Infrastructure communications failures are putting major projects at risk

Infrastructure communications failures are becoming a material risk for major projects, when public understanding, political support and stakeholder confidence develop separately from the engineering, financial and regulatory case.

A project may be technically sound, economically justified and fully funded, yet still become vulnerable if the people affected by it do not understand why it is needed, what alternatives were considered, what disruption is unavoidable and why the eventual benefits justify the cost.

The mistake is to regard communications as something that begins once a project is sufficiently advanced to announce, because by then the most important work may already have been missed.

In advising some of Australasia's largest infrastructure firms, I have seen how quickly this can occur when infrastructure communications and stakeholder engagement begin only after a proposal has entered the public domain. The better approach is to treat communications as part of project architecture from the outset.

Establish the problem before defending the solution

Project proponents naturally spend considerable effort explaining the solution they want to build, but public support is usually more durable when stakeholders first understand the problem that needs to be solved.

Routes move, costs increase, designs evolve and governments change. If support rests mainly on one particular solution, every change risks reopening the argument, whereas broad understanding of the underlying problem gives the project a stronger foundation.

The communications strategy should establish the problem first, demonstrate why the status quo is becoming unacceptable and then explain why the preferred intervention represents the best available response. Governments may disagree over solutions, but the underlying infrastructure problem is often harder to dispute.

Social licence begins before consultation opens

Formal consultation is necessary, but it should not be mistaken for the beginning of stakeholder engagement because people start forming opinions as soon as they become aware that a project may affect them.

A business owner concerned about access, a homeowner who sees an indicative route online or a community group that believes decisions have already been made will not wait for consultation before reaching conclusions.

Effective engagement therefore begins by identifying who is likely to be affected, understanding the concerns of different groups and determining which aspects of the proposal are most likely to create uncertainty or opposition.

That should influence both the sequence and content of communications. Communities affected by construction may care less about national productivity benefits than access, noise and disruption, while other stakeholders may require detailed technical information. The project narrative should still reflect different audience interests.

Build the public case alongside the engineering case

Infrastructure organisations are generally rigorous when developing engineering and investment cases, but the public case often receives less discipline.

A credible public case should explain what problem is being solved, why it needs to be addressed now, what happens if nothing is done, what alternatives were considered, why the preferred option was chosen, who benefits, who bears the disruption and how those impacts will be mitigated.

If the project team cannot answer those questions clearly, the project proposition itself may need further work.

This is where infrastructure communications can contribute to project development rather than merely describe its outcome. Explaining an investment can expose weaknesses in the rationale, inconsistencies between different parts of the organisation or areas where stakeholder impacts have not been sufficiently considered.

Be explicit about the trade-offs

Major infrastructure creates benefits, costs, disruption and compromise, and removing those tensions from the public narrative usually makes an organisation less credible rather than more persuasive.

Stakeholders understand that major projects involve trade-offs, but they are less likely to accept the impression that the downside has been minimised or concealed. Infrastructure leaders should identify significant disadvantages themselves, explain how these were weighed against wider benefits and show what is being done to reduce the impact.

Critics often have a communications advantage because their argument can be condensed into a simple proposition that the project is too expensive, unnecessary or damaging. The response should be a clear explanation of why the decision was reached, supported by evidence that stakeholders can examine for themselves.

Create an independent public record

Project communications should extend beyond an organisation's own channels because independent media coverage allows the rationale, costs, benefits and controversies surrounding a project to be examined outside the organisation responsible for delivering it.

This matters more as people use AI platforms as well as conventional search engines to research major projects. Someone asking why a particular investment is required may receive a synthesis of media coverage, government reports, council documents, company material and criticism accumulated over several years.

Project proponents cannot determine what that answer will be, but they can ensure the underlying information environment contains accurate, current and understandable material, including credible third-party reporting. Sustained communications matters because the public record created during a project may influence perceptions for years.

Treat communications as project risk

Infrastructure assets may operate for half a century or longer, while New Zealand governments operate on three-year electoral cycles, so a project that can survive only while its political sponsor remains in office carries an obvious strategic risk.

A sound communications strategy should identify stakeholders before positions become entrenched, establish the public case alongside the technical case, explain unavoidable trade-offs, create credible independent sources of information and build a rationale capable of surviving political change.

None of this can make an uneconomic or poorly conceived project worthwhile. What it can do is prevent a necessary project from becoming unnecessarily vulnerable because public understanding was treated as something to be built after the engineering had already been completed.

For major infrastructure, the communications groundwork increasingly needs to begin long before the physical groundwork does.

Mark Devlin is Managing Director of Impact PR, an Auckland-based public relations agency advising organisations on infrastructure communications, stakeholder engagement, media strategy, social licence and issues management. He has consulted to some of Australasia's largest infrastructure firms and works across infrastructure, construction, property, manufacturing and aviation.