One of the most consistent trends I’ve seen across infrastructure delivery agencies in the delivery of major projects is the challenge of balancing assurance with delivery. Put simply — how do we get things done while maintaining the right governance, checks and balances?

It’s a vital balance to get right. With billions in public funds invested in infrastructure each year, governments have an obligation to demonstrate value for money, public value and public benefit. But the way we pursue that assurance can either enable outcomes or quietly erode them.

The 80/20 Rule of Assurance

Having spent part of my career in auditing and governance, I’ve seen firsthand how the Pareto principle applies to assurance. Roughly 20 percent of what we focus on delivers 80 percent of the value.

In practice, that 20 percent includes:

• Critical approvals and key milestones
• Getting delegations and approvals up front to enable decision making
• Alignment on outcomes
• Clear understanding on role clarity
• Quality and timely reporting so that there is one source of the truth
• Minimum governance deliverables that build confidence and trust

When we focus on these essentials, we create the right level of oversight without choking delivery. This ‘sweet spot’ gives the client assurance and builds trust in the project team.

When Assurance Goes Too Far

The trouble begins when assurance tips beyond its value zone — when layers of bureaucracy, extra approvals, or overlapping governance structures creep in.  This can be shown as follows:

I’ve seen this shift occur too often: well-meaning agencies move from 25 percent assurance to 50 or even 75 percent. They add commercial review teams, parallel reporting processes, man marking resources or multiple layers of sign-off — often in response to one or two projects that didn’t meet expectations.

The result?

• Projects slow down
• Costs rise
• Trust erodes
• Teams lose momentum

Excess assurance doesn’t just protect the organisation — it can paralyse it.

Delivery First, Assurance Second

The goal should be delivery first, assurance second — not the other way around. Too many operating models and current infrastructure delivery agencies have flipped this order, placing the emphasis on compliance and control before outcomes. The mindset becomes: ‘we mustn’t get this wrong,’ rather than ‘how do we get this done well?’

Courageous and constructive leadership requires a reset — a recognition that assurance is a support function, not the driver of project success. The projects that deliver best are those where assurance frameworks are lean, trusted and purpose-driven.

The Trust Deficit

At the heart of over-assurance lies a trust deficit. When agencies lose trust in their supply chain partners or even other parts of the organisation, they compensate with more oversight. But that’s rarely the answer.

Instead, the focus should shift to:

• Building long-term capability within delivery agencies with constructive leadership and succession planning
• Clarifying what ‘good’ looks like for assurance and governance not only in tenders but at start up meetings and workshops
• Holding individuals accountable for outcomes, not just process compliance

A lack of trust creates a cycle of man-marking and micro-management that drains resources and slows everything down.

A Moment of Reflection

It’s worth asking a few hard questions:

• How many of our people are directly helping projects deliver?
• How many are primarily focused on assurance or portfolio roles that add limited value?  Where are we playing safe and being risk adverse?
• Has our organisation grown layers that don’t directly support why we exist?

These aren’t questions of blame — they’re questions of purpose. Every extra layer should earn its place by demonstrating tangible value to delivery outcomes.  If it does not directly focus on delivery of project outcomes or actively support this objective, questions need to be asked around why it exists.

A Lesson from Bart Cummings

In his autobiography, the great horse trainer Bart Cummings once told a new owner:
“Here’s the price for me to train your horse. If you tell me how to train it, it’ll cost three times as much.”

The same principle applies to infrastructure delivery. When clients dictate every move and over-engineer assurance, the cost of delivery triples — in both time and money.  Both the client and the supply chain organisations pay the price.

If we want high-performing projects and trusted partnerships, we must rebalance assurance, rebuild trust, and get back to fundamentals which include:

• Why we exist?
• What we need to deliver?
• What builds and erodes trust?
• How do we set up our operating model and ways of working from the start to maximise us moving quickly together?
• And how we can enable our partners to achieve it?