Saudi contractors are complaining that delays in some major projects are caused by the inability of different government and local authority departments to co-ordinate projects, so that clashes in scheduled work do not occur and that projects can run smoothly.

It is an argument that is being heard with increasing frequency as the Kingdom continues on one of the world’s most dramatic infrastructural transformations. The sheer weight of projects, the demands for instance that are placed on shippers, ports and transport companies is immense. Construction firms are vying with each other for the available capacity in virtually every area, not least now, labor, since the clampdown on illegals.

In such frantic circumstances, it might be argued that it is remarkable that so much is going right. Nevertheless the National Committee for Contractors does have some justice in its complaint that government departments and consultants are, at times, impeding the progress of projects because of complex or tardy decision-making. They might equally have argued that contractors on major projects are often confronted with sometimes fairly fundamental changes to specifications or plans. Given that they will have priced for the contract on the original proposal, fresh financial terms must be agreed before the new version of the project goes ahead. This can, but does not invariably, introduce delays that will be costly.

On infrequent occasions, project-stalling changes are essential. However, in the normal course of events, they are a sign of poor original planning and scoping. Here the blame must be laid at the door of whatever government client is involved. They employ large teams of consultants and advisers and will have their own in-house expertise as well, so there ought to be no excuse for fundamental errors.

Moreover, although the major contractors in the Kingdom operate to world-class standards, they are not without their own share of blame. Fahd Al-Hammadi, chairman of the National Committee for Contractors has spoken of specifications that call for poor quality materials. For a start, this does not fit with anecdotal evidence that in fact many government projects are actually over-specified, with too many “nice-to-haves” which are not actually required. Very often it is this upgrading of a scheme which can cause extra cost and delay. In addition, the construction materials that are generally called for, are of the highest international standard.

Unfortunately, as reports this year have shown, it is some rogue contractors who have been cutting corners on everything from proper foundations to construction materials, in order to maximize their profits. Therefore the construction industry itself has a job of work to do to censure and deal with those firms in their midst that flout contract specifications, cheat the public and private purse, and in the worst cases, put lives at risk.

The challenge of course is that in its drive to build a powerful non-oil economy, a range of different organizations have come into being which are focusing on key areas of development. The majority of these bodies are thoroughly dedicated to their tasks. However inevitably there can be overlaps in responsibilities. This means that a project, say on transport, while being run by the primary sponsor, will also need to be checked and signed off by at least one other body that is charged with coordinating the sector and indeed ensuring that deals that are being made, offer real value for money.

Government departments around the world tend to move at a slower pace than business. This is because they have a core strategic remit and a wider responsibility to the state. There are no administrative short-cuts of the kind that dynamic companies can deploy to make sure that a job gets done.

Every bureaucracy, no matter in which country, has to work to a rulebook. The challenge here in the Kingdom with the great array of civil works that are under way, is to ensure that all the different bodies that share part of the responsibility for major projects, work together and avoid the silo mentality that can be devastating in terms of costly delays to important projects.

Perhaps the answer is to look at all of our infrastructure programs in a holistic manner and seek an overall co-ordination, effectively appointing a project manager for the project managers. Rather than becoming yet another bureaucratic layer, this new organization’s job would be to spot the problems before they occur. Then by bringing together all interested parties, including contractors, it would work out how schedule clashes and logistical log jams can be avoided.