No Content Set
Exception:
Website.Models.ViewModels.Components.General.Banners.BannerComponentVm

From projects to programs: why water utilities are changing how they deliver asset investment

Water utilities are responsible for delivering a diverse range of infrastructure projects, from major capital upgrades to the ongoing renewal and replacement of assets across their networks. While individual works may be relatively small, procuring and managing hundreds or even thousands of projects creates significant delivery challenges.

Phil Chipman Nick Parsons Daniel Lambert

Australia

Replacing an individual pump or valve may be relatively straightforward. But when similar works are planned across hundreds or thousands of assets, maintaining visibility of priorities, resources, costs and progress across the portfolio becomes more complex.

Across parts of the water sector, we are seeing a shift in how utilities approach this challenge. Rather than managing large numbers of smaller projects individually, we are working with them to move towards program-based renewal models that bring related projects together under a coordinated management structure.

This represents more than a change in reporting. It presents an opportunity to rethink how asset investment is prioritised, governed, procured, resourced and delivered, while creating opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Why project-by-project delivery becomes difficult at scale

Project management approaches that work effectively for individual projects do not always translate well to larger portfolios. As project volumes increase, existing processes can become stretched, creating additional pressure across procurement, delivery and operations.

Operations teams may face a continuous stream of commissioning activities, shutdowns, new technologies, process changes and handovers. Managing these activities individually can create disruption and contribute to change fatigue.

Similarly, procurement and supplier management can become fragmented and reactive, with separate processes and arrangements for individual projects creating additional demands on resources.

Investing at scale requires managing at scale. A more coordinated approach can help utilities consider the cumulative impact of their projects rather than treating each activity in isolation.

What changes when utilities move to a program model?

A program-based approach brings related projects together under a coordinated management framework, creating common arrangements for planning, governance, reporting and performance monitoring.

At a program level, decision-makers can gain a clearer view of the work being delivered, the resources required and the relationships between individual projects. It also creates an opportunity to consider priorities collectively rather than making decisions about each project in isolation.

Consistent governance and project controls establish common expectations for how work is planned, monitored and reported, supporting better coordination, management of dependencies and oversight of the broader portfolio.

A program approach can also create procurement efficiencies. Consultants, contractors and materials may be sourced across a coordinated program rather than separately for individual projects, creating opportunities to reduce duplication and improve resource and time efficiency for both utilities and their supply chains.

Importantly, individual projects still require effective management. A program model does not remove the need for project-level accountability, scheduling, cost control or risk management. Instead, it helps prevent conflicts between projects, coordinate delivery activities and align work with the organisation's broader investment priorities.

The benefit is not simply fewer reporting lines, but a more coordinated approach that provides executives, project managers, operations teams and other stakeholders with information relevant to their responsibilities.

Why the transition requires more than a new structure

Moving from individual projects to coordinated programs is not as simple as changing an organisational chart and updating procedures.

To be successful, the transition needs to be planned and managed as a significant organisational transformation encompassing people, processes and systems.

This can represent a substantial change to established ways of working across the asset management lifecycle, affecting everyone from network managers and asset planners to delivery teams, finance and operations.

For a program model to work effectively, utilities need to consider how the different functions contribute to a coordinated approach:

Network planners need to define the expected performance of assets to meet customer demand.
Asset planners need a clear understanding of asset condition and renewal priorities to demonstrate the prudency of investment decisions.
Delivery teams need to consider how best to use the opportunities created by the program model to deliver projects efficiently.
Operations teams need confidence that the approach will support reduced operational risk and lower requirements for reactive maintenance.
Finance teams need confidence and clarity in projected expenditure.

To deliver on these objectives, governance arrangements, capability, systems, processes and responsibilities must be designed around how the utility operates and makes decisions.

This includes determining how projects are grouped, where accountability sits, how priorities are established and which decisions belong at project or program level. Appropriate controls and reporting arrangements are also needed to support effective oversight.

Without these foundations, utilities risk recreating existing challenges within a different structure. Projects may be grouped together, but unclear responsibilities or inconsistent processes can undermine the coordination the organisation is seeking.

Poorly planned changes can also disrupt delivery and reduce efficiency, undermining the benefits the new model was intended to achieve.

The people involved are just as important as the processes. Existing teams need to be engaged throughout the transition and provided with appropriate training and support to understand the new structure, their responsibilities and the reasons for change.

The transition must therefore be treated as a transformation of the organisation's delivery model rather than an administrative exercise.

Experienced investment decision specialists, strategy and operations professionals, and program management practitioners can support this process, helping utilities establish practical governance arrangements, define responsibilities and develop the capability needed to operate the model effectively.

The changing role of delivery capability and partnerships

Alongside the move towards program-based delivery, another consideration emerging across parts of the water sector is how utilities structure and resource their delivery teams.

Utilities need experienced professionals to manage complex infrastructure programs, but the level of capability and capacity required can change as investment priorities and delivery pipelines evolve.

Some utilities may retain substantial program and project management capability internally. Others may engage delivery partners to supplement existing teams, provide specialist expertise or support larger programs of work.

These are separate decisions. A utility can adopt program-based delivery while retaining internal management responsibilities, just as external partners can support individual projects.

However, the two approaches can complement each other.

When transitioning to a program model, delivery partners can provide experienced professionals to help establish governance, controls and delivery processes. They can also provide additional capacity for ongoing program management and oversight.

RPS supports water utilities across these areas, combining program and project management, governance, project controls and advisory expertise to help clients establish and manage delivery arrangements suited to their investment needs.

The objective is not necessarily to replace internal capability, but to ensure utilities have the right expertise and resources available when needed.

What does effective program-based delivery look like?

The success of a program model should not be measured by how many projects have been grouped together, but by whether it improves the utility's ability to understand, prioritise and manage its investment portfolio.

An effective model provides clear accountability, consistent delivery information and a practical framework for decision-making.

It helps teams identify competing priorities, manage dependencies and allocate resources effectively, while giving decision-makers visibility across the broader program without losing sight of individual project performance.

For delivery teams, this means clear responsibilities, consistent processes and appropriate support. For leaders, it means greater confidence in how investment is being managed.

For customers, more coordinated investment and delivery can support better long-term value, service reliability and network resilience. It can also help utilities make more informed decisions about risk tolerance and where investment will deliver the greatest benefit.

Achieving these outcomes depends on having the right governance, capability and delivery arrangements in place from the outset.

Better visibility, better investment decisions

As water utilities consider how best to manage ongoing asset investment, program-based delivery offers an opportunity to bring greater coordination and consistency to large portfolios of work.

But simply grouping projects together will not automatically improve performance. The benefits depend on how the model is designed, supported and managed across the organisation.

Ultimately, moving from projects to programs is not about changing the number of projects being reported. It is about aligning people, processes and systems to manage asset investment more effectively.

When supported by appropriate governance, capability and delivery arrangements, this approach can help utilities establish clearer investment priorities, strengthen delivery oversight and make better-informed decisions about the infrastructure and services their communities depend on.