivery stays consistent.
This article unpacks how a structural shift helped the business move from reactive delivery to scalable execution, without relying on overextended teams.
The Costs of Structural Inefficiencies
The firm had no shortage of capable project managers. But its structure hadn’t evolved to meet the increasing volume and complexity of work. Projects were scoped and delivered in silos. Planning cycles were disjointed, commercial responsibilities were inconsistently handled, and frontline teams were frequently overloaded.
One high-priority portfolio experienced repeated mobilisation delays. Lessons from earlier work weren’t being captured or applied. Commercial terms were reviewed late in the process, and project managers—despite best efforts—were stretched thin, absorbing responsibilities well beyond their remit.
These internal breakdowns, such as unclear roles, late-stage decision-making, and repeated delays, mirror broader trends in the infrastructure sector, where delivery performance is increasingly under pressure.
In Australia, structural inefficiencies are a key factor behind measurable delays and cost blowouts. According to Infrastructure Australia’s Annual Performance Statement, 50% of major infrastructure projects recorded a cost increase over the past year. Road projects saw an average 17% increase in delivery duration, while rail projects experienced cost escalations of up to 37%.
These figures point to a deeper structural challenge that can’t be solved through individual performance or project-level workarounds alone. Without systemic improvements to coordination, planning, and capability alignment, organisations will continue to fall short of delivery expectations.
Designing for Scalable Execution
To design for scalable execution, the first step was moving away from a fragmented, project-led model toward a portfolio-based operating structure. Instead of managing each project in isolation, work was grouped and governed at the portfolio level, giving leadership a broader view of interdependencies, risks, and resource constraints.
This shift created space for more deliberate planning, clearer prioritisation, and stronger oversight across delivery streams. But the transformation didn’t stop at visibility. The firm also restructured where key capabilities sat across the organisation.
Previously, each project team was responsible for managing its own planning, vendor engagement, and commercial risk. This created duplication, delays, and uneven standards from one project to the next. To solve this, the company stood up several central capability centres designed to support—not override—delivery:
- A planning and analytics hub was established to manage sequencing, track progress, and coordinate dependencies across portfolios. By centralising planning, the business could respond more quickly to shifting priorities and spot delays before they escalated.
- A commercial function was formed to review contracts, terms and conditions, and risks across all projects. This ensured greater consistency in contract standards and removed the burden of commercial negotiation from overextended project teams.
- A procurement centre was created to source materials, negotiate with vendors, and manage long-lead items. Previously, procurement was managed on a project-by-project basis—often reactively. The new structure brought strategic oversight, supplier continuity, and greater efficiency.
These changes didn’t remove accountability from project managers. Instead, they clarified it. Delivery teams were able to focus on execution—mobilising teams, coordinating on site, and driving outcomes—while core operational load was managed by teams specifically structured to handle it.
The result was not only improved delivery performance, but also a system that could scale without constant reinvention. By designing delivery around capability and not just reporting lines, the company unlocked a repeatable structure for performance across portfolios.
The Outcome
The redesign produced measurable improvements. Across multiple portfolios, delivery timelines tightened, and mobilisation delays were reduced. Procurement became more consistent. Commercial risk was mitigated earlier. And delivery quality improved because existing teams were better supported by structure.
An important secondary benefit emerged as well: the company was able to onboard and support less experienced project managers. With the right systems in place, the business no longer needed to rely on high performers carrying multiple roles. Instead of stretching capacity, it built resilience into the system.
Crucially, learnings were built into future planning. That way, each new delivery cycle is built on the last, rather than starting from zero.
From Execution Fixes to Structural Design
What this case highlights is a growing trend in high-growth firms: many delivery challenges trace back to deeper structural flaws.
When planning is inconsistent, commercial oversight is reactive, or procurement is siloed, delivery teams spend more time firefighting than executing. And while it’s common to invest in new systems or rotate project leaders, those fixes often overlook the underlying design of how the organisation delivers.
Organisation design offers a different path. By aligning structure to capability, firms can reduce friction, eliminate duplication, and enable consistent execution across complex portfolios.
Yet, despite its impact, organisation design remains underutilised in the infrastructure and construction sectors. It’s still too often treated as a support function rather than a strategic one. But as this case shows, structure is the foundation of execution, not just a support function.
Closing
As project portfolios grow and stakeholder expectations rise, more firms will find themselves hitting the limits of their current structure. Workarounds will no longer be enough. Executional strength must be designed into the system itself.
Organisation design isn’t just about who reports to whom. It’s about creating the conditions for teams to succeed even as portfolios grow, timelines tighten, and risks multiply.
If your teams are stretched, systems reactive, or delivery inconsistent, structure might be the constraint.
Contact us to explore how we can help scale your delivery. Or read more case studies to see how other firms are scaling with structure.
References:
Infrastructure Australia. (2025). Annual performance statement 2025. https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/reports/annual-performance-statement-2025