The infrastructure challenge has changed

Australian cities continue to face rapid change, fiscal constraints, vulnerability to disruptive events and increasing uncertainty. All of this is further contextualised by increasing infrastructure demands, ‘big builds’ and ageing assets. This has created a deeper national conversation around the role of infrastructure and how different assets feed into the future needs of communities.

This can be seen in a welcomed shift in the wider infrastructure industry from asset delivery to network and systems thinking. 

The future challenge is not just delivery. It is delivering multiple, interconnected outcomes

Aligned to this, we are seeing changing policy and guidelines (such as the National Sustainable Procurement in Infrastructure Guideline) that are driving sustainability and resilience performance for at scale infrastructure, all designed to embed resilience and ‘Build Back Better’.

While the need is recognised, our procurement systems and practices are lagging behind the ambition and the potential of this new thinking. Traditional project procurement and delivery focuses primarily on scope, cost and schedule.

Hence, there is an in-built, perennial tension in the system.

The challenge is shifting from building assets to orchestrating value.

More infrastructure does not automatically create productive or resilient cities

Better integration and networked thinking do.

Infrastructure resilience should be considered as part of the solution and not a gold-plated add-on that can be value engineered out. The strongest outcomes occur when resilience objectives are defined at the earliest planning stage and enforced through procurement and contract management.

Resilience can become a greater value add when considered from the very start

Cities gain the greatest benefit when resilience is conceived early and through a whole-system lens. This demands an all hazards and disruptions approach that considers the resilience of individual assets and the contribution these assets have to the wider city system.

Identifying failure points, building in redundancy and asset hardening and prioritising asset maintenance and upgrades should be factored into design and investment.

Procurement is a critical lever

Done well, procurement can shape behaviours, define incentives and inform decision-making. The greatest opportunity to embed resilience occurs at pre-design and through the procurement process.

The challenge for anyone looking to create long-term effective asset use and resilient cities is in traditional procurement practices often prioritising lowest cost and delivery certainty.

If resilience isn’t specified, measured and incentivised through procurement, it rarely materialises

Traditional procurement practices are often set up to manage risk and cost and not enable integration and innovation.

Future-focused procurement should reward:

• Whole-of-life value
• Innovation     
• Collaboration
• Resilience outcomes
• Community benefits

Effective procurement which considers long-term implications should be asking the market to prove:

• How does this asset improve the wider infrastructure network?
• What future uses are enabled and catalysed from its delivery?
• How does this asset perform in disruption?
• What are the potential impacts of failure and disruption?
• Who benefits beyond the asset owner?

Effective procurement

The greatest scope for building in resilience is at the outset of procurement. As you work through engineering, design and delivery, the latitude for resilience diminishes. The solution is to use system thinking, creating a genuinely collaborative process which has greater goals than simply delivering an asset.

Designing in resilience rather than technical standards is critical.

Setting clear resilience KPI’s establishes design expectations (such as built in redundancy, outage durations, recovery time objectives, and flood performance). Evaluating supplier capability should consider evidence of risk and resilience experience and performance.

If resilience expectations are embedded in procurement documents, suppliers and contractors must design, build, and operate assets accordingly.

Infrastructure resilience is not delivered solely through procurement, but procurement is one of the most effective levers. The procurement process becomes the ideal time to determine:

• Design standards and resilience requirements
• Asset performance specifications
• Contractor and supplier capabilities
• Whole-of-life maintenance obligations
• Innovation capacity
• Data, monitoring, and reporting requirements

Future city-shaping can’t be left to the future

Cities that thrive will be those that integrate strategic planning, asset design, procurement, operations and maintenance, emergency management and continuous improvement.

Integrated thinking creates mutually reinforcing benefits.

Those charged with the delivery of infrastructure are better served by systems thinking, looking at how infrastructure and asset use is interconnected.

Infrastructure is a platform for long-term city outcomes.

Procurement when employed smartly around whole-of-life and networked outcomes becomes a strategic tool, not merely a purchasing process. I firmly believe, it is the responsibility of the industry to champion proactive procurement, because projects, places and communities all benefit from effective procurement.

Future city success will not be defined by the number of projects delivered, but by how effectively those projects create enduring layers of value and resilience for communities and economies.