Although project complexity and delivery expectations continue to rise, many construction and infrastructure firms still rely on organisational structures never designed to support today’s scale, speed, or interdependence.
Unoptimised structures are the root cause of delivery challenges. Misalignment may not always show up in the org chart, but it’s clearly visible where it counts, in execution. Duplicated effort, stalled decisions, rework, and missed milestones. Teams are busy, but not always operating within a strategic design framework.
Recent studies show that rework alone can account for over 50% of total cost growth in projects, and drive schedule overruns of up to 22%. These outcomes aren’t just operational missteps. They’re symptoms of structural misalignment.
This article explores how outdated structures quietly undermine delivery performance, what high-performing organisations do differently, and why now is the time to treat operating model clarity as a competitive advantage.
What Misalignment Looks Like on the Ground
Misalignment often hides in subtle organisational friction, revealing itself through systemic inefficiencies that erode performance over time. Instead of immediate failure, misalignment shows up in role ambiguity, lack of accountability, and fragmented communication.
- Communication breakdowns between leadership, delivery teams, and subcontractors.
- Repeated delays in approvals or decisions because no one is sure who owns the next step.
- Conflicting documentation that drifts from project scope, standards, or schedule.
- Constant rework due to incomplete or fragmented information flow.
- Silos within teams, making it unclear how their work fits into the broader delivery plan.
Left unaddressed, these small issues compound over time—slowing momentum, increasing risk, and derailing project delivery. Teams may be working hard, but without clear structures, they’re rarely moving in the same direction. What begins as inefficiency can quickly escalate into costly delays and missed opportunities to solve problems early.
Why Misalignment Often Goes Unnoticed
Organisational misalignment often goes unnoticed because it’s misdiagnosed as a capability issue. In reality, it’s an issue of role definition, accountability mapping, and functional integration. Leaders may focus on resource gaps when the root cause is a flawed organisational design.
Teams become overburdened with tasks and projects misaligned to their roles, leading to ad hoc workarounds. When the structure doesn’t support execution, informal systems fill the gap, but that approach isn’t sustainable.
The typical response is to rotate project managers, change subcontractors, or invest in new software—none of which address the root cause. Structural misalignment in planning and management has been found to correlate strongly with rework, sometimes more so than technical errors or labour shortages.
As a result, inconsistent standards and over-reliance on individual performance become ingrained. These stopgap measures only delay the inevitable. Over time, they erode consistency, drive burnout, and create a culture that depends on individual heroics instead of repeatable systems.
To scale effectively, leadership must design an operating model that aligns roles and workflows with the increasing complexity of delivery. Delegating responsibility alone is insufficient; building a system that supports consistent execution, with clearly defined roles and ownership, is key to achieve long-term performance.
Organisation Design Is More Than a Chart
High-performing organisations treat organisation design not as a static chart, but as a system designed to support execution. They build clarity across every phase of the delivery lifecycle. Clarity of roles, decision rights, sequencing, and ownership.
Teams work within a clear strategic framework that ensures organisational agility at scale.
They are aligned not just by reporting line, but by function and project type. Handover points are clearly defined. Planning and reporting flows are standardised to enable early problem detection. Everyone knows what they’re responsible for and how their work contributes to the broader delivery strategy.
Beyond improving coordination, this foundation also creates resilience. Teams can adapt, escalate, and resolve issues faster without losing momentum or clarity.
The Strategic Risk of Inaction
Structural misalignment isn’t just an operational problem. In a sector already battling stagnant productivity, it quietly erodes an organisation’s ability to scale and compete.
As project complexity rises, outdated structures further exacerbate stagnant productivity, strain leadership capacity. leadership capacity, slow decision-making, and limit the business’s ability to respond to market demand.
With McKinsey projecting a $40 trillion infrastructure shortfall by 2040, the sector simply can’t afford inefficiencies fuelled by outdated structures. These aren’t minor delivery hiccups, they represent a growing strategic risk.
If organisations continue to rely on outdated structures and reactive delivery models, they risk falling behind, unable to meet growing market demand and rising stakeholder expectations.
Realignment without Expanding The Team
One infrastructure firm was struggling with operational misalignment. The delivery function was burdened by a single project lead responsible for multiple complex projects at varying stages, leading to miscommunication, slow decision-making, and fragmented planning.
Rather than hiring more staff, leadership decided to restructure the delivery function. The firm broke down the delivery lifecycle into four distinct stages: pre-contracts, design, delivery, and practical completion. Each stage was further segmented into three categories based on project complexity, and responsibility was distributed accordingly.
The results were immediate:
- Double-digit improvements in cost and schedule performance
- More accurate planning and resource forecasting
- Faster escalation and resolution of delivery issues
- Teams reported greater ownership, clarity, and accountability
These gains were achieved without expanding the team, simply by realigning the structure to match the complexity of the work.
Closing
Organisational misalignment rarely looks dramatic. It seldom makes the boardroom agenda. But it reveals itself through slower decisions, duplicated work, unclear accountability, and mounting frustration across teams.
Left unchecked, these inefficiencies accumulate. Execution slows, standards slip, growth stalls.
The cost of inaction is too high. To meet rising delivery demands and drive sustainable growth, businesses need structures that are scalable and adaptive to increasing complexity. This requires alignment in roles, escalation pathways, and delivery systems.
When delivery falters, the question shouldn’t be who’s falling behind, but whether the operating model is purposefully designed to support success at scale.
References
- Ayalp, G. G., & Arslan, F. (2025). Modeling critical rework factors in the construction industry: Insights and solutions. Buildings, 15(4), 606. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15040606
- Mischke, J., Stokvis, K., Vermeltfoort, K., & Biemans, B. (2024, August 9). Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/delivering-on-construction-productivity-is-no-longer-optional
- PlanRadar. (2024). The cost of rework in global construction: How digitalisation can help to reduce the impact of on-site rectifications. PlanRadar. https://info.planradar.com/hubfs/PDFs/Ebook_EN_CostofRework.pdf