By Ray Williamson
THE infrastructure world has never been more uncertain. Not from politics, since the very long lead time of major projects means this isn’t a major issue at national level, but through changing technology.
Someone working towards a PhD in cutting edge technology can easily find their subject matter obsolete before their final thesis is submitted. And a multi-million-pound tender based on existing technology can find itself laughed out of court if a competitor is able to offer the job more efficiently, quickly or cheaply through possessing a superior command of technological solutions.
Technology is usually what makes the difference in both winning a major project and making a profit from it, but over the 10 or 20 years from concept to delivery, technology will have changed so immensely that the original plans may look like a museum piece.
For project managers and planners, doing what they have always done, in the way they have always done it, can be the very nemesis of success.
The challenge now is to identify, not what someone knows or has done before, but evidence that they stay up to date, are flexible in their ideas and retain the passion for change.
Ideally, they can not only spot opportunities but can quickly weigh up the implications, embrace new solutions intelligently and persuade colleagues, funders and other planning professionals to join them on the journey.
This is a completely different skillset and it can be extremely difficult to show these things on a CV.
A decade or so ago, a recruiter choosing a candidate with a proven track record in delivering similar projects was considered the “safe” option. Selection favoured older, more experienced candidates as a result. Now though, far from being a safe option, the candidate who already knows how to do something may cost their company millions through the failure to spot how to do something differently, even in the middle of the project.
Candidates need to be smart at risk management too, to work out the implications should emerging technology not live up to its promise, or have unintended consequences which could as easily derail a project as enhance it.
In social infrastructure, energy, renewable and construction we are seeing evidence that smart, senior people in the project management team are seeing this change and it’s both making them nervous and constipating the sector.
Senior people are afraid to move roles as the landscape in new projects varies from hazy to downright terrifying. And recruiters are damned if they select on experience but could be damned if they don’t.
On the positive side, the Old School Tie Network isn’t even at the races when stakes are as high as these.
Younger candidates can be ambitious, aggressive and extremely bright but again, the stakes are high and it’s terrifying for funders to risk reputation, even corporate existence, on untried candidates speaking on subjects they themselves may know nothing about.
This is where recruitment and selection has moved from being a task to a science. Our job is to interview the corporate team to find out what sort of personality they require to fill a role. Too many disruptors and nothing may ever get done. Too many “safe hands” and the project may founder. The alchemy is in the mix.
Across infrastructure projects, salaries for the best people have also never been more promising.
* The author is an associate director and infrastructure recruitment specialist at Glasgow-based Aspen People.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here