Companies approve EUR 500 mn in CAPEX – and then hesitate on a EUR 250,000 project leader.

 

Let that sink in.

 

In large capital projects, this pattern is hard to ignore:

Around 9 out of 10 megaprojects experience cost overruns, often exceeding 50% according to PMI.

 

And even below megaproject scale, the picture is far from reassuring. Independent Project Analysis (IPA) shows that poorly functioning project teams average ~30% cost overruns and over 50% schedule delays.

 

This is not a technology or strategy problem. It's an execution problem.

 

And, from what I've seen across projects in the process industry – including chemicals, energy, and pulp & paper – the difference is rarely the technology.

 

It's the team.

 

The best projects I've seen had a few things in common:

• The right project leader in place before front-end loading (FEL) was complete.
• Clear roles and accountability across all functions.
• Strong integration between engineering, operations, and construction.
• Risks identified and challenged during FEL – not during execution.

This is exactly what IPA research points to:

Projects with strong early definition and well-structured teams perform significantly better.

 

And yet, we still treat project leadership as a cost. We invest heavily in:

• Engineering
• Technology
• Business cases

But we hesitate when it comes to the people who actually deliver the outcome.

 

Here's the uncomfortable truth:

Your project leader is not an overhead cost.

They are risk control.

 

Because, in capital projects, performance is not just a function of scope or technology. It's a function of the team you put in place before execution even starts.

 

Underinvest there, and the cost shows up somewhere else: in delays, in rework, in missed start-ups, and in lost value.

 

Cheap leadership is rarely cheap.

 

👉 If you're investing hundreds of millions in CAPEX – why would you compromise on the leadership that determines the outcome?