Many construction and infrastructure projects don’t fail because of poor workmanship or lack of effort on site. They fail much earlier, usually at the point where the project is defined. Unclear objectives, incomplete scope, and unresolved assumptions at the outset quietly embed risk into a programme long before delivery begins.
At EPS, we see time and again that poor project definition is one of the most expensive mistakes a client can make. It rarely shows up immediately, but its impact is felt through cost overruns, programme drift, and strained relationships further down the line.
When “Good Enough” Definition Isn’t Good Enough
Early-stage project definition is often rushed in the drive to get momentum. Concepts move forward without fully tested assumptions. Budgets are set before scope is stable. Programmes are published without accounting for constraints such as access, enabling works, approvals, or procurement strategy.
These gaps don’t disappear, instead they resurface later as variations, claims, redesign, or re-sequencing. By the time issues are visible on site, the cost of correcting them is significantly higher, and options are more limited.
Strong definition isn’t about slowing a project down. It’s about creating clarity so informed decisions can be made early, when change is cheapest and most effective.
The Real Cost of Poor Definition
The consequences of weak definition tend to follow a familiar pattern. Projects suffer from misaligned expectations between stakeholders, unrealistic budgets, and programmes that cannot withstand real-world pressures. Delivery teams are forced into reactive mode, dealing with problems that could have been avoided with better early planning.
This often leads to erosion of trust. Clients feel they have lost control. Contractors feel exposed to risk. Consultants are asked to redesign under pressure. None of this supports efficient or collaborative delivery.
What Good Project Definition Actually Looks Like
Effective project definition goes beyond high-level briefs or outline scopes. It involves clearly articulating project objectives, success criteria, constraints, risks, and interfaces from the outset. It means testing assumptions, stress-testing budgets, and aligning procurement strategy with the client’s risk appetite and delivery priorities.
At EPS, we focus on turning early ambiguity into structured clarity. That includes facilitating informed decision-making, challenging optimism bias, and ensuring that what is being commissioned can realistically be delivered within the agreed time and cost parameters.
Setting Projects Up to Succeed
Projects that are well defined at the start are more resilient during delivery. They adapt better to change, maintain commercial control, and support stronger relationships across the supply chain. The difference is rarely dramatic at the outset but it becomes unmistakable as the project progresses.
Poor definition is a hidden cost that compounds over time. Strong definition is an investment that pays dividends throughout the life of a project.