First concrete looks like progress.  Sometimes it is.

But in large capital projects, it can also be the moment when unresolved risk becomes expensive. 
The pressure to start is easy to understand. Investors want momentum. Governments want visible progress. Contractors want mobilization. Management wants to show that the program is moving.

Each of those incentives is rational. Together, they can push a project into construction before it is ready to build. That is where many overruns are created. Not when the delay becomes visible. Not when the claims arrive. Not when the budget is revised. Earlier.

When the design is still changing, the handovers between teams are still unclear, approvals are not fully settled, critical suppliers are not locked in, and no one is quite sure who has the final say.

Construction does not solve those problems. It makes them more expensive: drawings change after crews are mobilized, regulatory comments trigger rework, components arrive late or out of sequence, and each contractor protects its own scope, while the project as a whole loses time.

Each issue looks manageable in isolation. Together, they become resequencing, claims, delays and cost escalation. This is why “start fast” can be a false economy. Construction is not the milestone. 
Readiness is.

A project has earned the right to start construction only when the delivery system is ready: the design is mature enough to build, the supply chain is capable enough to deliver, and the owner is strong enough to resolve trade-offs before they turn into field problems.

The owner’s role is critical here. In complex capital programs, accountability cannot be outsourced to contractors. Contractors deliver work packages. They do not own the economic outcome.

The owner has to do more than sponsor the project. It has to hold the project back until the basics are ready, make the hard calls early, and make sure each workstream serves the whole project, not just its own package.

Otherwise, everyone can report progress while the project as a whole loses control. That is the reality of megaproject delivery. Failure often becomes visible during construction. But it is usually created before construction starts.

This aligns with Bain & Company’s recent piece on nuclear and megaproject delivery: Nuclear and Megaproject Delivery: Five Elements That Predict Success

CapitalProjects | Infrastructure | ProjectGovernance

The discount is approved. The volume comes in. Profit does not always follow – and sometimes it deteriorates.

That is the uncomfortable problem with trade spend.
Individually, many commercial decisions look reasonable. A competitor offers better terms. A dealer needs support. A retailer asks for a scheme. A region wants to protect volume.

The issue starts when these decisions become a collection of local reactions rather than a governed commercial investment. Many companies spend 8 to 11 percent of revenue on trade incentives: rebates, dealer bonuses, retailer schemes, volume slabs and tactical discounts. The intent is usually clear: protect the channel, defend share, support growth, or respond to competitive pressure.

But the financial question is often less clear.
Did the incentive create incremental growth, or did it subsidize volume that would have happened anyway?

Did it strengthen the channel, or did it make partners more dependent on payouts? Did it protect price discipline, or did it quietly reset the market’s view of value? This is why trade spend should not be managed as a discount budget.
It should be governed as a commercial investment portfolio, with clear expectations on return, risk, and incrementality.

A baseline matters. Without it, the company cannot tell whether it bought new demand or simply paid extra for demand it already had.
A sales increase is not always profitable growth. Sometimes it is revenue subsidized by the company itself. The real issue is not only how much was spent. It is what behaviour the spend actually drove.

That requires scheme-level discipline: a baseline before launch, payout conditions tied to incremental behaviour, channel margin visibility, and post-scheme ROI review.

Without that discipline, the spend keeps going out – and the return stays invisible. Sales sees activity. Finance sees cost. The business needs to see return.

Inspired by:
McKinsey & Company – Reimagining trade spend: From cost center to growth catalyst