The Cost of the Status Quo in Capital Programme Delivery
Too often, poor results and frustrations get written off as “just the way it is.”
But the truth is doing nothing has a cost. Although, this is usually the highest cost of all, it remains hidden because it’s either not recognised, ignored or just baked into “the way we do business.”
In this blog, I want to shine a light on this hidden price we pay when inefficient processes, high consultant churn, and rework become normalised. It’s not just about missed milestones or budget creep, it's about the capability you never get to build and the long-term resilience that’s sacrificed in the process.
If you’ve ever had to defend a Programme that stalled or had to explain why the same issues keep cropping up year after year, this one’s for you.
Introduction
Every year, millions are lost to capital Programme inefficiencies, however it rarely shows up on a balance sheet.
What gets measured? Project cost, delivery timelines, maybe benefits.
What doesn’t? Rework, poor onboarding, lost institutional knowledge, and the creeping cost of consultant dependency.
Doing nothing might seem like the safe, low-risk option - but in reality, maintaining the status quo is one of the most expensive choices we can make.
Why Status Quo Thinking is Expensive
Many organisations - public and private - get stuck in a cycle of reactive governance. When issues emerge - missed deadlines, blown budgets, or failed audits - the response is often to apply more governance or throw more resources (or consultants) at the problem.
But this doesn’t fix the system. It patches symptoms, not causes. And the cost of these patches adds up fast:
Rework and scope creep caused by unclear or convoluted governance checkpoints
Delays due to poor onboarding of new project staff
Audit risk from fragmented documentation and inconsistent processes
Inefficiencies from reinventing the wheel with every new project or overreacting to the latest problem.
These costs aren’t captured in project budgets. They accumulate beneath the surface, eroding ROI and weakening trust in Programme delivery.
The Compounding Cost of Consultant Dependency
Over-reliance on external consultants might feel like a practical solution - getting instant access to experts - but it's often a hidden liability. How does the consultant digest your team’s deep organisational knowledge? How much of their solution will be generic because of it? How much will you need to redo/undo or never fully manage to bring to life?
Here’s what dependency looks like over time:
Knowledge drain: Consultants leave, taking critical Programme understanding with them.
Escalating costs: You pay premium rates for repeat advice.
Stagnant capability: Internal teams miss out on growth opportunities.
Strategic risk: Your team can’t scale without external help - making future delivery brittle and resource-constrained.
Cracking the Status Quo With a Chisel Not a Hammer
A significant obstacle to breaking through the status quo is the sheer magnitude of the perceived work required to overhaul an existing system; however we don’t have to rebuild what we have, but rather realign - to bridge the “Integration Gap” so to speak.
According to the LogiKal Projects 2019 Report, organisations that close the “Integration Gap” - the misalignment between people, processes, and systems - realise significantly higher project success rates.
Reclaim Missed Opportunities for Internal Capability Development
When programme delivery frameworks are outsourced, organisations miss out on building one of their most valuable assets: internal capability.
It becomes something external that is “bought in” each time and will always result in chasing capability rather than building it.
In-house teams that own and invest in their delivery frameworks:
Deliver faster
Onboard new staff more efficiently
Adapt quicker to policy or funding changes
Become resilient to contractor or consultant churn
Reframing the Delivery Framework as a Strategic Asset
Establishing a delivery framework can be seen as an unnecessary bureaucracy - a cost centre. And when it is done in a clunky, disjointed and generic way, it is. But, when kept brutally simple, smart and integrated, it becomes a capability multiplier.
Modern delivery governance should:
Be embedded into existing everyday tools like MS Teams or SharePoint
Visually map lifecycle stages for clarity and consistency
Provide real-time access to approvals, forms, and processes with minimum clicks
Scale horizontally across departments (e.g., asset management, procurement)
Be owned, maintained and improved internally
When a framework is intuitive, accessible, and built to grow with the organisation, it stops being a cost - and starts driving value.
How Is the Shift Justified?
As the pressure increases on local governments and other public agencies to deliver more infrastructure with less, it makes sense to invest in reusable capability and delivery assets, integrated to deliver:
● Clear links to Long-Term Plan (LTP) objectives
● Quantifiable ROI from faster project onboarding
● Cost savings through reduced consultant reliance
● Simplified compliance with internal policies and procedures
● Confidence in building long-term resilience within delivery teams
The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) offers a compelling case. After Cyclone Gabrielle, the council’s capital programme pipeline exploded from $5M-$15M to over $250M per annum. Recognising the importance of building up its internal delivery capability, but wanting to avoid the exponential complexity that could come with growing its team robust governance processes, HBRC focused on maintaining streamlined and simplicity as a key enabler to embedding capability internally. The result?
● Reduced time to competence for 50+ new staff
● Unified project delivery lifecycle reducing project delivery risk
● No new software required - leveraged existing tools
Next Steps
The cost of doing nothing is rarely seen on the balance sheet. But its impact is felt in every missed deadline, cost overrun, and staff overload.
If you want to know whether you need to tackle the status quo, test your organisation’s Capital Programme delivery health, with our Hidden Costs Scorecard below.
Hidden Costs Scorecard
| Dimension | Key Indicators | Questions to Ask | Red Flags to Watch For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial Efficiency | Cost of rework, delays, and consultant spend | Are we reinventing the wheel or relying on consultants for the same advice repeatedly? | Frequent process/tool “reinventions”; ad‑hoc work‑arounds proliferate; consultant spend out‑pacing growth in programme size |
| Internal Capability | Staff knowledge retention; onboarding speed; role clarity | Can new staff or contractors become productive quickly? | New staff take a long time before being competent in your processes and systems; critical process knowledge lives with 1–2 individuals |
| Framework Maturity | Documented process ownership; embedded lifecycle tools | Do we have a single source of truth for programme delivery that everyone uses? | Multiple versions of templates or approval paths; tools vary by team or project |
| Audit & Compliance Risk | Process traceability; procurement alignment; lifecycle adherence | Would we pass an external review or audit without scrambling? | “Shadow processes” outside official workflow; fragmented evidence trails |
| Scalability & Resilience | Ability to support delivery growth or crisis‑response situations | Can our framework scale and support new team members quickly? | Reliance on tribal knowledge; delivery slows under pressure |
| Technology Alignment | Getting the most out of current technology platforms | Is our technology working for us or are we working for the technology? | Tools dictate cumbersome processes; staff spend more time updating systems than delivering value; uncertainty on where to find key policies, procedures, forms, or approval checkpoints |
| Consultant Dependency | Frequency of consultant re‑engagement; repeat scope | Are we buying the same expertise multiple times or outsourcing delivery leadership? | Consultant‑led delivery becomes the norm; internal teams lack ownership |
| Strategic Value | Integration of governance into LTP and performance frameworks | Does our governance approach align with our Long‑Term Plan goals and performance reporting? | Governance seen as overhead rather than a strategic enabler |
In our next blog, “What to Look for in a Governance Framework That Actually Works,” we’ll explore the must-have features that separate practical, scalable governance models from overly complex frameworks that stall delivery. If you’re evaluating your next step, this one’s essential.
Blog 1: The Hidden Challenges Undermining Capital Project Success in Local Government
Blog 2: The Hidden Cost of Doing Nothing in Capital Programme Delivery
Blog 3: What to Look for in a Governance Framework That Actually Works for Councils
Blog 4: What Scalable Governance Actually Looks Like in Practice
Blog 5: From Chaos to Capability – How Councils Build Long-Term Value with the Right Framework